Archer/Crossbowman Athletics

[PsykoOps]

If you say that horse archers are supposed to kite then why do you claim that foot archers aren't?

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

If you say that horse archers are supposed to kite then why do you claim that foot archers aren't?

Because they aren't.

 

[iamrawr]

I agree, archers/xbows should have 4 athletics and infantry have 6. It would still leave them mobile and able to move as a group with footmen, but prevent them from overly exploiting their speed. Increasing speed of infantry to 8 would be an alternative, but I'd be afraid it would make infantry too fast.

An archer should rely on their weapon range, team mates and terrain to maintain distance from enemies, not exploit kiting.

I agree with this statement and I think it's very important that I agree with this statement and post my opinion publicly.

 

[Halcyon]

隐藏

Naked guy and cav have to fight sometime.  Archer can kite it up the other two have to get into melee range to do any damage.  1 point reduction in athletics won't stop you being able to run.  It will stop you being able to go naked and run away forever.

I find it funny that everyone is complaining about archer's being able to run as fast as or slightly faster than infantry due to lighter equipment but there's not a single mention about khergit horse archers. If you're looking for the ultimate kiters look no further than horse archers.

You could argue that the horse archer is only one class. Well guess what? Archers are only 2 classes. Crossbows need to be reloaded while standing still so trying to kite with that is an exercise in futility. Thus only 3 classes can ever effectively kite infantry. The two archers can barely do it while the the last one can do it like it is nobody else's business. In fact if the player is good at it, they can even do it fairly effectively against other cavalry units.

So if you guys really really think that kiting should never ever be a viable tactic in the game, I think you're much better off complaining about the khergit horse archers instead.

That being said, if you really wanted to prevent archers from kiting, you need look no further than the game mechanics that prevent crossbow players from kiting. Simply make it so that archers can not knock an arrow to their bow and draw the string while on the move (or perhaps slow them down when they are doing this). Is this realistic? Perhaps preventing them from entirely from moving while drawing is not realistic but I personally thought that not being able to take a few steps while reloading the lighter crossbows is also a bit unrealistic. If you're a stickler for realism then slowing archers down while they are drawing their bows should be realistic enough. Afterall, how many people have the manual dexterity to pull an arrow out of their quiver, knock it on their bow and draw the string while sprinting at top speed for all they are worth. Keep in mind that some of the more powerful bows can't even be drawn at all by a person with average strength.

I personally think this should apply to both bows and crossbows. Lighter crossbows and smaller bows should slow you down to maybe half speed if you are trying to reload or draw them while moving. Heavier crossbows and the more powerful bows should either slow you down to a crawl or prevent you from effectively moving around at all while reloading or drawing them. This would not only make kiting impossible for them but would also prevent the pretty damn unrealistic tactic of dodging enemy fire by dancing around while drawing the bow and then pausing for a split second while you shoot after which you resume the dancing.

I'm pretty sure though that alot of players would be up in arms if you remove the option of playing as archers on horses. A good middle ground might be to give khergits foot archers and instead of infantry, give them skirmish cavalry units that are good at using throwing weapons from horse back instead. In my opinion such skirmisher cavalry units should no be able use lances. They would be the equivalent of horse archers with less ammo and who can only use their ranged weapons at relatively short distances while at the same time promoting the use of swords and axes on horse back as opposed to regular cavalry who we seldom see swinging anything around other than lances.

I would personally find cavalry units that uses thrown weapons alot more interesting than cavalry that uses bows. And if you really want to prevent kiting from being a viable tactic, then this is what would honestly be the only viable way to do it. Archers who can shoot with any degree of accuracy while sitting on top of a galloping horse can only really be taken out by other other archers. Assuming that the horse archer player is competent and is not prone to making mistakes, even other cavalry units would be hard pressed to take them down. I just think at the moment that we've yet to see any players who really specialize in and are experts at using horse archers to their full potential. Once we do though, I can only imagine the kind of complaints about kiting that we would get.

the xbow only really takes about a second or maybe 1.5sec to reload before you can walk *not fully* you can begin walking as soon as you pull the *string* on the xbow back, i.e as soon as you start placing the bolt you can walk. its not hard to get the timing right, either way kiting is still ineffective with xbows, and shouldnt be done anyone since they at least have some melee skills.

and yes you can knock and arrow and begin to draw the bow while you are running, taking this option out of the game would be stupid, just the same as hiding behind a corner to begin the draw, step out and shoot. all of these can be done in real life and taking them away or making them slower will only nerf archers more.

