Archer Discussion - Mercs Mod - Opinions appreciated =)



  • Hi Everyone,

    Some of you may know me, I go by SkiLlZz =) Aside from registering my team up for tournaments and advertising my live stream this is my first official post on the forums.

    My post today revolves around the current archer debate that most people are buzzing about this past week. I’ve enjoyed playing this game for thousands of hours over the course of 2 years, I’ve had a lot of fun moments to say the least lol… (Most of which as an archer). So I’d like to think I have a really good understanding of my class and how it effects competitive play and the game itself as a whole.

    Last month players from our community decided to create a council to discuss how the game we currently play should be balanced, a total of 12 players from multiple clans. I supported this decision and agreed that good things can come from it. So far I’ve agreed with and disputed a lot of the changes as anyone with a voice should do.

    This past week the discussion for archers took place among the council and to be real honest I was not surprised by the proposed changes though was a little surprised at the way a lot of the council members conducted themselves. I will agree that the changes to archer is based on a great idea which is (Archers should only be a support class while in competitive play) Key word “support”. Which I agree with completely, after playing and practicing with every archer weapon and over the past two years I realize that our class is considered a high risk high reward class. If you play the class and aren’t good then you will barely be noticed, if you’re good then you can carry a team which is what we want to eliminate to conduct an appropriate balance… But not at the expense of an archers independence… I’ve been told by multiple people on the council that it not so much to support as it is to only “assist” the mele class which I do not agree with at all. Support yes, only assist no…

    I have posted a link to the changes that the council will be moving forward with sometime within the next 7 - 14 days.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H-0tG5Gx6QhO7n_016zpaqQ-vWBXRUgS909eEN7iw04/edit#gid=1128583368

    These damage nerfs make it so an archer would barely make a dent in taking down a target other then an archer which would make sense if you’re looking at it in terms of (only assisting mele and mele being the sole output of damage to the enemy) which I think would be a big mistake. Taking away incentive to play a class is never a good thing…

    I will give you an example: Regular xbow setup

    Regular crossbow nerf - 30 damage torso hit to knight (4 shot kill) 48 damage to vanguard (3 shot kill)
    2h sword buff/1h sword buff (most 2 handed swords can now 1 shot archers)

    We are now weaker in mele by being more inclined to be taken out of the fight by 1 mele hit and have very little damage out put to heavier mele classes… For argument sake lets say I’m in a 5v5 scrim on defense stones hill first objective. Like the pesky bitch we all know I can be I’m trying to hold the left hill by making sure no one can get through me. Also for argument sake two of my teammates have died to the enemy and we are losing the mele engagement (it is now a 3v5). My team is overwhelmed and I have two knights rushing me and I’m now the only player left standing. each knight has the majority of their health and they want me dead. I average a 50% accuracy rating and a decent reload speed with reg xbow so I know I am only able to get two shots off before they reach me depending on how far away I am… They are zig zagging to try and dodge my arrows. Lets say my experience kicks in and I make both shots and shoot each knight to the torso. (which is where most archers aim). They are now near 70% health and I’m forced to go mele. 2 knights… 1 archer… 1 hit till death… Do the math… Due to ammo reductions if I want more then 10 bolts I have to lose my pavise shield so I’m exposed to axes which sucks even more as I’m reloading, I may not even be able to reload if I want more then 10 bolts.

    These changes leave no incentive to play crossbow, the new meta will be warbow because that is the only weapon remotely close to being strong enough to make a dent into the enemy’s force. Don’t get me wrong I do agree with a lot of the archer changes but some of them are just ridiculous. However the community has taken the reigns of developing and balancing this game so I will let you be the judge.

    This scenario would be difficult if it was just 1 knight…

    I was told by one of the council members that this post won’t make any difference which I assume means to just accept and take these changes the way they are presented… However I’ve talked to a lot of people who are also not happy with these changes so by making this post I hope that I’ve represented your concerns by giving it a voice.

    Moving forward I would like the balance council to actually take into consideration the concerns the rest of the competitive community is expressing which is what I thought your role was to begin with. Not to simply make decisions according to what you think is right but to discuss the concerns of those in your clan you are supposed to be representing.

    Rathion so far has been the only one on the council who has really listened and taken consideration to what I’ve had to say by allowing me to get my point across without arguing with me before I can do so. So I wanted to give you recognition. =) youz mah new bae.

    Anyways… I would be really interested in hearing the opinions of the rest of the community, the spreadsheet is posted in this thread so you are fully aware of the changes.

    I do appreciate the council for taking out the time to help this game grow, it shoes dedication and I am grateful. Though if no one on the current council is willing to speak up against this then I will do so for everyone.

    Sorry for the long post guys… If i had a potato I would attach it to the bottom.



  • Take out backstab, fine. Take out flinch, okay. Mercs nerfed short sword by increasing windup, alright. Instead of patching Light Xbow and short spear, it’s just a total blanket nerf on everything because we aren’t supposed to kill, we’re supposed to tickle apparently. Please reconsider, put Skillz on the counsil.



  • Archer flinch is coming back along with the damage changes, but I also want to make it clear that none of them are final and are all subject to change if backed by enough support & reasoning. I’d post more but I’m tired, so I’ll leave that to Height/Omega and hope they conjure up an essay.



