Archer changes general

There is no point in staying just outside of knight's range unless he is a pleb. If he's not, he just shields and you do no damage. I get 2/3 of my kills from cqc encounters, usually pleb knights who stay still and shield.

Maybe the grapple change would be too much. I mostly thought of it because it'd make scaling towers infested with enemy archers much smoother.

 

You bring up a good point. Get in close, they slash you. Stay far away, they just shield. Any decent knight can counter any badass archer either way. Unless it's two archers getting in with fully charged legolas shots, you have no way to kill a knight at full HP.

I really think increasing arrow damage would fix this a lot.

 

The fact that close quarters attacks work better really kind of screws up the point of being an Archer at all:

Shoot a single shot from a distance: 1 heart of damage if you hit... not likely thanks to shields.
Shoot a triple shot from a distance: 3 hearts if you hit with all three, the likelihood of which is not very high thanks to stupid arrow deviation... and shields.

Shoot a single shot from up close: Pretty much guaranteed stun and/or deal 1 damage.
Shoot a triple shot from up close: Pretty much guaranteed stun, and deal 2-3 hearts of damage.

My question is, why is the Archer being encouraged to get close to people? Aren't Knights already doing that?
Bring back the amazing ranged ability of the Archer, I say. Extend their general range, remove the wonky arrow physics that make arrows fly relatively straight and then suddenly drop off, and suddenly you have a ranged class with a skill curve that actually makes sense.

Archers are not a ranged class right now, because most of the damage they do is in close combat; using the single shots from a distance might deal 1 damage, and then your target will shield everything. Honestly... if you took a Knight, reduced his health and damage, made his bombs more expensive, and handed him a grappling hook, he would effectively serve the same purpose as an Archer.


Bring. Back. Sniping.

PLEASE.

 

I agree that archers are really weird, especially with how they're better in close combat (and not as good as knights, at that). On the other hand, make them good at ranged and people cry because you have 12 archers volleying arrows and you can't get past them XD

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

It seems everyone is focusing too much on the extremes of things, which is what put the game off balance in the first place.

People keep thinking of either CQC or long range...instead of the in-between I try to have when playing as archer(which is less effective because the shield stun range is so low).
Archers do not need improved close range abilities, they need their current close range abilities extended slightly(such as breaking shields) and their damage increased a little...It is as simple as that.

On the side of long ranged abilities they do need something done about their accuracy being worse and worse the further the arrow goes, this would make their utility attacks much more effective as you actually hit where you mean to.
I say if you wanna be a sniper either have 1-2 other snipers with you, or work with supporting your team. Water arrows can be extremely helpful to knights(and closer combat archers) below, and also that endless barrage of arrows makes enemies fearful to do anything but defend themselves when on the battleground, meaning your offense can push onto them more.

But seriously, if you wanna play the game with CQC, play as a knight, don't try and think Archer needs it too, archer just needs ways to prevent itself from needing to ever be in close combat...

 

At this point, everyone is pretty adamant that shield stun from a longer distance must not be re-implemented, so that's probably not gonna happen.

I wish shielding worked a bit differently. I wish you had a little bar, like in some games, that represented how much you could block, which recovered over time when you weren't blocking (think stamina in demon's souls/dark souls). Then arrows from a long range could bet set to hardly reduce the bar, while shots from closer up had a greater effect.

It would mean that a large group of Archers would still be able to pin down and murder a Knight, even if he blocked, but with even one additional Knight, it would become very difficult to stop them, especially if camping and firing from a good distance.

 

Amusingly enough I actually considered that at some point. In the end, the reason why archers can't harm knights in at long range is because of the impenetrable shield they have, adding a stamina bar which lowers to some degree every time a knight successfully blocks and attack would make shielding more skill based while allowing opportunities to hit from a distance once a knight tries to go all commando. Once the stamina reaches zero, the knight would be unable to shield until it raises once more.

Then again, this could also lead to the same effect as having long range stun as an archer since a volley of arrows from 10 archers would probably deplete the stamina of knights fairly quickly, reason why I never bothered suggesting it on the forum in the first place.

I still think knight's have been taking shielding for granted since it's one of those abilities that doesn't require much skill to use efficiently but I am unsure if a stamina bar would be the answer. Maybe have it modded and see how well it does?

 

I meant with the stun range expand more like 3 blocks.

Getting close to knights is easier than you think.

1,5 dmg arrows from close to mid range
retarded RNG removed
better stomp

and there we have an archer that isn't annoying to play against, but can still hold its own in combat. As an additional quirk I'd allow other classes to climb normal arrows as well, though the climbing mechanics need to be refined for sure.

 

That sounds really good! But what do you mean with the climbing mechanics? What's 'wrong' with them?

