Arrows/Bolts and Polestagger

[Miwiw]

Your argument, Leshma, about ranged being better and having an advantage about you as they are on range while you gotta run some meters, is far from being a good one.

Great, how many arrows can I shoot (even with very light gear and lets say 8 WM, all wpf put in archery) with a loomed bow with you about 30 meters in front of me, running straight forward, only losing some speed when dodging (and I guess you got more than 5 ATH)? 2? Maybe 3? Guess how many archers are able to hit you with all those 3 arrows? Bagge? Tenne? Maybe some other good archer? Most don't.
That's after all the same as in close melee, where your chance to block your spammy hits in a certain amount of time and that with rather low PS and weapon control (as Archer and crossbow maybe 5 PS, rarely more and not much wpf obviously) is kinda low.
Low melee weapon wpf makes it often a hard time to block instantly.

I'm and probably most archers are having a hard time while playing ranged. It surely depends on the map and teams.
I enjoyed 2h/1h/pole generations much more than during those I've been a rather dedicated archer, and I guess most people feel like that. The only reason I actually respecced back to Archery is my bad pc, which makes movements and anything in melee being very laggy and "sluggish" (was that the word?).
Otherwise, though I'm just a decent player (what is fine), I had most fun in melee as I never got as many problems with other classes as while playing archer. Guess what, as archer you got problems with all other classes. As 2h with loomed heavy armor I could usually take 3-4 arrows (2 by bagge ) and 5-7 melee hits (to the body). As archer I'm happy to survive one hit.

People here, arguing against archery at all costs, are always thinking of themselves being a god. They also think this is a one-sided game, for them being the only having fun, getting kills and they must survive and have a decent fight themselves.
Guess what. Archers have fun, killing other people on range. Guess another thing. Most went Archery, because they don't like melee or maybe they like Archery even more than melee and got their fun there.
They could argue against melee as well, but no. Most do not. And no, this game is not dominated by Archery. Archers regularly get a nerf. Still remember times in native, or the beginning of cRPG. Good that times are over, or people would cry even more about ranged. If that was even possible.

The "ranged" polestagger should stay obviously. If it was removed and down to dmg only, who would play an Archer then. Fuck, it would even suck more than now.
Stop fucking rage about other classes and start playing the game like it was meant to be! I'm also not going to any FPS game and say "you arses, why do you shoot me when I charge you with my dagger!". We are lucky that this game is balanced after all and every class got its place.

[Rantrex]

Ath works a lot better than carrying a shield. As it was mentioned many times before, ranged are supposed to do a lot. Stun after taking arrow could be a bit reduced, but not completly removed. Archers are also pissed off when guy in heavy armor can chase them and at the end jump and with 2h/some long spear or 1h's right attack hitthem right in the heead.

[bigsean]

People always argue about the best archers and say we should balance based on that, that's such garbage. As well, shields are an excellent counter against archers. They cause us to waste our arrows and most of the heavier ones don't even break, leaving pure archers with no counter. Heavy cav? Also an excellent counter for anyone not using bodkins. Both of these cause us to waste our arrows, and make archers an easy target for them. An archer backpedelling and shooting a shielder who has the shield up is slower even unless they went for 7 ath, and even then probably still slower. Many times even one shielder, let alone 2-3, will be coming towards me and I will have no way to counter except for my 0 ps 0 wpf hand axe. But that's my downfall of being a pure archer, which I deal with. Nerfing missile speed is unfair as well, as others have said it is easy enough to dodge arrows and it is unfair to those who have practiced for ages to have to learn the timing all over again. You would have us go further from skill based shots to luck, which many of our shots end up being.

So what if you get mobbed by a bunch of archers? No reason to nerf, what would happen if you got mobbed by a bunch of infantry? Cav? I think you would die outright!

[BlueKnight]

Ath works a lot better than carrying a shield. As it was mentioned many times before, ranged are supposed to do a lot. Stun after taking arrow could be a bit reduced, but not completly removed. Archers are also pissed off when guy in heavy armor can chase them and at the end jump and with 2h/some long spear or 1h's right attack hitthem right in the heead.

You forgot to call them cheaters.

[Malaclypse]

The extended stagger from ranged (all ranged) should go, just like it did from polearms. Or, I should say, the ranged stagger should go or poles stagger should be reinstated in non-knockdown polearms. Either seems acceptable. This is what the thread is about, also- not about ranged OP, ranged UP, get a shield, etc. It's about whether or not the staggering effect should stay in, that's it.

[BlueKnight]

Or, I should say, the ranged stagger should go or poles stagger should be reinstated in non-knockdown polearms.

No more polearm stun! Nevah! Also I don't understand why ranged stun being in game is a reason to bring back stun to polearms.... No logic.

[Malaclypse]

No more polearm stun! Nevah! Also I don't understand why ranged stun being in game is a reason to bring back stun to polearms.... No logic.

The logic is that if ranged stun is deemed as acceptable- the ability to stagger an opponent from a massive distance- then why shouldn't polearms (and other melee, even) be able to do it as well at their extremely limited distance. Since ranged stagger exists in the game and since no other class is afforded that ability, that would be the basis for either removing it or adding it to other classes. Does that make more sense?

