I think the general consensus is that archers with lower tier bows feel weak and strength archers deal okayish-good damage and could be better. My question is what role do archers want low PD archers (4-6) to have against infantry?
I think there is an anti-kiting method that gives agi archers mediocre damage, high firing speed, good ammo, and high weight. This means largely reverting a good portion of the damage decrease on low tier bows and giving some ammo back so the high PD bows have little fear of running out with their slower draw speed. Over the past 2 years or so, I think it worked okay but many archers seemed to be unsatisfied with this and wanted lighter weight on their arrows. It seems like this will be even more difficult with the potential for builds to reach even greater extremes than before.
Another method is to allow mobility for archers with low arrow weight where agility archers have somewhat limited resources with less damage and high firing speed, while strength archers can make use of even those limited resources. This requires a somewhat low ammo capacity so players that are more mobile can't kite since they'll need to make shots count and reposition themselves occasionally to scavenge more ammo. The ammo count still needs to be good enough for the strength-oriented archers aren't hurt too much by it. I think the current ammo at +3 fits the bill, and would only support a difference in ammo between +0 and +3 with these changes. Damage will still be increased, but probably not as much as the previous paragraph concerning the low tier bows since the weight will decrease. Increased headshot damage may be great alternative over bow damage where the latter will mess with the accuracy again.
The biggest issue with the above is that they'll largely be safe against most other classes except for other ranged when playing correctly. Missile speed for the low tier bows may need to be drastically decreased to increase risk by having to approach the fray a little more.
I think kiting archers were a problem in the past since:
-The kiters were much higher in level
-Dealt some of the best damages for their class, especially with the wpf bug and armor penetration
-No flags that prevented delaying/kiting playstyles (large reason for the recent weight reductions, but the first point especially remained a large problem until now)
Now is as good a time as any to be a little more experimental since builds are not as set in stone.
Thanks, San. Good post.
To answer your question about the low PD (4-6) archers:
I'd say there is a very small minority in this category.
6PD was always what I had because it gave me the option to be a little more of a hybrid than most.
If I tried going for 21/18, I felt I was losing too much wpf to archery over my 1h/2h sidearm.
The 24/18 build was pretty popular among the higher level guys, and they would use almost exclusively the Rus or Longbow.
The benefit high agi builds had (say, 15/24) was their ability to sacrifice generally high damage for accuracy.
It evened out quite well because they'd rely on headshots with their high wpf to make up for the lack in PD.
They, of course, also were going to have more points in athletics, which allowed them to get away and take their shots.
Any lower than 5PD though, I don't see that as a viable option now, nor have I ever.
5PD was pretty much the absolute lowest an archer would
ever go.
With the current patch, 6 is probably the lowest viable option.
And besides, the whole point of 5PD archer builds was the sole purpose of high accuracy and
being able to run away.
If the goal is making it so archers can't kite, there'd either need to be a change with quiver weight or just make low PD archers useless and force them into higher PD builds...
Neither of which I particularly like; increasing quiver weight hurts the high PD builds enough already.
I don't have the time or will to do that.
And the countless threads I started or participated before the latest patches about the situation of ranged and the need for change didn't contain valuable discussion, complaints, worries, and praise. Of course. Your attitude changed because this latest patch nerfed archery, plain and simple.
If you don't wear armor you will become a target for everybody on the server. "get a shield lol" is not an argument. This has been demonstrated innumerable times in the threads I just referred to. Just because you keep on repeating it will not change the fact that it's meaningless.
I'm sure if you were in the same situation as I am you'd come out as equally bitter. I tried for years (literally) to build some sort of compromise, but I've been welcomed with "get a shield lol", "deal with it" and little else. Enough to conclude that it's really pointless to argue constructively. Especially considering the sudden 180 degree change of attitude among ranged members of our community with the latest changes. Suddenly "deal with it" doesn't cut it anymore, does it? Maybe some of your complaints are valid and some adjustments could be made, but I honestly don't give a fuck. The rampant hypocrisy displayed here disgusts me.
Unlike you, Tydeus and San are here to actually build a compromise. They have to sit and listen to people (like you and me) building page-long biased pieces about balance and then try to find out what is actually wrong with the game. If you want to change something, discuss with them. As a bonus they have power, not me.
learn teamwork
Just a clarification: I was a beta-tester a long time ago.
Didn't see the threads, unfortunately.
Either way, even if things look good on paper, it's only when the changes hit that people are going to have the truest opinion.
I'm not sure what archers in those threads said, nor am I responsible for their attitude, nor have I ever created a thread like this, nor am I even an archer.
It's clear we have different opinions on how ranged should work.
I see ranged as an important component to gameplay that should be considered a serious threat, just like a long maul coming down on your head.
I'm getting the feeling you think ranged is an unfortunately necessary component that
hinders melee players from playing their classes with the least possible interference.
If I'm right, we're both touching on the unfortunate, yet real fact that archers are
supposed to be a hindrance.
When working as a team, even in an uncoordinated pub match, archers can soften melee targets for melee teammates, be a real threat to cavalry, and stun players in the middle of a fight.
That's always been the purpose, or at least it has been over the past couple years.
I do remember archers being
way the fuck OP in the early days.
Anyway, here's someone extending a hand, asking for
your input, whether I disagree with you or not.
The more input, the better.
