New archer limit for clan matches



  • My clan has been playing a lot of 5v5 LTS lately. We often use a 2 archer setup and are very effective with it. However, I don’t feel like this is a very fun set up to play against because the opposing team that has 1 or no archers usually gets eaten up by arrows and doesn’t really get a chance to use their melee skill against us very well. The archers tend to dominate the entire way the match is played when one or both teams have 2.

    When we play another team that has 2 archers, both teams play defensive until one team wounds the other. Whoever’s archers get the first kill or hits in will usually lose. So we have 2 teams hiding behind cover, waiting for the archers to do their work. It works, but I feel that competitive LTS would be more fun and balanced by limiting archers to 1 in 5v5 and 25% of team in other game modes.

    I am going to ask all of the clan leaders to post their vote here, aside from the poll. The poll is so we can see how everyone aside from the leaders feels about this. If we can come to a consensus that this is a good idea, lets make it a general rule for the competitive community.



  • I think it’s a good idea. For 5v5 LTS, 2 archers is too much. And just watching the 5v5 TO match-ups, I thought having 1 archer on each team is pretty good and that’s how it should be. (in my opinion)



  • Clan leader reporting in. Keep the 50%.



  • While the double archer set-up is effective if used correctly the same could be said for any competent strategy, it will be effective if used correctly. And just like any other competent strategies there are flaws and counters to the double archer set-up that many clans simply fail to utilize, rather than immediately jumping to conclusions and claiming that it’s overpowered and unbeatable try formulating a counter to it. :P we’ve seen int counter it rather well proving to us it’s extremely possible to counter.



  • The root beer crew (Arete) recently won a scrim against us using this two archer strategy. Thats our fault, not the setups. No team has ever won a tournament by playing defensively, I can’t wait to figure out the counter to it personally.

    EDIT: I don’t know how clear my message is, what I’m saying is 50% rule.



  • I believe the problem is with the format rather than the archer limit. Even with 1 archer per side the most effective tactic is to camp, make the enemy cross ground and get shot. Teams should be forced out of spawn areas and into play on all maps like arena. Obviously harder to do on a map like moor, but absolutely necessary if LTS is to become a competitive mode that is fun to play and watch, IMO.



  • I’d say keep the 50/50 rule. Double archer is definitely counterable so I wouldn’t consider it an issue.



  • Double archer is counterable.

    next.

    If anything needs to possibly change for 6v6 or 8v8 matches is the amount of knights to be able to use. 4 knights in 8v8s…. cmon.



  • I think 50% is high simply because it means that in 8v8 you can have a team composed of two classes. Encouraging diversification would be good, but 50% works for the 5v5 format.



  • I think class limits are stupid. I think all the dumb rules built up around competitive play are failure. Limiting that perspective and this perspective, limiting team composition. Its just annoying, if someone wants to run an all archer cheese strat deal with it. All knights? deal with it.

    class restrictions and any rules to clan matches are senseless. If going all 1 class doesnt gimp a team then class balance is off and that is a whole different issue.



  • This is why LTS sucks for 5 man and sucks in general. It is not really a good judge of skills with too much luck, ping and the first one to get in a hit usually wins, the game mode just sucks.

    A really good archer can shoot your feet even with Shields up and score kills. But I am torn with limiting it as much as I dislike many of the competition level rules. But since we really don’t play 5 man LTS all that much, I will abstain from an overall vote till I see where the rest of my clan stands on this issue and then represent that.



  • @JCash:

    I think class limits are stupid. I think all the dumb rules built up around competitive play are failure. Limiting that perspective and this perspective, limiting team composition. Its just annoying, if someone wants to run an all archer cheese strat deal with it. All knights? deal with it.

    class restrictions and any rules to clan matches are senseless. If going all 1 class doesnt gimp a team then class balance is off and that is a whole different issue.

    The game is designed to be balanced when teams pick several classes. This usually happens naturally in pub, but we need to enforce these kinds of things in organised play.

    All of these rules are designed to keep the game as deep as possible. Without them we’d have every team running 5 tower shield knights in 3rd person because that is the most effective. I think you’ll agree that this wouldn’t make the game more interesting.

    Also, about the new poll, limiting to 25% archer is a bad idea. I’m thinking especially for the javelineer which is essentially a melee unit and doesn’t replace a bow archer.



  • @NabsterHax:

    @JCash:

    I think class limits are stupid. I think all the dumb rules built up around competitive play are failure. Limiting that perspective and this perspective, limiting team composition. Its just annoying, if someone wants to run an all archer cheese strat deal with it. All knights? deal with it.

    class restrictions and any rules to clan matches are senseless. If going all 1 class doesnt gimp a team then class balance is off and that is a whole different issue.

    The game is designed to be balanced when teams pick several classes. This usually happens naturally in pub, but we need to enforce these kinds of things in organised play.

    All of these rules are designed to keep the game as deep as possible. Without them we’d have every team running 5 tower shield knights in 3rd person because that is the most effective. I think you’ll agree that this wouldn’t make the game more interesting.

    Also, about the new poll, limiting to 25% archer is a bad idea. I’m thinking especially for the javelineer which is essentially a melee unit and doesn’t replace a bow archer.

    if 5 tower shield knights beat a balanced team, that means there is a fundamental problem with the game’s combat mechanics.

    I agree 5 tower shield knights in a 5 v 5 would tend to always win.

    So what am I really saying here?

    Competitive play is useless until the devs fix the game, you’re going to have to impose silly arbitrary restrictions to make up for what this game lacks in balanced combat.



