The Final Solution to the Archer Issue

[Baron_Settmour]

There isn't an archer issue, honestly. Well, at least to those of us who remember how they used to be. It may seem to be ridiculous when you're running around in a gambeson with no shield and no IF, but that's your mistake.

With a shield or heavy armour, it's fine. The only time it's a real issue is when archers coordinate crossfires, and hey, I don't know about you but I like seeing people coordinate.

You are giving archers far too much credit, especially on Siege. Of course they "coordinate" because they are just shooting down at the ramp on most servers. Really not that hard to suppress the attacking team with 30 bows all firing in one central area.

Oh, and for whoever asked, "How do you know there was that many?" Simple. Switched to Spectator and counted every individual. Took 5 minutes of my life but was worth pointing out how ridiculous archer spam is in this game. It comes down to this, if I "camp" on some servers, I am accused of leeching so I have no choice but to walk into the middle of archer rapid fire over and over. If I go out into the archer spam, even with my plate, I still die a horrible death without once even getting near a damn enemy. Where's the fun in that? There isn't any.

[nuffen]

Oh, and for whoever asked, "How do you know there was that many?" Simple. Switched to Spectator and counted every individual. Took 5 minutes of my life but was worth pointing out how ridiculous archer spam is in this game. It comes down to this, if I "camp" on some servers, I am accused of leeching so I have no choice but to walk into the middle of archer rapid fire over and over. If I go out into the archer spam, even with my plate, I still die a horrible death without once even getting near a damn enemy. Where's the fun in that? There isn't any.

So by 42 archers/crossbowers you mean everyone who used or had a bow or crossbow equipped, including all the hybrids?

[Baron_Settmour]

So by 42 archers/crossbowers you mean everyone who used or had a bow or crossbow equipped, including all the hybrids?

Those that I saw with crossbows or bows out at the moment of me spectating them. I didn't bother to interview them about their hybrid status.

[Ronish]

Archers are fine. You just have to get a shield. The only non-archery points I have: 5 PS, 70 wpf in 2h, and I get most of my kills in melee.


Any shielder should be able close to melee against an archer. If you're getting pegged in the back, that's just bad positioning for you.

Heck, If I can run to an enemy archer, I'll just dodge his arrows and melee him instead of doing an archery war.

[Jarlek]

There isn't an archer issue, honestly. Well, at least to those of us who remember how they used to be. It may seem to be ridiculous when you're running around in a gambeson with no shield and no IF, but that's your mistake.

With a shield or heavy armour, it's fine. The only time it's a real issue is when archers coordinate crossfires, and hey, I don't know about you but I like seeing people coordinate.

My horse, or rather pincushion now, knows all about coordinated archery fire. Not that it's coordinated really, but whenever they see me all turn and shoot for me

Although after 1 minute they all are too focused on the others so I can rid into their midst and couch, lance and slice my way through half their archers before they can say "Fiddlesticks!"

Hahaha! The life of the Horseman is short and risky! But if done right, many dead will be left behind you!

Also if the archerspam (yes it IS an ridiculous archerspam now, not as bad as native but still...) gets too hard for you, then there is alwasy Risen_cRPG (*dramatic music*) the ONE and ONLY Completely MELEE SERVEEEEEEER!!!!! (Advertising our server is totally coincidential...)

[Baron_Settmour]

Archers are fine. You just have to get a shield. The only non-archery points I have: 5 PS, 70 wpf in 2h, and I get most of my kills in melee.


Any shielder should be able close to melee against an archer. If you're getting pegged in the back, that's just bad positioning for you.

Heck, If I can run to an enemy archer, I'll just dodge his arrows and melee him instead of doing an archery war.

So...you're solution is for EVERYONE to be a shielder? Ya...that really works. My main build is a tank polearm. He has enough weight with the armor and weaponry. A shield is not going to do my speed any good.

[Rumblood]

I don't think a 2Her should be able to use a crossbow as a sidearm either. The reason that people specialized in the middle ages was because, just like today, Rambo is something of stories and not reality. But in C-RPG, we have far too many Rambos who want to have a crossbow, 2Her, and throwing lances on one character.

