[Suggestion]Archers are far too powerful (continuation)

[CalenLoki]

May I ask who and why lock this beautiful thread in the middle of constructive conversation (what more, when I was typing response) without any explanation? I count this as someone mistake, and I'll fix it by create continuation Of course if someone give me reasonable explanation why this topic shouldn't be continued, I shut up and lock this thread.

So...

You don't think that just lower archer athletics is a decent solution to cavalry not being able to hit archers with any skill, and also to infantry not being able to catch them?

No. I think that boosting horse manoeuvring and lowering shooting while running effectiveness is the solution. Infantry shouldn't be able to catch archers - what is cavalry role there?

I also don't agree with your idea of class balance. Forcing infantry, cavalry and archers into preset roles where they only engage opposing class X doesn't make for compelling gameplay, it makes people continually switch classes and avoid combat. Infantry need to be able to get near to archers without getting slaughtered, archers need to have some chance against cavalry and pikeman shouldn't just dominate cavalry 90% of the time because none of this promotes the interesting melee fights that warband can provide. Hard counters just involve a lot of movement from both teams to get into positions where their class A can effectively counter the enemy class B, and I really don't think that's a good place for warband to go.

I not force classes, but sub-classes to preset roles. No Infantry, but medium infantry, no cavalry, but light cavalry. You can still take light armour, large shield and throwing weapon to be light-infantry-archer-slayer, light armour and a lot of arrows to be archer-horse-killer, heavy horse to charge infantry as heavy-cavalry. If every weapon set is fully-usable against every class in every situation, where is place for tactics here?
About not promoting melee fighting - it depends on environment - in tactical battle, there are usually no place for sword duels. If you want them, go to deathmach or TDM in village.
Sad truth: battle=tactics=moving class A to counter class B. And because it's impossible to balance classes for every mode, map and settings, I think Native should be balanced for battles on semi-open map with auto block (because it's most popular settings)

No I am suggesting that archers should have to be more careful of letting infantry near them.  If archers can always just run off without worrying about actually getting caught what is there to promote teamwork.  Right now an all archer army and even worse an all crossbowman force is actually a viable tactic.  Provided you have cover and can camp cavalry can't just run you down.  And if they bring infantry even better.  The infantry part of an army should be able to catch your archers if they are dumb enough to leave the safety of the team.  Right now they can't so once all the cavalry are dead the archers just kind of run around.  It's not like you can't shoot the infantry before they catch you and it's not like you don't also have a sword.  Running away shooting over your shoulder is not something that should be an option for archers.  Leave that for Khergits and fight like a man.
As other people have said provided there is a lot of cover or the horses are dead the only counter to a ton of archers is a ton more archers.  Makes for some boring sniping matches.

Archers can't always run off, because there are cavalry. And here is teamwork - infantry push archers to run, and cavalry then cavalry can kill them. All archers army are viable tactic, because infantry aren't much better in melee than archers, no because archers can run off. If infantry kill archers in melee, cavalry in the open ground, countering full ranged army wouldn't be hard:
Make 3/6 inf, 1/6 arch, 2/6 cav. Send infantry to archers cover, because there are no melee blockers, it takes short time(low losses). then their archers start to run away - and got slaughtered by cavalry (because leave cover). Every tactic can be countered.

  Right now they can't so once all the cavalry are dead the archers just kind of run around.

Cav is usually dead, because they don't wait for other class support, and just charge enemy. And they are dead long before infantry reach enemy.

Running away shooting over your shoulder is not something that should be an option for archers.

I agree. But just running away should be option, and lowering their athletics would take it away. And that is reason why i vote for: boosting both archer and infantry speed (to lower walking:fighting time ratio), lowering rate of fire, especially when moving (to make picking shot more viable), lowering melee damage (to balance low rate of fire, and to lower walking:fighting time ratio), increasing horse manoeuvrability (to make dodging cavalry harder) and pike length (to balance horse higher manoeuvrability, infantry lover damage, and archers low rate of fire).

 

[Kleidophoros]

8 seconds reload time for crossbows? oh god no, when using a crossbows you are already a sitting duck.