  • its just a test i have a rly gud feeling archers will hit like kittens with these changes but i have to see with my own 2 eyes



  • Well I’d like to preface this all by saying this is a TEST BUILD. We’re just testing things to see how they work… to criticize it before you’ve tried it is already presumptive. To do it on the TBS forums trying to “speak up against this…for everyone” sounds… yeah…

    @T:

    I will agree that the changes to archer is based on a great idea which is (Archers should only be a support class while in competitive play) Key word “support”. Which I agree with completely, after playing and practicing with every archer weapon and over the past two years I realize that our class is considered a high risk high reward class. If you play the class and aren’t good then you will barely be noticed, if you’re good then you can carry a team which is what we want to eliminate to conduct an appropriate balance… But not at the expense of an archers independence… I’ve been told by multiple people on the council that it not so much to support as it is to only “assist” the mele class which I do not agree with at all. Support yes, only assist no…

    I mean besides the fact I’ve never heard anyone on the council say it shouldn’t be support (and if you absolutely wanted I’m sure I could hit up Spook to get the recording of pretty much everyone on the council agreeing it should be support), what would that even mean? Assist and support are more or less the same thing. If you support someone, you help them accomplish something. If you assist someone, you help them accomplish something. I don’t understand…

    I have posted a link to the changes that the council will be moving forward with sometime within the next 7 - 14 days.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H-0tG5Gx6QhO7n_016zpaqQ-vWBXRUgS909eEN7iw04/edit#gid=1128583368

    As I mentioned above, this is a TEST Build. I’ve gone on record (before this post was made and Spook can probably show you the recording) in saying I actually think its quite likely the numbers that go through finally will be less of a nerf, but we’ll have to play to find out. So just keep in mind that “changes” means “TEST changes”.

    These damage nerfs make it so an archer would barely make a dent in taking down a target other then an archer which would make sense if you’re looking at it in terms of (only assisting mele and mele being the sole output of damage to the enemy) which I think would be a big mistake. Taking away incentive to play a class is never a good thing…

    Well besides the fact that “taking away incentive to play a class” is technically true of any overall nerf so you’d have to commit yourself to the position that overall nerfing any class is never a good thing (which I don’t think you mean to say), is this just hyperbole of what you actually believe? If Warbow bodkins and Crossbow bringing Vg’s into 1-shot range of EVERY Knight and Vanguard primary with one torso shot is “barely a dent”… maybe. We also upped headshot multipliers so even shortbow bodkin (which now has archer flinch, will be a bit faster than in live, and has more ammo than ever) takes out half a knight’s health with a headshot. Don’t get me started on Heavy Crossbow or the Javs… how are these not significant damages? Many of them are actually more than or equal to tons of melee weapons that are common…

    I will give you an example: Regular xbow setup

    Regular crossbow nerf - 30 damage torso hit to knight (4 shot kill) 48 damage to vanguard (3 shot kill)
    2h sword buff/1h sword buff (most 2 handed swords can now 1 shot archers)

    I mean 48 damage to a vg puts them 1shottable by EVERY knight and vg primary weapon the game, and most 2 handed swords could always 1 shot archer. We literally haven’t changed any htk’s for them…

    We are now weaker in mele by being more inclined to be taken out of the fight by 1 mele hit and have very little damage out put to heavier mele classes…

    Certain attacks do more damage, but htk’s are pretty much even. we’re talking about one type of attack doing 10% more damage that changes incredibly little. In melee, every bit of damage can matter because the melee classes are a bit tankier so there’s more opportunities for damage to stack up. In live, you’re either one shot or two shot if you’re an archer. It’s the same way here… though there are much fewer trades against archers now because of first hit flinch. Archers can flinch easier without as much fear of hit-trade, so yeah.

    For argument sake lets say I’m in a 5v5 scrim on defense stones hill first objective. Like the pesky bitch we all know I can be I’m trying to hold the left hill by making sure no one can get through me. Also for argument sake two of my teammates have died to the enemy and we are losing the mele engagement (it is now a 3v5). My team is overwhelmed and I have two knights rushing me and I’m now the only player left standing. each knight has the majority of their health and they want me dead. I average a 50% accuracy rating and a decent reload speed with reg xbow so I know I am only able to get two shots off before they reach me depending on how far away I am… They are zig zagging to try and dodge my arrows. Lets say my experience kicks in and I make both shots and shoot each knight to the torso. (which is where most archers aim). They are now near 70% health and I’m forced to go mele. 2 knights… 1 archer… 1 hit till death… Do the math… Due to ammo reductions if I want more then 10 bolts I have to lose my pavise shield so I’m exposed to axes which sucks even more as I’m reloading, I may not even be able to reload if I want more then 10 bolts.

    So here is why this is a cherrypicked, inapplicable, and virtually meaningless argument:
    1. You start this scenario after the melee have already engaged. Archers have ranged dominance and is the class BY FAR most capable of affecting the fight before the melee engages. You’re basically saying lets evaluate how effective archer is in this scenario after one of their largest advantages has been negated. I mean, if they’re able to break off two knights to run at you… actually…

    2. You picked a scenario where their core is breaking off to fight you? MAA’s I can see… Vg’s even. But two knights? This very very rarely happens. If one is an MAA, they’re 2 shottable by your weapon. If they’re a Vg, then you can get them heavy kickable. Of course, that’s if you hit the same one… which why wouldn’t you? I mean, once one is low, wouldn’t u want to aim at that one again instead of hitting one of each? Speaking of which?

