General Knight Changes

except i actually reasoned myself next sentence :^)

 

None of the classes are supposed to be equall. Archer is supposed to be weaker than knight and so forth. The game is actually quite balanced the way it is right now. The idea of archers being weaker is true but it's supposed to be like this. Making any of the classes stronger or weaker at this point would make the game not fun and imbalanced . Every shred of evidence points to this fact. I feel that right now this thread is useless and doesn't serve a purpose. If there was an actuall issue at hand then I would say yea keep the thread open, however as of now it just isn't needed

 

There is a reason why this is in the balance sub-forum.

A.K.A.

as the sub-forum description reads.

 

I honestly don't think you can just throw up some stats and determine which class is better.

 

Dupolas, don't be a dick... It is just rubbish!

I know, you think bobo is a dick but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick...

 

It really is kinda black and white though; in most situations, Knights are better than Archers, or Builders, and you know what? It's supposed to be that way

Knights are the backbone of offense. They need to be the obvious go-to class in this situation, or else no offense would happen.

You know what would happen, if archer was equally viable to the knight? Games would not end. Half or more of your team would be playing archer, every game. Nothing would get done. You would just sit at your respective towers, spam arrows until you run out, get more, and then rinse & repeat.

I honestly think that games should have a hard-limit to the amount of archers per team, based on team size. Nothing causes stalemates more than a whole team being archers.

The archer certainly has the highest skill ceiling (and floor) of the three classes. That's fine. As much as you argue about your time played being enough, (and I'm not attacking you here) I don't think it is. I've put hundreds of hours into the game to get to the point that I'm at, and I still constantly see situations where I could have done something different, or could have employed a tactic that I haven't quite mastered.

Being a useful archer is all about having a million tricks up your sleeve, that you learn from sheer practice, and watching other players. It's about being unpredictable, and about overcoming the class's most basic weaknesses.

An average player should be able to pick up knight easily. This encourages them to.. play knight, and actually win games. Smart players will switch to archer/builder when necessary, and use the advantages of those classes. Archer isn't really meant to be played as a full-time class, technically, none of the classes are.

Dumb players, like me, will push a class to it's limit. They'll try to make it useful in every situation possible. That.. doesn't mean that everybody should.

You're supposed to switch classes based on the needs of the situation, and the needs of your team. If all classes were perfectly balanced in combat, why bother? Where does all the depth go?

I'm just ranting at this point. It's all I can do. You're so violently opposed to reason, you've failed to listen to any of our input. And you still, time and time again, fail to see the big picture. I don't care if you've played for 60 hours, or 600. Your opinions are wrong, they're short sighted, and you're trying to change things that you don't fully understand.

The depth of KAG, is based on "hidden mechanics", things that aren't immediately apparent to the new player. Not to say that this is necessarily a good thing, I think that we could do with some better tutorials/ingame help.

There's all kinds of things to learn as an archer:

-When to use your four charge levels (quarter, half, full, over (legolas))

-When to run

-How to kite, and utilize your arrow stun

-Timing; knowing when your shots are more likely to hit

-Accuracy, this one is obvious

-Tons of tricks; Grapple stomping, stun-stomp, grappling halfshots, horizontal bungee, vertical bungee, bungee juking (and shooting while doing it), grapple wind-ups, bomb jump denial, bomb/projectile deflection, high angle shots, CQB tactics.

The list of things to learn is practically endless.

 

@bobotype I didn't exactly mean I see you as inexperienced, as i've never seen you play, but if it's someone else's opinion you seem inexperienced, they'd do well to ask for instance, why someone would seem inexperienced after 6 months of playing any game, that really shouldn't happen without a ton of "unmentionables" aka LETS KEEP THIS SEKRIT FROM THE NOOBS UNLESS THEY WATCH US PLAY. (which is fine really, that's not hard to do, you just need to know who to watch)

The people here are keen to point out how someone should be good at the game to comment on their own ideas of balance about the game, so why not just help him out, point him to a good tips/tricks thread, train him personally in game, etc? I agree with Trumbles here and that the game should have better tutorials, etc, but the community should also be more receptive to taking someone who isn't that good (again, i've never seen him play, I do not know and can only go on what other dirt people have shoveled over the content of his actual ideas) and making them into a killing machine.