 

[PsykoOps]

If you say that horse archers are supposed to kite then why do you claim that foot archers aren't?

Because they aren't.

Says who? You? They're supposed to kill the enemy best way they can and if that's kiting then so be it.

 

[Berserker Pride]

That is a terrible argument.  The best way possible isn't kiting its actually being a good shot and having skill.  Kiting requires 0 skill.  If you can run away forever then you can be the worst player in the world and still win.  But not before boring the whole team into quitting. 
EDIT:
I go into melee all the time as an archer I often win too.  A shield helps but those aren't too hard to come by.  I was playing on the Euro server at 170 ping too for crying out loud.  The melee skills help infantry but it doesn't mean they will win just that they have an advantage.  The best fighter will still beat the worse one.

 

[PsykoOps]

Even the best shooter cant match infantry in melee. That's why you back awya and keep shooting instead go melee, unless there's some reason to do so such as a clear advantage.

 

[Apthorpe]

Time for a monster post. I was gone all morning for classes and am now back to answer all these arguments.

Let me get this straight. You think that the main archer advantage is athletics? Hmmm... How about a long distance attack that neither infantry nor cavalry can match? It's the basic reason the archer/xbow is deadly - he can kill an enemy long before the enemy has a chance to do damage to him (excluding throwing weapons, but they're not very effective against archers/xbows)

wow thanks for those very insightful words, i had no clue!
you people are basically saying that ranged attacks should only last so long, and if you get to the archers position he should die. If an archer sees you are dangerously close they are going to run so they can fire more arrows *i.e their RANGED attack which they are GOOD at* athletics is essential to this, and thats why there is no reason to nerf archer athletics.

"Your logic depends on the assertion that archers are utter crap in melee combat. News flash - they're not. In fact, infantry aren't all that much better in melee than them. Sure, there's a difference in power strike and weapon skills, but it's not significant enough to overwhelm player skill. And yes, they don't get shields upon spawning, but they can find them extremely easily.

Also, sarcasm works much better when you actually capitalize the first letter of a sentence."

____________________________

It's the end of battle with only an archer to contend with, surely with their better athletics the infantry could have catch up if they dropped the few pounds worth of weapons they don't need to deal with a naked fighter.

I couldn't tell if you were joking here, referring to a future situation where infantry do have better athletics, or simply misinformed, but in case the third is correct, I'll repeat that infantry do not have better athletics than archers/xbows in any case. It's always equal except for the Nord veteran, who has one less athletics than the other inf and archers/xbows.

You don't need to catch up to him, three quivers of arrows each weigh in about 3 kilos. Even if you don't catch up to the archer after decreasing your weight, you can further limit the amount of time the archer has to shoot you when he turns around.

Hooray, so as an infantry I can happily chase an archer with the knowledge that at least I can make him stop shooting at me, even if I can't actually engage him in melee! Oh happy day.

____________________________

Same thread again... (12) And again same arguments...
1. Agree that nord Veterans should have 6 athletics.
2. Don't agree that archers should be slower. Ask why?
2.1. Every class can avoid fighting other class:
  -infantry by hiding in cover (against archers or cavalry) or just run away (against other infantry)
  -cavalry by running away (against everyone)
  -archers same as infantry
If you lower archers athletics, you'll create only situation when one class can avoid fighting another.
2.2. Rock/paper/scissor works in game, but you look at it form wrong angle. Infantry are anti-cav, cav anti-arch and arch anti-inf, no inversely.
2.3. You request from archers using infantry cover against enemy cav and inf, but don't request from infantry using cavalry help against archers. Where is teamplay here, if you can destroy every class with infantry?

That were arguments against lowering athletics. Solution to kitting you''ll find in older threads.

