Archer=Builder=Knight

I've seen this in the forums and online many times from different people.
In reference to a class, doesn't matter which, someone will say:

I'm tired of seeing this. This is opinion presented as a fact. My problems with this are it then turns into a lecture about how x class (usually archer) needs nerfing because it should only be supporting knights, never used alone blah blah blah rage. The "About" page and the wiki present all three classes as distinct from one another. They each come with pros and cons. Furthermore, they can all support one another.

From the About Page:
Three customizable classes
The Builder, The Knight, The Archer

Examples of Individual Use from Wiki:
Knight: The primary skill of the Knight is to attack with his sword.
Archer: The Archer is a skilled warrior in ranged combat, using a bow to rain death from afar.
Builder: The Builder is the backbone of any army.

Examples of Support from Wiki:
Knight: Being a melee warrior, the Knight is proficient in the use of a shield to protect himself and others from harm.
Builder: His primary task is to build the infrastructure necessary to protect and provide mobility to the army.
All 3 in reference to CTF:Generally the builder builds defenses around the tent and helps others to destroy or surpass enemy defenses. The knight is the front line soldier, preventing the enemy from breaching the knight's team defenses, while pressing onward towards the flag. The archer supports the knight by forcing the enemy to shield with arrows.

I found this as well:
</br>--- merged: Jun 18, 2012 8:14 PM ---</br>

See you in combat,
Vaugen

 

This is indeed true, not one class are better than then another. That said the archer does cover knights and builders by picking off the enemy.

 

are you serious?!? that would ruin the balance of the game without builder,no bases,without knight,no bombs or shields to deflect arrows

 

Yup, to bad they rape at close range as well... (well, they did)

 

Has their spam rate been decreased at all? As far as I can tell their max rate is still ~2.5 arrows per second.

 

Didn't they change the amount of damage they do at close range? (arrow spam at least)

 

the minimum is half a heart per hit, which seems excessive for the rate they can fire while running away/climb. In my experience most arrows do 1 damage minimum when fired by a fleeing archer in quick succession.

 

I agree, every class has multiple roles, therefore it's hard to see what needs nerfing and whatnot.

A team who mixes builders/knights/archers will have the highest chance to win ( If you don't calculate the individual skill per player )

 

I am pretty sure spam is gone, and you can also tweak it in the server settings if you have a server of course.

 

You can't fire completely uncharged arrows as far as I know... I think maybe 1-2 a second. Maybe more time than that. Generally, if you are close enough to spam against a knight, he's going to kill you.

 

I think by "support," most people are trying to convey that combat is centered around the knight. A good server always has more knights than anything else. Fun decreases as combat becomes archer-centered. It's fun to be on the archer rape team, but it's generally considered unsporting. No one ever complains about too many knights.

 

What evidence supports this? This is a nice sentiment but it hardly the case.

It's more than plain to see that matches are becoming increasingly dominated by archer spam, with the token knight brigades being merely brave lemmings, charging into the fray as fierce warriors and coming out as spiny corpses.

I think that archers are indeed "support" classes, but not in the sense that they are used less. Even when 90% of the server is archers they feel like a side class. I feel that this is because archers are extremely one dimensional, and as a gameplay experience they don't feel as fleshed out as knights or workers. I often joke with Carver as he begins to talk about archer strategy. "What is there to say, either you're sitting back and shooting at people or you're sitting back and shooting at people". Sadly this is no joke.

Think of the things knights can do, they can slash, bash, jab, shield, bomb, bomb jump, glide and more, with all these verbs having their own variations and combinations (hop slash, aerial slash, side bomb jump, glide jump, double bomb jump, slash throw, shield boost, bash into sword combos, etc). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a knight expert, but it is fairly complex when compared with the archer.

The archer can shoot people. And? Tree climb and arrow climb. Arrow climbing is by far the archer's most fun mechanic but 99% of the time it's overshadowed by tree climbing which is much, much less interesting. It also got fucked in the ass by the nerf to jumping while charging and the most recent charge nerf. Archers used to have more options and be more interesting, with the way shooting and jumping interacted with close range combat but that's long dead.