Perhaps adjusting it so that you MUST have a high WPF to use a bow and crossbow effectively. Otherwise your shots will be ridiculously off 9 times out of 10. As it stands now? I use a polearm but I can pick up any crossbow on the battlefield and shoot an archer with my 0 WPF in crossbow better than he can shoot me with his 130+ wpf in archery or crossbow. How is that fair?

Wait a second, you clearly just pointed out that the problem is with xbows. Cut the crap over archers. There is no Archer issue.

And yes, get a shield. You have extra slots.

[Baron_Settmour]

Wait a second, you clearly just pointed out that the problem is with xbows. Cut the crap over archers. There is no Archer issue.

And yes, get a shield. You have extra slots.

It's all arrows. That was just an example of what the previous poster was talking about where 2Hers rip out xbows like sidearms. Though I personally disagree with it, what choice do we have when everyone else has one? Arrow spam is getting retarded.

And please read the rest of the thread before commenting. I already said that adding a shield is unnecessary weight on a character I use for tanking.

[Tears of Destiny]

Arrows =/= Bolts.

[Rumblood]

I read what you said, now read what I said. Get a shield. I don't care about your weight problems. I would like to wear plate armor as an archer without accuracy penalty, but that's not how it is. Deal with you class shortcomings instead of crying for a nerf of another that has been balanced over multiple nerfings.
Also, you're argument is that when people are on top of a high wall, they all seem to use RANGED weapons for some unfathomable reason. Well blow me down! Really? They can't engage in melee so they are using arrows?
Try playing on a Battle server if you can't handle the fact that RANGED will be used from castle walls in Siege 

And as Tears_of_Destiny pointed out, bolts and arrows are two different things, yet you ask for an archer nerf? I take it you have a xbow sidearm then?

[Baron_Settmour]

I read what you said, now read what I said. Get a shield. I don't care about your weight problems. I would like to wear plate armor as an archer without accuracy penalty, but that's not how it is. Deal with you class shortcomings instead of crying for a nerf of another that has been balanced over multiple nerfings.
Also, you're argument is that when people are on top of a high wall, they all seem to use RANGED weapons for some unfathomable reason. Well blow me down! Really? They can't engage in melee so they are using arrows?
Try playing on a Battle server if you can't handle the fact that RANGED will be used from castle walls in Siege 

And as Tears_of_Destiny pointed out, bolts and arrows are two different things, yet you ask for an archer nerf? I take it you have a xbow sidearm then?

You seriously didn't read any posts before these last few, huh?

Respond to me when you do. Until then, no, I do not carry a crossbow and any Fallen will verify that. The weight penalty for a shield isn't worth it.

[Yugop]

You don't have to be a 1h user to get a shield, you know. The whole game engine is balanced around troops having either a ranged weapon, either a shield. If you have neither, don't be surprised to be raped by arrows occasionally. Just get 2 shield skill, a plain board shield, and that should be enough in most cases. And the weight is not that bad.

I do admit there's an ungodly amount of missiles flying around, but from what I've read on this forum, it should be partially fixed soon.

[Fyre]

So...you're solution is for EVERYONE to be a shielder? Ya...that really works. My main build is a tank polearm. He has enough weight with the armor and weaponry. A shield is not going to do my speed any good.

I think the point being made was that one shouldn't expect to survive against an archer without a shield. Think about it logically. One person can hit the other guy from far away and the other guy has no defense. How is he supposed to win?

1 on 1, most archers will lose to most 2 handers because it takes several shots to take most 2 handers down (4-8 I'd estimate) and the 2 hander usually only needs to get 1 or 2 hits in. This is assuming the players have similar skill levels.

In groups, a pure archer group vs. a pure infantry group can go either way. If the infantry have only 2 handers, it's likely that the archers can overcome by simply weakening the enemy significantly before they reach combat. It's also likely possible that the 2 handers will cut right through the archers (especially the ones that try to shoot last minute). Assuming equal skill in melee, I'd say archers win that. Now, if the inf are all shielders, I'd put the win on the infantry because they won't be weakened before the fight and they have faster weapons and better armor in melee. Now if the inf is a nice mix of 2 hander and shield, I'd again put the win on infantry because the shields can cover the 2 handers from the initial volley, and even if they don't, the shielders themselves aren't weakened and they have the advantage in melee (as described I'm the last scenario).