I see tons of people in these threads who I also see in game and are very good, but not many of them make tips/tricks threads (not saying they should have to, but you know, it helps?) and recently i've seen things like Gurin making one which was very good and in depth, I really don't know where i'm going with this but you get the base idea. I mean you don't have to take all these new players into clans or something, but maybe if you see them in game help em' out some. The other day I saw people teaching a knight how to shield glide up walls at spawn and talking him through it, was really one of the only times i've seen people actively helpful as opposed to passive(aggressive)ly.

 

Yes you freaking can. If one class has better stats all around than another class, that class IS better. Logic.

Don't tell me I'm violently opposed to reason! That's blatantly untrue.
Don't say this either: "I don't care if you've played for 60 hours or 600, your opinions are wrong"--Just don't say that. At. All.
I'm not asking for Archers to be the class played by entire teams, I'm just asking for them to have the ability to get a higher KDR. Arrow limit and increased penetration means Archers would be able to get more kills>more Gold, at all Archer levels of skill, and play a bigger part in the game. What would change in the game as a result of that? Knights would start to try and dodge Legolas shots, and more Builders would build things incorporating Archers. That's literally it, the Archer becomes a weaker, limited-attack long-range Knight. It's not a situation of "the game loses all offensive push". Already, we have Knights battling back and forth in no-man's land for ages, and when a clear victor emerges, they buy Bombs and push on into the enemy base. There is no reason at all more powerful Archers won't do the same: Fight back and forward until one dies or one's ammo runs out, then when a victor emerges use Bomb Arrows to push into the enemy base. Your fears of a stagnant game of Archers sniping at each other are real, but will change nothing: We already have Knights that do nothing but dance around trying to one-hit each other. Ammo limit will, in fact, shorten conflicts of that kind. An Archer in a tower? A Knight will have to evade until the Archer runs out of ammo. An Archer on the ground? The Archer will have to run away to a more tenable position away from the Knight.

It's sensible, but still wrong. Using that system, you would also have to say Knights are Defence, Offence AND Support: "Their little jabs they do at you hurt, and assist in keeping the tide of enemies back. Water bombs provide stun, assisting team-mates who are struggling against a nearby enemy". If anyone brings up burger/fish Arrows, remember Knights can do that too by just carrying one to the frontline and passing it to a team-mate.
The only difference in those lists of things between the Knight and Archer is the Archer's is weaker in some senses, and the Archer can do them at range. Hence, the Archer is the RANGED class. I suppose that makes Knights the Melee class, then.

And as for Builder, why not tack Offence on there as well? After all, he can build huge Catapults and Ballistae that can bring down enemy defences given time, he can mine his way through any structure enemies can throw up, and he can deal damage quickly with his Pick.

The truth is, all of the classes can play offensively/defensively/supportively as needed, Knights can support their bros in combat, Archers can defend or Builders can go on the offense, but the true difference between the classes is that Archers attack At Long Range, Knights attack At Close Range, and Builders reshape the field of battle. That is their class roles, not "Archer sup, Knight off, Builder def", or even the variation on that that you listed.

@Auburn :
>tells me I've ignored his entire argument
>ignores mine
DPS is important to timing strikes because DPS dictates when you can time your strikes. Therefore, DPS is relevant.
You can indeed miss people in a 2D game with an arcing, limited range weapon; yes arc shots are hard to aim on their own, then there's "they jump right over your straight shots". Or "they backpedal to leave your range".
And even if you do time a flawless undodgeable shot, you have to do it again, and DPS alters when you can do it. See?

 

No... Staistics are just numbers. Just think about it. According to statistics, a jab is superoir to a full charge arrow. It attacks faster, and does the same amount of damamge. Features like ranged vs close are hard to put into solid stats. Ranged is clearly better, but how much better? You can't just make up numbers. Things like range, grapple and sheild make comparing classes with solid numbers extremly hard. Everybody has thier own opinion about how much a sheild, grapple or range attacks are worth.

