[866][Gen] What would/do you like on archers and what do you not like?

But I liked the idea of the Crossbow better (No offense of course.) A 'heavy' bow in that regard would be a tad too similar. The crossbow would have the sole purpose of defense (And holding back enemies from an advanced position) as it was slow and clunky - it would also make the battlefield even more dynamic I feel, since the crossbow would allow for things the bow couldn't do anymore due to the lack of range.

The bow can't shoot instantly, therefore giving the knights a short second to get his shield up, but with the crossbow you could shoot instantly if it was loaded. You can keep the crossbow up for as long as you want too, which adds a bit to the fear-factor. And the longer range would be good to take down bow-archers with, who has camped themselves up in high places.

I'd still love to hear other's ideas and tweaks to this idea.

But if nothing else, I also like the idea of a heavier bow, Josh ;P

 

Check the date, you're quoting a two months old post when triple shot just got added and when I was trying to make the archer something more than just a support class but since everyone seems to have just taken the archer as it is (a mobile mini ballista with shittier explosive damage and below average combat capabilities) I gave up on the whole idea.

 

I never thought i would say this, but i agree with Kouji, archer ist the class i WANT to play but is so under powered i CANT play it. Like Kouji i prefer the cqc approach wich is why i LOVED the shiv, i (suprisingly) got many kills, btw it does 3 hearts from behind. i hope that it is re-implemented as the utility button(spacebar) for archers because they currntly do not have one

 

geti confirmed knife is never coming back

 

god.. dangit

 

lighting enemy kegs with fire arrows would be nice

 

I would prefer more range and/or damage than machine-gun capability, actually.

 

Tell that to most other archers.

 

Well, ranged capability is what makes an archer different from a Knight

 

Archer idea thread?

One thing I would really like changed is the damage of a charged arrow.
Knights 1 shot archers while being nearly impervious to our attacks, when we do hit it only does one heart of damage while it is much harder to even land.

My suggestion: Increase the damage to 1.5 hearts of damage.

• You can now kill a careless knight with a full volley of legolas shot (3 x 1.5 = 4.5), leveling the playing field. I don't believe this will be too strong since you can rarely hit a full volley at any range other than CQC (where the knight should reign anyway) where the knight can kill you with a much shorter charge time lunge attac
  
• Other archers will still have to take two shots.
• Builders are now killed in two shots instead of three, strengthening the archers utility role by letting him dispose of the enemies support more easily.

Another bother is when a knight randomly gets a stab on one of your arrows, breaking it and making you very sad.
Knights already have their shield, so remove their ability to attack arrows into non-existence.

I really think archers need a buff, since their main role seems to be "mild annoyance" and "free heart" against knights. Whenever I am playing a knight I kill my way across the map, bomb myself over the enemy walls and maybe wreck a wall to grab a flag.
You can do nothing that even gets near being that useful as an archer other than perhaps triple-bomb-arrowing a wall down (for which getting the gold will take much longer than a knight getting a keg).

 

It seems to me the Knights shield + the huge HP is the main issue, a knight shielding means I wont get anything in most of the time and the HP means I need at least 2 lucky tripleshots. The ability to knock back the shield at close range seems to be the intended counter here, but the distance you have to be at puts you in slashing range and you cant kill them on the first round of shots (It also seems absurd that the archer can only reliably hurt knights close up). I see no reason to have this limit on how far the archers can be before they cant knock back shields. If the archer is a ranged class they should be able to threaten knights at a distance. Being able to knock away the knights shield at any range with a charged arrow would make archers effective at a range like they should be. They still would have the ability to cut down arrows so a skilled knight could still stop a triple shot if he was focused.

A few other ideas:

-Reduce the angle at which the shield can block arrows. (Ive seen 2 archers fire on a night from almost 90 degrees apart and he was sitting there blocking both without moving the shield.)

-Headshots that deal 2 hearts.