About nord veterans - yes, they aren't best. Axes are slow and much easier than 2h swords to block with weapon. they are just good weapon against shielders who think that hugging is ultimate tactics against 2h users.

2.1 is an invalid point. I think what you mean is that every class can avoid fighting other classes while the other class is using their biggest advantage. But you neglect to mention that not every class can force combat. Cavalry always can, archers usually can, but infantry NEVER can except against a dehorsed cavalry player (in which case the cav player's decision got him into that).
2.2 is also invalid. For one, infantry are not anti-cavalry. From statistics, the majority of the time that a cavalry faces off against an infantry, the cavalry wins. In theory, infantry is not anti-cavalry because infantry can never catch a cavalry player while he is on a horse as long as that cavalry player doesn't make a dumb mistake. And two, even if infantry were anti-cav, the r-p-s mechanic still would not be in place because archers do not suck at melee.
If archer athletics are lowered, this means archers won't be able to solo, not that an r-p-s system will suddenly go into effect.
2.3 is also invalid because once again, infantry are not the anti-cav class. That would be archers.

____________________________

From my experience at least, this pretty much all revolves around 2 people left on battle, one running away.  Because the last couple of movement related changes to archers have made kiting largely ineffective as an actual tactic.  You cant do tests insta 180 headshot nonsense nearly as well, most archers i've spectated on haven't used kiting, or if they have, still died to the infantry.  Pre kiting still works, and that is a good thing. 


Also, throwing weapons are not useless.  And against a 'kiting' archer, you should never run out.

It's still ludicrous balance-wise that as long as an infantry has equal athletics to the archer/xbow (nord inf excepted b/c his ath sucks), he can never catch up with a smart archer/xbowmen.

____________________________

Considering what armor archers get throwing weapons are very effective against us. Kiting as a tactic doesn't work, running away does. Also the argument that if there's only 1 archer and 1 inf left in the game is invalid. What if instead of an archer it is a naked guy or cav? Should they be nerfed too?

Throwing weapons are still at a disadvantage to bows due to their inferior speed and accuracy. And I don't want to always have to carry around throwing weapons as inf in order to catch archers. The game shouldn't make an inf do that in order to be competitive.

As for your second argument, the naked guy doesn't have range (unless he has a throwing weapon, in which case it is a lot less effective than bows/xbows for kiting tactics) and the cav still needs to get close to the inf to do damage. The archer has the distinct ability to do consistent damage at a range and up close, while still being able to avoid infantry up close.

____________________________

Archers advantage is range, not speed. When archers have both range and speed it creates a stupid game where one side (archer) can engage while the other (infantry) cannot.

It doesn't get much clearer than this.

____________________________

First of all we should definately separate between xbowmen and archers. Xbowmen are more a regular infantry with a ranged weapon. Archers dont have the luxury of a shield or proper melee weapons. Their speed is definately their advantage and the excuse that infantry cant catch them isnt a good enough excuse to nerf them. Infantry was never supposed to be cabable of catching archers one on one, that's what cavalry is for.

Lol, so infantry is just supposed to get the short stick? Can't catch cav, can't catch archers... Oh, but no worry. I'm sure the extra 20-25 points in weapon skills and 3 extra power strike will turn the tide of melee battle. If he ever gets in a melee battle against cav or archers, that is.

Also, shields are not hard to obtain for archers. Let me give you two examples of situations where an archer can obtain a shield.

I.
Archer: Hey, teammate! Can you drop me a shield at spawn next round?
Teammate: M'kay.

II.
Archer: Oh, a corpse! And what do you know? A shield was dropped! Wow, so rare. It's not like there are corpses lying around on the battlefield all the time. And even if there were, they'd probably be other archers since we're always the first ones to die! After all, we charge those positions with our super awesome athletics!

____________________________

It is hard to say what sort of turning / camera was supposed to be in this patch, doubtless we will again see something about turning which will adversely affect archery.

And why don't people 'charging' an archer, especially nord veterans, lower their shields if they are getting shot in the foot?

Lastly, the numbers (the spreadsheet) don't tell us how speed is calculated.

#1: Actually, it's not that hard. The camera and turning is instant except when you jump, in which case the delayed turn applies.