Maybe I little overdone that (in term of gameplay, not realism), 2s bow reload and 6s crossbow?

still too much if you ask me. while i fire 1 bolt you will fire 3 arrows. it might be realistic and all but between the fact that they are sitting duck when reloading while you are kiting and this, crossbowmen will be at a great disadvantage.

 

[CalenLoki]

bow: 2s reload + 2s drawing (+ eventually 1s aiming) = 4-5s
crossbow: 6s reloading + 2s drawing (holding in shooting position? don't know how to call that) (+ eventually 1s aiming) = 8-9s

Where is 3:1 ratio?

 

[Kleidophoros]

Right now, in time i can fire a crossbow an archer can fire 2 arrows. if you want longer reload it will mean 1to3.
also you can fire an arrow in 3 seconds not 5. hell even 2 if your target isnt moving. like a crossbowman

 

[CalenLoki]

I think that we misunderstood each other.
in current system (.614) reloading+shooting (without any aiming): bow 2s (instant reload and 2s drawing), crossbow 4s(2s reload and 2s putting into fire position). ratio 2:1
in my system: bow 4s (2s reloading and 2s drawing), crossbow 8s (6s reloading, 2s putting into position). ratio 2:1

second line is about RL or .614? If IRL, than yes, if you have nocked arrow, you can draw and shot it in 3s, or 2s if you fire instinctively instead of aiming. But you can't nock+draw bow in 2s (if you are human) which take place in .614

 

[woppin]

If every weapon set is fully-usable against every class in every situation, where is place for tactics here?

An archer is the opposite: he has a single weapon which is fully usable against every class in every situation, where are the tactics in that

I think you're seeing my point that balancing for weapon set is important: each class should have access to something that can reasonably deal with each of the other classes. Your example is good too, throwing weapons are one of the few good counters to the ultra-nimble but shieldless archers available to infantry, but they are not particularly effective against other infantry or cavalry unless spammed.

So the tactics involve taking a team with the right mix of equipment, which are of course restricted by class, and moving into position. However, if we abstract this into a more quantitative form and assign a probability to the outcome of a particular engagement, say archers vs cavalry, the difference in success probability between the two parties should ideally be small, so that skill in battle determines the outcome more than the chosen equipment. Under this scheme, even though Cavalry counter achers, the probability is no worse than about 60-40 given equal skill levels and equipment costs.

This is important!

What you describe, the movement of troops into appropriate positions etc. is what I love about games like Total War, where hard counters are the very cornerstone of the game. Warband is nothing like that sort of game though, you actually have to play out the individual fights and there is significant skill involved in close combat, so to remove that skill element in favor of allowing hardcountering classes to destroy their opposition with ease negates the very purpose of playing a game like warband instead of a strategy game: the combat.

In a soft countering system where each class has a decent chance against any other, player skill 90% determines the victor of individual battles instead of equipment or class choice which only alters the equation +/- 10%. In this manner, the team strategy lies in organising yourselves to maximise the skills of your players, playing to your strengths (maybe you have a guy who kicks ass as a lancer) and concealing your weaknesses (maybe you boutdon't have anyone good at archer).

 

[Kleidophoros]

I think that we misunderstood each other.
in current system (.614) reloading+shooting (without any aiming): bow 2s (instant reload and 2s drawing), crossbow 4s(2s reload and 2s putting into fire position). ratio 2:1
in my system: bow 4s (2s reloading and 2s drawing), crossbow 8s (6s reloading, 2s putting into position). ratio 2:1

second line is about RL or .614? If IRL, than yes, if you have nocked arrow, you can draw and shot it in 3s, or 2s if you fire instinctively instead of aiming. But you can't nock+draw bow in 2s (if you are human) which take place in .614

Yeah seems so; 2:1 is cool by me.
You can fire an arrow in 2s in warband right now; just been a Khergit and later a Vaegir.