    3. Wait, so these are two FULL health knights? They just got shot at before the engagement, got through throwables and firepots, and engaged in the melee, and they still haven’t been touched?

    4. And they can get to you before you can get 3 shots off? Shoot, 3.5s (reload, recover, aim), shoot, 3.5s (reload, recover, aim), shoot. That means that knights, the slowest class in the game, are zig-zagging and trying to use what cover they can while still moving forward and yet they still get to you in 7 seconds? This is probably because you play very close to your team, but you do this for easier shots. If this happens, its a good downside to have.

    5. This is a situation you have relatively no chance in even in LIVE. Instead of 2 of them at 70% health (each 3htk with shortsword stabs), you’d have 2 of them at a bit under 50% health which would be 2htk with shortsword stabs. What you’re basically saying is “I don’t want this 98% impossible situation to become 99% impossible”… I just don’t see that as meaningful.

    These changes leave no incentive to play crossbow, the new meta will be warbow because that is the only weapon remotely close to being strong enough to make a dent into the enemy’s force. Don’t get me wrong I do agree with a lot of the archer changes but some of them are just ridiculous. However the community has taken the reigns of developing and balancing this game so I will let you be the judge.

    This scenario would be difficult if it was just 1 knight…

    It’s weird… I’ve had people say that the relative balance of bows vs xbows with these changes will give no reason to go bows over xbows.

    I was told by one of the council members that this post won’t make any difference which I assume means to just accept and take these changes the way they are presented… However I’ve talked to a lot of people who are also not happy with these changes so by making this post I hope that I’ve represented your concerns by giving it a voice.

    It’s weird… I actually talked to you briefly about the values and you said you were okay with them if I recall correctly… Remember when you, me, and omega were in ts3?

    Moving forward I would like the balance council to actually take into consideration the concerns the rest of the competitive community is expressing which is what I thought your role was to begin with. Not to simply make decisions according to what you think is right but to discuss the concerns of those in your clan you are supposed to be representing.

    I’ve done this with my clan, have talked to others about their opinions (including you briefly btw…), and have encouraged all council members to do the same. In fact, we just started talking today in a meeting about a way to have class specialists vote on the council only on specific items that affect thier class to allow more community input. Hell, I even go on random MERCS servers just to ask people what they think.

    Rathion so far has been the only one on the council who has really listened and taken consideration to what I’ve had to say by allowing me to get my point across without arguing with me before I can do so. So I wanted to give you recognition. =) youz mah new bae.

    By the time I showed up in TS3, you seemed pretty good with the changes and said as long as the values for your xbow were what they were in the sheet that you were good more or less. I know at least Omega has talked to me about what you think during our balance discussions. That said, I think you may be mistaking disagreeing for not having “really listened and taken consideration”.

    Anyways… I would be really interested in hearing the opinions of the rest of the community, the spreadsheet is posted in this thread so you are fully aware of the changes.

    I do appreciate the council for taking out the time to help this game grow, it shoes dedication and I am grateful. Though if no one on the current council is willing to speak up against this then I will do so for everyone.

    Flame and Dofoo have been vocal about trying to minimize archer nerfs. Flame is a large reason for the 200% head damage multipliers for bows hitting melee.

    Sorry for the long post guys… If i had a potato I would attach it to the bottom.

    Ditto :P



  • @Anstii:

    Take out backstab, fine. Take out flinch, okay. Mercs nerfed short sword by increasing windup, alright. Instead of patching Light Xbow and short spear, it’s just a total blanket nerf on everything because we aren’t supposed to kill, we’re supposed to tickle apparently. Please reconsider, put Skillz on the counsil.

    Backstab was meaningless more or less, just broken with javs so TBS took it out. This build has you getting flinch back, and the ability to flinch instead of hit-trade buffs the shortsword.

    See my above response to why this build is far from “tickling”, though we will see once we test. These values are not final in any way. Please try not to jump to conclusions. Jumping to conclusions is easy… being patient and intelligently appraising situations is the only way the community is going to do this.



  • These changes were implemented with a landslide vote and it is common knowledge that archers have been overpowered since the game was released. Removing flinch did virtually nothing, and nerfing warbow just made it xbow meta where archers just peg the melee the whole time which is much worse than before.

    Archers are an extremely powerful class due to the fact that nothing can effectively counter them but other archers. Using a pavisse shield renders counter archery pretty much pointless, so it’s just a matter of which archer is better at hitting the melee players. The ease of landing shots is far too great to justify the damage dealt. It’s simply absurd. Crossbow in the vanilla game puts a vanguard at 10% health, which puts him in firepot range. That means that the second tankiest class in the game can be easily dispatched right away. A simple laser beam shot to the chest and then an AOE finisher. Two shots to the torso takes out a knight, which is also ridiculous.

