The more threads like this that pop up, and the more replies I read, the more I play the class in question and the less I actually kite and shoot the more I feel it is the mentality of the player base that is the "problem".
The tools are there, people just ignore them, it is completely viable to have a two slot bow, one stack of arrows and a decent melee weapon, be accurate and have a reasonable defence when fighting close quarters. People just don't
want to do that, they would prefer to run and shoot because they have the advantage there, and to be honest, I don't blame them.
I suppose it's human nature to want to have an advantage over others, to better yourself and that's why archers prefer to run even though you do have the capabilities to stand and fight, that's why two stacks of arrows and a hammer are usually taken, there are the options available but people won't use them because that's not their "ideal", they want an absolute advantage.
Sure, changing the mechanics will help to force out bad habits, but if it is still possible, then great, still going to do it, the only absolute block I can see is to stop archers from moving before and after shooting but that's just stupid.
Archers want to be out of harms way, they can damage there and they avoid it too, melee want to be up close and personal, they can damage there and for the most part, generally don't have too much of a chance to avoid it, hence why the general consensus is to wear heavier armour, so that they can avoid as much damage as possible. Similarly cavalry have the best chance to do damage to enemies who are unaware of them, they have the lowest chance to take damage when the enemy have their attention elsewhere, that's why they back-stab, an advantage.
I know I'm just saying what has been said before, but no one, unless they want a challenge, will ever want to be at a disadvantage, these continual nerfs just make people have to cover as many of their disadvantages as possible by compensating different things until they're just a blob. I have the absolute advantage of range, the advantage of being quick, and I cover my losses in melee by sacrificing some of that superiourity in range for melee skill to cover my disadvantage because I know I will be caught eventually, always have a contingency but that is the way I think, I've never really been an all or nothing person, calculated I suppose. I focus on being most effective by being versatile because I am not good at avoiding situations that put me at a disadvantage. The people that I see that get complained about are the ones who can utilise their advantage incredibly well, they're able to know when to turn tail and are able to kite someone to oblivion and when that fails, then that's basically all they have because they have not invested to cover that, since they rarely need it.
For me, the proposed solution in the opening post will merely cause me to miss more shots or be forced to hide like a crossbowman to shoot, that'd just break the flow of the game, another nerf without accomplishing anything, archers will still run away, they still have more than enough arrows to shoot in your general direction and will rather take the chance of running and shooting than stand and fight you in melee where they are at a disadvantage. Even if they can't aim accurately, they can still hurt you while you can hurt them and regardless, this would happen less often because archers would often become "satellites" around the battlefield, they would hang out at the edges, away from the main bulk of infantry, and shoot from there, if anyone even glanced in their direction, they would put as much distance between that person as possible as quickly as possible, they would then wait out that "heart rate stabilisation" period before continuing on their merry way.
I guess some of what I am saying in the latter part of this post is screaming "then give archers melee capabilities", but as I have said, that means sacrificing some of their ranged power, it is already possible to make a decent level 30 character in both ranged and melee without heirloomed equipment with minimal effort, on top of this you do not want to have ranged players running around as strong as melee players do you?
You can only coax a section of people into covering their losses by enticing them with the possibility to do so, then you can move to trying to stop the remainder by being less persuasive and more forceful, but they will resist until you completely close it down, which will just break many aspects of the game.
I do apologise for this long and frankly rambling display of personal opinions, views and lack of understanding for human psychology and game balance but I like to share my views and appreciate feedback for those who bother to read my essays! Most of what I say is very basic and I do feel like a lot of what I have said is "preaching to the choir" as I am sure that what I have said has been stated a thousand and one times but I can't help myself.
I already regret the decision to press "post".
