something needs to be done about archers...

[NightC2win]

Agreed with op. It's extremely lame that archers are the meta... bows too strong/accurate and they can melee as good as an infantry lolol what a joke. you have the best melee players just running around playing archer since the bow is like a carbine rifle in the game and then if someone closes on you, you can just pull out a 2 hander or sword and board LOL what??

They messed this game up... hopefully they fix it.

 

[NewBritish]

Agreed with op. It's extremely lame that archers are the meta... bows too strong/accurate and they can melee as good as an infantry lolol what a joke. you have the best melee players just running around playing archer since the bow is like a carbine rifle in the game and then if someone closes on you, you can just pull out a 2 hander or sword and board LOL what??

They messed this game up... hopefully they fix it.

This is dead wrong. The best melee players have no problem with this. Archers are weak in melee, but a bad sword in the hands of a good player is a lot stronger than the best weapons and armor with a beginner.

 

[KSHMR]

I must admit that I do totally understand your frustrations about archers since it can be really annoying to play against archers like the Fiann class of Batania. One important aspect that most people fail to grasp it that there are plenty of counter-plays to archers.

- Archers like the Fiann (which don't have a shield) are very easy targets for couched lance cavalry, especially in the current state of the game.
- Archers can be punished big time by strong throwing weapons such as the stronger javelin or the throwing axes. Essentially this results in the archer having to take his shield or, retreating or getting punished hard for trying to trade.
- Walking straight towards an archer genuinely implies a very low risk of getting shot, unless you are going with the Aseria Infantry Shield for example.
-Surprise attacks
Generally there are just many ways to deal with archers. For Cavalry the same cannot be said.

Spears are not effective and you cant follow cav around unless you play OP cav yourself..

 

[Younes]

This is dead wrong. The best melee players have no problem with this. Archers are weak in melee, but a bad sword in the hands of a good player is a lot stronger than the best weapons and armor with a beginner.

Not really, if you train for both archer and melee you can actively be good at both since melee currently only consists of feinting

 

[TheBard]

I recall that in WB the first thing archers usually obtained was a shield. I think giving archers access to some kind of shields (since you can't drop equipment for them anymore by selecting two shields) is sensitive for comp.

Shields are imo not the problem. Other stuff is though, like too high armor, running speed (nearly every archer can run away, that shouldn't be the case, the only nation's infantry which is able to punish archer spam effectively and hard is battania thanks to superior movement speed), the combination of too high damage, accuracy and rate of fire, for Xauna (which is not in rotation atm) glitches. The "hybrid classes" should be less of an archer according to what I read in a design post, but in reality 25 arrows are enough to deal with every threat present on the battlefield.

I would say the trade for cav/archers is on par if both know what they're doing. If the archer knows what he's doing and can shoot freely, he can easily hit the rider and interrupt couch lances etc. If the archer is taken by surprise or can not shoot freely, he dies to the lance or pays the price in form of 50+ damage.

But is fighting archers fun? No. Certainly not. It wasn't in Warband either, but not as bad as in BL, esp since Inf is not strong enough to effectively combat cav/archers

 

[Younes]

I recall that in WB the first thing archers usually obtained was a shield. I think giving archers access to some kind of shields (since you can't drop equipment for them anymore by selecting two shields) is sensitive for comp.

Shields are imo not the problem. Other stuff is though, like too high armor, running speed (nearly every archer can run away, that shouldn't be the case, the only nation's infantry which is able to punish archer spam effectively and hard is battania thanks to superior movement speed), the combination of too high damage, accuracy and rate of fire, for Xauna (which is not in rotation atm) glitches.

I would say the trade for cav/archers is on par if both know what they're doing. If the archer knows what he's doing and can shoot freely, he can easily hit the rider and interrupt couch lances etc. If the archer is taken by surprise or can not shoot freely, he dies to the lance or pays the price in form of 50+ damage.

I would also like to add to that, that giving everyone the ability to pick up a bow and have such a high accuracy is also not helping this. The decisions that everyone can ride a horse or pick up any crossbow or bow and still be able to shoot pretty easily with it, was one of the worst choices.

People are not specialized anymore in anything, they can just pick up something and become another class + the one they already had

 

[TheBard]

I would also like to add to that, that giving everyone the ability to pick up a bow and have such a high accuracy is also not helping this. The decisions that everyone can ride a horse or pick up any crossbow or bow and still be able to shoot pretty easily with it, was one of the worst choices.

People are not specialized anymore in anything, they can just pick up something and become another class + the one they already had

I totally forgot about this since I focussed on the archery class alone, but I agree, that adds to the problem as well since good archery is not exclusive to the archery class anymore. It's quite common that dead archers just spawn more archers by infs picking up the bow.

