I am more scared of a melee archer than any knight/vanguard



  • I’d rather fight against a brandistock any day.

    Discuss.



  • I’d rather fight an archer.

    Discuss.



  • Pfff stop your rant about archer seriously……



  • Archers aren’t that hard. I treat them like a skilled man at arms.



  • @Sirbarthelemy:

    Pfff stop your rant about archer seriously……

    quoted for truth



  • Men-at-Arms have archer weapons, faster movement speed and dodge, but they prefer to use their primaries - knights have men-at-arms primaries and prefer to use their own. This implies knight melee > MaA melee > archer melee.

    To me this is indicative of archer melee being perfectly fine for a ranged class. If we just gave them terrible weapons that had no chance whatsoever in melee it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable experience and you’d probably get bored with mowing down defenseless players eventually - otherwise I imagine you’d just play against bots.



  • @SOC:

    I’d rather fight against a brandistock any day.

    I agree with this.
    Archers should be more of a victim than an opponent when you get up close.
    They want it all……



  • Lately, as a pubber, I haven’t been as concerned about meleeing archers. When I get to them they’re usually really inexperienced in melee, and generally fall for every tactic- even just a riposte stab.

    But I do know that when you fight a good archer it’s ridiculous how dangerous they can be. An archer with the ability to parry really well (say an archer who has played significant amounts of melee) can be incredibly dangerous due to their sheer speed. Whereas I won’t be able to hit him with my slower weapons that would do more damage, he’s got a really easy time landing blows with lightning feints, really REALLY fast weapon speeds, and erratic movements that can easily trip you up. It’s not that I normally freak out and parry early in melee, it’s that the weapons have absolutely no warning. If you see movement you think might be a stab you must parry NOW or be hit, especially so in a riposte situation. Adds to their feinting danger, too.

    Often-times all it takes is a feint for him to get a hit in and begin scooting around your side, usually requiring you to soak up an additional 1 or 2 hits in order to get your parry in.

    The worst of it is, at least duel-wise, by the time you get to them he’s got a decent chance of draining some life already. I understand I can do things to avoid it, but not all archers are created equally, and some have no issue nailing you as you serpentine, or even when you have a tower shield up. Now you’re fighting a guy who is way faster than you, and it’s only going to take 3 slashes to kill you.

    I suppose their fastest weapons are really bad on range, though.

    I would probably rather fight an archer, though.



  • I’d rather fight against a brandistock any day.

    so why don’t the Vanguards use their Short Sword, Saber or Cudgel on you, then? with the same speed and significantly better armor, but with Charge io backstab bonus.



  • I would rather melee an archer.

    But I would rather run 200 yards over to a knight or vanguard.



  • @SlyGoat:

    Men-at-Arms have archer weapons, faster movement speed and dodge, but they prefer to use their primaries - knights have men-at-arms primaries and prefer to use their own. This implies knight melee > MaA melee > archer melee.

    To me this is indicative of archer melee being perfectly fine for a ranged class. If we just gave them terrible weapons that had no chance whatsoever in melee it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable experience and you’d probably get bored with mowing down defenseless players eventually - otherwise I imagine you’d just play against bots.

    Man at arms and knights are front line fighters who often engage enemies who start a fight with full health + stam. They need weapons with more damage than the short sword to take those enemies out in a timely, efficient manner. They also engage closer to the rest of the team in larger engagements where range is much more prominent. Though, funny to note, most sane knights will drop to their broad to fight archers unless they have a Messer atm. Otherwise the archer is actually on par with them. Archers, on the other hand, most often encounter bloodied foes who have already expended stamina. There is a case that can be made (albeit I feel a poor one) that archer melee is in a good place so I’m hoping the above quote was just your attempt to dismiss someone’s concern without having to engage in substantive discussion.

    Mithron’s statement is a bit sensationalist but not unwarranted. Not only is there the fact that most times melee’s interactions with archers come in precisely the scenario I listed above, but also there is the added pressure of, “If I fuck up vs an archer, that is embarassing”. And it would be if archer melee wasn’t so damn strong and was in a proper place, but it isn’t I don’t feel. Also, there can be an argument made that Knights and Vg’s w/ slow weapons shouldn’t have to switch to their secondary to not be at a disadvantage vs a class that has had advantage on them the entire ranged portion of the engagement. All these factors can contribute to why a good player would be more fearful of archer melee than knight/vg melee.

