[Discussion] Archer Solutions/Middle-Ground Central Thread



  • Hey everyone,

    _Firstly, if you wish to know more about me before reading my thread, you can view my bio here.
    http://www.chivalrythegame.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&p=52077#p52077

    I understand there is a thread for suggestions, and I am sorry I will not be using it, as my method is different, and I find it to be more helpful._

    There is a lot of discussion about the Archer. Some players find them to be too powerful, while other players (generally Archers themselves) think Archers are under powered. I want to use this thread for us to find a middle ground, because I believe both sides of the argument have merit.

    There are tons of threads regarding how players feel about Archers, but this thread is meant to help us find solutions to our problems. Please, keep things brief, and refrain from whole paragraphs.

    **Ways to improve Archers that do not go too far

    • Slightly increase velocity of arrows and bolts. (Makes it easier to score hits.)

    **Ways to limit Archers that do not go too far

    • Limit the amount of Archers a team can have. (Not sure how effective this would be.)

    • Lower amount of arrows/bolts (not javelins), and add large quiver as a choice. (Taking Quiver would use low quality arrows, neither broadhead nor bodkin.)

    **Things I do not suggest doing to the Archer

    • Do not increase Archer’s foot speed. (Letting him run away from an inevitable encounter won’t fix anything.)

    Please produce your suggestions in my format above, as I’ve learned that this is most effective and helpful for our development friends. Thanks, everyone. Try your best.******



  • @TartarusMkII:

    **Ways to improve Archers that do not go too far

    • Slightly increase velocity of arrows and bolts. (Makes it easier to score hits.)

    It already has been increased for the longbow. The shortbow is so fast that it doesn’t punish you if you use it at ~double spear range, so there is no need to increase it’s velocity. Warbow was spared, because it can 1 shot everything except for knights with still a better rate of fire than crossbows. As a veteran archer I can say bows are pretty balanced atm and there is no need to change anything.
    Crossbows, however, are another point.

    **Ways to limit Archers that do not go too far

    • Limit the amount of Archers a team can have. (Not sure how effective this would be.)

    There will be a class-cap option for admins in future, although I personally hate that solution. It is a handy tool for all those archer haters, who btw only exist because archers work and it is their job to be hated. They just could have changed some official server to archer free servers. Also, Javelin archers will be blocked as well and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about them.
    Now, we will have most of the servers with a ZERO archer cap so all archer have to play on the laggy official’s or look way outside their region.

    • Lower amount of arrows/bolts (not javelins), and add large quiver as a choice. (Taking Quiver would use low quality arrows, neither broadhead nor bodkin.)

    Again, already has been lowered. Stronger bows have less ammo atm and I’m fine with it. Less damage, however, is a bad idea. Most weapons 2-3 shot enemies and I don’t see why bows shouldn’t do that as well. It’s not like you’re autohitting or melees can’t defend themselves against arrows.

    **Things I do not suggest doing to the Archer

    • Do not increase Archer’s foot speed. (Letting him run away from an inevitable encounter won’t fix anything.)

    Agreed, although I’m not sure any competent player has ever suggested this.




  • In response to Escadin, if all these things are true, then that sucks, because I think the changes have not fixed the issue enough!



  • Archers are fine the way they are.
    I honestly beleive archers are perfectly balanced. If you nerfed them any more they wouldn’t be a factor, if you buffed them any more they’d be over powered. They’re perfect as is.
    I hear so much complaining about archers, but I’ve never found them to be a nuisance.
    If you see an archer aiming at you, all you have to do is run in a zig zag and close the distance. The projectile speed is so low that hitting you will be very hard, and even if he does, the draw time is so long that he won’t be able to get another arrow downrage before you’re cleaving his head in two.
    And of course the shields help.

    The only times when archers are really a problem is when pushing the battering ram towards the castle keep. And that’s a good thing. It makes sense that archers are a big factor in a castle siege. It’s great to see three knights protecting the right hand side of the battering ram with their shields from arrows. It promotes teamplay, and archers act as a supporting role.

