Archery



  • It seems like nothing was learned from Age of Chivalry, regardless of the severe disbalance in archery making them too strong in AoC the same mistake was made in CMW now and the game has currently reached the same state AoC died in, meaning that on any or rather every server at least 50% of the players on either team are indeed archers. Longbows can kill knights in 2 hits, javelineers can do so in one, etcetra. I believe during the kickstarter period this game was marketed as the best melee game ever for PC and i think this was misleading considering the facts i just mentioned.

    I expect the usual answers like ‘get a shield’, ‘learn to play’ or ‘stfu’ but really you guys should reconsider which way you want this game to go. I as a fan of medieval melee games (played AoC for 3 years, played Mount & Blade and Warband for about 5 and played this one since beta) have completely lost interest as there simply hardly is any space left for melee fighting.

    A simple solution would be reducing the damage of archery with as result that people would have to actually get good at it before being given the privilege of prematurely ending the kind of battles i believe this game was made to bring forth.

    I hope this gets taken into consideration and that one day i will be able to enjoy CMW again.



  • @simon:

    It seems like nothing was learned from Age of Chivalry, regardless of the severe disbalance in archery making them too strong in AoC the same mistake was made in CMW now and the game has currently reached the same state AoC died in, meaning that on any or rather every server at least 50% of the players on either team are indeed archers. Longbows can kill knights in 2 hits, javelineers can do so in one, etcetra. I believe during the kickstarter period this game was marketed as the best melee game ever for PC and i think this was misleading considering the facts i just mentioned.

    I expect the usual answers like ‘get a shield’, ‘learn to play’ or ‘stfu’ but really you guys should reconsider which way you want this game to go. I as a fan of medieval melee games (played AoC for 3 years, played Mount & Blade and Warband for about 5 and played this one since beta) have completely lost interest as there simply hardly is any space left for melee fighting.

    A simple solution would be reducing the damage of archery with as result that people would have to actually get good at it before being given the privilege of prematurely ending the kind of battles i believe this game was made to bring forth.

    I hope this gets taken into consideration and that one day i will be able to enjoy CMW again.

    Longbow can 2 shot knight only if both shots are headshots (good luck with that) and no javelin can one shot knight, even in head but I see your point. Archers definitely needs some tweaking.



  • All classes need tweeking and fixing. This game still needs tons of balancing. Give them time, they are a small team with a lot of demands. And as far as I can tell they are still new to making actual games so give them some slack.



  • There are already two threads on this subject, and I’m not sure where to post this, but here I am, so here I go. I really only play pub games, but most of the archers I see struggle to stay near the top of the list, and mostly wind up in the middle or the bottom of the team. Admittedly, this isn’t an entirely fair way to judge a class, as archers aren’t likely to spend as much time as some other classes on objectives, and they’re prone to racking up a lot of assists rather than kills (depending on play style), but still, for various they tend not to get nearly as many kills and/or points as the heavier classes or the occasional MAA. So I don’t think people are choosing the archer because they’re so imbalanced or easy to play.

    Honestly, I think people play archer because it’s fun. Nobody bats an eyelash when 9 out of 12 guys on a team are vanguards - often with the exact same loadout, too. I agree that there is often such a thing as “too many archers”, but you can’t seem to get people to agree on whether this is a good thing for a team or a bad thing.

    I’m only rank 28, but when I play archer I don’t feel I’m particularly more useful than when I play a more melee-oriented class. I fill a different niche, and get kills in different ways against different targets, but I never really feel like I’m adding too much or taking too much away from the team. If I’m in the mood to play MAA, I’ll switch to archer if we’re getting hammered by their archers and have none or not enough of our own; conversely, I’ll switch out of archer if the map just isn’t best for it, if the other team is loaded up with shields, if our team needs more bodies on the objective, etc etc. There is a time and a place for both melee and archery, I think.

    For that matter, when I’m playing as MAA I don’t feel particularly bothered by enemy archers. If they’re a hazard, I’ll dust off the shield and start harassing their lines (I kinda love to circle around on 3 or 4 archers and hack them down one at a time from their flanks).

    Some classes may suffer more from archers than others, but there is a bit of a rock-paper-scissors balance thing going on here. Archers tend to have trouble with MAA, vanguards and 2hander knights are consistent targets for archers, and so on.

