Archery sucks, shields overpowered

[Sour Cream and Onion]

I put 'pro' in single quotes for a reason

 

[Oyipggy]

I think people just want to be "uber sniper killers" one shot is enough to help your team, because as soon as they are hit they become paranoid and lose skill. Archery is about supporting the infantry, and each shot, even if it doesn't kill is helpful. Archery is almost "overpowered" as a team with good archers can negate any cavalry and take out shields before infantry can get to them if they are positioned well. That is when counter-archery is required and I personally think the game is balanced as is... Just because you're playing archer and don't have a high score does not mean you are not an "efficient teammate", since your point is to HELP the infantry, as everything should be in this game, supporting the infantry.

Absolutely nobody in this thread has said anything of the sort. An archer's strength is in it's range, correct? I assume their characters have less power strike, ironflesh, proficiencies, whatever. Their weakness is melee. What is a footman's strength? Close combat. Now, you can take the most powerful melee weapon in the game, in terms of just doing damage, and easily get a one hit kill. You can take some of the weaker ones and get a one hit kill. Until someone with a ranged weapon (more crossbowmen, in my opinion. Bows should take more than one hit, just for balance's sake.) can kill with one hit from their strongest weapon at range, that sounds rather unbalanced to me.

Landing hits is fine. I do that all the time, and can be perfectly happy with it. After all, a guy with decent to good armor with half health is better than one with full. The problem comes when I shoot that naked/tunic wearing guy and he doesn't die. I've been killed in one hit from someone's bastard sword when wearing the Sarranid cavalry robe, which is somewhere in the 30s. A bow/crossbow would do laughable damage in comparison.

Or, just give archers more arrows.

 

[Recel]

Well, archers are overpowered in one regard i can think of now. If there are more than one archers to fight than a single infatry cant hanle them.
As infatry you can pick on 3-4 other infatry and even win, but against archers you cant do that. As soon as you reach them one will go into melee with you and the rest pulls back and shoot you. If you change your target to another archer he will melee you and the other will swich back. So you are pretty much doomed against more archers if they are focused on you and they have half-a-brain.

People just dont like to die from someone who is a mile away so they cry. But if you use cover, your shield and footwork you can pretty much get close to an archer. And as infatry you should know how to use those even if there are no archers anywhere.
An archers power is in its range and positioning. Take one of these away and you have a good target.

 

[Vermin]

I put 'pro' in single quotes for a reason

If you did not want my reply you shouldnt have said anything like it in the first place

Lets take Village for instance: in 9/10 cases the ones who spawn inside will camp inside while those spawning outside will in 9/10 be forced to get in and attack. Has absolutely nothing to do with being 'pro' or not.
Its the same on other maps, on FbtR its ruins or forest that one team camps and once the other team realizes how close their enemy is to 2 of the 3 MotF-spawns, they are forced to attack.

Well, archers are overpowered in one regard i can think of now. If there are more than one archers to fight than a single infatry cant hanle them.
As infatry you can pick on 3-4 other infatry and even win, but against archers you cant do that. As soon as you reach them one will go into melee with you and the rest pulls back and shoot you. If you change your target to another archer he will melee you and the other will swich back. So you are pretty much doomed against more archers if they are focused on you and they have half-a-brain.

People just dont like to die from someone who is a mile away so they cry. But if you use cover, your shield and footwork you can pretty much get close to an archer. And as infatry you should know how to use those even if there are no archers anywhere.
An archers power is in its range and positioning. Take one of these away and you have a good target.

A Rhodok can take a board shield, 1h weapon, Pike and ranged weapons(darts, javelins). (S)he is an allrounder. Can stop and kill cavalry, can fight other infantry and archers. The darts will allow you to take on multiple archers. It might not be easy but then, taking on multiple infantry isnt easy either. On the contrary, if you choose your ground well, its easier to attack archers (you usually have teammates, making it easier).
There's a reason as to why ZHG has infantry now.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Well, archers are overpowered in one regard i can think of now. If there are more than one archers to fight than a single infatry cant hanle them.
As infatry you can pick on 3-4 other infatry and even win, but against archers you cant do that. As soon as you reach them one will go into melee with you and the rest pulls back and shoot you. If you change your target to another archer he will melee you and the other will swich back. So you are pretty much doomed against more archers if they are focused on you and they have half-a-brain.