    To sum up, archers are fine, leave them be. There’s always going to be those who will complain, and that’s just because of the nature of an archer. It emulates real life, and people’s dislike for snipers and so on.

    The only instance where archers shouldn’t be allowed is last team standing, in my opinion. Especially in the arena map. Other than that, Torn Banner has managed to make the archer class perfectly balanced.



  • I play archer, I do pretty fine.
    I play another class, I kill them pretty easy.

    In my twisted world, this means it’s balanced.



  • As someone who plays all classes equally (cept knights, though i do have my vet helm), I feel archers are at a very good yet precarious position. Good because I feel they are very close to perfect balance, dangeroua because that balance can be easily tipped. I think bows are in a really good spot now, and crossbows are better but could use some lookig at. I admit I don’t use crossbows enough to give an informed opinion.



  • I’ll be honest, I don’t like the blanket statement that ‘Archers OP/UP/Balanced’ because their weapons cover practically all areas of the spectrum right now. I’ll sum up Archer weapons, relative to each other, in a few simple lines when it comes to serious play:

    Longbow is balanced.
    Shortbow is underpowered (could do with a RoF increase).
    Warbow is overpowered (ditch the 2 hitting Knights on body shots).
    All Crossbows are currently useless (HXbow also needs the unique ability to 1 hit HS Knights).
    All Javelins are currently useless (they are all slow, sluggish, and a burden to play right now).



  • I always thought that archer are weak…
    but then i played … and played. In the last games I recognize, archer are fine.
    If an archer have skill he will maybe dominate the fight. But a good playing knight does just the same.

    I think the problem of “archer is op” or “archer is weak” is a result of the difference between skill and not because one class is better than an other.

    In my opinion anybody has the chance to kill with each class as long as the experience and force is with him.



  • @Kreuzfeuer:

    I think the problem of “archer is op” or “archer is weak” is a result of the difference between skill and not because one class is better than an other.

    In my opinion anybody has the chance to kill with each class as long as the experience and force is with him.

    This.
    I play all classes equally, I do fine with each against each with any weapon.
    Things are well balanced the way they are.



  • First of all I think archers are pretty balanced, although I may find crossbows a bit to powerful in comparisons to longbows but thats just my limited experience as an archer.

    Furthermore restricting a class because it would get used to much should never even be considered, if a class gets used to much that usually means you are doing something wrong and it should be rebalanced. Increasing the effectiveness of archers knowing they get overused and manually limiting them is just a bad idea. That being said I am not against limits on classes per se just not to limit a class that would generally be overused.



  • I’m in the ‘archers are essentially fine as they are’ camp. I play knight mostly and archers can be both easy kills and stubborn bastards, depending on the player’s skill. Which implies they are balanced to me.

    On the point of archer numbers. In my experience, it has only had a detrimental effect on OT games, where you need footmen to achieve objectives. Was in a game last night where 9 of 14 players on my team were archers… it was impossible to achieve anything. In TDM though it doesn’t matter so much as the fighting can be more fluid. But it does make me recognise the possible validity of the argument to be able to limit their number on a server to maybe 1/3 the total team size.



  • _@PedroFromHell -
    I am glad you do not think that the Archers are ‘over-powered’, but it does not sound like you play Archers, and may not see the issue from an Archer’s view point. Read on, and I will explain.

    @Martin -
    I like how you explained yourself, and I generally agree with what limited experience I have (I have not unlocked everything yet.)
    _

    I find that a lot of players who have many opinions about Archers have yet to actually play them. Please admit to this and bear it in mind.

    Now, I want to be clear about my own idea about the Archer situation.

    I do not look at the Archer and his kit as either being too powerful, or not powerful enough. I look at him and his kit in relation to the other classes, and I hope to achieve balance where I do not currently see it.