#2: Lower your shield, get shot in the face/neck. That makes inf D: . You could argue that inf should just adjust their shield depending on the shot once it is released, but that takes crazy reflexes.

#3: Unofficial Troop Editor tells enough. Archers/xbows get equal athletics with infantry. Playing in game tells you enough too, since infantry have a hard/impossible time catching archers.

____________________________

If you say that horse archers are supposed to kite then why do you claim that foot archers aren't?

Maybe it's because horse archers are on horses, which means they can't be caught, which means kiting is their largest advantage. Whileas an archer is on foot. When all else fails, think balance.

____________________________

the xbow only really takes about a second or maybe 1.5sec to reload before you can walk *not fully* you can begin walking as soon as you pull the *string* on the xbow back, i.e as soon as you start placing the bolt you can walk. its not hard to get the timing right, either way kiting is still ineffective with xbows, and shouldnt be done anyone since they at least have some melee skills.

and yes you can knock and arrow and begin to draw the bow while you are running, taking this option out of the game would be stupid, just the same as hiding behind a corner to begin the draw, step out and shoot. all of these can be done in real life and taking them away or making them slower will only nerf archers more.

#1: You imply that archers have little to no melee skills. In reality, they are nearly as good as infantry at melee. The relative stat differences of Power Strike, Shield, and Weapon Skills are of little consequence for melee.

#2:  If you're suddenly concerned about realism, why don't we go all out? Let's add complete friendly fire, 1st person view only, make dehorsed cav better at fighting on foot, disallow slashing damage to plate armor, etc. My point? Realism should not trump gameplay in most cases, because video games are ultimately made to be enjoyable and not ultra-realistic simulations.

____________________________

Even the best shooter cant match infantry in melee. That's why you back awya and keep shooting instead go melee, unless there's some reason to do so such as a clear advantage.

See point #1 above.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

It's the end of battle with only an archer to contend with, surely with their better athletics the infantry could have catch up if they dropped the few pounds worth of weapons they don't need to deal with a naked fighter.

I couldn't tell if you were joking here, referring to a future situation where infantry do have better athletics, or simply misinformed, but in case the third is correct, I'll repeat that infantry do not have better athletics than archers/xbows in any case. It's always equal except for the Nord veteran, who has one less athletics than the other inf and archers/xbows.

You don't need to catch up to him, three quivers of arrows each weigh in about 3 kilos. Even if you don't catch up to the archer after decreasing your weight, you can further limit the amount of time the archer has to shoot you when he turns around.

Hooray, so as an infantry I can happily chase an archer with the knowledge that at least I can make him stop shooting at me, even if I can't actually engage him in melee! Oh happy day.

That's with the supposition that the archer knows you don't have one, and that you're alone in pursuit, you might get a few more vital seconds for your buddies to close in once the archer has focused on the person who has catched up.
The up side to it is that it also shortens the time needed to corner the archer, which ironically isn't really all that fair due to the artificial bounderies of the map.

 

[Fosite]

Even the best shooter cant match infantry in melee. That's why you back awya and keep shooting instead go melee, unless there's some reason to do so such as a clear advantage.

emmm depdeing on stats maybe not, doesnt mean Archers can win, i played archer plenty and killed my fair share of Infantry with a sword, like most things it tends to get down to skill


As to the rest of topic
maybe make both same, that way there just as fast when wearing same weight, that way cant kite caus everytime you stop to shoot inf will come closer and closer
Toh personaly i find it oke as it is. most times i get killed by Archers is from rather big distances

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Maybe the team should have organized some form of light infantry with their forces too?

 

[Nales]

Although the solution might be a decrease in archer athletics, the truth is that infantry is totally pathetic right now. Even before the throwing weapons nerf I thought infantry was subpar to the two others. They lose to cavalry because they get backstabbed, and they also lose to archers because they can't reach them before dying.
As infantry you're like an unmounted cavalryman with slightly better athletics, or an archer with slightly better melee damage. I find zero point in playing infantry right now. Even as Nords I often pick cavalry, as the Veteran has almost zero defense against cavalry since the throwing weapon nerf (and 1 less athletic than the others for some reason).

