Class Bawww/Argument thread

All of those examples are using people who don't know what the are doing versus a person throwing bomb with accuracy. A tunneler who doesn't completely encase himself? That's his fault, and if a knight has a bomb and times it right, he ought to kill him. A group of enemies didn't block the bomb? Again, their fault, they were all apparently dumbasses at the same time or the guy throwing the bomb had perfect timing. If there is 3 (a single bomb cannot destroy 5x5 blocks) block tower that is NOT supported, with a dumbass holding the door open, and the knight manages to gets it perfectly in the middle, yeah, he deserves the crash. Bomb jumping is more debatable whether it's fair or not, but the fact that most archers just camp in towers and spam, I think it's justifiable.

Also, I never said that arrows should be bomb-range, I said they should have shorten range. As of now, knights can't even see the archers shooting at them. I say shorter range so builders can build proxies, or knights can get close enough to see a weak spot, or fight advancing enemy knights. As long as the battle remains in the middle of the map, archers never have to leave the tower built during the building section, and I think that heavily stalls the game whenever one team tries to advance from the middle.

Tunneling is very hit-and-miss, and is much harder then to sit in a tower and spam. Although it should be difficult for a team to make the final push for the other teams flag, it should be almost as difficult if not as difficult for the other team to defend the flag against the advancing team. Sit in your giant tower you made at the beginning of the map and spam brings the game to a full-on stop, and the defending team usually wins, and it is WAY too easy to do.

Lastly, if bombs should be made so archers can dodge and avoid them relatively easy and have an equal chance of winning at close-medium range, how do you expect knights to win? If an archer always wins at far-medium range, has an equal chance at winning at a close-medium range, how can the knight win unless he outnumbers the archer? You start at far range, and as long as the archer(s) stay behind their wall, they can almost always distance themselves from the knights(s). Unless the enemy team gets a substantial catapult advantage, their only option is to tunnel, which is unreliable, repetitive, boring, and a complete cluster-fuck. You need another way for knights to close the distance so they can have a chance to hurt the archers. Like I said before, unless the archer is not paying attention, most bombs just hurt them or get them to flee, so it gives the knight time to advance.

 

I must be that rare, middle ground kinda guy. I used to be VERY against archers and I still crack up when I see people raging against them.

Here's a tip; Those of you who are all, "(insert class) is OP! (insert class) is totally underpowered! It isn't fair!" should start playing as that class until you have a fair bit of experience and skill with said class. I used to only play as knight when I first started, then I began becoming proficient as a builder both offensively and defensively. I never touched the archer because I was on the "OMG ARCHERS ARE SUCH PUSSIES AND COWARDS AND THEY SMELL BECAUSE ALL TEHY DO IZ CAMP AND SPAM BOOOOOOOOOO" bandwagon. Then, a few months ago when knight combat became completely fucked, I decided I was bored of being a builder and wanted some action, so I made the choice... For the first time ever (aside from countering a catapult/other archers) I switched to an archer. I learned how far each shot goes, learned where best to aim depending on distance, and realized I was becoming rather good at sniping off hordes of dudes from a high enough perch. Then I started to realize just how effective a front line, aggressive archer can be, and how an offensive archer is much more versatile and useful than a defensive archer... The rest is history!

So the moral of the story is; if you hate archers/knights, take some time and learn to play as an archer/knight. You'll get the other side's perspective and gain a greater appreciation and respect for how tough it can be. Since the incident, I switch between all three classes regularly, except I have been slacking on my combat builder-neering.

 

This game has only two dimensions, so its impossible to shoot past someone.
Still, the knight could just block the shot, THEN kill the archer.
Its already a mistake to get that close to a charging archer when you are near death.
And its quite hard to make sure that the arrow just "misses" the target it would usually hit.
maybe it can be fixed by making knights have one last slash on death, if they are charging at that moment??
</br>--- merged: Oct 21, 2012 9:33 AM ---</br>

not joking, this moved me.

 

I play knight a lot more then archer, but I still play it and I used to be a really good one too in older builds.

Know remember I'm a very knight thinking person so most of the negative things I'm going to say is about archers.

Archers can chose to become the safest or most exposed class in the game, Being exposed (like rushing or being aggressive) Can be effective in rushing and pushing enemy's back but the risk of getting killed is higher.

Being safe (staying a large distance away or behind towers) does the same thing as being exposed you can push enemy's back and help allies push forwards without any risk of getting killed and the only negative things about it is that it's a bit harder to aim and that your arrows have to travel a bit further.