[CrazyCracka420]

Agreed...I always thought that if they are going to remove polestagger they should remove arrowstagger as well...

[Grumbs]

The logic is that if ranged stun is deemed as acceptable- the ability to stagger an opponent from a massive distance- then why shouldn't polearms (and other melee, even) be able to do it as well at their extremely limited distance. Since ranged stagger exists in the game and since no other class is afforded that ability, that would be the basis for either removing it or adding it to other classes. Does that make more sense?

The fact you have to argue this stuff shows how warped people's view is in the game.

We need active devs who play melee, especially when they say they're trying to make a melee game of their own. You would think they would want some credibility as a melee game designers for their next game. But no gotta have hybrid ranged/melee everywhere. Can't upset some FPS gamers in a melee game

[Rumblood]

People have made the argument that an archer is a support class. Certainly with the state of archery today, they are no Hero's. The stun mechanic made supporting your team much easier and often the target I chose was due to this benefit.

"My peasant teamate is about to be lanced in his ass! Oh hell no! No unawares couching for you!"
"That xbow is punching through our tincans! Oh hell no! No reload for you!"
"Oh shit, that ninja is about to backstab our shieldwall! Oh hell no! No slicey dicey for you!"

As much as melee likes to complain about archers and their pew pew, their asses were saved far more times than they ever know.

[Kafein]

Gotta love archers always coming back to "but we are nerfed all the time ".


Hell no.

First, all melee weapons were nerfed. In 2010, with a 1h sword, I killed heavy armor people in 2 or 3 hits, about the same as most archers. Now with an optimized build and a hammer, I need 4 to 5. Archers (yes, archers. I am not talking about crossbows) still need 2 or 3, even if we forget headshots.
Second, the players evolve. In 2010, a single feint was enough to hit a vast majority of players. As an archer, you had to aim and shoot. Now we are in 2013 and even the worst melee player ever can block decently, drawing melee fights for 5, 10, 20 seconds, which is enormous. Yet the TTK for archers stood the same. People don't dodge better, dodging is trivial. After one hour of playing you will dodge like the best dodger in the game. The true effectiveness of it comes down to stats and mainly luck. Finally the increased skill average means you actually have to work for it, and that it is actually dangerous to be in melee, even with terrible players as enemies.

[CrazyCracka420]

People have made the argument that an archer is a support class. Certainly with the state of archery today, they are no Hero's. The stun mechanic made supporting your team much easier and often the target I chose was due to this benefit.

"My peasant teamate is about to be lanced in his ass! Oh hell no! No unawares couching for you!"
"That xbow is punching through our tincans! Oh hell no! No reload for you!"
"Oh shit, that ninja is about to backstab our shieldwall! Oh hell no! No slicey dicey for you!"

As much as melee likes to complain about archers and their pew pew, their asses were saved far more times than they ever know.

Arrows should still interrupt your swing (the same as getting hit with a melee weapon), but it shouldn't stagger you...I fail to see how that changes your statements.  And I'm one of the people as a non-archer who defends against the archer nerfs. 

Archers shouldn't be as nerfed as they are. My archery suggestions would be:

 I think they need to buff damage some for default bows/arrows, remove the crazy weight penalties to quivers, but they should also lower how much damage is given when looming arrows (looming arrows should only give you more arrows IMO, or remove damage buff from looming bows and make them draw faster or have faster missile speed) and also remove the ability to "run (or maybe run at top speed) when you have a bow equipped. 

[Pentecost]

Wasn't the rationale behind the removal of the polestagger that it allowed someone with a Bec de Corbin or Hafted Blade to hit you and then randomly get a second followup hit that you wouldn't be able to block because you were still staggered by the first?

Because if that's the case, I don't see why it should be removed for ranged. I've never encountered a situation where I was facing 1 archer, was hit by an arrow from that archer, and then hit by another arrow from the same archer while I was staggered from the first shot.

[GuiKa]

Was getting worried as I didn't see a nerf archery thread for a day but you delivered.
Use a shield or your brain and Archery won't bother you.

First people complain about archers kiting, then doing too much damage, then being too accurate now the stun is op.
The fuck is wrong with this community?

edit: I hope for people own sake that they don't play League of legends when a new champion is out or when an update comes out. Go play that when it happens, you'll see what OP means in a game. Or aku on cod4 pam4, if people played that I'm sure a few would have killed themselves by now, with how the aku was OP to shit if it was in comparison to archers on C-rpg.

indeed, if 2 handers had brains and used cover or not chase archers, they'll 90% of the time win the round if 1v1 with an archer. Only time I see them loosing if their not good at melee. But that isn't hard when you're a 2 hander against an archer.

#TeamGrumpy

Get the fuck out of my thread you are being disrespectful and you are missing the point.

This is not a thread about nerfing archery it's a thread about removing a mechanism i believe is lame.

[bigsean]

Actually as a balance discussion you're going to get all POVs whether you like it or not. This is just a thinly veiled "wahhh archery" thread anyways it seems. Why don't you make this thread in spam and call it melee circlejerk?