I don't think that's called overpowered, advantageous would be a better word. What you're describing seems to come from what archers can really do rather than a balancing problem with stats.

 

[Orion]

Swadius is right. That's just playing smart, not being given an arbitrary advantage because of your equipment. Besides, in your 1 infantry versus 3 infantry statement, you aren't taking into consideration that not all players are going to be dumb enough to hand a victory like that to you. Decent players won't waste a 3 to 1 advantage, they'll just kill you faster.

 

[DanAngleland]

I think people just want to be "uber sniper killers" one shot is enough to help your team, because as soon as they are hit they become paranoid and lose skill. Archery is about supporting the infantry, and each shot, even if it doesn't kill is helpful. Archery is almost "overpowered" as a team with good archers can negate any cavalry and take out shields before infantry can get to them if they are positioned well. That is when counter-archery is required and I personally think the game is balanced as is... Just because you're playing archer and don't have a high score does not mean you are not an "efficient teammate", since your point is to HELP the infantry, as everything should be in this game, supporting the infantry.

Absolutely nobody in this thread has said anything of the sort.
A few people, as you do below, have argued for one shot kills to be more common. Added to the fact that aiming is little different than an FPS, and the fire rate is constant, WB archery is pretty much an FPS in medieval clothing.

An archer's strength is in it's range, correct? I assume their characters have less power strike, ironflesh, proficiencies, whatever. Their weakness is melee. What is a footman's strength? Close combat. Now, you can take the most powerful melee weapon in the game, in terms of just doing damage, and easily get a one hit kill. You can take some of the weaker ones and get a one hit kill. Until someone with a ranged weapon (more crossbowmen, in my opinion. Bows should take more than one hit, just for balance's sake.) can kill with one hit from their strongest weapon at range, that sounds rather unbalanced to me.
Or realistic. Besides, unbalanced? If everyone could wield as much power from range, why bother with melee? One hit with a powerful bow/crossbow and your opponent is dead, no risk to you. In fact it is almost this powerful already, and I can't believe this old thread was even resurrected. And I don't see people 'easily' getting 1 hit kills with powerful melee weapons, not against good armour. Archery is already unrealistically easy. It is more like a turret on rails than a human being, who probably can't strafe across the ground whilst firing rapidly without rest.

Landing hits is fine. I do that all the time, and can be perfectly happy with it. After all, a guy with decent to good armor with half health is better than one with full. The problem comes when I shoot that naked/tunic wearing guy and he doesn't die. I've been killed in one hit from someone's bastard sword when wearing the Sarranid cavalry robe, which is somewhere in the 30s. A bow/crossbow would do laughable damage in comparison.
Landing hits is 'fine' for you? I'm sure it is, its too easy. Honestly, lots of people use archery for a reason. Like I said, this thread does not need going over again.
Or, just give archers more arrows.

 

[Archonsod]

Well, archers are overpowered in one regard i can think of now. If there are more than one archers to fight than a single infatry cant hanle them.

Assuming all players are of equal skill, then a single individual of any class should get their arse handed to them when facing two individuals of any other class. If they didn't you'd have a serious issue with the game balance.

Added to the fact that aiming is little different than an FPS, and the fire rate is constant, WB archery is pretty much an FPS in medieval clothing.

You don't say. So explain precisely how a game in which you're playing in first (or indeed third) person and shooting something is going to avoid being a first/third person shooter without having went horribly wrong at some point

It is more like a turret on rails than a human being, who probably can't strafe across the ground whilst firing rapidly without rest.

Not only could a human being do it, but I suspect they could do it with rather more accuracy than the game allows at present. I'm not even sure if having the arrow take off at a 45 degree angle from the direction of aiming would be possible under actual physics.

 

[HJKL]

There's a reason as to why ZHG has infantry now.

Because gimmick one-class clans were predictably going to perform badly?

 

[superhit1000]

4 decent archers vs 4 decent infantry men. Archers will most likely win, cause archers just shoots their arrows and run back for eternity until they can get their bow out again. But even when they stand and fight they'll have nearly the same chance of winning the fight as the infantry. Assuming the decent archers can manual block. 

