Basic problem:
In a game where you are expected to kill all enemies, there are two ways to engage: melee and ranged. The problem is, that one of them is way more flexible than the other. Being a ranged player allows you to engage almost every enemy you see, you can pick the easiest targets, and once a target gets aware of you, you can pick another. Except of shielders who are currently blocking towards you, you can attack every enemy you see with a good chance of success, depending on your aming and a little on the awareness and dodging skills of your target. (Though the fact that you can pick the easiest targets means, that your target won't be aware of you most of the time, so won't dodge/block/hide most likely). The fact that you can attack all targets you can see means that you can also protect/support all players that you can see. So the more archers see each other, the more they can protect, and the more they are protected, which means their effectivity grows exponentially with only linearly growing numbers.
Now if you play (unmounted) melee, things are different. You have to close in the distance to your preferred target, to be able to engage it. While doing so, there is constant danger of being shot or backstabbed by cavalry, as you can't choose an advantageous position, because you have to move. Some targets are practically unreachable for infantry, for example all mounted ranged classes, and some time ago also archers had that ability. This means, your targets usually have to more or less agree to get involved into melee by infantry. In other words: it is easy to avoid getting attacked by infantry if you want it that way, at least for the biggest part of the round. This is a difference to ranged, because it's difficult to avoid being shot at if you want to engage in melee (= fight = play the game). Linearly growing numbers of infantry increase their effectivity expontentially as well, but unfortnately it's a decreasing, limited exponential function, limited to a value which is reached at about four or five players. Due to limitations in reach infantry players can only support other players within a few meters radius, and there is an overall limitaton of infantry which can engage one single enemy (in difference to archers where in theory all archers of a team can engage one enemy), which can be extended a bit if some of the infantry players wield long polearms like pikes or 2-directional-halberds. But 4 or 5 is the maximum. And finally, when engaging the target of choice, infantry has to live with the fact that their opponent has influence on every attack they make, as he can block every blow in theory, and can even strike back, increasing the negative effects of failure. So if an archer misses an infantryman, in most cases (except of close distance, ofc) nothing bad happens except of that wasted arrow. But if an infantryman misses his attack or block against an archer in melee, there is a chance the archer can strike back. Of course the chances are shifted heavily by the setup of equipment and character skills the players enter melee with, but there is still a difference in the level of interaction to ranged combat, which is almost entirely one sided.
Most of the things I mentioned here are quite obvious, and I would be surprised if I told something new to anybody here. But it's those relations, effects and counter effects I wanted to point out, so that players don't only recall all aspects of the different fighting styles, but also to make aware of the basic problems we have with the mechanics.
If you look at my explanation, I was always referring to how can somebody attack, and whom, which way, and so on. It was all centered around attacking, as this is the only way to kill somebody, which is the objective in battle mode. So as bottom line we can note: fundamental differences in the way the different fighting styles attack lead to a lot of problems when it comes to making things fair in terms of killing every enemy class and thus fullfilling the objective.
Now instead of a shitload of tweaks and nerfs I keep on suggesting to change the initial cause of the problems: the game mode! If people didn't have to kill each other necessarily to win the round, a lot of problems would simply disappear. If you implement a conquest game mode with conquerable flags on carefully designed positions, things would change drastically. Not only would the problems of infantry be solved, I think even the (in theory) overnerfed classes of cavalry and archers could get buffed again. For example kiting would not be that much of a problem any more, because the archer can feel free to kite to the very edge of the map, the infantry will still take the flag and win. Especially if the map is designed reasonably, and the area around the map contains a corner with good cover. This just as an example.
But unless the developers stop playing deaf towards the conquest suggestion, I fear we have to keep the archers slow and with low lethality, to keep the game at least somewhat balanced in terms of fun for everybody. I don't need to mention that again the community is showing the usual lack of empathy and kindness, and actually even of matters of balancing, but in my opinion we are close to the "best" (= least bad) balance we can have for the round based team deatchmatch that battle is.