  • @JCash:

    if 5 tower shield knights beat a balanced team, that means there is a fundamental problem with the game’s combat mechanics.

    I agree 5 tower shield knights in a 5 v 5 would tend to always win.

    So what am I really saying here?

    Competitive play is useless until the devs fix the game, you’re going to have to impose silly arbitrary restrictions to make up for what this game lacks in balanced combat.

    If you knew anything about competitive play you would know that many comp scenes have to impose “silly” rules to make the game balanced (e.g TF2). Chivalry is one of the better ones so far.

    Unfortunately, game devs these days don’t really do the “comp-down” balance structure, apart from specific examples. But, apart from giving up playing comp entirely, what else are we to do?



  • @NabsterHax:

    @JCash:

    if 5 tower shield knights beat a balanced team, that means there is a fundamental problem with the game’s combat mechanics.

    I agree 5 tower shield knights in a 5 v 5 would tend to always win.

    So what am I really saying here?

    Competitive play is useless until the devs fix the game, you’re going to have to impose silly arbitrary restrictions to make up for what this game lacks in balanced combat.

    If you knew anything about competitive play you would know that many comp scenes have to impose “silly” rules to make the game balanced (e.g TF2). Chivalry is one of the better ones so far.

    Unfortunately, game devs these days don’t really do the “comp-down” balance structure, apart from specific examples. But, apart from giving up playing comp entirely, what else are we to do?

    I think since its a best out of 7 in lts, and since other game modes occur continuously, you have time to adapt to cheese tactics like all one of a certain class. It adds an interesting aspect to the meta game. But I understand my opinion is in the minority, and i dont give a damn at all about tf2 ITEM restrictions. Those might be silly too. Your comparison is failure, it doesnt prove your silly rules are more valid,you’re just giving me an example of possibly silly rules. Its just tossing in irrelevant information. Its a different game, why would certain rules being used in that…. you know what? Just trust me, fail.

    Isn’t this dev team designing the game for competitive players? If they’re shooting for a casual market they’re failing hard they need to lower the skill ceiling quite a bit.

    Again, i understand my opinion is in the minority, and im sure there are good arguments for either side, but my opinion, going all 1 class shouldnt grant a team a significant advantage, possibly it should disadvantage them. Ideally. I have no idea about practically, it probably does.



  • lol no, the devs definitely aren’t designing the game for competitive players. They don’t listen to the competitive players at all.

    And rules are there for a reason. Some might seem silly, but they’re needed to actually have a decent match.



  • @JCash:

    I think since its a best out of 7 in lts, and since other game modes occur continuously, you have time to adapt to cheese tactics like all one of a certain class. It adds an interesting aspect to the meta game. But I understand my opinion is in the minority, and i dont give a damn at all about tf2 ITEM restrictions. Those might be silly too. Your comparison is failure, it doesnt prove your silly rules are more valid,you’re just giving me an example of possibly silly rules. Its just tossing in irrelevant information. Its a different game, why would certain rules being used in that…. you know what? Just trust me, fail.

    Isn’t this dev team designing the game for competitive players? If they’re shooting for a casual market they’re failing hard they need to lower the skill ceiling quite a bit.

    You have some… interesting ideas about game design, I must say.

    My point with TF2 was that many competitions ban items because they aren’t balanced, or don’t fit with what the tournament is about. It is a highly competitive game and works just fine with community imposed limits, just like Chivalry, and loads of other games. Perhaps a better example would be their class limits.

    Devs are definitely NOT designing this game solely for competitive players, at all. If that was the case we would have seen proper spectating and less changes based around the pub community’s current whine topic. I think TBS are trying their best to accommodate both but the best thing they can do is make sure that they add as many options as possible to let competitive players decide exactly what they need.

    Also, there are more groups of gamer than “competitive” and “casual.” There are many gamers who enjoy playing competitive games, just not competitively in leagues and cups. (See counter-strike pub community) And you don’t need a low skill ceiling to keep it fun for casuals at all. That’s just crazy.



  • Having two archers may prove a big disadvantage unless they really really can make their shots perfect whilst the melee group that keeps the archers away from close-quarter combat lives, once they are dead, the archer then has to rely on a few shots till the enemy melee group have reached them, then they would have to use melee…something archer is already having a high disadvantage in.

    So, having a basic 50% rule works out great, if a teams wants two archers, they may aswell do that, they lose melee fighters in the attack group.

    Say we got a team of two Archers, one Man-at arms and two Knights, versus a team for Two Knights, Two Vanguards and One Man-at arms. The opposing attacking team will completely over run the three other melee fighters.



  • Having 2 archers normally puts pressure on the single archer in the oposing team, however the loss of melee has to be balanced out and kill atleast 1 melee before the engage. If the archers fail to remove one melee before the clash, they normally end up costing the team the game rather then being “awesome”

    “Archers gets kills, kills that the melee gave opportunity too kill”
    What I mean with that is that as archers might look flashy and all when they killed 3 players and die to the last, having that one extra knight or whatever might have given everybody 1 kill each. It is a interesting choice of action taking 2 archers, and it brings both advantages and disadvantages, so I do not think limiting this would serve any purpose at all.

    It would only limit strategic options, and for people who hates archers from the bottom of their heart and honestly believe they are that strong, do realise there is several tactics to anti-archer, for example do not fucking idle 24/7 on each side of the moor, but take fast regroups and push archer back etc



  • dead on


Log in to reply