Gameplay Immersion and the importance of functional archers.



  • Like many of the people on this forum i’ve been playing chivalry since it’s release, and still find it to be a great game. However there seems to be a persistent negative reaction against the archer class. I’d like to make a suggestion about why this is so, and why it should stay like that in order to preserve gameplay immersion.

    Historically the bow was the pinnacle of technology across various civilisations for centuries. In nearly every one of these cultures the skill and physical strength required to wield a bow (whether a peasant of nobleman) elevated that individual into a class of their own, and were revered in their respective societies. Until the crossbow was invented ofcourse, but that is besides the point. It was a weapon to be feared respected. You’ll notice also that the modern methods of war relie heavily on ranged combat and the numerous benefits it provides…

    It is this seemingly universal point that makes me think that archers range damage should not be directly nerfed.

    HOWEVER. I do think focus should be put into mitigating archer damage through the improvment of the other classes ability to avoid being hit. Ideas like increasing the effectiveness of smoke bombs, lowering the damage knights take in their legs whilst using tower shields. Or increasing the spacing on the archer crosshair to increase the skill curve…

    If anyone has ideas along this line of thinking I’d like to hear them.



  • Maybe make the crosshair wave about a bit so there aren’t any bluetack users


  • Global Moderator

    You can try all you like to suggest things like this.

    Torn banner is too lazy to do anything beyond value changing and much of the community don’t give a shit about archers and just want to make them useless.



  • There are lots of good suggestions for improving archers floating about at the moment, and they all revolve around making archers a much more skill based class, and making them far more fragile in melee.

    There’s always going to be hatred for archers though, because they’re a troll class. Most people play this game for the awesome melee, but the whole point of archers is to interrupt and harass people engaging in in that melee; Twelve second re-spawn, fifteen second run to the front line only to get head popped by a guy you can’t get to…of course it’s annoying.

    Reducing damage isn’t the way to go, they need to make archer harder to play, but there are tons of suggestions on how to do this already on the forums. The problem is, I doubt TB have the resources to implement them at the moment. Maybe when they’ve released the console, mac and Linux ports they’ll have time to rework some of the mechanics and come up with more intelligent nerfs.



  • Lower projectile velocity to that of the light sabres mod would make arrows dodgeable.



  • This game is far from realistic, and doesn’t need to be realistic. Archers need to be balanced like Knights and vanguards, honestly they need damage nerfs as well as fundamental mechanic changes that makes them require more skill. To be perfectly honest I’m really tired of a class I can’t do anything about (unless I also play archer) making such a significant impact on the entire match. Buffing shields, smoke, nerfing their damage, and changing their mechanics isn’t going to change the fact they will land a shot on you at some crucial moment and you will lose the game and there was nothing you could do about it. A single archer will always make an impact on the game far more than any knight or vanguard.



  • I don’t attack a lot, but if I do and the enemy archers keeps pinning us down I switch to archer myself, obviously with the regular crossbow or warbow. First after I’ve done that we (the attacking team) are able to progress because their archers are dead. I don’t know why people keep defending archers current state at all.



  • @lemonater47:

    You can try all you like to suggest things like this.

    Torn banner is too lazy to do anything beyond value changing and much of the community don’t give a shit about archers and just want to make them useless.

    You are right, but it’s still good to put thoughts like this into people’s heads for the future. Chivalry: Medieval Warfare will eventually be given over to the community out of neccessity. That or we’ll take it for ourselves when TB runs out of money.

    @SOC:

    This game is far from realistic, and doesn’t need to be realistic. Archers need to be balanced like Knights and vanguards

    I don’t think I said anything about realism… The idea that you can balance for long range combat by reducing damage in way that makes it “fair” is a fallacy. It’s a great way to make the Archer class boring to play, more frustrating to fight whilst reducing the continuity of the gameplay.

    @Harry:

    Reducing damage isn’t the way to go, they need to make archer harder to play, but there are tons of suggestions on how to do this already on the forums.

    I agree with your post. I guess it’s a waiting game. In a way that’s a good thing because it gives time for the ideas to seperate. Let the good ideas come to the surface and the bad ones sink to the bottom. Just trying to slow the archer hate fermenting on this forum. I can’t imagine the job of sifting through these threads, let alone gauging the communities opinions on what needs changing and why.



  • The fact that the bow was a respected weapon should be used as a justification for not directly nerfing the damage done by archers? I’m sorry, OP, but that’s just silly. Certainly, there are probably better ways to nerf (or better yet, improve) the archer class beyond simply reducing their ranged damage, but every viable option should be on the table and duly considered, realism be damned.



  • @DaciaJC:

    The fact that the bow was a respected weapon should be used as a justification for not directly nerfing the damage done by archers? I’m sorry, OP, but that’s just silly. Certainly, there are probably better ways to nerf (or better yet, improve) the archer class beyond simply reducing their ranged damage, but every viable option should be on the table and duly considered, realism be damned.

