General Knight Changes

ill bait your flame bb.

 

r u shur m80

 

Spoiler

OH WOW YOU'RE SUCH A 12 YEAR OLD AND SO UNACCEPTED AND WRONG AND ALSO CORNERED AND DUM-- Accusing me of using defence mechanisms while spouting off-topic ad hominem-- you.
I've provided a lot of explanation for my ideas and it seems that anyone viewing this thread now is not inclined to give them actual thought without worrying whether the person behind them is "a 12 year old" or "using defence mechanisms", and in fact seem to be more interested with criticising the person behind the argument rather than the argument. I'm also in no way "cornered", except for the fact that if I don't reply to your bullshit, my side of the argument will look discredited to anyone who may be considering the ideas. That pisses me off, but now I've stated this, I can simply report the off-topic arguments of this nature which are cluttering the thread and not reply to them. The "Shield has more vulnerabilities" and "Shield dropped more" has still not been proven as a badidea by anyone here, especially not you, Kedram. For someone accusing me of using defence mechanisms, you're doing it a lot yourself. ALSO, If you're going to call other people "12 year olds", learn to use the English Language and grammar correctly. Generally the "12" ad hominem is used by people with very little to actually say. Now, stop, please.

I'm actually a bit disappointed that the moderators haven't been deleting posts of this nature, which are only designed to carry on an ad hominem argument, like kedram's, arcrave's and even mine [not that I ever asked for this, but I'm being bullied into replying]. Only posts with direct discussion of pros or cons of Knight changes need to be here. I'm only replying because I'm forced into doing so, otherwise the ideas look bad when they may have merit.

It's annoying to still be discussing Archer in this thread. Complex topic so I'll spoiler

Spoiler

Yes, partially I'm citing only my own enjoyment. However, by the rate at which I see people select Archer to play as, which from my entire experience and my read experiences of others in this forum is the lowest in the game, indicates to me that Archer is un-fun or else all players generally consider it the least efficient class for winning/aiding their team. So yes "enjoyment" is subjective, but you can make generalizations about "enjoyment" based on common sense. For example, people find playing a video game more "enjoyable" than painting a wall, generally. If people are going to argue a majority of KAG players finding changes enjoyable is what's important, then we go by general rules. From there, we can find that generally, more people would find a class like Knight fun that gets kills easily, has a low entry level skill, has lots of options and has something to show for its work [a KDR] than a class like Archer fun which apparently plays a "support" role where kills are not as often awarded, has a higher skill requirement, has fewer distinct options and has less to show for their work at the end of the day or game [no "assists" which are generally accepted as a reward for "supporting", no large buildings or KDR to show off like the Knight, and worse anti-Knight combat skills prohibiting good KDR]. And from there, we look at other "fun mechanics" such as Grappling. Okay, that's cool. The Archer has Grappling and Legolas Shots. The Knight has floating up walls, 3 variants of bomb jump, slashdashing, Shield surfing and Shield gliding to play around with.
From there, I would find that not only do I personally think the Archer is less fun than the other classes from that guilty nagging feeling you get that you aren't being as useful as you could be, but also that listing the Knight's and Builder's assets against the Archer's, generally it would be accepted that the Archer is less fun.
Some things are markedly anti-fun: For instance, playing Archer and spending 4 seconds to charge up your Legolas Shot and firing a perfect blindfire volley at a Knight over a wall, only to find it doesn't affect his Shield. On the flipside, the Knight can gain the fun of knowing he can negate an entire type of ranged attack, which leads to much RMB+Q taunts involving laughing faces.

@infinitito thank you for being reasonable.

Galen, I know it's an ask, but can you please if it isn't too much trouble go through and delete all the posts, including mine, that have nothing about Knight ideas in them? I believe it would take about 4 pages off this thread.

 

@bobotype is (a nerd and) clearly Vanguarde behind a proxy, no way he's a real person. ABANDON THREAD!

 

Nothing seems to get through to you bobotype.... im abandoning thread just like arcrave because nothing i say can pass without you brutally analyzing every word as an insult.

 

No loss there at all, you've been the lowest quality commenter in this whole thread.

Pretty sure "12 year old" was intended as an insult, don't really see what else it could be.
See look, no idea discussion with either of them. To reiterate, go to the Archer Changes thread if you are interested in Knight to Archer balance. The only idea out of them in that thread relevant to the Knight is that the Archer's current close-range Legolas shot Shield drop at 11 tiles be extended to full range. (other ideas are lessening of arrows per bundle to counterbalance that, crawling, and minor block destruction.)

 

@bobotype Hills are fine, I'm just saying that given a choice, I'll take flat land preferably with some trees.
Ok, done in this thread now, too many text walls for me.