So I don't think you can really boil this down to something as simple as "everyone should have a shield" or "everyone do X" because what needs to be done is different every time.

In my opinion, people who wish to play infantry should specialize in infantry. Not 2 hand, sword and board, or polearm. A versatile infantry player like this, with enough intelligence, could overcome a lot of situations such as "archerspam", and many other things that are complained about.

[Baron_Settmour]

I think the point being made was that one shouldn't expect to survive against an archer without a shield. Think about it logically. One person can hit the other guy from far away and the other guy has no defense. How is he supposed to win?

1 on 1, most archers will lose to most 2 handers because it takes several shots to take most 2 handers down (4-8 I'd estimate) and the 2 hander usually only needs to get 1 or 2 hits in. This is assuming the players have similar skill levels.

In groups, a pure archer group vs. a pure infantry group can go either way. If the infantry have only 2 handers, it's likely that the archers can overcome by simply weakening the enemy significantly before they reach combat. It's also likely possible that the 2 handers will cut right through the archers (especially the ones that try to shoot last minute). Assuming equal skill in melee, I'd say archers win that. Now, if the inf are all shielders, I'd put the win on the infantry because they won't be weakened before the fight and they have faster weapons and better armor in melee. Now if the inf is a nice mix of 2 hander and shield, I'd again put the win on infantry because the shields can cover the 2 handers from the initial volley, and even if they don't, the shielders themselves aren't weakened and they have the advantage in melee (as described I'm the last scenario).

So I don't think you can really boil this down to something as simple as "everyone should have a shield" or "everyone do X" because what needs to be done is different every time.

In my opinion, people who wish to play infantry should specialize in infantry. Not 2 hand, sword and board, or polearm. A versatile infantry player like this, with enough intelligence, could overcome a lot of situations such as "archerspam", and many other things that are complained about.

That's the thing dude, this game isn't about Rambos. It's about working as a team. Being a specialist in polearm makes me great at melee, especially against other 2H and Polearm. If I decrease those stats to get a shield, bow, crossbow, and other crap, I am not just as useless as the peasant. No thanks.

Also, I know you people constantly complain about the realism argument but think about this for a second...medieval arrows didn't pierce plate armor unless there were some horrible flaws in it. Even chainmail was proof against arrows except at point blank. As I discussed with someone on IRC tonight, I agree with his statement that if archers don't get nerfed, plate and mail armor should get buffed to make arrow hits inconsequential.

[Fyre]

That's the thing dude, this game isn't about Rambos. It's about working as a team. Being a specialist in polearm makes me great at melee, especially against other 2H and Polearm. If I decrease those stats to get a shield, bow, crossbow, and other crap, I am not just as useless as the peasant. No thanks.

Also, I know you people constantly complain about the realism argument but think about this for a second...medieval arrows didn't pierce plate armor unless there were some horrible flaws in it. Even chainmail was proof against arrows except at point blank. As I discussed with someone on IRC tonight, I agree with his statement that if archers don't get nerfed, plate and mail armor should get buffed to make arrow hits inconsequential.

Well, when you say rambo I immediately think of 1 guy trying to kill a bunch of other guys by himself. I don't see where I brought that up in my post, but I'll respond by saying that if the shield players and the 2hand players worked as a team against archers, I'm confident that they would win. (this was implied in my first post actually).

Secondly, I'm not talking about realism, I'm talking about common sense. Realism doesn't have a place in a game balance arguement, and I never used it. I think you're refering to the point where I said:

I think the point being made was that one shouldn't expect to survive against an archer without a shield. Think about it logically. One per hit the other guy from far away and the other guy has no defense. How is he supposed to win?

To clarify, I meant that if an infantry without a shield beat an archer, it wouldn't make sense to me. How did the infantry win when he had no defense against the archer's ranged attacks? That, to me, seems close to a "rambo" as well.

Edit: Ah, I see where you thought I was talking about rambos, it was:

In my opinion, people who wish to play infantry should specialize in infantry Not 2 hand, sword and board, or polearm. A versatile infantry player like this, with enough intelligence, could overcome a lot of situations such as "archerspam", and many other things that are complained about.

To clarify, I meant if most players who did infantry used what I suggested, they could overcome archerspam and such. Not just one person.