    Light crossbow is the worst offender because of the high DPS. One shot, a firepot and an axe can kill a knight from full health. With potentially 8 throwing axes on the field in a 6v6 match, this makes every engagement decided right away by projectiles. In a melee game. I’ve seen archers kill two people with ease within 5 seconds, because of how simple it is to shoot a laser beam at people that can’t shoot back and are forced to rush to the objective. Archer melee is also very formidable so archers can easily take out wounded enemies once they finally reach the objective.

    Also archers are extremely crucial in competitive play due to the fact that they can sit on the objective, defend it from flanks and still influence the main fight massively. On the flip side an archer is the optimal class to have pushing the cart on attacking since, once again, they can still assist in the fight while being on the objective.

    The power of being able to one shot someone from across the map before the melee engagement even begins cannot be overstated. Also just tagging two people will critically weaken the enemy team, since those two players become one hit away from most of the weapons on the field, especially men at arms and vanguards. As I said before, combine this with throwing axes and firepots that can burn multiple people, and you have many people dying solely from projectiles. Vanguards can get hit by a throwing axe and then killed by almost every archer weapon.

    These damage nerfs are not extreme at all when you take into consideration that damage stacks in TO. Every bit is very valuable. Focusing on hit to kill is the wrong way to look at it. We purposefully designed it so that archers could no longer single people out across the map and simply kill them. You complain about crossbow taking 3 hits to kill vanguards, but don’t take into account that after that vanguard has been shot once in the chest they are one hit away from most of the weapons on the field. SoW, spear, messer, etc etc. Not to mention all the more damaging ones that would kill a vanguard even after they got hit by a shortbow. If you hit a knight with crossbow for 30%, he is two hits away from halberd, zweihander, bearded axe, poleaxe, etc etc. These changes really don’t change all that much besides removing the focus from one person and just killing them easily. It becomes more valuable to aim for multiple people. If you shoot people once, they become much easier to kill for your team.

    Another thing to stress is that this is unblockable damage from range that is only counterable by another archer, and using a pavisse shield pretty much negates that aspect. The skill of the archer is the only thing that comes into play because dodging arrows is completely luck based and you also having to worry about dodging axes and firepots and actually fighting.

    So if you look at the damage numbers on the proposal you will see that bodkins and crossbows have definitive advantages against melee when it comes to making them weak to melee weapons, and that broadheads are really good at counter arching. And indeed counter arching was buffed in general. If you think about each damage value in relation to other weapons you will see that this really doesn’t change much besides making it so that archers can’t just focus a target and kill it. They do significant damage to support, but they are no longer a hard carry.

    Edit: Also as stated by others, archer flinch is being re-implemented and saber and cudgel are receiving damage buffs. Saber can two shot MAA with overheads and cudgel can three hit knights with overheads.



  • i think most of the archer imbalance stems from the lack of counter plays

    let melee players parry projectiles and we will see less OPness

    as it stands i can sit behind my team with a crossbow and 2 shot big daddy crushed, by far the best knight EU with the exact same amount of effort as any other knight in the game



  • I don’t know skillz, compare lcb to longbow bodkin. So weakest xbow against mid tier bow in a counter melee setup. Same hit to kill across the board and are virtually the same except you have a pavise, less drop off than a warbow, fire faster, and if you don’t choose the pavise you have around the same amount of ammo. I think those are a lot more benefits and that means the lcb already starts to walk in on warbow stats. I see no reason for the weakest crossbow to even contend with the strongest and slowest bow.

    Now if you compare lcb with longbow broadhead (counter archer setup) You still have all the same hit to kills except for archer torso. You still have all the wonderful crossbow benefits and pretty much outpace longbow again and start to walk in on best bow range. It just seems like you want the obviously over powered lcb meta to stay around.

    If comparing warbow bodkin to reg crossbow which is reasonable since they have roughly the same reload time, again you have all the same hit to kills except on knight where bodkin pulls ahead. But then you have the pavise and laser shooting to make up for that little dip in knight damage.

    But, since bows will be all about counter arching, the smarter choice would be to go longbow for that since it is a much better counter arching weapon than the warbow with basically identical stats on broadhead along with the perks of being faster to fire, more ammo, and faster walk speed. Now there is a huge disparity between regular crossbow and broadhead longbow where mid tier crossbow just destroys all of its stats.

    If you compare warbow broad to regular xbow, all the hit to kills are again essentially the same except you do more damage to vanguards and knights. Sure you can’t headshot maa, but again you have laser shooting and the pavise. Warbow ammo only has a few more shots so the trade off really isn’t that crazy.

    So, in my opinion, crossbows are more than viable enough, but at least now bows stand a little bit more of a chance. So, if you want to be different and play something other than Chivalry: Laser Warfare, it wont hurt your team or your anus as much when matching up against crossbows.



  • Such a good read, that’s why I like this game. Mercs mod is pure gold. Go on prease, as I have nothing to add but KILL THE FUCKING ARCHERS KILL THEM ALL. I don’t even have all crossbows unlocked, wouldn’t even know where to start when balancing such essentially hard to balance class.