 

[CalenLoki]

@Woppin - We are closer and closer to consensus
Problem is about hard or soft countering: imo, there should be possible to make hard counters, but only if your opponent try to do the same.
So simply - if you risk, and take specialistic set (i.e. light armoured archer/heavy armoured 2h infantry) you can have big advantage against certain unit type and set (heavy infantry and cavalry/light infantry and throwers) but also big disadvantage against other (light throwers and heavy ranged units/light archers and throwers).
However, if you don't want to risk, take medium set, there will be no hard counters against you - only soft (if enemy take specialized set) or nearly no.
Of course every class should have their general advantages and weakness:
-infantry are best in close quarter in cover, but can as well fight in open. can choose where to fight, but can't choose against whom.
-cavalry are best in open field, and can choose opponent, but cant choose where to fight - are locked to opens.
-archers can choose ground and opponent, fight well against those who don't pay attention to archers, but can't fight someone who decide to attack them. so it's mainly support unit.

 

[woppin]

@Woppin - We are closer and closer to consensus
Problem is about hard or soft countering: imo, there should be possible to make hard counters, but only if your opponent try to do the same.
So simply - if you risk, and take specialistic set (i.e. light armoured archer/heavy armoured 2h infantry) you can have big advantage against certain unit type and set (heavy infantry and cavalry/light infantry and throwers) but also big disadvantage against other (light throwers and heavy ranged units/light archers and throwers).
However, if you don't want to risk, take medium set, there will be no hard counters against you - only soft (if enemy take specialized set) or nearly no.
Of course every class should have their general advantages and weakness:
-infantry are best in close quarter in cover, but can as well fight in open. can choose where to fight, but can't choose against whom.
-cavalry are best in open field, and can choose opponent, but cant choose where to fight - are locked to opens.
-archers can choose ground and opponent, fight well against those who don't pay attention to archers, but can't fight someone who decide to attack them. so it's mainly support unit.

Yes this is the type of thing I was getting at, but currently there all sort of bits and pieces of this picture that are out of place. "Choosing opponent" is not a good skill, it's the best skill available. Hard counters + one class gets to choose who they fight = everyone else is screwed. This is why cavalry had to be made so vulnerable to spears and pikes, and why horse hitboxes need to be big enough even unskilled archers can hit them, because otherwise they would just win everything. This is a move to a softer countering system, but elements of the older, harder system are still in there.

The one that sticks out like a sore thumb is the archer being able to kite melee units and therefore hardcountering an entire class to a very high degree. I would say this is too far, and archer should get a number of opportunities to fire on the infantry as they approach, and this is their window of opportunity to inflict serious damage.
Once the two are in melee, player skill is going to be the major factor, the infantryman should have sustained hits, but the archer has no shield. This sounds about right to me, it's a winnable fight for the archer albeit difficult, but they had their chance to kill while the infantry approached.
But archers having higher mobility ruins this interaction, and this is why infantry need to be faster than archers - so he has a chance to actually win without relying on throwing weapons (which are very limited in number and also fairly inaccurate most of the time).

The other two things that stick out for me that I mentioned in the other thread are almost identical in their removal of skill from the encounter: the pike and the great lance.

If you play cavalry and an infantryman takes the pike, you cannot win. It is a simple fact that the pike is too long for you to have any chance against it doing a standard thrust attack run, and if you move in closer to use the sword your horse will be cut to bits. This is not good for the same reasons as the archer mobility is not good: it gives one player no incentive to fight - the chance of success is too low.

The Great Lance is slightly more situational due to its very low thrust speed. I don't actually use it myself since I find it too slow and kind of lame, but it is undeniably the best cav vs cav weapon when fighting on open ground if you have a fast horse (courser).

I'm not sure about applying armor to the equation, since I don't really feel armor is worth its cost most of the time, playing as a "heavy infantry" would seem to achieve exactly the same as a "light infantry." With this in mind, you can be a light infantry with javelins, a polearm, a shield and a sword/axe/club. Now the ONLY class you can't deal with is the light archer, since if you run out of javelins you have no weapon that can touch him.

