What's the point of shielding...

you need skill to use shielding.its handy in 2 block tunnels.wait for him to strike and then:kabam u hit while he hit ur shield

 

I'm all for making archers stronger against knights but this is not the way to do it. Archers should just get their original stunning power back in comparison to now where it is pathetic. As for knights who shield on ledges.. um, bomb anyone? Ladder over him? There is always a counter. If you're an archer, then the stunning I just mentioned would dislodge him.

 

Archer vs knight combat isn't exactly balanced per say but it also shouldn't be happening all that often. Archers are usually sniping and filling a support role. Knight vs knight with an archer thrown in makes it incredibly unbalanced and the side without the archer will usually lose that skirmish.

 

Shield pointless? Spamming the attack button? I don't think so.

 

I think the Archers are overpowered as it is. Climb to the enemy's roof with arrows so they can't even reach you (unless its open ceiling) and shoot on them from right on top. A duo of Archers is the most lethal combo in the game. With mutual cooperation they can quickly advance their team. And, being that this is a team game, being obligated to work with your teammates turns into even more fun.

 

archer and knight are the most lethal duo. an archer can't penetrate a knight's shield unless the knight is stupid enough to let his guard down. Two archers need to synchronise their shots perfectly in order to deal any damage at all. A knight will attack the enemy knight, making the opponent drop his guard and then have his face filled with arrows. Without knights to make other knights lower their defences, shields remain a source of immortality.

 

I agree that, when you're by yourself, killing a knight as an archer is pretty damn hard. One way of fixing this that I can think of is, when a knight's shield is hit by a fully charged arrow, not only does the knight drop his shield but he also takes half a heart of damage. It wouldn't be a huge amount of damage, but it would be enough to deter the knights from slowly advancing with that cruel glint in their eyes...:(

 

Goddamnit, you people really want knights to become even more useless, when a few archers on a tower with one knight attacking on the gorund can keep a whole fucking 10 knight army from advancing?
No.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -
ARCHER IS A SUPPORT & PROTECTIVE CLASS, NOT UBER-FORWARD-PUSHER LIKE KNIGHT. ARCHER HAS IT'S OWN ROLE AND THAT'S NOT OWNING, IT ISN'T IN BAD BALANCE AT ALL! YOU JUST PLAY TOO AGGRESSIVELY. Also, archer vs knight is easy win for the archer if he has some skill and it's not in a tunnel.

 

WTF you seriously want one third of the classes in this game to be only a minor "support role". What's the point of having the archer anyways? Maybe it should be a subclass of knight? The archer needs to own, because it can't do anything else. It needs to be able to push with its killing ability. Can't destroy buildings with sword or bomb, can't despike pits, can't protect others with shield, can't help others by shield boosting them. The archer needs to be better at killing than the knight. Don't say the archer has stealth, because that's useless. Trust me, I have explored the possibilities extensively, and its garbage.

And stop with the large text. Do you think your opinion is more important than other people's? Only children need to yell to be heard.

 

No to shield stamina, knights have a hard enough time against archer.

 

Lol if you think this you don't understand the game. There's a building class, a support class (archer), and a forward class (knight). The archer stays in the back and weakens/kills enemies for the knight, who can destroy buildings. In other cases, the archer can climb walls and harass infantry as a distraction with his crazy jumpy climby stuff while knights and builders destroy enemy defenses (like me). Or you can be a defensive class and hold off entire armies alone if you're good enough (again, like me). The archer doesn't "need to own", it's made for cautious play, not aggressive play.

 

Killing people is all well and good, but it doesn't equal pushing, which is the important part. You can sit back, kill people and it looks all good and fancy and you feel important about your high kill count. But as impressive as it may look to some people, killing people is not that important. It's undoubtedly good, but a small part of the game. The fact of the matter is the knight can kill people people as well, AND he can also break fortifications, allowing teammates to get through. There have been many times when I've sat back and spammed, killing lots of people and having a high KD. But you can't fire fast enough to kill everyone, and my knights kept dying. People will notice that I've been playing knight mainly now. Part of that is because the archer is boring, and the other part is because I help my team more. I'd trade 100 kills on the scoreboard for another whack at the wall, because that's what matters. In fact, with a decent ping knights can murder waves of enemies too. While also contributing to the destruction of enemy fortifications.

I mean as an archer you can occasionally pull some James Bond shit and sprint past fields of traps and walls to grab the flag, if they don't build around their flag too much and its a smallish game. But that's not a common scenario.

 

When you kill people they have to respawn back at their base/OP. And I was talking about following teammates, but sticking behind them because we archers are made of paper skin and glass bones.

 

The archer's ability to push right now, I agree with you, is very weak. However, what I do not agree with is your view that archers are not as useful as knights. My thought was that each class dictates a certain kairos, a moment in time in which a moment is most opportune. The knights have their moments at which they are most needed in the battlefield and there is a moment when archers are what is most needed.

I find that archers are the essential stop gap to weaken an enemy's push. The offensive capabilities are there yes, but I categorize their roles as taking out enemy archers and thinning out enemy knights not as the main class to push with. The archer will rarely make game changing maneuvers alone I agree but I find that other classes can only reach their full potential whilst they have an archer supporting them.

To illustrate my point I will provide a common example all of us should have experienced. The potency of a well fortified position full of archer sniper teams has been experienced by nearly all of us here, I would believe you the much more then others, and a large groups of knights will fall before a well fortified position. The raiding party of knights would need covering fire from rear archers in order to be be able to take a chunk from the wall. Which will hopefully help validate my thought that not one class is more useful to the team then others.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you bud. I tried my best to get my point across in a peaceful organized manner. These thoughts are reflective on my opinion that the three classes have been attuned to a rock, paper, scissor like role; where not one class will dominate the other.

 

Indeed. Or now they could just spam bombs at the wall during this build.

Or I could snipe them all.

 

Suicide bombing has proven to be an effective tactic for advancing and helps Contrary's point that Knights are best for gaining ground.

 

Especially with the addition of catapult flinging. "WHEEEE- splat. BOOM"

EDIT: I request a comic by Sani of this scenario.

 

No man, I think you hit the nail on the head. The part about there being certain situations where a class shines is very important and has not been mentioned yet. I agree that there are definitely times where the archer really shines. In fact in these situations I think it shines too brightly, as I have mentioned in the past, suggesting things like a nerf to their ability to spam fully charged shots. What I meant to say is that overall, the archer's role is in too few situations in a non-essential capacity.

I think I definitely could have expressed myself better, I have poo brain from working outside in the blazing hot sun.

Anyways I think that while the archer does have situations where it shines, it has situations where it is not the class you want more often than the other classes. I believe I have used the word "situational" as describing the archer before. I explained this to someone else one time. Think of it like this, you go into a random lobby, really wanting to win, and are told your team can only use two classes for the whole game. Which classes do you pick. Knight and worker, I think most will say this without a second thought.

I'm saying that being a whole class, the archer should have comparable, if not equal importance to the rest of the classes. Right now as people have been saying its a "support" class, ie non essential which I think, personally, shouldn't be the case. Right now the biggest reason to say you need archers is to kill other archers. Which I think is kind of wrong.