  • @HeightofAbsurdity:

    Well I’d like to preface this all by saying this is a TEST BUILD. We’re just testing things to see how they work… to criticize it before you’ve tried it is already presumptive. To do it on the TBS forums trying to “speak up against this…for everyone” sounds… yeah…

    I mean besides the fact I’ve never heard anyone on the council say it shouldn’t be support (and if you absolutely wanted I’m sure I could hit up Spook to get the recording of pretty much everyone on the council agreeing it should be support), what would that even mean? Assist and support are more or less the same thing. If you support someone, you help them accomplish something. If you assist someone, you help them accomplish something. I don’t understand…

    SkiLlZz Response - I have no doubt that you have recordings of people saying it should be a “support” class… That does not mean it wasn’t said outside of members of the council meeting. I really do not feel like pointing fingers, this is not a blame game Height.

    As I mentioned above, this is a TEST Build. I’ve gone on record (before this post was made and Spook can probably show you the recording) in saying I actually think its quite likely the numbers that go through finally will be less of a nerf, but we’ll have to play to find out. So just keep in mind that “changes” means “TEST changes”.

    SkiLlZz Response -Yes, lets call it a “Test” the council created and voted for these changes. Of course they will be happy with them and finalize them… Though you are right, I will try not to judge this too quickly. I will give it a shot.

    Well besides the fact that “taking away incentive to play a class” is technically true of any overall nerf so you’d have to commit yourself to the position that overall nerfing any class is never a good thing (which I don’t think you mean to say), is this just hyperbole of what you actually believe? If Warbow bodkins and Crossbow bringing Vg’s into 1-shot range of EVERY Knight and Vanguard primary with one torso shot is “barely a dent”… maybe. We also upped headshot multipliers so even shortbow bodkin (which now has archer flinch, will be a bit faster than in live, and has more ammo than ever) takes out half a knight’s health with a headshot. Don’t get me started on Heavy Crossbow or the Javs… how are these not significant damages? Many of them are actually more than or equal to tons of melee weapons that are common…

    SkiLlZz Response - I can bring you 50 different scenarios of how these are not significant damages. Like I said in my previous post, I agree that a lot of the changes are okay and should be official. What I do not agree with is your argument. You are basically saying that “because an archer can damage a melee class to the point of being one hit away from dead by a specific weapon from another melee class. The archers damage needs to be nerfed to the point where this is not the case” Is this correct? If that’s your argument why not just nerf the damage of certain melee weapons? Why do archers have to get the full force of damage reductions?

    I mean 48 damage to a vg puts them 1shottable by EVERY knight and vg primary weapon the game, and most 2 handed swords could always 1 shot archer. We literally haven’t changed any htk’s for them…

    SkiLlZz Response - Did you forget about the health regeneration nerf? If I’m not in line of sight of my target they can just hide and regenerate their health. Then they are back to full health in no time. There are things you are not taking into consideration with this argument.

    Certain attacks do more damage, but htk’s are pretty much even. we’re talking about one type of attack doing 10% more damage that changes incredibly little. In melee, every bit of damage can matter because the melee classes are a bit tankier so there’s more opportunities for damage to stack up. In live, you’re either one shot or two shot if you’re an archer. It’s the same way here… though there are much fewer trades against archers now because of first hit flinch. Archers can flinch easier without as much fear of hit-trade, so yeah.

    SKiLlZz Response - 30 damage to knight torso is an even htk from before? I disagree… Though I do agree that the archer flinch coming back will make things easier for our mele to get kills.

    So here is why this is a cherrypicked, inapplicable, and virtually meaningless argument:
    1. You start this scenario after the melee have already engaged. Archers have ranged dominance and is the class BY FAR most capable of affecting the fight before the melee engages. You’re basically saying lets evaluate how effective archer is in this scenario after one of their largest advantages has been negated. I mean, if they’re able to break off two knights to run at you… actually…

    SkiLlZz Response - The fact that you think my argument is meaningless tells me that you’ve made up your mind about these changes and are not truly open to changing your mind. Even if you say you are… YES, as an archer I have the ability to deal damage from far away. IM AN ARCHER ITS MY ROLE, and yes this will wound the enemy team going into battle. This was just a rough example of how archers are losing their ability to be effective against knights. Instead of just nerfing one of our main advantages, why not consider other solutions? HOW ABOUT A STRATEGY?! When Tempest fights Nemesis, (which btw is now my new rival) I am forced to focus Antsii because he focuses me. Antsii positions himself in such a way where I am almost not able to shoot his mele and be effective from far range, Antsii puts pressure on me because he’s a good shot and knows how to protect his melee. If you had an archer that actually positioned himself in a match to put pressure on me. I can guarantee you will not feel my pressence as much as you normally do when you fight Tempest. You are nerfing that main “advantage” archers have to mitigate lack of strategy. Try it. It works for Nemesis. One of the top 2 clans in Chivalry.

    2. You picked a scenario where their core is breaking off to fight you? MAA’s I can see… Vg’s even. But two knights? This very very rarely happens. If one is an MAA, they’re 2 shottable by your weapon. If they’re a Vg, then you can get them heavy kickable. Of course, that’s if you hit the same one… which why wouldn’t you? I mean, once one is low, wouldn’t u want to aim at that one again instead of hitting one of each? Speaking of which?

