Fix archer-weight

[Joker86]

Joker your TL;DR post is just stating the obvious (as far as I can tell, stopped reading after the second sentence since I don't think there's any basic problems with the balance between the classes, only player's willingness [or lack thereof] to adapt).

Of course ranged is supposed to be able to hit people from a distance.  That's the point.  And melee is strong up close.  If you get an archer to run (before they made arrows weigh a ton) then they no longer were helping their team, so you have just disabled them. 

How is chasing someone you won't ever be able to catch (regardless if they're an archer, thrower, melee, or horse archer) ever the person's problem that is running away?  The only time it's their problem is when they are the last one alive.  In any other circumstance you're the moron getting kited. 

You (and a lot of other infantry) are the one's showing lack of empathy towards another class.  I mean my god man, all I've ever played is cavalry lancer/1h/shield and archers have been my bane since day one, but these nerfs are fucking ridiculous and unnecessary.  Instead of infantry having to adapt on the battlefield, they just zerg the forums and bitch and complain until their banes get nerfed.  You know what I do instead of crying on the forums about pikemen or ranged or horse xbows?  I try to change the way I play so that their strengths aren't taking advantage of my weaknesses. 

But apparently the scenario where people keep running into a wall, and crying on the forums about the wall until the dev's remove the wall, is exactly what we're dealing with here.

If you are running after a kiting archer, you are disabled as well. Both players are disabled, and no team gets an advantage of it. It just prevents you of playing the game properly, reducing the gameplay on pressing W.

And in MOST cases you DO have to run after archers, as they will otherwise evade towards the flanks and then shot you into the back.

And I don't see the point in "adapt!" as argumentation, as first of all not everything is balanced per se, but your advice can be used on everything. Laserblasters implemented? Adapt! You know what I mean? The argument can even be thrown back at you - you can't kite any more? - Adapt! Stay in groups, use tactics. I mean, if it's valid to request tactics from infantry players to function properly, it would be only fair to request it from the other classes, too. So archers need tactics and teamplay now as well.

By the way I would find it really nice if you read my post nonetheless, because it might contain different things than what you'd expect. And yes, of course, the first two paaragraphs only state the obvious, but on the other hand they don't, because apparently some relations, effects and mechanics are not obvios to everybody, so I tried to give some kind of overview. I thought it might help argumenting.

[oprah_winfrey]

@Huesby: You should probably stop comparing it to mounted range, since they changed the way MotF works because of it. By comparing the two, it brings into play an argument that if the last player(s) alive has a bow, that MotF should spawn.

[Aderyn]

@Huesby: You should probably stop comparing it to mounted range, since they changed the way MotF works because of it. By comparing the two, it brings into play an argument that if the last player(s) alive has a bow, that MotF should spawn.

i wouldn't mind that - unnerf archer back to before athleticspatchfailure and add that motf shows up instead.

[San]

Of course ranged is supposed to be able to hit people from a distance.  That's the point.  And melee is strong up close.  If you get an archer to run (before they made arrows weigh a ton) then they no longer were helping their team, so you have just disabled them.  Why would it make sense for someone wearing heavier armor, having more strength and less agility than someone else, be reasonably expected to catch them if they are running away?

How is chasing someone you won't ever be able to catch (regardless if they're an archer, thrower, melee, or horse archer) ever the person's problem that is running away?  The only time it's their problem is when they are the last one alive.  In any other circumstance you're the moron getting kited. 

Chase kiting archer = you become useless (often times detrimental) to your team. You become instant prey the moment other archers or a cav becomes involved. You also have to run all the way back to wherever melee fights are occurring.

Stop chasing kiting archer = they shoot at your back often times 30+ seconds or until the rest of the round or until they get attacked again.

Solution? Never chase archers(or most ranged). That's what I do, even as a shielder. You get close, make them run a bit, then continue on fighting in melee. That is my "adaptation," as well as going cav so I can chase them. A kiting melee isn't going to do much from running, while kiting ranged is harder to just simply ignore.


MotF is also terrible against ranged, because that means you'll just be pelted by ranged from all sides for 2 minutes until you die.

[Kafein]

And I don't see the point in "adapt!" as argumentation, as first of all not everything is balanced per se, but your advice can be used on everything.

Ho my god this so much.

[Adamar]

People who dont know the classes keep on posting, at least read the thread first.

Making archers move slowly gives an unfair advantage to those who can easely crush them in close range.

Before : inf runs after archer, archer unable to match him in close range is forced to kite - inf pissed for being kited , archer pissed for having to kite.

Now : inf runs after archer, archer can barely hit him due to slow arrows and crappy accuracy, inf kills archer - inf happy, archer frustrated for playing a pointless class.

melee - ranged effectiveness would have to be shifted considerably before such a situation could be considered ballanced.

[Adalwulf]

Get Good.