For cavalry this scheme does not apply, since the lance is effective against all targets except the aforementioned pikemen, instead their issue is vulnerability to any ranged weapons, and in this manner the only upgrades that can alleviate their problems are to their horse or armor. So the cavalryman's counter to a light archer is to don an expensive horse such as hunter/warhorse and expensive armor, yet the light archer will recieve all equipment for free. But due to the high mobility of the archer, the horse is unlikely to turn fast enough to allow the cavalryman to realistically attack the archer, so again this is in the archer's favor.

I think this is highlighting the mix of two areas that are balanced against each other: the class statistics (what gives archers their high mobility) and the weapon statistics (what gives the pike its inherent advantage). I think in the sense of creating a "Hard" counter, you would need to be marrying a particular class emphasising one aspect, such as durability, with an equipment loadout that worked well with a highly durable character. But I don't really see why past the weapon proficiencies the stats for the classes need to be terribly different, since by removing that aspect you would be able to create a counter system based almost entirely off weapon choices, while everyone from a single faction has roughly the same HP/Move speed/Riding etc. This would move to a softer counter system and would improve balance between the classes without removing factional flavor (which remains in the form of weapon availability/price and stat bonuses).

 

[PsykoOps]

You've got it all wrong. Archers are by default supposed to avoid melee unless there's no choice. It doesn't go so that an archer shoots untill the infantry is close and then enters melee. It goes so that an archer shoots and if infantry gets close archers backs off. Call it kiting or what ever, that's what they're supposed to do and if you don't like it then you're probably playing the wrong game.
The whole jumping issue has to be addressed for all classes, none should be able to block or attack or turn while jumping, this goes to cav as well.

 

[woppin]

You've got it all wrong. Archers are by default supposed to avoid melee unless there's no choice. It doesn't go so that an archer shoots untill the infantry is close and then enters melee. It goes so that an archer shoots and if infantry gets close archers backs off. Call it kiting or what ever, that's what they're supposed to do and if you don't like it then you're probably playing the wrong game.
The whole jumping issue has to be addressed for all classes, none should be able to block or attack or turn while jumping, this goes to cav as well.

I don't mind kiting, but the infantry needs to be able to catch up. Infantry should be faster than archers so there is a reasonable chance that an infantryman can kill an archer. You can kite without being faster than your opponent, it just won't last forever. The current system allows archers to kite until they run out of arrows or their opponent is dead which is simply not fun to play against for infantry classes because their chance of sucess is minimal.

Of course archers are going to avoid melee, they're archers. My point is it's too easy for them to avoid melee due to their high movement speed, and this makes them stronger than they really should be by virtue of them being able to avoid their only weakness with ease.

 

[PsykoOps]

By what logic should archers be slower than infantry? They carry far less weight and are mobile troops. It's cavalry that is main enemy of archers and there is a reason for that. Infantry shouldn't and can't just outrun them, they're supposed to flank them or sneak up from behind.

 

[Berserker Pride]

Your logic is a little bit trippy.  You can't run in this game so sneaking up is not always an option.  How do you get behind an opponent who has been shooting at you for half the map.  And by your logic even if infantry flanks you can simply run away.  You seem to think that archers should be so fast that infantry can't attack them on approach and even if the infantry get through the arrowstorm then the archers should just be able to escape.  Its because they are lighter troops that archers should have a 1 or 2 athletics reduction.  Even if that were to happen the archers would probably still be the same speed as the infantry.  But at least they wouldn't be able to kite all the time.  All the other classes have an equal shot at taking down each other except for infantry against archers.  Making them slower would force archers to operate as part of the group.  Maybe instead of insisting that infantry being able to catch you is no fun for you; you should realize that the guys playing as infantry have to have a fair shake against you.  You do have a sword as an archer and provided you hit the infantryman a couple times it will be a fair fight when he finally catches up to you.  Not to mention you can always team up with other archers to cover more firing angles and make that approach more difficult.  Neverending kiting is a terrible idea to keep in a game like this.

 

[Nosfe]

@Woppin - We are closer and closer to consensus

Just the two of you yes, rest I doubt. Infantry can in fact catch up to archers. You build your arguments on a false assumption that doesn't exist in the game. Using some distinct mmorpg term -kiting whatever- doesn't magically make it true.

