Archer changes general

hi guys,
my idea is, that you can buy arrows from the trader that do 2 hearts or maybe 1.5 hearts damage, so you have the normalones and the betterones, and you can decide whichones you take, for example if the enemy is close, and the chance to hit him is higher, or it goes to life and dead, you choose the 2 heart damage arrows, to have a higher chance against your enemy, ofcourse they should cost maybe like 3 or 2 times more then the normaleones, but it would be somehow much more logic to kill an armored knight with 2 arrows, then with 4 and to onehit other archers, i mean.. robin hood just needed good aimed arrow too, to kill one knight. so what do you think of it?

 

Eh.
Do we really need to dramatically change anything right now?
The game is already really well balanced imo, and changing stuff might disrupt that balance.

 

1-hit KO Headshots would be cool

 

coins should not buy power. They can buy utility, such as fire arrows and bombs. But buying pure damage with coins? That's a fucking awful idea.

 

Well actually you can buy arrows that do more damage.. fire arrows do 1,75 damage and bomb arrows 2,5/1,5, don't remember which.

 

Hm true, but they are balanced due to the number you can carry. And are far more interesting then just stronger arrows.

 

monsteri, i agree you, but would you shoot with a 50 coins arrow to a knight?

 

Archer is support. He will always be support. If you are trying to 1v1 a knight and die. Thats how its suppose to work. Im guessing thats why most people feel the need to buff/nerf any class.

No offense to you. I understand. Its a pain to always die to knight. But its just the circle of life.

 

define support.

oh, and slightly off topic, but why do bomb arrows not insta-kill when hit direct on?

 

I'd say giving their arrows a tiny damage buff(1.5 hearts? 3 hit a knight instead of 4 hit...or 6 hits including sheild breaking) OR a slightly higher DPS would be nice, even as support one heart of damage to an enemy isn't much of a difference, not for knights these days.

Archers are...such a mixed feelings class...A good archer can hold his own against a knight, but it takes a lot more effort. But most can't of course, and that is partway because the class is admittedly support for the most part.

Sadly the really big issues is the fact that they aren't really all that great at supporting their team, a few good snipes, maybe some fire...but in a big skirmish they'll normally be outright useless, even if they manage to hit an enemy and not miss or hit a shield that one heart at a time only puts little dents, and tends to be rehealed quite quickly. Really the only way to get hits on enemies is fight a builder or archer, get lucky with random shots, or shoot at a knight who isn't thinking or paying attention...Or be extremely skilled...

For the most part I will say the archer and knight classes are balanced, but maybe a tiny tweak is needed to make it just right. Slightly faster shot(And I mean super slight, this game tends to update from one extreme to the other), or a slightly harder shot(1.5 hearts at most), or change the triple shot to a double shot and increase the damage(either to 1.5 or 2 hearts), or something else. I dunno, something simple...

 

So archers were made to be killed by knights no matter what? Is that what you think? Being a support class does not mean it needs to be inferior, not to mention it is barely a support class anyway. You have a stupid mindset.

 

I rekon archers should maybe have an upgrade stand. Like you can upgrade the arrows that you carry (you don't have to buy special arrows). Say you spend like 200 coins to make your arrows do 1.5 damage? idk.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 2, 2013 ---

Yessss they should so add headshots :DDD

 

But I don't even like CoD...

Maybe archers could be equipped with extra functionality? Such as (grappling hook but they already added that ) a snorkel or something that helps them move around faster.

 

//fixed your quote ~ParaLogia

thats your opinion, but not mine, and i think such things would make the combat more ''allive''

 

If you read my post. I stated that in a 1v1, archer vs. knight, the knight is supposed to win.

Let me list what knight's and archer's pros and cons are, as well as what a Tank and Support does.