 

As in the arrow climbing mechanics. They slow you down, and that'd act more as a hindrance. Rather, they should grant you additional wallrun with small hiccups between steps, and only work within angle of 180 degrees - horizontal and upwards.

 

This, all this! I was actually testing out archer yesterday to see the exact ranges of things and what ranges would be better(I can't remember where my example picture went) and I realized the stun range is so dang small that a knight's double slash makes the reward too little for the risk you are in...plus lag makes it even worse.

High risk for low reward for close archer combat, and low risk for luck reward with long ranged combat(unless you are sniping in support instead of to actually hurt people a lot).

 

Maybe implementing the system that arrow turrets use for archers would work. Increase the accuracy, but limit the distance. Not as short as the turrets shoot of course.

Something like what was in classic, but less OP. Maybe if you are in CQC and you land 3 legolas shots on a knight, the second should stun the knight, and the third should do damage.

Possibly accounting for the distance between an archer and a knight would work too. A longer charged shot at a close range should stun on the first shot. While longer shots require multiple arrows to stun.

I don't know really at this point. Really anything we have proposed so far just doesn't seem to be a good addition to the game that makes classes balanced.

The only thing I truely like is allowing knights to climb archer shot arrows.

 

I'd have to agree that it's a real pain in suggesting something for the archers because they either end up overpowered or under-powered. Very frustrating.

Thinking back to the whole stamina bars for shields, I can't help but wonder... maybe it's not the archers that are the problem? Maybe it's the knight? I know it sounds crazy but right now the only balanced combat is that of knight vs knight and that's it.

I can't help observe that knight vs knight combat has been tweaked and balanced out but when you try to add the archer into the formula, they just can't keep up or they end buffed to absurd levels just to be useful. It's as if KAG combat was created specifically for knight vs knight only and the archer has no place in it expect as a small nuisance that barely has an value to the team except for a few specific situations.

I feel as if the knight has been placed on a pedestal where the whole KAG game has been constructed around the class while the archer was given just enough to keep up with the knight and remain behind in it's shadow.

 

I think the knight should be the killer, the archer just needs a... Purpose. They're bad on the offense, but also at the defense (Since Knights can just keep their shield up). But perhaps you're right, maybe it's the knight that needs a few tweaks, not the archer.

 

As I mainly play as knight, and see how much damage people can do as knight I have to wonder about their OPness too. I think the biggest issue with Knight is the skill curve...Even with people who mainly or only play archer or builder you don't see a ProBuilder or ProArcher, only ProKnights. Knights are the game's main class, intentionally or not, and have the largest ability to be awesome.

I don't feel knights need a debuff, like you said they are currently the most balanced class...But I do feel the other two classes need buffs in some way...archer buffs is what this thread is all about...(of course a lot of people here seem to want to buff them in some massive game-changing way, when all they need are a few changed numbers in their code)

Also builders...they need more offensive abilities...right now their defense is super powered but they lack offense(they need more hearts or something so people can be on the battlefront moving the battle forward)

 

The problem with finding the archer a different purpose is the following, KAG is about two things: building and battling. If you're not doing any of those two then you're not contributing to the game at all, atleast not as much as the other two classes that excel at such roles and help win games (knights and builders). And if you can't contribute as much as any of the other two classes than why bother playing the archer (except because you wish to play ranged, like me) when any of the other two would fill those roles better and help the team more?

Builders and knights already occupy each of those roles while archers seem to lean towards battle but aren't as efficient as knights. It just seems like any other purpose that doesn't involved those two roles just wouldn't contribute as much to the game reason why I've always suggested making the archer better at battle.

 

I disagree with the builder - the builder should stay the same he is now.

 

I think the builder and archer classes should be merged into a single class.

 

Actually, correction! I said that knight vs knight combat seems like the most balanced but commented that the class itself might be a bit too OP when faced against anything else. I mean, think about it:

- knights are the fastest class in the water
- the best fighters both on dry land and underwater, is second fast on land due to shield sliding
- can use chickens the most effectively which could help them (in some cases) glide from one side of the map to the other
- are the only class in KAG which can be honestly declared a "one man army" for the simple fact that there have been many cases when a lone knight would win a game but never a builder or an archer
- they have the potential to bomb jump over almost any tower (if skilled enough)
- have access to kegs which are the most destructive weapon in KAG
- can shield against almost all attacks (except kegs, double slash and triple shot at very close range)

It basically feels like a 'demigod' class (knight) that is perfectly balanced when fighting other 'demigods' but against the 'mortal' class (archer) it just ends up in a one sided fight for the 'demigod'.

 

That's a quite interesting idea... Though I think the insane mobility would make the builder too good