    A less contentious statement might be that I’d rather fight 2v1 against 2 knights rather than 2 archers or especially an archer and another class. The speed and incredibly short recovery time of the relatively damaging shortsword stab make it incredibly viable in small engagements.

    Nonetheless, I don’t think anyone is proposing the less attractive option in your false dichotomy that we “just [give] them terrible weapons that [have] no chance whatsoever in melee”. A slight windup/recovery/combo would still allow archers to punish sloppy melee but give that melee a more suitable advantage in… well… melee.



  • Unless the archer is Alice, I’m definitely more wary of a brandistock now.



  • @SlyGoat:

    Men-at-Arms have archer weapons, faster movement speed and dodge, but they prefer to use their primaries - knights have men-at-arms primaries and prefer to use their own. This implies knight melee > MaA melee > archer melee.

    To me this is indicative of archer melee being perfectly fine for a ranged class. If we just gave them terrible weapons that had no chance whatsoever in melee it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable experience and you’d probably get bored with mowing down defenseless players eventually - otherwise I imagine you’d just play against bots.

    ^

    I wonder why “If your weapon isn’t quick enough- draw your secondary once in your life already” is apparently never a valid argument. Some lookdown overheads are still even faster than a thrusting dagger…



  • so weapons are a rock < paper < scissor cycle of heavy weapons < light weapons < medium weapons?



  • Hey why don’t we give MaA the backstab bonus huh? 8-)



  • I’d trade it for firepots… deal?



  • @SlyGoat:

    it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable experience and you’d probably get bored with mowing down defenseless players eventually

    Don’t archers get to do exactly this with ranged weapons?



  • @Josh:

    @SlyGoat:

    it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable experience and you’d probably get bored with mowing down defenseless players eventually

    Don’t archers get to do exactly this with ranged weapons?

    To say that people are defenseless against archers from a distance is funny.



  • well, it’s kinda true. you can protect yourself, but you can’t retaliate until you get closer.

    still, no melee defence at all wouldn’t be satisfactory. sometimes you go after an Archer that doesn’t switch weapon, and to have them just stand there till you’ve hit them enough for them to die is…just…no. every Archer would just f10 whenever enemies get close i’m sure.



  • @NoVaLombardia:

    @Josh:

    @SlyGoat:

    it wouldn’t be a very enjoyable experience and you’d probably get bored with mowing down defenseless players eventually

    Don’t archers get to do exactly this with ranged weapons?

    To say that people are defenseless against archers from a distance is funny.

    If you don’t equip a shield, you are defenseless. Calling movement a defense well… sure you can move, dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge… but i mean if they shoot you with an arrow, you can’t parry it, your armor won’t block it… so you get hit. You are defenseless in the fact that you can’t do anything about an arrow hitting you. And most of the time at least when i get hit by archers, i either just swung at someone, or just parried, or am either moving in and out of the melee engagements. It’s tough to worry about archers all the time while you’re busy in melee combat, you can’t just not worry about them if they’re attacking you… so in that sense you’re totally defenseless. I know because when i’m an archer i look for those moments specifically as do any other archer.

    For the melee part, i’d surely rather fight an archer than the fucking brandi… the knockback is really what gives that behemoth crazy power, plus the reach, damage, and the slash speed. It’s sometimes impossible especially mixed with feinting to get inside their area of damage. Sometimes though i do think that archer melee is very strong, just playing as an archer i have no issue taking down knights, vanguards, or maa… especially with the saber. I think the melee should tone down to the way it was before, i thought it was perfect for archer, you could still kill but aren’t overpowered in the melee sector either. You have a class that’s so powerful with bows and the only true ranged class, and they also have super powerful melee. Most new players can’t even parry half the shit you throw at them with the saber, it’s really basically a men at arms that can’t dodge. And i only use dodge defensively anyhow with maa, so it’s not entirely needed.


Log in to reply