Yeah, I think the real issue is with infantry, not archers. Losing both mobility and a ranged weapon should give you more than this. AND maybe a slight decrease in archer / crossbow athletics could be useful as well.

 

[PsykoOps]

"Your logic depends on the assertion that archers are utter crap in melee combat. News flash - they're not. In fact, infantry aren't all that much better in melee than them. Sure, there's a difference in power strike and weapon skills, but it's not significant enough to overwhelm player skill. And yes, they don't get shields upon spawning, but they can find them extremely easily.
Also, sarcasm works much better when you actually capitalize the first letter of a sentence."

You fail to take into account that archers get crap weapons and armor also. So they have no shield unless they happen to loot one, get worse weaponry and armor and have worse stats. That's 4/4 for you mate.

2.3 is also invalid because once again, infantry are not the anti-cav class. That would be archers.

Archers aren't anti-cav, cavalry is the worst enemy of archers if there is no other archers opposing them.

Lol, so infantry is just supposed to get the short stick? Can't catch cav, can't catch archers... Oh, but no worry. I'm sure the extra 20-25 points in weapon skills and 3 extra power strike will turn the tide of melee battle. If he ever gets in a melee battle against cav or archers, that is.

Also, shields are not hard to obtain for archers. Let me give you two examples of situations where an archer can obtain a shield.

I.
Archer: Hey, teammate! Can you drop me a shield at spawn next round?
Teammate: M'kay.

II.
Archer: Oh, a corpse! And what do you know? A shield was dropped! Wow, so rare. It's not like there are corpses lying around on the battlefield all the time. And even if there were, they'd probably be other archers since we're always the first ones to die! After all, we charge those positions with our super awesome athletics!

Infantry dont get the short stick by any measurement. They get really good weapons and armor which they trade for speed. Also you're just assuming that archers get shields easily, that's just a plain lie. Sure you can take a shield from the spawn if you get one, but you will also lose one quiver of arrows in trade. That's giving up your primary weapon right there. Also more than often it is very rare to have a shield lying around where you need it, those battle fields are big.

#3: Unofficial Troop Editor tells enough. Archers/xbows get equal athletics with infantry. Playing in game tells you enough too, since infantry have a hard/impossible time catching archers.

Infantry catch up to archers all the time. Also instead of chasing the lone archer on the enemy team the infantry can go for objectives. There's rarely a need to chase one down. I've played plenty and cant recall a single time such has happened.

#1: You imply that archers have little to no melee skills. In reality, they are nearly as good as infantry at melee. The relative stat differences of Power Strike, Shield, and Weapon Skills are of little consequence for melee.

As I already stated it's not just skill. It's everything, weaponry, armor, shield. Everything.

Even the best shooter cant match infantry in melee. That's why you back awya and keep shooting instead go melee, unless there's some reason to do so such as a clear advantage.

See point #1 above.

Yeah, seen that and it's bullocks as I have already demonstrated.

 

[MaHuD]

Make archers suck at melee but pwn in running :O

 

[PsykoOps]

Also known as "dont change anything". They do suck at melee but can still run better than anyone

 

[Cwvym]

隐藏

Time for a monster post. I was gone all morning for classes and am now back to answer all these arguments.

It is hard to say what sort of turning / camera was supposed to be in this patch, doubtless we will again see something about turning which will adversely affect archery.

And why don't people 'charging' an archer, especially nord veterans, lower their shields if they are getting shot in the foot?

Lastly, the numbers (the spreadsheet) don't tell us how speed is calculated.

#1: Actually, it's not that hard. The camera and turning is instant except when you jump, in which case the delayed turn applies.

#2: Lower your shield, get shot in the face/neck. That makes inf D: . You could argue that inf should just adjust their shield depending on the shot once it is released, but that takes crazy reflexes.

#3: Unofficial Troop Editor tells enough. Archers/xbows get equal athletics with infantry. Playing in game tells you enough too, since infantry have a hard/impossible time catching archers.

Sigh.. please avoid monster posts .. make a few smaller ones. This seems so .. impersonal, may as well be a monster dump.