    The way I think of it is like this:

    The Archer’s combat strength and ability to score hits against opponents should equal the other (melee) classes, with the added aspect that the Archer can attack from a range.

    Factors to consider:

    • The Archer is not fast enough to run away, which is balanced (IMO) because he should not get too close to begin with, and other classes can (have fun) flank him.

    • Most other classes have throw-able weapons in their kit which serve the same purpose as I detailed above. The Archer only has more ammo and no primary weapon.

    • Likely the most important thing, the weapons that Archers have in their kit should require similar skill to achieve damaging hits as melee weapons, and the skill required to achieve hits as the Archer with most of his weapons may currently be too high.

    Thoughts?



  • @TartarusMkII:

    The Archer’s combat strength and ability to score hits against opponents should equal the other (melee) classes, with the added aspect that the Archer can attack from a range.

    I’m not sure how you could think of this statement as logical towards balance at all. Landing hits with projectiles should be as easy and effective as landing hits in melee, but the melee player can do nothing to fight back unlike when he faces another melee player?

    • Likely the most important thing, the weapons that Archers have in their kit should require similar skill to achieve damaging hits as melee weapons, and the skill required to achieve hits as the Archer with most of his weapons may currently be too high.

    I disagree. The skill required to land hits in melee vs. in range is not “easier” for either one. In both cases, the main determining factor is the skill of the attacker - but in melee, the skill of the defender factors in far more. So it’s merely different.

    A good archer can hit people on just about every shot but the players he’s shooting at cannot do anything other than try to move unpredictably or hold up a shield and hop around so they won’t get shot in the legs (which is a lot harder to do now with the cooldown on jumps, there’s a pretty large window to get hit between hops). A mediocre archer will still land hits fairly frequently, and no matter how good the melee player he’s shooting at is, that player cannot do anything to combat it other than the above inconsistent methods. This is even more obvious when an archer knows how to shoot at players who are already fighting - if you’re focused on fighting in melee, there is very little you can do to avoid being hit by an archer without leaving yourself open to the melee player.

    Obviously even a mediocre melee player can hit another mediocre melee player, but a mediocre player will pretty much never hit a good one, and even when several less skilled players are fighting a single good melee player simultaneously they probably won’t take him down. This is the inherent imbalance of melee vs. ranged and the reason archers are meant as support classes instead of front line main force fighters, because even in their state now they’re a primary source of frustration for many many players. Engagements with archers as a melee class are extremely one sided encounters with very limited counter-play compared to melee vs. melee.



  • To those who say “To make suggestion in an archer thread you have to play archer and be good at it”: No.

    In most multiplayer games theres always a class/character/weapon wich is fun to kill with, but isnt fun to be killed by. In this cases, player feedback is important even if they never play that class.

    Some maps encourage archers camping and scoring headshots, specially those with objectives who require you to stand still in a certain place, defenseless. “Hey man, just bring a shield!” Bringing a shield is usually the wisest tactical decition to cope with archers, but balancing the archers entirely around the existence of the shield has its problems as well: Not every class can use a shield, not every weapon is shield compatible, and there are also gear picks other than a shield that would be just not worth it if ranged attacks are too strong. Even if you have your shield equipped, you are still vulnerable to ranged attacks, and there are situations where you cant even use it (the ballista objectives, for example).

    Others say “well, if archers are too strong, just play an archer and kill them/have the archers in your team kill theirs”. In a balance discussion, a statement like this has no place. The goal of balance is that every class has a chance. Or better said, every class must have their niche, and all of these niches must be more or less equally important.

    So, how do you balance a class, when being killed by it is not fun, but annoying? I suggest making it a support class. Archers shouldnt lead the scoreboard by kills, but by assists. Risking having them being slightly underpowered is preferrable to risking having them being overpowered (remember when aoc was released on steam? Archers killed other classes in 2 shots. The game was broken until arrow damage was fixed, and yet many players said arrow damage was fine.) Ranged weapons in AoC werent as powerful as in chivalry, and yet you could see RussianMafia dominating with the crossbow, or that TT guy whos name I cant remember with the javelin.