[Joker86]

People who dont know the classes keep on posting, at least read the thread first.

Making archers move slowly gives an unfair advantage to those who can easely crush them in close range.

Before : inf runs after archer, archer unable to match him in close range is forced to kite - inf pissed for being kited , archer pissed for having to kite.

Now : inf runs after archer, archer can barely hit him due to slow arrows and crappy accuracy, inf kills archer - inf happy, archer frustrated for playing a pointless class.

melee - ranged effectiveness would have to be shifted considerably before such a situation could be considered ballanced.

I think this is where yor argumentation is flawed.

And concerning your suggestion: I agree that the stats are quite a bit too low for bows in the current state. But there is some kind of "external" factor which prevents bows of getting buffed: the amount of archers. Because the more archers you have, the more powerful they become, in difference to the other classes. The low stats are needed to make the ranged spam we have on the servers somewhat bearable. If the amount of archers decreases somehow, I am sure some buffs could be applied again. Which would raise the amount of archers again, so you need to nerf. A vicious circle 

[Rumblood]

I think this is where yor argumentation is flawed.
But there is some kind of "external" factor which prevents bows of getting buffed: the amount of archers. Because the more archers you have, the more powerful they become, in difference to the other classes. :

I'm sure you are just forgetting about being chain bumped by cavalry that don't even have to hit you with their weapons to charge you to death. Probably all those horse hooves to the head 

[Adalwulf]

I think this is where yor argumentation is flawed.

And concerning your suggestion: I agree that the stats are quite a bit too low for bows in the current state. But there is some kind of "external" factor which prevents bows of getting buffed: the amount of archers. Because the more archers you have, the more powerful they become, in difference to the other classes. The low stats are needed to make the ranged spam we have on the servers somewhat bearable. If the amount of archers decreases somehow, I am sure some buffs could be applied again. Which would raise the amount of archers again, so you need to nerf. A vicious circle 

I'm fine with archery. These noobs just gotta go 24/15 and get 8ps and 8pd with a 5 wm and boom. I can crush people in melee no problem then countinue to shoot. Stop crying about nerfs and find new playing styles. I'm quite happy with nerfs because it gets rid of the quitter poser archers that just choose archery because it's the "OP" class.

[Joker86]

I'm sure you are just forgetting about being chain bumped by cavalry that don't even have to hit you with their weapons to charge you to death. Probably all those horse hooves to the head 

Actually not, because if there is more than a certain number or cav, they start to block each other. And blocked cavalry = stationary = easy target/easier to reach on foot = dead.

[Vodner]

I still think native handled this best (minus the machinegun bows that aren't very fun in public battle): archers have less ath than infantry, but are perfectly capable of defending themselves in melee. They aren't as good as infantry in melee, but they aren't helpless.

Unfortunately with the way armor is currently balanced, an archer with a few points of PS is likely looking at needing to score 5-8 melee to kill his opponent. In native, an archer is perfectly capable of 2 or 3 shotting most people in melee, unless the round limit is set too high and the other guy has completely maxed out armor. This is especially odd when you consider that non-Nord archers don't get any points in PS.

[Penguin]

Joker's huge wall of nearly incoherent and jumbled text implies that archers are allowed to make more mistakes than infantry, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Archers are the most targeted and vulnerable class in the game, and a single opposing archer can disrupt an entire team of archers. Not to mention cavalry, especially heavy, who make the bulk of their kills in the form of speared archers. Archers generally have less armor, less iron flesh, and less powerstrike, meaning almost any mistake will result in death or near death. Archers have to stand still when they are releasing arrows; so any cavalry can charge an archer, whose only choice is to attempt to make a shot and either get lanced in the face or hit them and get bumped for half their HP

Also, archers can't just "attack all targets", the distance of the enemy, map terrain, and composition of the enemy team all have huge effects on the effectiveness of an archer. Archers are not some kind of godly race with eagle eyes and headshot accuracy.

Lastly, how is missing a shot not detrimental to an archer? He has a limited amount of bolts/arrows, and according to joker, since the archer is so versatile, we're assuming the archer in question is one with a 1 or 2 slot weapon, which makes bolts/arrows even scarcer.

[Tzar]

Nurf archery more. Best solution, in fact make them forced to carry rubber dildo´s tied to their back.

[Aderyn]

Normal procedure against cav is the following.

1. move out of the way (usually doesn't work against good cav since your too heavy)
2. downblock with secondary, only works when you've spotted them in time otherwise you instantly die from lance or sword. Usually get bumped for half hp.
3. make "the shot". Hold shot and manage to hit the cavalry player JUST before he kills you. Usually gets you killed tho if you miss or hit his horse without a fatal kill on it. If he doesn't chop you up, your gonna get run over for half hp. Worth pointing out about this is that if you don't hit his head you usually have to do this 2-3 times.

Totally the easiest class to play... or not.