 

[Halcyon]

I still believe you provide no solution. Archer speed is fine. Infantry CAN get through this arrow storm you think of, and most of the times archers CAN NOT escape. Again being lighter means you are faster... not slower than someone who is wearing armor, carrying two shields, and other weapons. Plus archers do not kite all of the time, they do it when necessary, and in order to survive. You still seem to suggest that when infantry gets to them archers should just be cut down. Infantry already has a fair shake at archers by being better at melee, imo if you cant close in on an archer, you either are not doing right, are just bad, or the archer is just really good. *dont like the game dont play it*

 

[PsykoOps]

Also to add infantry usually don't even have to get within melee range of archers since they often carry throwing weapons. Archers don't carry shields so they have 0 protection against those.

 

[Berserker Pride]

I still believe you provide no solution. Archer speed is fine. Infantry CAN get through this arrow storm you think of, and most of the times archers CAN NOT escape. Again being lighter means you are faster... not slower than someone who is wearing armor, carrying two shields, and other weapons. Plus archers do not kite all of the time, they do it when necessary, and in order to survive. You still seem to suggest that when infantry gets to them archers should just be cut down. Infantry already has a fair shake at archers by being better at melee, imo if you cant close in on an archer, you either are not doing right, are just bad, or the archer is just really good. *dont like the game dont play it*

"*dont like the game dont play it*"
Try to remember this is beta and you aren't the only one with an opinion.  I do like the game but I see the kiting as a problem so sue me.

I think the reason infantry has a chance to win is because most people are decent enough not to continuously run away shooting backwards.  Like I said the real problem is that once a certain number of archers is reached against a faction with weaker cav the only real counter is to spawn archers of your own.  I would 100% rather archers do more damage if that was necessary then simply make them uncatchable.  Making the ranged class who can shoot across the entire battlefield as fast or faster than the infantry dilutes the point of having infantry at all.  Why play infantry if cavalry are more dominant and archers are faster?  Vaegirs and Rhodoks have a slight chance of catching archers if they wear no armor at all but that does little for survivability.  And I have never said take all of an archers athletics.  I have said they should sit at about 4.  Still almost as fast but gives the infantry the ability to wear leather and still keep up if they are vaegir or rhodok.  Those are the weaker of the two infantry classes.  Not giving the slow foot melee class the ability to close with their enemy is taking away the point of having them.  Archers will always have the ability to deal damage.  I simply say they shouldn't have the ability to deal it over their shoulder while running away forever.  You can do it for a while but you shouldn't be able to do it forever.  I believe having infantry be quicker would draw both teams closer together and and make for a tighter battle.  The final problem is this faster archer stuff takes away the incentive for infantry to attack at all.  It can lead to some very long boring stalemates at the end of battle mode.

 

[PsykoOps]

By your logic khergit horse archers should be riding mules so infantry could catch up with them. Infantry's job on the battlefield isn't anti-archer to begin with.

 

[Berserker Pride]

I tend to notice a lot more archers when khergits are the opponent.  Wonder why maybe because they are uncatchable.  It's silly for you to expect your class to be able to deal damage at range and also to be able to escape any situation.  Kiting archers will turn the game into a strictly archer/cav fest.  Infantry's whole purpose is to close with their enemies and kill them.  You take away the ability for them to do that and they are stuck fighting each other only.  Cav are of course completely uncatchable by infantry.  Make archers the same and you don't need infantry at all because then they are worthless.  Like I said if infantry are given the ability to catch archers without going naked some more balancing will have to be done.  But neverending kiting is no solution.  If you can't kill infantry while he is slowing hiking across the field then you are a ****ty archer and shouldn't be given the option to run away for four minutes firing 90 arrows over your shoulder.  Its boring and unbalanced all at once.

 

[Night Ninja]

Meh, just reduce move speed dramatically when the fellow is hauling on the bowstring and the problem will solve itself. They're not going to kite if it means that they're just going to expose their ass to something sharp and pointy.