Now aiming in this game isn't hard and a fully charged arrow can still do 1.5 hearts and stun from 40-45 blocks away. Making most people play the safe way because they don't see the benefits of becoming aggressive just so they could do the same thing 20-50 blocks away but have the chance to die more.

Safe archers are just to effective for the low amount of risk they have.

Bombs are overpowered I know, but it's the one of the only things that can kill a archer in one hit the others are a catapult or a fully charged arrow that knocks them off a large height, and the last two has it's flaws.

The catapult is pretty useless at killing archers above it and most fully charged arrow shots leave the enemy archer with half a heart and doesn't knock them out of a tree or tall building, so the enemy archer just runs off and heals. But bombs can kill a archer effectively in all angles and the chance of them living is quite low (if they are close to it).

Now insta killing a archer sounds lame but because of their low hearts so if damaged a tiny bit most archers just run away to a healing shop or just camp in towers (which can also have healing shops inside them).

This is when archers become annoying, You cant kill them or hurt them but they can still damage you while they are healing or hiding, and the fact that this way of hiding and healing still works even when it's a archer vs archer situation makes a battle last forever.

I'm all up for archers to have a shorter range and whatnot, but bombs will become stupidly powerful against them because they have to get close.

Another reason I think most archers think that bombs is too powerful is because they don't have a instantaneous wall that builders can make to protect himself/herself or a knight shield to block them.
The only things archers have are the large range of damage they have while still being damage effective and being effective in towers, which in turn make knights and builders think they are to powerful.

TL; DR : Archers are too effective at killing while being safe, archers think bombs are powerful because they don't have a shield or wall they can use/make.

 

builders can also place blocks over bombs getting rid of them.

when i play as a archer im usually offensive where the enemy is straight in front of me. if i play defensive i miss by a small fraction.
now i dont think archers are op but catapults are
edit: fixed

 

The fact more offensive archers tend to be more useful is NOT new news. In fact, it's fairly old news, we established it several times now. The problem, as Exid said, is that more defensive archers are much more powerful then they should be; it's way to easy for a archer to camp compared to the difficulty for the enemy knight to overcome it. That's simply overpowered.

Now, I still think people are taking the "shorter range" to an extreme. It should NOT be the range of a bomb. But right now, archers can snipe across the fucking map, that's a big difference from the couple dozen blocks a knight can throw his bomb. I want something in-between that, basically make it so knights don't have to fight other knights while worrying about being sniped from across the map. Make it so a better team can actually establish relatively safe dominance in the middle of the map and be able to advance (using a catapult, most likely) from the middle.

The thing about bombs is that it allows the knight to take advantage of archers that are simply too close who are unprotected. If one barrage of knights with archers behind them die to another barrage of knights, at least some of those archers will probably die, because the defense they rely on has fallen. If bombs were considerably weaker (no one has specified what bombs OUGHT to be, if they are currently op), then lots of these archers would get off scott free.

Let me put that into math. 12 knights rush at 8 knights and 4 archers. The 12 knights manage to best the 8 knights, who have archer support. This leaves 4 knights and the other 4 archers, and the 4 knights use their bombs to kill 2 out of 4 archers, the other 2 got away. How is this not fair? If it was 12 knight vs. 12 knight, all of one side would die, or maybe just 1 or 2 would bail early and escape. If it was so the archers would easily be able to escape, people would play archer a lot more.

The point of the knights is distance and location control; archers have to keep their distance. This is why I'm okay with bombs just hurting archers, because it gets them to flee, giving the knight time to advance. When they advance, if they manage to destroy/bypass the defenses of the archers, they kill the archers. If they can't, the archers come back and shoot them, killing some, forcing others to fall back.

My suggestion to fix the fact that bombs are too tricky to dodge (when thrown by a good knight) is to make the range for bombs shorter. This makes it so archers can't snipe the entire time and be near untouchable, but knights can't too easily off offensive archers, but knights still have the chance to kill the archers who have been left bare.

 

I think Builders provide that support role you're mentioning perfectly, and it seems Archers are armed with Longbows, and for archers out in the open the problem is the draw speed along with their movement.

Currently, there is no detriment to a charging archer who could bunny hop their way whilst drawing their arrows to full measure, while there is a detriment for knights who are holding their wooden shield up for defense. Proposing the same counter measure be given to archers on foot, on land (not in trees) to have the same, or nearly the same speed as those shielded knights. Or, some kind of recoil when shooting while moving.