    Notice how I havent mentioned anything from an archer´s point of view, yet I think my points are relevant to balance overall.



  • @SlyGoat:

    I disagree. The skill required to land hits in melee vs. in range is not “easier” for either one. In both cases, the main determining factor is the skill of the attacker - but in melee, the skill of the defender factors in far more. So it’s merely different.

    Yes it is not easier for either one. No, in melee vs range is the defender definitly a factor.

    A good archer can hit people on just about every shot but the players he’s shooting at cannot do anything other than try to move unpredictably or hold up a shield and hop around so they won’t get shot in the legs (which is a lot harder to do now with the cooldown on jumps, there’s a pretty large window to get hit between hops). A mediocre archer will still land hits fairly frequently, and no matter how good the melee player he’s shooting at is, that player cannot do anything to combat it other than the above inconsistent methods. This is even more obvious when an archer knows how to shoot at players who are already fighting - if you’re focused on fighting in melee, there is very little you can do to avoid being hit by an archer without leaving yourself open to the melee player.

    Exactly, they can move unpredictable, they can -if they’re good enough- dodge purposly, they can block arrows with a shield just like any other attack. Also headshotting someone with a shield is right out impossible. Legs are not just a static hitbox, they actually move and someone who even tries to dodge makes a leghit pretty random. Leg hit also dont deal enough damage to pay for crossbow reloading time, so only bows get that advantage. Blocking an archer’s arrows is all you need to combat it as it mostly result in a stalemate, except for the knight is still pushing the objective. Yes, most ppl lose their defence when they start fighting, however, shooting in a melee fight is risky so it’s not a pure win win situation. It’s where most teamkills people complain about come from, but it is an advantage for good archers who can exploit it.
    I do not say hitting shieldknights is impossible, but it is not worth the effort and very hard to do properly and it in fact depends on how good that knight can use his shield as well.
    Fighting archers is a teamjob, you need ppl who block their fire, and you need others to take them out. Playing archer is a teamjob just alike, you need to hit enemies, and you need someone to protect your ass.

    Obviously even a mediocre melee player can hit another mediocre melee player, but a mediocre player will pretty much never hit a good one, and even when several less skilled players are fighting a single good melee player simultaneously they probably won’t take him down. This is the inherent imbalance of melee vs. ranged and the reason archers are meant as support classes instead of front line main force fighters, because even in their state now they’re a primary source of frustration for many many players. Engagements with archers as a melee class are extremely one sided encounters with very limited counter-play compared to melee vs. melee.

    This is exactly true for melee vs ranged. I mostly archieve a 50% hitrate against newbies, but as for competetive play, there are melee who never get hit. It’s not because I forgot how to aim all of a sudden, it’s because their evaison skills are indeed a factor. Try to hit dubjay or noxi e.g. if you’re that confident about archery. It is not an imbalance between melee and archers, it’s that most ppl want to win 12v1 and every mechanic that stops them is lame, not only archers but catapults, ballista, helbard, firepots,teamkills etc. They don’t like teamplay in general and hate to rely on a team. However all of these are part of the game and are part of TO. If you want a knight only environment you should play on ffa or duel servers. Yes melee vs meleearcher is indeed onesided. Noobs get facehugged and combo’d by archer and pros will just facehug + combo back because they know a knight takes more hits than an archer.



  • There isn’t a problem with archer… more of the lines or ARCHERS…

    Having one will hit and miss… having 4 shooting constant arrows at you, DEAD…

    Rather annoying !

    I think they should place a CAP and thats about it, 2 archers per 10 players on team.

    So if you have :
    10 players 2 will be archers
    20 players 4 will be archers
    30 players 6 will be archers

    Because currently, It’s looking like 4 archers out of 10 on a team… facing say another 10… YOU GET MESSED UP MAN.