    SkiLlZz Response - After hitting a target I switch to another target. I attempt to wound the entire team before they reach my team. Seriously forget I even used the 2 knights as an example. I was trying to point out how ineffective archers will be when shooting a knight. I can easily switch this up and focus the same knight. (using this same example) If I hit the same knight twice, he has 40% of his health left. A good clan will be able to 2v1 without getting hit. Or even having the other knight 1v1 to let his teammate regenerate. One way or another if both knights are still standing the chances of me going down like a sack of potatoes is highly likely.

    3. Wait, so these are two FULL health knights? They just got shot at before the engagement, got through throwables and firepots, and engaged in the melee, and they still haven’t been touched?

    SkiLlZz Response - And if the enemy archer applied the proper pressure then I would either be dead or pinned down and the enemy also used throwables fire pots on us. Like I said we can add onto this scenario and keep going… lol

    4. And they can get to you before you can get 3 shots off? Shoot, 3.5s (reload, recover, aim), shoot, 3.5s (reload, recover, aim), shoot. That means that knights, the slowest class in the game, are zig-zagging and trying to use what cover they can while still moving forward and yet they still get to you in 7 seconds? This is probably because you play very close to your team, but you do this for easier shots. If this happens, its a good downside to have.

    SkiLlZz Response - First, I do not do this for easier shots. I play close to my team so if the need arises I can easily switch to melee and support my team. Go ahead and watch the grand finals tape or better yet watch one of the Tempest scrims sometime. A lot of my kills are melee. Second, without a pavise shield to make up for the lack of ammo to ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE an archer has to be stationary to reload. You can use a projectile to flinch the archer… Oh and btw cover isn’t always around… And if I was really far away to get more then 2 shots off and the enemy melee is still running after me and not the objective then that’s just a bad call. I prob still wouldn’t be able to kill them due to the nerf…

    5. This is a situation you have relatively no chance in even in LIVE. Instead of 2 of them at 70% health (each 3htk with shortsword stabs), you’d have 2 of them at a bit under 50% health which would be 2htk with shortsword stabs. What you’re basically saying is “I don’t want this 98% impossible situation to become 99% impossible”… I just don’t see that as meaningful.

    SkiLlZz Response - Please stop referring to this example, It was a bad example and I’ve made my point in response to your other comments, scroll up…

    It’s weird… I’ve had people say that the relative balance of bows vs xbows with these changes will give no reason to go bows over xbows.

    SkiLlZz Response - It is weird… I’ve had people completely disagree with this as well. Low ammo with pavise or normal ammo without a pavise… The obvious option is to choose the extra ammo. Why would a xbow archer play xbow without his pavise? He will be exposed to enemy archer fire and stationary at that. This may be easier to do on the defending team but not at all on offense. The bow archer will have a major advantage. All this need to be taken into consideration.

    It’s weird… I actually talked to you briefly about the values and you said you were okay with them if I recall correctly… Remember when you, me, and omega were in ts3?

    SkiLlZz Response - Not everything was discussed. Also the changes mentioned didn’t turn out to be what actually came to pass…

    I’ve done this with my clan, have talked to others about their opinions (including you briefly btw…), and have encouraged all council members to do the same. In fact, we just started talking today in a meeting about a way to have class specialists vote on the council only on specific items that affect thier class to allow more community input. Hell, I even go on random MERCS servers just to ask people what they think.

    SkiLlZz Response - Thats awesome =)

    By the time I showed up in TS3, you seemed pretty good with the changes and said as long as the values for your xbow were what they were in the sheet that you were good more or less. I know at least Omega has talked to me about what you think during our balance discussions. That said, I think you may be mistaking disagreeing for not having “really listened and taken consideration”.

    SkiLlZz Response - I’ve listened. If I’m mistaken about anything it’s because I was given the wrong information or the person giving me the information wasn’t specific enough. There have been more discussions then I can count…

    Flame and Dofoo have been vocal about trying to minimize archer nerfs. Flame is a large reason for the 200% head damage multipliers for bows hitting melee.

    SkiLlZz Response - Then I apologize to Dofoo and Flame. Thank you =)

    Ditto :P

    SkiLlZz Response - Ditto Again



  • My responses to heights comments are in my previous post, you just have to look carefully. I don’t use the forums, so if there was an easier way to reply I apologize lolol.



  • I agree with you skillz in that it seems a bit heavy now, but I think this could be the worst of it or it could get a little better. It will be little hard to convince a crowd of melee players to lessen the nerfs from this point, but right now at least archers weren’t incredibly slaughtered.

    I still think a few tweaks ought to be made in a couple of fields but I’m not supposed to discuss that in public according to the council rules.

    One thing I simply cannot agree on though is the idea that you believe crossbows are outclassed by bows with this setup. They really aren’t.



  • I would like to hear the reason why I should need 3-4 hits as Knight to kill another Knight, but a crossbow or jav or warbow should only take 2 hits. And why putting that onpar with the melee damage is bad.

    I’m not sure about the changes yet, I need to test them. That said, im not sure if melee nerfs were needed - the only problem I had personally with archer was their torso damage to melee



  • I’m curious, how many of you archer mains actually play melee classes frequently? Balancing archers is a delicate matter and I don’t think having experience from only one side of the spectrum does any good anyone.