1. Something was not implemented correctly, so no, we do not have a practical idea.

2. If a slug like me can do it, pretty sure you can.

3. It still does not tell us how the speed is calculated.
Also, one time Gravish came after my cloth archer after I outran him, dropping the armor to go naked .. and he caught me.

This is getting circular.

 

[yeahchris]

Infantry dont get the short stick by any measurement. They get really good weapons and armor which they trade for speed. Also you're just assuming that archers get shields easily, that's just a plain lie. Sure you can take a shield from the spawn if you get one, but you will also lose one quiver of arrows in trade. That's giving up your primary weapon right there. Also more than often it is very rare to have a shield lying around where you need it, those battle fields are big.

You keep ignoring the fact that those awesome weapons, armor, and shields never come into play, ever, if the infantry can't reach their opponent. IE archers - which can outrun infantry forever if they so desire.

 

[PsykoOps]

I'm not ignoring that fact. In a battlefield where there is only inf and archers maybe so. Infantry isn't supposed to be anti-archer class to beging with, that's what cavalry is for.

 

[Halcyon]

"Also, sarcasm works much better when you actually capitalize the first letter of a sentence."

-i can do it anyway i want.
and yes powerstrike and weapon skills do mean a lot. You swing faster, and do plenty more damage, and that hurts alot when you dont have good armor.

dont change the argument to realism. because i hate all reelistik games. general details matter for the sake of gameplay, like the jumping, sure its a little silly the way they jump in M&B but its just something for gameplay.


also yes, infantry in no way is anti archer, i have no clue where you get this from.

 

[CalenLoki]

Same thread again... (12) And again same arguments...
1. Agree that nord Veterans should have 6 athletics.
2. Don't agree that archers should be slower. Ask why?
2.1. Every class can avoid fighting other class:
  -infantry by hiding in cover (against archers or cavalry) or just run away (against other infantry)
  -cavalry by running away (against everyone)
  -archers same as infantry
If you lower archers athletics, you'll create only situation when one class can avoid fighting another.
2.2. Rock/paper/scissor works in game, but you look at it form wrong angle. Infantry are anti-cav, cav anti-arch and arch anti-inf, no inversely.
2.3. You request from archers using infantry cover against enemy cav and inf, but don't request from infantry using cavalry help against archers. Where is teamplay here, if you can destroy every class with infantry?

That were arguments against lowering athletics. Solution to kitting you''ll find in older threads.

About nord veterans - yes, they aren't best. Axes are slow and much easier than 2h swords to block with weapon. they are just good weapon against shielders who think that hugging is ultimate tactics against 2h users.

2.1 is an invalid point. I think what you mean is that every class can avoid fighting other classes while the other class is using their biggest advantage. But you neglect to mention that not every class can force combat. Cavalry always can, archers usually can, but infantry NEVER can except against a dehorsed cavalry player (in which case the cav player's decision got him into that).
2.2 is also invalid. For one, infantry are not anti-cavalry. From statistics, the majority of the time that a cavalry faces off against an infantry, the cavalry wins. In theory, infantry is not anti-cavalry because infantry can never catch a cavalry player while he is on a horse as long as that cavalry player doesn't make a dumb mistake. And two, even if infantry were anti-cav, the r-p-s mechanic still would not be in place because archers do not suck at melee.
If archer athletics are lowered, this means archers won't be able to solo, not that an r-p-s system will suddenly go into effect.
2.3 is also invalid because once again, infantry are not the anti-cav class. That would be archers.

2.1 They can't, but only if only objective in battle is to kill enemy. In both main Warband modes "Battle" and "Fight and Destroy" there are other objectives - use them to force combat.
2.2 r-p-s works, but not as hard counters, but soft counters. Infantry are anti-cav if they know how to use pike, and how to force cavalry to start fighting (2.1). Archers don't suck at melee, but are worse than infantry. And most time in cav vs. arch fight cav win. Cav aren't anti-arch only because they are usually dumb and start fight enemy cav (where wining team lost 50% of their man or horses), but problem is with their players, not class.
2.3 Infantry are anti-cav, archers aren't (without terrain or team cover).

Using infantry to charge at archers is as bat tactic as using cavalry in village (both sometimes work). But if you charge at building where are archers, to force them to leave it, it's good tactic