 

[Zoonanay]

I totally forgot about this since I focussed on the archery class alone, but I agree, that adds to the problem as well since good archery is not exclusive to the archery class anymore. It's quite common that dead archers just spawn more archers by infs picking up the bow.

Perhaps the best solution is to reduce non-archer bow stats, I remember TW saying they want classes to be able to pick up anything and adapt with it, but having a near identical skill to a trained archer doesn't make sense.

Horses shouldn't be riden by everyone, but once again TW has already talked about keeping this aswell. Maybe the light horses should be rideable by more expensive troops (Legionary, Oathsworn) but not accessible to peasant-type classes.

Heavy horses should not be rideable by anyone whose not dedicated cavalry. There's too much anguish and frustration in killing a heavy horse rider to only watch as his nearby infantry toddles on up and you're back to square one. I doubt this will change regardless on any targetted nerfs to the unit, by their nature heavy horses are too strong to just be picked up from the field.

 

[TheBard]

Perhaps the best solution is to reduce non-archer bow stats, I remember TW saying they want classes to be able to pick up anything and adapt with it, but having a near identical skill to a trained archer doesn't make sense.

Horses shouldn't be riden by everyone, but once again TW has already talked about keeping this aswell. Maybe the light horses should be rideable by more expensive troops (Legionary, Oathsworn) but not accessible to peasant-type classes.

Heavy horses should not be rideable by anyone whose not dedicated cavalry. There's too much anguish and frustration in killing a heavy horse rider to only watch as his nearby infantry toddles on up and you're back to square one. I doubt this will change regardless on any targetted nerfs to the unit, by their nature heavy horses are too strong to just be picked up from the field.

Well, as you stated they will probably not change much about this. The only solution is to proceed killing the horse or damaging it sufficiently to not be as useful anymore after you killed the rider. That is also frustrating thing to do because it exposes you to danger while you have to hack and slash that horse up to 8 times or something.

Regarding non-archer bow stats and riding ability... There might be tweaks about it, but TW considers it interesting gameplay to have as many bows on the field as possible. I do respectfully disagree with that decision, especially if you take into account how the bows work at the moment.

This situation is promoting getting good at all classes though to adapt to the situation on the battlefield, this is the only pro I can get out of it.

 

[Zoonanay]

Well, as you stated they will probably not change much about this. The only solution is to proceed killing the horse or damaging it sufficiently to not be as useful anymore after you killed the rider. That is also frustrating thing to do because it exposes you to danger while you have to hack and slash that horse up to 8 times or something.

Regarding non-archer bow stats and riding ability... There might be tweaks about it, but TW considers it interesting gameplay to have as many bows on the field as possible. I do respectfully disagree with that decision, especially if you take into account how the bows work at the moment.

This situation is promoting getting good at all classes though to adapt to the situation on the battlefield, this is the only pro I can get out of it.

Agreed, adaptability is the only pro to this system, and it's a hard one to bring to the forefront without being overpowered.

I hadn't considered injuring or killing the horse to make them redundant, I found unlike the Warband horses that were born in fire and would stand fearless as you sliced their face up, the Bannerlord ones run away if you tickle them as you walk past.

A rather unnecessary solution could be an execute system, where horses could be instantly killed, if not being riden, in a 2-3 seconds execute animation. But it's a lot of code and effort that still would leave you vulnerable to attack.

I struggle to think of any solution outside stat changing to effect the gameplay around picking up bows. Maybe a limit to the amount of arrows that a non-archer can carry? But I feel any solution I can currently think of as being a rather lackluster solution to a pretty systemic problem.

 

[TheBard]

Agreed, adaptability is the only pro to this system, and it's a hard one to bring to the forefront without being overpowered.

I hadn't considered injuring or killing the horse to make them redundant, I found unlike the Warband horses that were born in fire and would stand fearless as you sliced their face up, the Bannerlord ones run away if you tickle them as you walk past.

A rather unnecessary solution could be an execute system, where horses could be instantly killed, if not being riden, in a 2-3 seconds execute animation. But it's a lot of code and effort that still would leave you vulnerable to attack.

I struggle to think of any solution outside stat changing to effect the gameplay around picking up bows. Maybe a limit to the amount of arrows that a non-archer can carry? But I feel any solution I can currently think of as being a rather lackluster solution to a pretty systemic problem.

There are many possible solutions. Limits, archer nerf, cav nerf, increase the numbers of skirmish etc pp.
The one which is currently being used in the upcoming BEAST tournament is a spawn restriction, basicly restricting every non-infantry unit to two at one given time. We will see if it works.