They can also set up crossfires which can slaughter any infantry group that comes into range or they can spread out around the infantry group and starting killing off the infantry that has their back turned to them.

 

[Orion]

You haven't played very many scrims, have you? 

Let's put it this way, a while back nK scrimmed ZHG. At the time, ZHG was still using a pure archer force. While ZHG had great strategy and placement of their archers, nK still mopped the floor with them because mass archers don't match up against mass infantry.

The reason why is because infantry is the primary fighting force on the battlefield. Archers are a support class. I'm not saying this out of some gung-ho "infantry is uber hardcore" bias, I'm saying it because it's fact. Archers by nature are capable of disrupting melees at a distance without wasting any time to get there, but they sacrifice damage output to do it. They aren't the primary damage-dealers on the team, instead they play the role of enabling other team members to get kills easier. If a cavalryman is running around and flanking your infantry, an archer can dismount him easier than an infantryman. That puts his ass in the dirt, so infantry can take him out much easier. If your infantry is fighting other infantry, archers can flank and place shots in the opposing infantry's sides and back to stagger them, deal some damage, and open them up to melee attacks from the front. If archers get kills, it's because of only a few reasons (listed in order of likelihood):

1) The enemy didn't have a shield or had their back turned.
2) Scored the killing blow against a wounded enemy.
3) Headshot.
4) Melee.

If you'll notice, the two most likely kills for archers come from inattentive enemies or enemies that are already low on health. If you're doing your job as an archer correctly, you're shooting at enemies who aren't paying attention to you. Furthermore, if they aren't paying attention to you that's probably because they're fighting someone else, which means there's a chance they're already wounded. Face to face, an infantryman 9 times out of 10 is going to have a shield and he's not going to get damaged by a single archer firing at his front. Flanking is paramount for archers to be effective, and that's the way it should be.

The reason melee is listed last is because archers have lower "Infantry stats" (power strike, iron flesh, melee proficiencies) than infantry classes do, and they don't get shields (crossbowmen != archers, shhh). It's much more likely for archers to be taken out by infantry than for infantry to be taken out by archers when it comes to melee, and if the infantry is aware of archer threats they aren't going to take many shots on their way to the archers.

 

[superhit1000]

I've played in a fair bit of scrims, but the last few scrims I've played has Archer limitations.

What I've seen so far is that when a cavalryman is running around and flanking the archers would shoot it down and shoot and kill the horseman before he gets back up. Once infantry starts to close in a few archers would engage and the rest of the archers flank around the enemy infantry and rip em up with arrows.

I'm not saying archers are overpowered and unbeatable but they're basically infantry with range proficiency and decrease of stats. I had nord mail before and a crossbow nearly took 1/2 my hp. They also have a nice arsenal of weapons. Nord archers have a two handed axe for 90 gold, rhodok crossbows has the pointy stick aswell as having a shield, sarrinid archers are cheap and efficient.

I actually don't have a problem melee wise, its probably just cause I'm sick to death of archers running half way across the map to pull out his bow again.

 

[Maksim125]

Thats why I added a bonus to shields for my bows in the mods I play. Because archers will always loose against infantry with shields and cavalry with spears especialy when the spears are couched.

 

[Vermin]

There's a reason as to why ZHG has infantry now.

Because gimmick one-class clans were predictably going to perform badly?

Infantry only clans seem to work fine(example: Einherjar, atleast when we faced them)
Besides, we knew it would be harder as archers only, but we wanted to try it anyway.

I've played in a fair bit of scrims, but the last few scrims I've played has Archer limitations.

What I've seen so far is that when a cavalryman is running around and flanking the archers would shoot it down and shoot and kill the horseman before he gets back up. Once infantry starts to close in a few archers would engage and the rest of the archers flank around the enemy infantry and rip em up with arrows.

These are situations in which you assume the archers outnumber their enemy. Some cavalrymen get dehorsed by a pike or a javelin and get 5 infantry stabbing them before they can get up. Same for infantry

I'm not saying archers are overpowered and unbeatable but they're basically infantry with range proficiency and decrease of stats. I had nord mail before and a crossbow nearly took 1/2 my hp. They also have a nice arsenal of weapons. Nord archers have a two handed axe for 90 gold, rhodok crossbows has the pointy stick aswell as having a shield, sarrinid archers are cheap and efficient.