 

Because locking this and opening a NEW thread for discussing knight changes is dumb.
Just let all the filth pile up in one manageable place.
Unless you like walking around everywhere in filth...
weirdo

 

I listed my reasons why "enjoyable" can be measured in general, objective terms, if you read it. I understand it's a wall of text to read, but please don't say I'm ignoring your point when I wrote a wall of text in response to it. Disagreeing=/=ignoring.

You know, people of any age can be immature. It's a forum of a video game on the Internet, you're taking it too seriously. I might be taking it seriously too, but in a different way to getting mad that my profile has a joke age. I use that age on nearly every website I register an age on because mild information-based paranoia on the Internet is a bad habit of mine, not because I'm 12. Are you just low on things to criticise me on rather than discuss King Arthur's Gold? You're getting further and further off-topic, Auburn. Please do fix that.

Also, in response to @Boxpipe: >completely ignores comments made from sensible players about not shitting huge reaction images everywhere
>Assumes pro knights being against nerfs to the class they have the most skill in isn't due to a bias if skill is the issue and not the ideas
>Talks about "filth piling up", doesn't stop adding to it though

So, anyone got comments on the ideas? The ideas about Knight? In KAG? You know, the video game KAG?

 

yeah i do

dont change anything

quote this post if you agree

 

That is madness. Knights would be completely useless. Reducing the number of arrows per bundle wouldn't help at all. That would break the whole balance of the game. Archers would become tedious as you bought tons of extra ammo and knights would get slaughtered everywhere on the map.

Also @bobotype if someone makes an irrelevant or insulting comment, just ignore them. If you respond, it just makes it worse.

 

Thank you for being productive.
I don't see the current 11 tile Legolas shot which we have as making Knights entirely useless. Arrows are slower and easier to dodge than classic, and they only travel for 50 tiles which isn't quite the whole map [Knight's bomb range is 20 at most]. Lowering Arrows per bundle would help in terms of camping, forcing a camper in an unreachable-to-Knight location to go get ammo if they miss enough shots. The further the Legolas shot is, the easier it is to see and dodge. Remember, with 10 Arrows a bundle, that only gives you 3 Legolas Shots to use, so if the Knight can dodge even two then you're not a threat to him until you find your ass some Arrows. You also have a whopping 4 second interval between charges leaving you vulnerable during that time unless you CQC. I think it's a pretty well balanced idea, lets Archers damage at range but doesn't let them keep up a continuous spam, rewarding Knights who dodge.

As to "tons of extra ammo", your maximum possible ammo would be 40(*/50 carrying a spare bundle), only 10/20 more than the size of the 30 arrow bundle you get currently. That gives you only 13 Legolas shots before you have to refuel. As for tediousness, picking up missed arrows at the front line if you win a fight is a good way of freely recovering Arrows, coaxing campers who are now low on ammo forwards on the battlefield and out of hiding spots.

Of course, maybe tweaking would be a good idea, say extend the range to 50 tiles but drop it to 1 damage, while going down to 15 Arrows or something. At the moment, encouraging Archers to use their long-range attack at close range is extremely silly.
Archers gain a counter ranged attack counter to the Knight's ranged attack counter, Knights have to dodge more in combat if an enemy Archer's there, even if he's alone. And if the Knight dodges enough times, the Archer isn't a threat to him [unless he goes CQC.] The idea is just taking the concepts to their logical conclusion: less Ammo means the Archer can't spam all day at range, and ranged Shield damage is just increasing the reach from short to long, as befits an Archer.

 

@Geti we need a "dislike" button.

Edit: @bobotype, I come back after a couple weeks, and I still seeing you make shortsighted suggestions..

The range limit on arrow stun mainly exists to stop large numbers of archers from completely ruining a game. Arrow stun is balanced by the risk of getting close. This helps keep large numbers of archers from completely annihilating knights, since to get in that effective stun range, the archers would have to get close. This means they'd likely be bunched up, and more susceptible to bombs/other AoE.

Removing that range cap would make archers exponentially better in numbers, which throws off the balance incredibly. (KAG would be an archer-only game)

Edit 2: Oh, and removing the range cap would also incentivize camping, don't even pretend that reducing arrow stacks would help remedy this. (Literally no changes to arrow count could possibly change the viability (or lack thereof) of camping, since it gets completely nullified by smart shop placement)

(Really, really sorry, I have a habit of posting a small thing, and then editing in all the content of the post shortly thereafter.)

 

If this means keeping the current keg system which causes the things to be knocked off by almost anything, and the shield degree nerf that is probably a bit too far but helps me hit knights fairly easier, that sounds great, this definitely favors archers and builders, which are the classes I play most.

I don't know about the current build being balanced, but if we're all just looking for our own individual idea of balance, and how a class should be, rather than an objective compromise; mostly because the people in any discussion about changes on either side of the argument and to differing extents can only argue like they're on /v/, fuck it.