What? how? I was not aware that dodging arrows was possible.

 

@bobotype First off I didn't say you sucked, but it is impossible for you to be as good as half the people here. I was talking about extreme levels of skill achieved through practice and experience, not basic levels of gameplay.

Also bombs = bomb arrows is not correct. Bomb arrows are probably the best weapon in the game for revealing the flag. They don't need to be any easier to afford.

Spoiler: Spoiler Hint

Why do you keep insisting that both classes have to be perfectly equal? You keep going on about numbers and combat and stuff but it doesn't change the overall game. I'm pretty sure it would be easier to give archers more coins per kill (if that's possible) than increasing damage per arrow and limiting the arrows given.

Knights may have higher DPS in CQC but technically I could camp in a base as an archer the whole match and I would have a higher DPS vs any knight than they would have against me.

Spoiler: Spoiler Hint

Do you know why knights can push? They have shields. Archers can't push. They will hit the enemy base and opposing archers will snipe their faces off. When 3+ archers are shooting at you and you can't block or kill them you're going to die pretty fast. Archers have low health and no melee, simply increasing their DPS does not make them suitable. They will have the same weaknesses and so can be stopped but now will stop any knight that tries to attack.

I think you are forgetting about towers. Knights can jam up and guard the outside for a bit but all archers can do is go over it (very hard if all their forces are there) or spec arrow it. Archers can destroy flag walls, but they can't charge in and steal it if there are players in there or waiting behind a door.

Spoiler: Spoiler Hint

You are only thinking about the most basic levels of combat.
Individual offense does not equal team offense. That's why everyone says archer's are a support unit. They support the team's main offense, the knight. Yes, they can attack players (everyone else actually does know this), but they can't push by themselves. They support the push by killing knights, using spec arrows on towers or players and by grappling over towers to steal stuff/distract people.

You know the saying "The best defense is a good offense." The higher the archer's offense the greater the team defense. It increases offensive support too, but attacking is only a fraction of what archers do. Increasing their DPS by the ridiculous amounts that you suggest boosts team defense to extreme levels. Lowering ammo limit only means that offensive support will be short lasted, whereas the defense (who are right next to spawn/tunnel/shop) will be perfectly fine. Weaker offense + strong defense = Stalemate.

Disagree? Think lowering the ammo limit will help? Think I'm criticising your lack of experience?
One of the devs said the exact same thing about ammo limits and you didn't listen to him and continued to use it in your arguments. I'm pretty sure he knows what works and what doesn't. You know, due to the fact that he made the game and all.

Exactly. Not only that, but these things vary by situation as well.

 

1 Builder v. 1 Knight

Builder builds a wall the knight can't get over.
Builder gets gold for every block he places.
Builder keeps making slow offensive pushes by building over / under the knight.
Knight can't do anything because bombs cost gold and he can only get gold by killing enemies.
Builder can now buy catapults and ballistas to push and kill the knight with from a distance.
Builder slowly pushes to flag.
Builder puts wall up at enemy spawn that knight cannot get over.
Builder takes flag.
Builder caps flag.

Builder has the lowest damage of any class.
Builder has the lowest mobility of any class.
Builder has the second lowest health of any class.

Knight has the highest damage of any class.
Knight has the second highest mobility of any class.
Knight has the highest health of any class.

Builder still wins.

How?

Hacks, because there is no way a class with such low stats could ever win a game against the most damage doing, most health having, class in the entire game right?

I mean, he has to be hacking... right?

This is a reasonable assumption right? You wouldn't be opposed to it would you? I mean, I am using stats to determine how good a class is. Everything is 1s and 0s after all... right?