OK now I've gotten way the fuck off topic, so in short archers dominate games but aren't any fun to play.

 

A bit of closer range archery is still possible in servers not dominated by huge towers (especially with massive gaps of water inbetween) that's still mega fun but it rarely happens.

 

I'm merely saying this because with only builders, you won't have anyone to protect your buildings apart from making buildings and traps, plus it'd be harder to attack with only builders if it's actively being defended by archers and knights.

If you only have archers, you'd have no builders who would build new fortifications / repair and/or expand existing fortifications and no knights to defend you (Basically a shield you cannot go through unless its 2 archers vs 1 archer and knight) nor knights to actively attack and retrieve the flag, which is a task much harder for archers, which excel at defending way more than being on the attack. ( Simply because it takes a lot of skill to dodge enemy attacks ). Archers also have a hard time getting into a fortified base ( Think about doors, the walls are a bit easier for the skilled archer and knights who like to drink your blood ). Oh and once a builder succeeds at making a good defense, an archer cannot take it out. ( Think of building slowly to your base )

If you only have knights, same story for the buildings and if their team has a few archers and builders together with knights you'd be at a downside. They'd die by bombs, traps made by builders and arrows flying around, making your team of knights way less as time passes by. Don't forget if the builders havem ade a good fortification, knights cannot get in.

.

.

Sure of course it's possible to go with a few builders and a lot of archers, you'd probably have a very good time defending your base, since the enemy usually attack up front and if you have 2 or more archers shooting synchronized, they'd all die, but I doubt you'll be able to get the flag easily.

But I stand by my opinion that a team with all classes is stronger than one without one class. I'm not talking about how many classes should be in one team. In a 12 players game per team, I'd go for example: 3 builders ( 1 makes main base, 1 makes forward bases and 1 attacks ), 5 knights ( Useful for defending archers / existing fortifications and attack ) and 4 archers. (Will pretty much weaken the enemy at a distance, giving the knights more chance to survive ).

I think that combines the power of all classes, sure there will probably be better builds and if you work together you'd be able to be even better but still. You'd have to test it out to see if I'm right or someone else is, it just seems very logical to me that a combined team stands stronger than one who is not.

It's just very hard to test something like this out, since there is also luck and skill involved plus what each player is doing for their team. Without teamwork your team doesn't get that far either.

 

It depends on the defences though, if your defending a huge slab of tower that has no way over or under all/most archers would pan out pretty well, maybe 2 knights doing some shielding and a builder doing the minor repairs for any stray bombs, but for the most part you'd outnumber the enemy archers that got anywhere near so they'd be unlikely to get a shot off, and any builders would have little to do cos depending on the terrain leading up to your tower they may have little chance of hopelessly lobbing bombs at you, not like you'd even really need to repair much at all if you didn't need to repair bridge ladders and etc.

Amount of players on a server is also a factor, if you have loads of players on a map with no natural cover, then if you have a big number of archers firing over a flat map then not even a large amount of knights will get through, but with a smaller team overall on a more hilly map, but with the same large ratio of archers on the opposing team, they'll be much less effective, since there's simply less scatter of arrows, and more cover to soak them up.

 

Oh yeah I know THOSE towers suck to defend, I meant the kind that are a slab but with a shitload of archer nests and shops plonked on top of them.

 

yeah, but then again:
most of the time you'd be able to kill him eventually if you do it right.
most noob archers will keep firing at you, and spam their arrows,
or they'll climb trees, and hop around.
for the first group, just try hopping after them, and putting your shield up immediately.
that makes it harder to get hit, and you're a little faster than when you'd walk with your shield up.
for the second ones, wait till they shoot an arrow, which misses you.
then attack the tree their in. they will be stunned, fall down, and the best thing is that the timer of the stun starts as soon as they hit the ground! if you can't kill them that way, you're a noob. (or the archer's very pro)
</br>--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 5:18 PM ---</br>

best post in the thread.
the builder should build, while the knights guard them, and the archers stun the enemies, so that the knights can kill them more easily.
its perfect balance. and then came the noob arrowspammer.

 

That analogy is perfect. You're an elegant wordsmith, Mr. Beef.

Here's the question: should it be that way?