    I never meantioned realism. Realism and gameplay immersion can be worlds apart. Mabye I’ve miscommunicated my point, but I was not saying it’s historical standing alone is justification for not nerfing it’s damage. I was using it as an example to demonstrate that ranged weaponry is fundamentally superior. You can’t level out the playing field between melee and range with a damage reduction because they are simply mechanically different.

    Not to say they should NEVER touch archer range damage, but It’s important to think about ways to decrease the players feeling of helplessness when being targeted by archers. A damage nerf doesn’t accomplish this, though a simply implemented ways for players to avoid getting hit in the first place might. I don’t have any ideas like that, which is one of the reasons i posted this thread.



  • @lemonater47:

    You can try all you like to suggest things like this.

    Torn banner is too lazy to do anything beyond value changing and much of the community don’t give a shit about archers and just want to make them useless.

    You are right, but it’s still good to put thoughts like this into people’s heads for the future. Chivalry: Medieval Warfare will eventually be given over to the community out of neccessity. That or we’ll take it for ourselves when TB runs out of money.

    @SOC:

    This game is far from realistic, and doesn’t need to be realistic. Archers need to be balanced like Knights and vanguards

    I don’t remember saying anything about realism. The idea that you can balance for long range combat by reducing damage in way that makes it “fair” is a fallacy. It’s a great way to make the Archer class boring to play, more frustrating to fight whilst reducing the continuity of the gameplay.

    @Harry:

    Reducing damage isn’t the way to go, they need to make archer harder to play, but there are tons of suggestions on how to do this already on the forums.

    I agree with your post. I guess it’s a waiting game. In a way that’s a good thing because it gives time for the ideas to seperate. Let the good ideas come to the surface and the bad ones sink to the bottom. Just trying to slow the archer hate fermenting on this forum. I can’t imagine the job of sifting through these threads, let alone gauging the communities opinions on what needs changing and why.



  • @FlakeyJoe:

    The idea that you can balance for long range combat by reducing damage in way that makes it “fair” is a fallacy.

    How is this a fallacy? This is how balance works.


  • Mod

    @lemonater47:

    You can try all you like to suggest things like this.

    Torn banner is too lazy to do anything beyond value changing and much of the community don’t give a shit about archers and just want to make them useless.

    Pretty much this



  • @dudeface:

    How is this a fallacy? This is how balance works.

    Because it still leaves non-archer players with few ways to actively avoid being hit, or even to mitigate damage. You can’t balance it in the same way you balance melee on melee, that’s my point. It’ll still be frustrating to get hit by arrows and probably make the archer class less fun to play. We need more things to counter archers outside of counter arching to create “perfect imbalance”.

    Also sorry for the double-post.



  • Well, Dudette is right though. Changing game mechanics can lead to balance, but it’s not balance.



  • @FlakeyJoe:

    The idea that you can balance for long range combat by reducing damage in way that makes it “fair” is a fallacy. It’s a great way to make the Archer class boring to play, more frustrating to fight whilst reducing the continuity of the gameplay.

    You mean like how it is right now? lol



  • @FlakeyJoe:

    I don’t think I said anything about realism…

    I don’t think i said anything about realism, i just …Historically the bow was the pinnacle of technology across various civilisations for centuries. In nearly every one of these cultures the skill and physical strength required to wield a bow (whether a peasant of nobleman) elevated that individual into a class of their own, and were revered in their respective societies.

    and then I… It is this seemingly universal point that makes me think that archers range damage should not be directly nerfed.

    nothing on this forum is universal. being overpowered is fun as long as you’re the overpowered one right?



  • @SOC:

    You mean like how it is right now? lol

    Yes. I’d like to see some change too.

    @50ShadesofClay:

    nothing on this forum is universal. being overpowered is fun as long as you’re the overpowered one right?

    I was talking about the evolution of ranged weaponry (namely the bow) across multiple cultures that often had no communication what so ever. Not this forum. I tried to use the real world as an example to describe how haphazard nerfs may have an unintended effect on gameplay immersion/game “feel”. Also why do you assume I main archer? That’s simply not the case.



  • But seriously, f warbow gets the 100 damage back then there’s once again no real reason to use longbow.



  • @Xylvion:

    But seriously, f warbow gets the 100 damage back then there’s once again no real reason to use longbow.

    Yeah tbh I don’t know why I wrote that TB shouldn’t rebalance bow damage at all, because that definately needs to happen.

    I was more trying to say that it’s not the solution to the complaints and that more thought should be going elsewhere. I just think there is probably ways TB could use certain loadouts that already exist within the game as anti-archer elements without requiring some massive overhaul.

    The key to the problem is somewhere hidden in the semi-dysfunctional weapons/items that TB has already put in.