-A grapple attack that stuns (Or something along those lines) That why archers only attack doesn't take forever to charge

 

Pandemic, the archer is not supposed to be stronger then the knight, if you make it possible for them to stun shields at any range they become overpowered and stronger then knights unless they have a bomb. I even have a true story for you about why the community knows im correct about this. back in the days of classic archers used to be able to shoot knights from any range and stun them, any good archer back then could have killed any knight without even any thought unless of course the knight had a bomb, but then thats an item the knight has to use to kill one archer so its not looked at as the classes combat that got him that kill. if i remember correctly there was even one archer so good that no knights could kill him even in 1v3s. he would just jump around in trees and widle them down endlessly untill they died because the stun at any range was always an immediate threat. in the end whats going on is that its a new game, a new version of kag and archers are dumbed down this time, their main role is support and they are used for negating all wood and punching holes in stone with bomb arrows. archers can definetly hold thier own against one knight on the field but if its 2 or more the archer needs doors to play with them untill a knight comes to deal with the 3 or more knights harassing an archer.

 

I'll agree only with that much, stuns from range were OP but mostly when you had more than 2 archers who synced shots, then it was a complete nightmare and that's it.

Are you kidding? Seriously? What have you been smoking? The only time I ever managed that was IF the knight was a newbie or if I had space to run around for half a minute chipping at him with arrow spam and maybe finish it with a goompa stomp when his health was 1,5 hearts or lower. And that relied a lot on the map and how many other knights were around. Saying that a decent archer could of killed ANY knight, just like that, is complete bullshit and I ask that you get your facts right before saying such things.

Bombs guaranteed an archer kill, sometimes even more than one, almost 99% of the times you used them correctly (which wasn't difficult) but that doesn't mean that you couldn't kill archers without it.

I managed to pull that once while three newbies were after me and just barely simply because they didn't know how to time their jabs and make me fall. a decent knight would shield, time his jab and make the archer fall.

When you're up on a tree, all you can do is spam arrows, charging shots is next to impossible since it lowers your speed and makes you an easy target for the knight below. I've never used a charged shot while up in a tree unless I was preparing to finish off a knight with 1,5 hearts left and that's it. So the stun in such scenarios were only valid for finishers and not kiting knights as you said.

Again, the only reason archers were OP in alpha was because of the ranged stun and when used in groups and that's it. Everything else depended on the player and more importantly, on the terrain, but saying that a decent archer could easily kill any knight that didn't have a bomb? That's complete bullshit.

Overall range stun is a bad idea.

 

i guess i should have been more detailed :>, any really good archer could do what i said. im talking about the top 5 archers that existed back when classic was played frequently. i would hear all the time about them owning knights even if they were good. im sorry if what i said sounded like every archer can do it.

 

Even so, I don't find that to be a valid reason in saying the archer class was OP because of what 5 pro archers could do. That's like saying knights are OP simply because Contrary can jump in the enemy's base, slaughter everyone and then bomb jump back at his leisure (true fact btw, I've seen him play).

 

well of course he can :P i mean its not that hard given if you play for a few hours a day ;3

 

*sigh* You missed the point entirely. You can't state that a class is OP simply because 2-3 people are very effective with it. That's just stupid, you're defining a class' power based on the high skill curve of a few elite players.

No, no... I don't mean owning a bunch of new STEAM players. That's easy. I've done that. I mean actually going against other skilled, decent or pro knights. Actually turning the tide of the battle on your own against a team with decent players. I've done the whole bomb jump in the base full of newbies and slaughtered them countless times, that's easy as fuck but I've seen him fight and I can say for certain that he's on a whole different level when it comes to knight skill.

So saying that what he does isn't all "that hard" is an understatement. Then again, you seem to either exaggerate or understate when trying to explain these things which gives people the wrong idea sadly.

 

Zooming over enemy walls with grapple and lighting a keg of your own with fire arrows would not be nice.

 

Ah Kedram you should listen to Raelian he knows what he's talking about.