Also, talking about defensive archers, they would rely on builder skill for their survival, mostly. A good tower is a good defense, and must be utilized to keep the enemy at bay and give them a hard time. Simple to use and a simple outcome.

 

I've bitched for ages that archers should not be able to spam and hop away so efficiently, so I agree with that. In fact, I think this thread actually started with the idea that when running backwards the player is slowed, which I think is a good idea.

As another, less bias view, bombs fix that. As long as a knight has a bomb, they can get the archer spamming with some good timing. The problem with THAT is the stun. Archers can stun without even thinking, it's extremely easy to do, were knights have to really time their bombs well to land a hit on a good archer.

The thing about defensive archers is that they DON'T need a really skillful builder. They just need a tower and they're a huge, out-of-proportion pain in the ass. And when one team does build a huge tower, it stops the game entirely, it does not just slow it down. It turns the match into a grind-fest at the end, making even the winning team turtle, lest they lose all their lives. Tunneling is such a risky and tedious strategy and demands such a team effort. Through most of my matches on KAG, with good players and bad, the winning team, unless winning by a huge margin, typically loses at the end, because the losing team just turtles and grinds all of the winning team's lives away. It's just silly.

 

Archers are scum

Knight combat is broken

NEXT!

 

Well, entombing isn't as effective a tactic now. Knights can counter it with the changes made to bombs vs people behind walls right next to the bombs. So, that leaves only tunneling now as a direct counter to archers in massive towers.

 

Has anyone been on that Goblin vs. troll or whatever is server? Knights usually almost always win :D

 

Have you heard about unbalanced maps?

 

Yes.

 

As much as I love all the classes,and it seems the talk on this post has died down, I've decided to kick it back up.

The true and honest problem that I have with the knight is the radius of the explosion from bombs. I always feel like I get hit from so far away and i'm not sure if i'm just unlucky off the wazoo or i'm up against pros. I also get hit (on occasion) through 2 layers of stone wall. Now i'm not going to say "OP! NERF" No, in fact I love the knight when I play with my friends I like to slash some faces. because the range makes sense in certain situations,like doing massive damage to a weak wall or hitting a crowd,it fits well in the game and in my opinion is balanced . I just don't want to by bombs that are usually cheap and hit a builder through 2 layers of stone.
"But Haden! Move away man! It's not that hard don't be dumb!"
I understand what you mean, bombs typically kill people,and getting killed typically isn't fun. But a good bomb thrower holds onto the bomb for a few seconds then releases. This ends up in a death even if you do get some kind of distance.

I'm not saying this is an amazing idea,but could there be some kind of high damage to structures like walls,and less damage to players? I think it makes a knight a better wall buster and allows them to get to a archer quicker,am I right? Think about it, There's a large wall and you want to get the archer,instead of chucking a bomb to him,why not hit the base of the tower and kill everyone around it?

I play a builder,I enjoy supporting my team and getting a :) or to show the thanks and appreciation and don't have a big problem with bombs as long as I keep my distance and build myself a nice wall. But in cases I get hit from 4-6 blocks away and its frustrating to try and support when the radius poops on me.

All in all I'm bias over bombs and how knights play,I do like how they are quicker because they are close combat. Imagine if the archer was quicker? What would the knight even be able to do if he ran out of bombs? I see why they need to be quicker to be of any use.

On another note.
I also don't have any problem with back peddling, if were still on that subject. Get rid of the archer spam i spouse,but i'm sure someones going to argue over that as well.

 

why dont you nerf archer range and bombs, so bombs dont instagibyou u less your trying to jump on it, and archers have to move up to be effective....


and about realsim... to asssult a castle you should have 3x the number of defenders, more if possible, ao tad

 

Be nice if both classes got some kind of nerf. Just feel like,even as a builder I get hit from so far away from the bomb :/. Just played a match about 15 or so minutes ago and got pegged by a 7 block length explosion.

 

Do you realize that builders are already the most powerful class in the game? For example, every builder that has more than 2 days of game experience can easily shield himself of a bomb.

not sure if im being trolled

 

I'm not talking about getting shielded,i'm talking about how easily I get hit from a bomb. Yes I understand we have the ability to do so. I got hit through 2 castle walls and 2-3 blocks away earlier today. You'd think the explosion would be absorbed by the wall. But i'm not going to be that fan boy that complains about stuff. Just find it weird.