Archers dont get twohanders, polarms or shields, they only have onehanders. Ofc they have to buy their ranged equipment first and then see what is left of their budget for buying a sword. Archers are archers, and easily killed in melee by anyone with a normal functioning brain and some basic experience.
The Nord archer is not even an archer, its a hybrid, a ranged infantryclass. They have the choice between a powerful but very slow longbow and an (since recent) inaccurate shortbow. When Nords are up, 90% plays infantry because noone wants to be a ranged light infantry(wo)man when you can be a Huscarl(with very accurate throwing axes, if I might add).
Rhodoks have a limited armourselection to choose from, unlike the Swadians with their haubergeon. The other equipment is there to balance that out.
And Sarranid archers only have a pair of light bows with low accuracy, the best and most efficient archer is still the Vaegir; good bows but limited melee-selection(three weapons)

I actually don't have a problem melee wise, its probably just cause I'm sick to death of archers running half way across the map to pull out his bow again.

Not possible, the archer cannot outrun you.

 

[Oyipggy]

I'm not saying archers are overpowered and unbeatable but they're basically infantry with range proficiency and decrease of stats. I had nord mail before and a crossbow nearly took 1/2 my hp. They also have a nice arsenal of weapons. Nord archers have a two handed axe for 90 gold, rhodok crossbows has the pointy stick aswell as having a shield, sarrinid archers are cheap and efficient.

I think you have a good point in there somewhere. Archers are meant to fight at range, their melee weapons should not be too good. I'm not sure what the proficiencies are, but it feels as if they are nearly as good as a footman at fighting in close combat. It does take many more hits from their melee weapons though. It's frustrating to no end to hit someone with your scimitar five times when playing as the Vaegirs, and they still live. Frustrating, but fair.

And you can take 1/2 damage, but it's unlikely. You're just as likely to take much less than that. (Just FYI, mail was really ****ty for protection against arrows, especially a bodkin. The arrow would just find the holes easily.)

 

[Archonsod]

4 decent archers vs 4 decent infantry men. Archers will most likely win, cause archers just shoots their arrows and run back for eternity until they can get their bow out again.

They deserve to, given the infantry are a) retarded enough to be walking out in the open and b) dumb enough to approach from a single direction.

Although with a decent shield you could still simply run them down till they run out of map.

 

[omzdog]

Inf has very versatile tactics to combat a team of archers.

We, the Einharjar and Shieldings, often practice such situations. And for the most part, the team that doesn't act like retards will win. You can't come up and say that archers will most likely win (unless its a team of foolish 2hers).

 

[Draygo]

Although with a decent shield you could still simply run them down till they run out of map.

Or simply bring some throwing weapons and throw them at the fleeing enemy.

With the added bonus that you keep picking up the ones you missed.

 

[wyrda78]

...no.  Archers are already terribly powerful in multiplayer.

are you trolling? archers get decimated in multiplayer. how is it fair to get one shotted by melee when it takes like 3 or 4 shots with a bow to kill them?

and yes I know how to aim. I can take like 100 npcs by myself with headshots if I had the arrows in singleplayer, not like its a big feat or anything but you know. I think the multiplayer netcode kinda sucks too which makes archery even worse.

So one in ten of archers get killed im multiplayer? IMHO they seem to get killed a lot more than that.

But seriously, I don't think the problem is that shields that are OP, I think that it is that archery is UP. Now, i`m a decent shot at archery in single player but I find it extremely difficult to hit anyone in MP. The main reasons being that the archery characters are really inaccurate, and that the players move really unpredictably. In fact, the ONLY time I have been able to hit anyone is when they are unaware pf me and running in a strait line. If they are engaged in melee combat, or aware of the archer, it is almost impossible to hit them. Even when you hit someone it takes 4+ shots to hit them. Another annoying fact is that the decent, more powerfull bows make your accuracy sh*t.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Tripida]

Archers are accurate, except khergits which have bad aim even with nomad bow.
If battle is big, you can get stronger,slower and less accurate bows to save ammo, and with enough experience you can hit anyway, but if you want be sniper alike just upgrade bow up to nomad which is still very fast but stronger than shortbow.