 

You make a good point about range not being a statistic. Still, I'm pretty sure you brought up the word "statistics" in the first place, not me.
In that case, let's use the word "attributes". It works better. Any class with better attributes is the better class.
Still, range actually is number-based, I don't have to make up numbers. [Archers have 50 tile range, Knights have 1-2 tile range or so [not sure how much slashes increase the size of the Knight, but they do]. Shield is worth an entire damage negation of Arrows except in some circumstances. Grapple can boost the Archer's speed statistic and I suppose "ability of tiles to be climbed over" statistic.
As for the dodging Arrows thing, you better be using sarcasm.

Well that's an actual mistruth, it is entirely possible with a lot of practice for me to be as good as some of the long-term players here, definitely half of them.

Rather than them being cheaper I want Archers to be able to get them more often by getting more kills>Gold. They're the Archer's only source of consistently useful terrain destruction, the Archer needs to be able to get more Gold to afford them and other Arrows if he's going to be as useful as his team-mates.

Numbers and combat don't change the overall game? Where did you get that idea?
I never actually asked for more damage per Arrow. I was asking for Legolas Shots to have full range on the stun-and-penetrate-for-2-Hearts ability that they have now at only 11 tiles' range at a full 50 tile range.

Spoiler

Lel except then they Shield, then both your DPS=0. So if that Archer wants to do anything at all, they have to go to the Knight's CQC range, which is where they get slaughtered by the Knight's superior health and DPS.

Let me do my side of the argument your way: "Archers have grapple. Knights can't push. They will hit the enemy base and opposing Knights will slash their faces off. When 3+ Knights are slashing at you and you can't block or kill them you're going to die pretty fast."
You may see I don't actually agree with that, because you're thinking Knight-centric--- that Archers will push to the enemy base and be killed by enemy Archers. What you completely leave out is that Archers can totally fight back because they have bloody Arrows.
Archers' role currently seems to be attack and put enemy Knights out of commission so yours can advance. This will not change if Archers get Shield penetration power, it will just make them more efficient at it, and your Knights will remain the pushing force anyway. If the enemy base has an Archer stopping your Knights from proceeding? Then you're going to need an Archer.

I'm not forgetting it, it's one of my main quibbles with the class when people say "Archers can cross over enemy towers, it's totally strong enough!" Since Archers seem to rely on Knights, this means climbing a tower lone is futile. I want Archers to have higher KDR so they can be getting more enemies out of the way for their allies AND being able to afford more Bomb Arrows to expose the flag. Simply increasing Gold on kill doesn't help as much because it doesn't rectify the fact the current basic kit is shitty at getting kills.

Damage output alone does not equal a "support" class. Knights can do exactly the same for allies by simply killing the enemy solo, AND they can push by themselves. Knights DO NOT NEED an Archer, while Archers NEED Knights. This makes the Archer the class that NEEDS support rather than the class that IS support ffs. And that's a gameplay imbalance. "Distractions" also don't make Support, Knights can do exactly the same thing.

I already told many people this simple, undeniable fact. If you have limited ammo which can only be bought more of with Gold, and you aren't getting kills, then a Shop is no use to you at all. The tent is always a considerable distance behind the front line of battle. Defence is not going to have a huge advantage over offense if offense just learns to fucking dodge, because then the defenders are out of Arrows and, having had no kills, cannot afford to buy more. And all the missed Arrows mean more ammunition for attackers, while defenders cannot pick up Arrows on the outer wall of their battlements without exposing themselves [with no room to manoeuvre]. Thus, no advantage is gained by defense Archers unless they are literally atop the Tent, which is always a far distance from the Flags anyway.

@Duplolas, that's an excellent argument. You've finally progressed beyond baby pictures.
From there, we talk about block-placing stats, which you ignored.
Builder block placing capability: Can build (x) maximum blocks [req's materials]
Knight block placing capability: None.
Thus, the Builder's construction stats are infinite compared to the Knight's complete lack of construction stats.
You're making a situation ingame, a very specific one, where the Knight is being compared based on a stat it doesn't even have.
You also ignored this other outcome:
>Knight camps near flag, Builder can't retrieve Flag without leaving catapult, Knight kills Builder if he tries due to superior combat stats
>if the Builder does try to move for flag, Knight kills Builder, gets Gold as a result, uses Gold to get Bombs
>Or Knight waits until lull in catapult fire [because you know they need ammo] and then rushes forward through hole created by catapult to attack the Builder, who is out of Stone for fast self defence walls and Wood is vulnerable to Knights, kills Builder, gets Gold for Bombs
Thus, even if you were right about that scenario, it just means that the Builder has more powerful stats than the Knight, because the Builder possesses a Block Placing stat of (x) and the Knight a Block Placing stat of 0.