 

[Yukmouth++]

I think throwing weapons are a bigger issue than archers.

 

[Greedalicious]

There are many possible solutions. Limits, archer nerf, cav nerf, increase the numbers of skirmish etc pp.
The one which is currently being used in the upcoming BEAST tournament is a spawn restriction, basicly restricting every non-infantry unit to two at one given time. We will see if it works.

Limiting classes would basically mean the system has failed. In 10 years of competitive Mount & Blade, we didnt need class limits,and we dont need them now. As I recall one of the main reasons we have the current class system is so the developers can make the game more balanced, so this shouldnt be a problem for very long...right? It also wouldnt really help as it'd make infantries pick up the bows and we'd be back to square one.

Nerfing archers and cav would certainly do it. And most importantly buffing infantry. Infantry has a key role still, but theyre just not fun to play.

Increasing the numbers on skirmish would make the game less competitive and also wouldnt help. It'd just mean more cavalry and more archers since both of these classes rely on chaos to be the most efficient.

Best way to fix it is to fix infantry and nerf the other classes. Please do both, infantry is not fun to play.

I wish the tournament wouldnt have class limits, that way the problems the game is facing would be easier to detect and fixed. Obviously I understand that the limits make the game more enjoyable, but as its still early access, I'd argue information and change is more important. Which we'll be getting very soon, right?

I think throwing weapons are a bigger issue than archers.

When throwing weapons is the main way to get kills as an infantry, thats a problem... Infantries use melee as a last resort, and basically everyone gets javelins. Having to choose between a spear and javelins is a poor decision, as you either choose a tool to keep you and your team alive, or a tool to get kills. Sounds fine in theory, but if you're not playing as an organized team, most people wont bother with the spear, making cavalry even more powerful. Even with the cav stopping mechanic being heavily flawed right now, most cavalry wouldnt run into a wall of spears, or even a single dedicated spearboy.

 

[Namakan]

Someone please explain to me what the problem with vertical aim correction is? I thought all it did was line up first and third person crosshairs correctly? At least that's what I concluded after doing a brief test when it was added to the game.

 

[Zoonanay]

Someone please explain to me what the problem with vertical aim correction is? I thought all it did was line up first and third person crosshairs correctly? At least that's what I concluded after doing a brief test when it was added to the game.

I'll link a video, the range shown is unrealistic but shows the automatic gravity adjustment well.

In Warband the third and first perspective lines are parallel, they continue onwards for an infinite distance at equal spacing meaning at closer ranges the difference between them is more pronounced, but at longer ranges it's almost negligible.

There are alot of problems with adjusting for perspective. When two lines start with the same longtitude but differing latitudes, they can only go for a theoretical infinite distance if parallel. If one line is at a different acute vertical angle then they will intersect given an infinite distance no matter how slight the angle.

Bannerlord has attempted to adjust for this, it appears instead of having a static intersection or going parallel again, the third person crosshair detects the distance from the target, then it automatically adjusts the arrow to hit where the crosshair aims. In theory, this solves all the perspective issues. In reality, it automatically adjusts for every variable apart from travel time, which is pretty damn fast and easy to account for given limited practice.

I imagine this auto-adjusting method is what has resulting in some perculiar behaviour in arrow physics.

This feature fundamentally changes how archery acts in the game, long distance shots are considerably easier to hit, frantic third person shots admist melee chaos are alot easier to hit.

Everything becomes easier to hit with this feature, and it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it needs dramatic changes to damage stats and mouse movement penalties, and considering the removal of the auto-gravity from the perspective adjustment, if that's even possible within the system TW have constructed.

 

[Aprikosenmann]

If Cav and Archers are OP instead of nerfing them you can buff INF.
-Increase shield size against arrows
-Armor decrease arrow damage more
-More spear damage to horses
-Spears can stop horses from a larger angle

 

[Thistle]

I agree with the last three points but I like the fact that shields vary in size and no longer cover the whole body except for the head (hitbox not visual).

 

[Aprikosenmann]

I agree with the last three points but I like the fact that shields vary in size and no longer cover the whole body except for the head (hitbox not visual).

Yes that is nice. But it should not be possible to be shot into the foot when holding the shield to the correct direction and holding it as low as possible.

 

[Doctor_Noob]

You sound like a warband purist. This is an Early Access title, so you can't criticize it; it needs no improvement. Grow up.

good troll

 

[Percival!!]

If Cav and Archers are OP instead of nerfing them you can buff INF.
-Increase shield size against arrows
-Armor decrease arrow damage more
-More spear damage to horses
-Spears can stop horses from a larger angle

Why do that when you can fix broken game mechanics like couches, throwing weaps, and archer melee ability being too high