    What I mean that those who are fully committed melee players are not great at judging archer balance and those who are fully committed archer players are not great at judging archer balance, this is an issue that clearly need to have experience from both sides.

    And for the above reason I’m not touching this, I despise archers but I don’t see myself fit for suggesting balance changes since I have very little archer experience.

    But like Crushed, I would also like to hear reasoning why archers should do massive amounts of damage to the tankiest class in the game and either instantly kill everyone else or put them on the verge of death. That’s not assisting, that’s carrying.



  • @CRUSHED:

    I would like to hear the reason why I should need 3-4 hits as Knight to kill another Knight, but a crossbow or jav or warbow should only take 2 hits. And why putting that onpar with the melee damage is bad.

    I’m not sure about the changes yet, I need to test them. That said, im not sure if melee nerfs were needed - the only problem I had personally with archer was their torso damage to melee

    Yes, this is the point I’ve been trying to make. If anything, the nerf puts archers on par with melee for damage. Except as archer, you can play god in the back of the battlefield and choose your targets without much danger- apart from the other archer. This being said, I think it’s important for every person that’s upset about these changes to realize that nothing is permanent; everything will be tweaked. However part of the tweaking process is testing. We need to test to see how this nerf affects gameplay.



  • @Kreittis:

    I’m curious, how many of you archer mains actually play melee classes frequently? Balancing archers is a delicate matter and I don’t think having experience from only one side of the spectrum does any good anyone.

    What I mean that those who are fully committed melee players are not great at judging archer balance and those who are fully committed archer players are not great at judging archer balance, this is an issue that clearly need to have experience from both sides.

    And for the above reason I’m not touching this, I despise archers but I don’t see myself fit for suggesting balance changes since I have very little archer experience.

    But like Crushed, I would also like to hear reasoning why archers should do massive amounts of damage to the tankiest class in the game and either instantly kill everyone else or put them on the verge of death. That’s not assisting, that’s carrying.

    I’ve put probably close to 1,000 hours into archer. I’ve played countless hours in pubs and “competitively” as the archer for Nira for a while. This being said, archer isn’t my main class, so it would be impossible for me to convince others that I’m truly looking out for the best for the archer class. In a recent scrim on mercs mod, the enemy archer took out 3 of us before we were even able to engage their melee, essentially rendering that push useless (2 vanguards and a maa, I think). I think this instance kind of says a lot about the status of archer in the game’s current build. It’s such a touchy subject. I just feel the archer class, as a whole, is fundamentally flawed. However, since the class is in the game and many players have put countless hours into mastering it, we have to do something with it that will please everyone. I’m just not completely sold on what that is yet.



  • @Kreittis:

    I’m curious, how many of you archer mains actually play melee classes frequently?

    Hello, nice to meet you.



  • Personally as an archer all I care about right now is balance between ranged weapons, archer balance itself needs to be tested which I can’t do 'cause EU scene is dead. Just take into consideration that an archer needs to be able to do enough for it to be at least as useful as melee in the hands of a good archer. Is being able to deal some damage and flinch worth going 4v5 in melee instead of 5v5? Dunno. Needs testing.

    Fact is that I and the former(he’d still be, no one’s just active these days) top warbow archer EU agree that light crossbow is harder to use than warbow. I can admit that shooting someone is often easy, not always but often. However, lcb’s slightly faster projectile doesn’t make it too much easier.

    I’m gonna make a comparison between the two weapons I truly know. I base these around having two good archers against each other.

    Light Crossbow
    Slightly faster reload, but extremely vulnerable, legs can be shot even when turning around with the shield and even turning around makes your fire rate slower. If you play it safe and move behind cover to reload every time your fire rate is effectively much slower than warbow’s that can keep spamming arrows all the time while moving into cover and away from cover, warbow can even do without cover if really needed.
    Faster projectile speed, useful but is it useful enough when you’re either extremely vulnerable while reloading or safe but your fire rate is shit and warbow can oneshot you to the chest? In a scenario with two good archers, warbow will have significantly faster fire rate with small projectile speed difference.
    Poor counter-archering, hitting the head possible only if you get really close or the enemy archer makes a mistake, like letting you get too close.
    Deals less damage to every class

    Warbow
    Slightly slower reload, can be mobile while reloading which allows for higher fire rate in a scenario with two good archers.
    Slower projectile speed, not much and often if you miss with the warbow you would’ve missed with the lcb too.
    Good counter-archering, hitting the body is doable and it gives a lot of pressure.
    Deals more damage to every class, even when using broadheads.

    Now why do people say lcb is easy, lcb is op? I know why. There aren’t enough good archers. If there’s no archer that can effectively counter-archer you, punish you for your mistakes, force you to go behind cover to reload, pressure you, it’s better than warbow 'cause it has faster projectile speed and faster reload. When there are two good archers against each other, warbow is easier to use simply because you can keep moving while spamming arrows, lcb’s reload doesn’t allow you to spam arrows without someone headshotting you so you need to be more aware of the enemy archer and pay more attention to positioning. Now remember when I said that shooting is often easy? With both warbow and lcb. Difference is warbow can shoot more worrying less about positioning or getting oneshot to the chest by someone who you can’t pressure back as much. This is why I make the argument of lcb being harder when there are two good archers against each other.