  • @Wingy:

    Others say “well, if archers are too strong, just play an archer and kill them/have the archers in your team kill theirs”. In a balance discussion, a statement like this has no place.

    I just want to point out, in this case it is a legitimate statement because there are different kinds of archers.

    Longbow, bodkin-warbow, short crossbow, and heavy javelin are the “anti-melee” archer variants. Each one has things that make them frustrating for melee classes:

    Longbows - the fastest ranged weapon that can 2 shot MAAs and Vanguards with torso hits. Also typically used to kite those classes while picking them off.
    Bodkin-warbow - 2 shots all classes, 1 shots non-knights with headshots.
    Short crossbow - very fast reload for a crossbow, 2 shots MAAs and Vanguards, 1 shot with headshot.
    Heavy javelin - 1 shots MAA with torso hit, 2 shots knights, vanguards take so much damage that a mosquito bite would kill them

    Then there’s the “anti-archer” ranged weapons: broadhead-warbow, standard crossbow, standard javelins. All of these give up some power against melee to be more effective against archers.

    Broadhead-warbow - 1 shots archers, but can no longer 2 shot knights or headshot kill vanguards.
    Standard crossbow - significantly slower than short crossbow; only advantages are 2 shot knights and 1 shot archers.
    Standard javelin - increased range and ammo capacity makes it a viable counter to archers, but slightly less damage means it no longer 1 shots MAA

    Basically, if the enemy team has too many archers, it is in fact a valid counter to pick an archer and use one of ^^^ those three anti-archer weapons. If they then switch to an anti-archer to kill you, then you basically just self-balanced the class vs melee, and your existing melee teammates will be able to break through if they couldn’t before.

    PS: you may be wondering where heavy crossbows, short spears, and shortbows fit into this.

    Shortbow - sucks. It’s range is too short and it takes too many consecutive hits to kill anyone.
    Heavy crossbow - sucks. It’s reload is way too long, if you want to 1 shot MAAs then use heavy javelins.
    Short spears - sucks. No 1 shots on any class and its melee is weak, so it doesn’t justify it’s slow projectile speed and low ammo count like the other javelins do.



  • We are having a very big problem with being brief in this thread. That’s why I suggested using a specific format.

    Simply put, I don’t believe any melee player should be able to fairly avoid all arrows. What the hell sense does that make?

    It is much easier for someone swinging a blade to score a hit than an Archer using one of their ranged weapons.

    Also, keep in mind that the lower on the body a hit is scored, the less damage it does.

    Additionally, shields work -great- against shields, even javelins, so please, don’t tell me shields are useless to arrows.

    I don’t think you need to play as an Archer to have an opinion, but you can’t tell me that you know more on the subject when you do not take the Archer’s point of view into account.

    It is incredibly hard to hit someone with these slow projectiles, and even if you do score a hit, chances are it will hit the shield.

    Two mediocre melee players can hit eachother. A mediocre Archer will have a lot of difficulty hitting another player.

    @ RushSecond
    It is not possible for an Archer to kite MAA’s or Vanguards because they both move faster than an archer walking backwards.

    Your comparisons are to damage, and you’re totally pretending accuracy is not a factor. It is so hard to hit with arrows in the first place.



  • Have in mind that the game has to be balanced at the highest skill cap possible. Balancing the game assuming archers hit 50% of their shots, would make players who hit 90% of their shots overpowered. And I think its pretty safe to assume that a good archer hits most of their shots.

    I just want to point out, in this case it is a legitimate statement because there are different kinds of archers.

    Nice point, but have in mind the game doesnt use the rock-paper-scissors balance system.



  • I don’t think making the game difficult for mediocre players just for the game to be fair at the highest skill level is a very good idea. Look at RTSes as an example, like Warcraft or Starcraft. High skill players can use their tools to greater effect, but their tools are not inexplicably more powerful because of it.


Log in to reply