Knight:

Cons:
Must use CQC
Can't climb buildings

Pros:
Does a lot of damage
Can use bombs
Can defend himself with a shield.
High HP
​

Archer:

Cons:
Weak damage
Low HP

Pros:
Can shoot from a distance
Can set buildings on fire
Can put holes in buildings
Can stun other players
Can climb buildings with a grappling hook
​

Tank:

Straight from the WoW (the game that has class based battles down to a science) wiki.

"A tank is the character whose job it is to absorb the damage dealt by the mobs and keep aggro off the party's or raid's other members. Tanks need to be able to manage threat on one or more mob and survive doing so."

Support:

Again, straight from the WoW wiki.

"In World of Warcraft, the term "support" usually means a type of class that can be useful in groups without engaging in direct combat most of the time."

Now tell me. What of these two do you think Knight most resembles, and what Archer most resembles.

Also please tell me, based upon the pros and cons of a knight and archer, which seems to you, on paper, the most powerful class.


I don't appreciate when people state that my opinions are "stupid". The mature thing to do is to respect everyone's opinion and instead of twisting my words into something they aren't, you should state your opinion and move on. Just some advice, follow it or not.

This also answers your question @steve_jobs

 

​

I would agree with these pros and cons more except there are a few flaws with it.

A: Knights can get over buildings too, and in most cases forts are better defended against grapples than they are against bomb jumping, which isn't hard to do if you ask me, and I am not a great knight.
B: I think you forgot something on the "Can other players" line...?
C: Knights can put bigger holes in buildings than archers can, and for a cheaper price(bomb arrows only work half of the time for me), plus they are more effective on wood doors and don't need to pay money to destroy wood. Archers aren't as destructive as the class is made out to be, heck most of the archer's power comes from exploiting noob builders.
D: Archers are mobile, yes, but unlike knights they don't have anything they can do if they grapple their way into an enemy base unless a knight has already ravaged it or put a hole in the wall to get to the flag. Archer mobility is only really useful for camping or running away...

Like I said, I accept that it is a support class, but it isn't a really good one...heck recently they've been buffed against siege yet knights still do most of the damage vs that...mainly because of the whole insta-capture thing when sitting in it...

 

I agree. Archers are fine as they are, leave them alone.
You need to stop comparing them on their killing ability, and rather compare them on how useful they are.
On ctf, they render wooden structures virtually useless because of fire arrows. Bomb arrows own defensive siege, and even normal arrows can make a catapult roll off a hill. They take out weak spots in buildings. I would go as far to say that 3 bomb arrows are a better siege weapon than kegs.

 

@Crabmaster

Yeah it was more directed at One.

But to debate specifically what you stated.

A: To get over most buildings, knights must double bomb jump. It requires skills that a lot of players haven't fully learned how to do correctly yet (me being one of them). It also takes up 20-40 gold depending upon if you do a single or double bomb jump.

B: Fixed it, thank you very much.

C: Bomb arrows actually do the same amount of structural damage as a single bomb does (almost certain on this one). You are correct that the bombs for knight cost less, but thats mainly because its not fired at long range. Though, I disagree on the idea that they are not as destructive as people think.

Archers have the unique capability of setting structures on fire. Knights cannot do this, sure they can punch a hole through it with a bomb, but if an entire structure is made of wood, like in some late game cases, it can win the game for your team.

D: I have played an offensive archer before. Normally it consists of getting into their base and just being a huge distraction. You climb up somewhere they can't get to easily. Fire at them to get their attention, doing some minor damage. But really what you are doing is taking away troops to the battlefield. Like a scout in TF2 lol.

Knights and Archers are extremely different classes for good reason. Each balances the game so that everything works just right. You may die more as archer, but use it as an opportunity to think better tactically. There are so many aspects to KAG that just make it great, use them, think logically. Just an example is using a tree to destroy a base by planting a seed underneath it, it does damage over time without you even having to be there to do it (see what I mean?). Instead of simply running back into battle to be slaughtered numerous times, think of what you can do differently. Thats how I play KAG.

 

Bomb arrows are amazing castle destroyers, much more powerful than bombs.
http://i.imgur.com/8YgwGbQ.gif