    Just don’t try to balance archers around anything other than having at least 1 archer per team meta. Think about it like this, crossbows get something extra 'cause they doesn’t have mobile reload, right? Now the reload makes playing crossbows harder only when there’s an enemy archer, so when there’s no enemy archer or he’s bad, obviously crossbows should excel. Take into account that there aren’t too many decent archers. At least in EU.

    Now javs, they are extremely mobile. Deserved the nerf. They’re harder to counter-archer 'cause they never need to even slow down to reload and they have the buckler, slower projectile speed means nothing when you can get in “point blank” range thanks to the buckler and stabbing capabilities. Approaching an enemy archer is easy when he can consistently shoot only your feet, and if he shoots he can’t reload again 'cause you’d oneshot him to the chest. If he waits for you to throw the spear so he could headshot you mid-throw, you can just get into his face and stab him without even changing weapon.

    Just making my experience known, can’t test or suggest too specific changes 'cause no one here scrims anymore.



  • @J-P:

    Personally as an archer all I care about right now is balance between ranged weapons, archer balance itself needs to be tested which I can’t do 'cause EU scene is dead. Just take into consideration that an archer needs to be able to do enough for it to be at least as useful as melee in the hands of a good archer. Is being able to deal some damage and flinch worth going 4v5 in melee instead of 5v5? Dunno. Needs testing.

    Fact is that I and the former(he’d still be, no one’s just active these days) top warbow archer EU agree that light crossbow is harder to use than warbow. I can admit that shooting someone is often easy, not always but often. However, lcb’s slightly faster projectile doesn’t make it too much easier.

    I’m gonna make a comparison between the two weapons I truly know. I base these around having two good archers against each other.

    Light Crossbow
    Slightly faster reload, but extremely vulnerable, legs can be shot even when turning around with the shield and even turning around makes your fire rate slower. If you play it safe and move behind cover to reload every time your fire rate is effectively much slower than warbow’s that can keep spamming arrows all the time while moving into cover and away from cover, warbow can even do without cover if really needed.
    Faster projectile speed, useful but is it useful enough when you’re either extremely vulnerable while reloading or safe but your fire rate is shit and warbow can oneshot you to the chest? In a scenario with two good archers, warbow will have significantly faster fire rate with small projectile speed difference.
    Poor counter-archering, hitting the head possible only if you get really close or the enemy archer makes a mistake, like letting you get too close.
    Deals less damage to every class

    Warbow
    Slightly slower reload, can be mobile while reloading which allows for higher fire rate in a scenario with two good archers.
    Slower projectile speed, not much and often if you miss with the warbow you would’ve missed with the lcb too.
    Good counter-archering, hitting the body is doable and it gives a lot of pressure.
    Deals more damage to every class, even when using broadheads.

    Now why do people say lcb is easy, lcb is op? I know why. There aren’t enough good archers. If there’s no archer that can effectively counter-archer you, punish you for your mistakes, force you to go behind cover to reload, pressure you, it’s better than warbow 'cause it has faster projectile speed and faster reload. When there are two good archers against each other, warbow is easier to use simply because you can keep moving while spamming arrows, lcb’s reload doesn’t allow you to spam arrows without someone headshotting you so you need to be more aware of the enemy archer and pay more attention to positioning. Now remember when I said that shooting is often easy? With both warbow and lcb. Difference is warbow can shoot more worrying less about positioning or getting oneshot to the chest by someone who you can’t pressure back as much. This is why I make the argument of lcb being harder when there are two good archers against each other.

    Just don’t try to balance archers around anything other than having at least 1 archer per team meta. Think about it like this, crossbows get something extra 'cause they doesn’t have mobile reload, right? Now the reload makes playing crossbows harder only when there’s an enemy archer, so when there’s no enemy archer or he’s bad, obviously crossbows should excel. Take into account that there aren’t too many decent archers. At least in EU.

    Now javs, they are extremely mobile. Deserved the nerf. They’re harder to counter-archer 'cause they never need to even slow down to reload and they have the buckler, slower projectile speed means nothing when you can get in “point blank” range thanks to the buckler and stabbing capabilities. Approaching an enemy archer is easy when he can consistently shoot only your feet, and if he shoots he can’t reload again 'cause you’d oneshot him to the chest. If he waits for you to throw the spear so he could headshot you mid-throw, you can just get into his face and stab him without even changing weapon.

    Just making my experience known, can’t test or suggest too specific changes 'cause no one here scrims anymore.

    Thank you JP for explaining this I agree with you 100%. In my earlier response to height’s post I also mentioned that because I am rarely counter arched… It plays a big part in me seeming OP when using the light crossbow or any good archer for that matter…(see earlier post). If I’m using a bow, reg xbow, lcb or even warbow. The end result is the same. A good archer is going to land a lot of shots. If I’m counter arched and properly pressured by lets say Antsii or Russian Mafia… Then the enemy Melee will notice my presence a lot less.

    Instead of resorting to certain nerfs, take other things like this into consideration. Don’t punish an archer for mastering their class.


Log in to reply