Feel like we're on the same page here, ranged should be a support/team class, not a 'hero' class.
What should be a "hero" class? Plate-wearing Two-handers? I think it's pretty silly to arbitrarily decide some builds should be able to solo extremely well and others should be locked into support roles.
Getting rid of very long/indefinite hold and tying accuracy penalties with a scaling damage penalty as well would be two nice steps before talking about stats. I find indefinite holding a somewhat broken mechanic, negating any sort of prediction factor. I also find decreases in accuracy (shooting while running/turning/holding bow too long) somewhat useless when there will be some randomization in movement of the opponent dodging (Edit: and effective range of course, but that's tied with missile speed as well). An additional damage penalty would provide more tangible feedback (and maybe a very slight bonus when timed perfectly). Not guaranteeing headshots on an unaware target is the only time where I see accuracy really being a prominent balance factor.
While I agree that some bows have too long a hold time, I don't think changing this would do much at all. Holding only negates the prediction factor at very close distances (essentially the distance where the arrow will hit the target before the target's hitbox can move out of the arrows path at normal movement speed... i.e. close enough that you do not have to lead the shot at all) because beyond that holding doesn't change the fact that the target could continue moving or switch direction and the arrow will miss. If you have to lead, you have to predict regardless of how long you can hold the shot--but I've gone off on a tangent from my original point.
I don't think lowering holding would do much because unless you're in that very short range scenario, most decent archers don't hold shots very long to begin with, unless you're trying to line up an extremely long distance shot on a stationary target, like another archer... Anyone who's played their archer build for a goodly bit of time knows about where to aim even before the shot and isn't going to spend a ton of time with the shot held trying to lead on a target 50, 75 yards away. They're going to lead and aim while drawing and then let off the shot as soon as they hit their top accuracy so that they can line up more shots. Holding shots at long range is just asking for the melee to get closer.
I think the one time I consistently hold shots is when facing down non-ranged cav. Because the horse hitbox is wide enough that accuracy means a lot less and they move quickly enough that getting off the second shot isn't possible anyway.
Just my $0.02.
I can honestly say as an Archer that there are times where there are too many ranged on the server. It's not just a melee issue, it becomes difficult to even be an archer because there are too many other ranged to have to deal with to carefully pick off enemies. But I don't think nerfing archery is the correct way to address the problem, because I personally don't think it's significantly imbalanced. Any build can seem too good when its population becomes disproportionate. That's the nature of rock-paper-scissors balancing. If there were 15 cav on each team, battle would be suffering, if a large portion of the population are carrying shields, being ranged is depressing.
I would definitely support a set number of bows able to spawn per round based on the number of people on each team if it weren't for the fact that it would frustrating as all hell to jump on to battle and have five or six really awful archers playing and not be able to play my main.
Perhaps this is an issue that needs to be addressed and balanced via map structure? Implementing more cover, shifting flags away from open easy to shoot at locations, shifting the map rotation to favor maps that aren't as open or don't have nice locations for ranged to sit and camp?
I think only longbow+bodkin users should be able to deal any considerable amount of damage to players who are heavily armored; all the other bow/arrow combos need a damage nerf across the board
There are too many ranged players who cheapen the game with their artless point-and-clicking. Go play another generic fps if that's how you're gonna game.
This is stupid.
If anything bows should be trended towards more similar damages and then archery damage globally nerfed.
Longbows are already extremely strong damage wise compared to the shortbows, and their slow speed and high accuracy meshes very well with high strength archer builds.
Also I don't even your last statement. Longbows are the most point-and-click of any of the bows, because they are the best suited for sitting back far away from combat and sniping.
Simplest solution is to block access to all players to archery and crossbows untill they have a gen 16 character. That way they have to had played enough to apreciate that archery is a thing to do every now and then for a laugh, not to main to lvl 36 and just prove how broken the game balance is.
This is also stupid.
Archery is a good tool for new players to be able to actually live for a decent amount of time during rounds instead of walking into melee and getting completely wrecked by people with years of experience in fighting/blocking/chambering/footwork who are also on high level characters AND in full heirlooms. It gives newer players the ability to do a small amount of work for their team and also teaches them to watch how the battle flows, how teams are moving and shifting across the battlefield, and to keep track of cav and rogue players flanking.
The issue is not that there are dedicated archers or new archers it is that there are too many ranged in proportion to other builds.
Forcing people to level and retire their character a dozen times before they can even touch the build they want to play is idiotic and petty.
Poll