    This is just a wild theory, but I get the impression that there’s this psychological impact to being felled by an arrow that makes it stand out as a more frustrating or surprising experience than being killed by a melee weapon that causes it to be more memorable, or something to that effect. I hear people complain all the time about being shot by their own teammates, yet careless LMBs are by far the worst TK offenders; I hear people say that it’s cheap and cowardly to shoot someone when they have no defense against an arrow, yet they have no compunctions about running up behind someone and liberating them of their head; I hear vanguards, the class with the longest reach weapons in the game as well as two different kinds of thrown weapons to choose from complain about how unfair it is that archers can fight from a safe distance. It just doesn’t add up to me, in my experience with the game, anyway.

    I’m comfortable with archers as they are, though I’m very open to talk of tweaks.



  • I request that all the vanguards crying for archer nerfs record their play sessions as archers for a week, and post them, so we can all laugh in harmony.



  • I think if you look at the damage/speed/reach relationship between archery and melee you find the problem. If you balanced a bow out like a melee weapon in terms of these 3 properties you’d get-
    1.Your arrows would go 10 feet
    or
    2.Arrows would damage like kicks
    or
    3.You’d fire about 1 arrow every 30 seconds
    Really though, I don’t think the crossbow is even that unbalanced given the reload time and vulnerability.

    The amount of reach completely unbalances the dps+reach in relation to melee weapons.
    Archers have lower health(health+armor) clearly, but proportionally not really much less than the maa. They’d have to be getting 1 shot by kicks for it to be balanced.

    As a knight you can either choose between a shield to get close to archers, or ranged weapon to throw at archers you cannot catch because when you get close enough to them they run away. The only real counter archer? Other archers, but more specifically javelins. Now you need more archers to counter the archers! Le Sigh.



  • @Heinrich:

    I think if you look at the damage/speed/reach relationship between archery and melee you find the problem. If you balanced a bow out like a melee weapon in terms of these 3 properties you’d get-
    1.Your arrows would go 10 feet
    or
    2.Arrows would damage like kicks
    or
    3.You’d fire about 1 arrow every 30 seconds
    Really though, I don’t think the crossbow is even that unbalanced given the reload time and vulnerability.

    The amount of reach completely unbalances the dps+reach in relation to melee weapons.
    Archers have lower health(health+armor) clearly, but proportionally not really much less than the maa. They’d have to be getting 1 shot by kicks for it to be balanced.

    As a knight you can either choose between a shield to get close to archers, or ranged weapon to throw at archers you cannot catch because when you get close enough to them they run away. The only real counter archer? Other archers, but more specifically javelins. Now you need more archers to counter the archers! Le Sigh.

    You aren’t factoring in that archery takes much much more aim to hit a single target than a melee class is required. Unlike a greatsword or polearm which can cleave multiple players in one swing.

    Also keep in mind that I can’t guide the arrow’s flight by moving my mouse, like you can guide your weapon swing.

    Archery is fine as it is, and this is a class that cannot kick while using their primary weapon, nor swap weapons while mid bow draw.



  • You also can’t parry, you have limited ammunition, there is a delay before you can draw a secondary, and your rate of fire is a fraction of that of even the slowest melee weapons.

    EDIT: And this isn’t meant to be a factor, but there are a lot of bugs related to archer and ranged weapons in general. Sometimes when struck you can’t draw another arrow and/or swap to your secondary, sometimes you wind up stuck in zoom mode, etc. These are bugs and shouldn’t weigh in on a discussion about balance, but the fact is that archery takes a back seat to melee, and so these bugs are likely to linger while the developers work on more crucial aspects of the game.



  • Archery could use some tweaks, largely in the form of its primaries; the War Bow is too good and the others need buffs.

    Other than that, I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that archers are too good or warrant much of a change. Archery is hard to use as it is now, and I like that. Making it any harder would fuck over other players even more, and making it easier is not something I’m generally in favor of.

    I’m afraid a lot of the reasoning in this thread (and in archer discussion as well) is not only subjective, but also very emotional. I’m always hearing things flung around like “cowardly” and “I hate” and “I think this should be exclusively about melee combat.” Archers are a polarizing subject, no doubt.