 

@bobotype With your completely unjustified buffs every single archer will be able to get kills and afford more arrows. You are equating unequal things to make up "points" for each class, when we have already said as you can be any class you want and switch mid-match so it doesn't matter.

Spoiler: Spoiler Hint

I said, right now with your level of practice you are not as good as most people here. No one can be that good in a short space of time. I made it perfectly clear that you can be that good if you play for way longer. Stop interpreting everything as an insult.

When archers hit a base, they can't hang around. They don't have magical dodging properties like you think they do. If they do scale the tower, they will either get shot by a archer or slashed by a falling knight. If you can kill said knight before he hits you please show me a video. Archers can't stand in groups or they will get bombed. Knights have shields so they can. You are also ignoring the skill levels needed. Any pub knight can charge in and defend offensive builders through sheer numbers. For an archer to grapple up the first tower in the enemy base takes a considerable amount of skill. And don't give me that rubbish about how that makes knights OP just cause they are the easier class. One class being easier doesn't do anything.

Just cause archers can kill knights doesn't mean they can defend from an attack bursting out of a tower. They can't. "Then stand further away!", I hear you croak. Okay, try to do that and defend the builder. You can't triple shot and kill every single knight from the time they exit the door to the time they hit the ground. Archers can't rush and attack, their charging slows them down. They hold off enemy knights. You can't hold off people the instant they exit a tower.

"Knights don't need archer support"
Yeah, they don't. So what?

"Archer's need knights to attack"
Yes, yes they do.

None of that matters. It doesn't make it unfair. It doesn't do anything. Why do archers and knights need to be equal?

Attacking is much more complex than you make it out to be. It isn't just "kill people then blow up tower". You need builders. Just cause archers can kill people and have bomb arrows does not mean they can attack. If it was a team with no knights vs one with knights, the knights will win every time. And no it is not because knights do more "DPS" or whatever stat you make pull out of thin air. When I said there are towers I was asking you to understand what that actually entails not to just go "Archers can kill guys and blow up stuff" and think that will do.

In order for archers to be totally equal with knights in the way you suggest without unbalancing the game, archers must literally become knights. Yep, no ranged attacks. And that makes no sense.

You seem to be obsessed with the fact that everyone thinks the same way as you and that this is an archer vs knight thing. Virtually no one else believes that. You don't listen to anyone’s arguments only picking up on tiny details and making the person seem as though they are solely rebutting your ideas with more stats.

I think the fact that the only argument you like is Duplolas's half-troll argument without even realising he is insulting your love of statistics and ignorance of every other aspect of gameplay is pretty telling. Then you even confront his argument in the exact same way. I am seriously wondering if you are a troll. Not by your ideas, but by the fact that virtually, no literally everyone, including the original OP, the best and longest players and the very devs themselves disagrees with you and yet you seem to have no idea that maybe, you might have a slight case of being totally wrong.

 

bobotype, we aren't saying that you can't become someone really good, we are saying that you aren't someone that's really good. You haven't put in the hours needed to get all the little details. If Trumbles was arguing this (which he wouldn't cuz He doesn't agree with your arguments). Much more people would look through it, because Trumbles is one of the best archers, and know what he is talking about.

 

Although the rest of your post basically says the buff [AND nerf] are "justified", let me use an analogy here.
"switch mid-match" is not the answer when a class is fundamentally worse. Let's say in TF2 the Sniper could only snipe Pyros from just outside Flamethrower range or when the Pyro was fighting an allied Pyro. So that makes Snipers, in this analogy, kind of shit.
Sure, you can change classes. That doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with the Sniper class. And since there IS a problem with the analogy-Sniper, it means the Pyro who isn't reliant on the Sniper, and is only vulnerable in the range of his primary weapon, is always the better choice. That leaves the Sniper as nothing but a bloat class because nobody wants to play him, and the devs' effort goes to waste.