    That said, there are counters to archers outside of archers (as there should be). I’d be in favor of say, buffing throwing weapons to help against archers, and just because I like throwing weapons. Doubling the amount you get seems like a neat thing to try, since they’re hard to aim and fairly skill-based.

    But changes to the archer itself? No, I don’t think that’s reasonable.



  • @Cove:

    I request that all the vanguards crying for archer nerfs record their play sessions as archers for a week, and post them, so we can all laugh in harmony.

    this

    I have the warbow and I like archers if the map is good for it.

    But I never ever get as many kills as I do with other classes.

    People just get mad because they didnt see the archer and they realize they were standing still.



  • @gregcau:

    @Cove:

    I request that all the vanguards crying for archer nerfs record their play sessions as archers for a week, and post them, so we can all laugh in harmony.

    this

    I have the warbow and I like archers if the map is good for it.

    But I never ever get as many kills as I do with other classes.

    People just get mad because they didnt see the archer and they realize they were standing still.

    I play archer and vanguurd as my main classes. I always get less kills as archer though, less than any other class. A vanguard is an HVT for an archer. They always have no sheild and with medium armour and speed they arent too hard to hit. They also deal the most damage when they reach your team so in a crowd I aim for them. It’s priortising targets.



  • 1. Archers are too slow
    2. Archers need too many shots to do kill
    3. Archers die of one hit with a sword
    4. Archers have no armor
    5. Archers are being TKd a loooooot, by happy slashers
    6. I play archer, and I kill other archers, can’t see what’s unbalanced about that. I also help others kill their prey.
    7. In most sessions, archers have 0.5 K/D ratio, yet, their damage taken to dealt is 1:2, which means they do more damage, but don’t get kills.
    8. Archers were balanced to be slow, so why FFS they have no armor instead ?



  • Why do people say that archers are slow? They sprint as quickly as a man at arms don’t they? In general aren’t they the second fastest class?



  • @stickytape:

    Why do people say that archers are slow? They sprint as quickly as a man at arms don’t they? In general aren’t they the second fastest class?

    They’re faster than a vanguard, but less agile. More forward speed, slightly less strafing speed. Source

    But yes, they run as fast as a man-at-arms. They’re just not very agile, which hurts their melee fighting.



  • This is how I deal with all archers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmwhHJ6CFGA
    ^ WARNING: video contains the metaphors of dodging projectiles, using overheads and being awesome.

    On a more serious note, Archers are specialized team fighters, they’re the support! However it is clear that Rambo archers does not last very long on their own no matter how skilled. (Unless obvious noob basher is obvious) but on an even playing field, I would put them on the support level of medic in TF2, they basically must work in a team or else THEY WILL DIE (or not help the team)! It’s just most Archer’s in pub are evil and greed for kills and they do not use their allies to their advantage (reposition where you WOULD NOT hit your teammate may help)

    However in a semi-competitive leveled playing field (Run in the mill clan wars may fit this category), archers already play a key role of winning the game.



  • Well, I agree with the pro-archery advocates. I think good archer is a rare thing, and killed by archer is not more humiliating then by other classes. Archers are Ok.



  • I think the archer’s primary weapons need to get looked at because there really is only 1 viable weapon out of all 9 of them.



  • @poiuasd:

    I think the archer’s primary weapons need to get looked at because there really is only 1 viable weapon out of all 9 of them.

    And that would be?

    I use about 5 of them.



  • @lemonater47:

    @poiuasd:

    I think the archer’s primary weapons need to get looked at because there really is only 1 viable weapon out of all 9 of them.

    And that would be?

    I use about 5 of them.

    Warbow. Obviously anything works in pubs. Games with competitive potential (like this) shouldn’t be balanced around pub play.



  • @poiuasd:

    @lemonater47:

    @poiuasd:

    I think the archer’s primary weapons need to get looked at because there really is only 1 viable weapon out of all 9 of them.

    And that would be?

    I use about 5 of them.

    Warbow. Obviously anything works in pubs. Games with competitive potential (like this) shouldn’t be balanced around pub play.

    I’m not a pub player. I pick a server like anyone else. I use the warbow, the shortbow, the heavy crossbow, the light javelin and the heavy javelin. All depending on the situation and what I feel like.


Log in to reply