Spoiler: Spoiler Hint

I've been extensively and repeatedly insulted here, I'm kind of conditioned to it. And what you said was, "but it is impossible for you to be as good as half the people here". You never made anything clear, you literally said what is in your quote.

You're only supporting my argument that said changes aren't too much. I intend Knights to remain the primary pushing force, as I actually said before, see, look:
"Archers' role currently seems to be attack and help put enemy Knights out of commission so yours can advance. This will not change if Archers get Shield penetration power, it will just make them more efficient at it, and your Knights will remain the pushing force anyway. If the enemy base has an Archer stopping your Knights from proceeding? Then you're going to need an Archer"

Thank you for admitting through most of your post that Archers are weaker. The fact that Archers need Knights to attack means they're useless without Knights present, during which time, as with nearly all the other stuff you can do as an Archer, you would be better off playing Knight.
If the Archer and Knight aren't equal in usefulness, then the Archer simply becomes a bloat class, and players who pick Archer are being punished for their choice, and their whole team is too. All classes MUST be equally useful.

While you have accused me of being disagreed with by everyone, it might be interesting to you that you're saying my exact point which met a lot of hatred: That Knights are objectively more powerful than only Archers and Builders, and that a team cannot survive without Knights, while it can survive without Archers. My point is that Archers are indeed weaker, which is why they require a buff, so thank you for agreeing with me on the first part of that. So far your argument is inexplicably shifting to "Archers shouldn't have a buff because they suck". I know you mean to say they're bad at offence, but "Archers suck" is all you're proving.
And yes, you're right. It's more than that, it's "kill people, blow up tower and take flag".

That's where you're wrong, you narrowminded fucking pleb. I'm not calling for classes to be the same in terms of health, damage etc. I just want Archer to be as good at its Unique Role as the Knight is at its Unique Role. I want Archers to be better at Archery. There is no "Archers must literally become Knights". It's a stupid claim which I never made, it's all on you.

You seem to be obsessed with the fact that everyone thinks the same way as you and that this is an archer vs knight thing. Virtually no one else believes that. You don't listen to anyone’s arguments only picking up on tiny details and making the person seem as though they are solely rebutting your ideas with more stats.
I think you need a citation for all of this, buddy. I can disagree, I don't think everyone thinks the same as me, other people DO think this is an Archer vs Knight issue which is why they're replying on the topic in Knight Changes General on the relation between Archer and Knight, other people have agreed that the Archer is weak INCLUDING YOU, and I pick up on large glaringly obvious facts as well as tiny details.

Let me show you why I haven't been convinced at all by anyone yet, except on some stuff. E.G:
1: I make a suggestion/argument, such as Archer Arrow limitation balancing increased Shield penetration.
2:people NOT insulting me say, "but it won't stop camping/spam because people at the front lines will just use Shops to get more Arrows"
3: I point out that if the Arrows aren't hitting their mark then no Gold is being earned to buy more Arrows, and there's delay while going to the Shop too even if you are excellent
4: This is tactically ignored by that person, they move on to another point
5: Someone else comes along and says "but it won't stop camping/spam because people at the front lines will just use Shops"...!
And that's why very few people have convinced me so far, despite there being about 10 voices in disagreement.
@Superblackcat he did actually say in his post it would be impossible for me to be as good as half the people in this thread. Apart from the fact he doesn't even know me, that implies I can never be as good as anyone here because it's impossible.

 

I'm going to make this quick @bobotype because I have a 4 page essay on a book I haven't read due today and I haven't started yet.

You. Are. The. Most. Ignorant. Person. I. Know. Besides. Me.

You AGREED. AGREED. With an argument that was MADE TO TROLL YOU. And you AGREED WITH IT.

This. This. This.

Except for the slight case part. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG, NOT JUST SLIGHTLY.

GG NO RE.