Now, i'm going to start this thread debunking the common arguments people use to say archery is good or fine. Then i'm going to go onto why archery is so bad, and i'll be making comparisons to other roles in the game whilst doing so, before narrowing down on what i feel are the core issues, and some potential fixes.
"Archery isn't a class, it is a foot fighter" :
Archery IS a class when measured by skill point investment compared to other "classes" on the game. Infact, what you'll find is, to be the "ideal" archer, that is to say, an archer with all skills maxed in archery, it takes significantly more stat investment than some of the other classes/roles on the game.
Now, the game doesn't really have defined classes, but it does have limited archtypes people can fall into. Archer is an archtype. You can play this game exclusively with a bow, and the skill investment indicates it is it's own class.
Yes, anyone can just use a bow, like anyone can use a sword. But are they trained in it? What someone has skills in is what i'd define as their class in this context. Now, yes, you can be a foot fighter and an archer, just like you can be a foot fighter and a mage. But it comes at a cost to try and be a jack of all trades. You are master of none.
The REAL reason people say archery isn't a class is simple. Archery is SO over nerfed, people regard it as unplayable standalone.
What does this mean? it means that some people define a class based on it's performance NOT on skill point investment. This is a mistake. Just because the skills you have perform poorly does not mean it is not a class. If you think logically about it, what you're essentially saying is that those skills are pointless. To skill into archery is wasted points, and then to ask further, why even have it in the game in the first place? Why have skills that are useless in the game? Because they're NOT supposed to be useless, they are overnerfed and badly balanced. It is the skills that make the class NOT the performance.
"Mounted Archery is the strongest class" :
This is an easy one. When people complain about mounted archery, what they're actually complaining about is not the mounted or archery part, but the fact that most people who use mounted archery are also mages.
They are able to run away and heal their horses without dismounting and rejoin combat over and over. Creating a scenario you simply can't win if you're on foot. But notice, it is that they can HEAL that makes the MA broken, NOT mounted archery in and of itself.
Take mounted healing your own horse away from a MA, and what you'll find is something very easy to deal with as long as you have a ranged weapon of any kind. Infact, even a foot archer is superior to a mounted archer once you take away the healing. Why? Because it is easier to hit a person on a horse from foot than it is to hit a person on foot from a horse. You don't even need to be skilled in archery to hit a horse since the target is so huge and has a clear directional momentum that it is tied to.
A mounted archer who can't heal their horse whilst mounted only really excels at killing other people's horses, but guess what? Mages do it batter. Infact, what we'll find as we explore this thread, is mages do all but one thing better than archers (more or less).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This can be broken up into two parts :
What does this mean to those who are uninformed? It means when you fire an arrow, the arrow has a travel time before it hits the location it was aimed. The opposite of this is "Hitscan".
Hitscan aiming is where the moment you press to fire your attack/weapon, it has no travel time. So long as your cursor is over the target the moment you press, your attack will hit.
Now, mages have some projectile attacks, but for the most part they have hitscan spells. Overall, mages simply do everything better than archers aside from a couple of things. Mages have more utility, and more damage. Their array of options is simply huge compared to that of an archer, Their only downside is that mages have more significant limitations whilst wearing heavy armor.
People say "archers can move and attack, so it is balanced." To those people i say : Try shooting a bow whilst moving. You will immediately see that you aren't going to be hitting much if you try to shoot a bow whilst moving.
The correct way to look at it is like this :
Mages charge their attack then can move freely and aim without much disruption to their aim. This comes at the cost of having to move slowly whilst charging.
Archers can't really hit anything due to massive aim disruption whilst moving and charging, so they must stand still to take their shot, but CAN stay mobile and charge.
When looking at it like this, you realize that it is actually the same but simply swapped round. Mages have a limited charge mobility, archers have limited shooting mobility.
I'd say mages have the slight edge here too, because you can do the slow part behind a rock, then stay mobile when you have to take your shot. An archer has to stop their mobility whilst in the field of view of the target.
So, archers are at a disadvantage there too.. But they do have ONE other areA they have an advantage, but it is a near useless for reasons i'll explain after disclosing this advantage. An archer's attack can go all the way up to the draw distance. That means archers have more range than any other class by a huge margin, however, your shots will take about six seconds to arrive at their destination after you fire it due to how slow the projectile speed is.
Infact, even at mid range, you'll find your arrows move VERY slowly. Anyone who has tried PVPing with a bow against a foot based opponent will know, once they know you're shooting at them, hitting them can become near impossible, as they can literally see your projectile and side step it before it lands.
I once had three mounted archers all shooting at me with their bows at close to medium range, whilst they were stationary, and i literally just stood there moving slightly left and right to avoid their shots, and they simply could not hit me. Why??
Because the projectile speed is TOO SLOW.
This is one of the BIGGEST issues with archery. It is essentially useless against an opponent who has an awareness of you. This in turn makes it only good for stealth/distraction attacking, which we'll find it is also useless in this area because the damage archery deals is so tiny against anyone wearing armor (even just light armor).
Am i saying archery should be hitscan like magic? NO
I think it feels great as a projectile based weapon, but the speed of the arrows needs to be readjusted significantly. I get that someone at a really long range should be able to see an arrow coming, but when even in medium to close range they can sidestep them, that is not good enough.
If any of you do not believe me, i urge you to go and try this. Have someone shoot at you with a bow, and all you have to do is sidestep their shots.
Also.. If you're going to have weakspot depend solely on headshots? This projectile speed is simply unacceptable.
So, not only is archery harder to aim than magery, it does TINY damage against anyone wearing even the lightest of armor.
So mages not only get hitscan aiming, which is significantly easier and more reliable than projectile aiming due to it having no travel time, mages also have significantly more damage.
WHAT?!
How did this happen? Well, one reasons i can theorize this is the case is simple : you can wear heavy armor AND use archery to it's full effect more or less.
I think this is a really poor design choice. Why? Because now we have tanks who are also the best archers, but also the best in melee damage.
In what game with archtypes does the tank also get to be the ranged DPS? It is a really nonsensical design choice. Because they've foolishly allowed this, archery as a skillset HAS to be overnerfed.
By doing this, if one is say, a light armored archer, they are now at a HUGE disadvantage for not using heavy armor, because not only are they using a skillset that has been overnerfed BECAUSE of heavy armor, they are also not using heavy armor.
The correct solution to this should be obvious : make aiming with heavier armor more difficult. People in heavy armor should not be aiming a bow with perfect accuracy... They're using a helmet with guantlets.. Bows require dexterity and precision, you would not be aiming well in full plate armor. But realism aside, it is just poor design in terms of role balancing.
"Archery isn't a class, it is a foot fighter" :
Archery IS a class when measured by skill point investment compared to other "classes" on the game. Infact, what you'll find is, to be the "ideal" archer, that is to say, an archer with all skills maxed in archery, it takes significantly more stat investment than some of the other classes/roles on the game.
Now, the game doesn't really have defined classes, but it does have limited archtypes people can fall into. Archer is an archtype. You can play this game exclusively with a bow, and the skill investment indicates it is it's own class.
Yes, anyone can just use a bow, like anyone can use a sword. But are they trained in it? What someone has skills in is what i'd define as their class in this context. Now, yes, you can be a foot fighter and an archer, just like you can be a foot fighter and a mage. But it comes at a cost to try and be a jack of all trades. You are master of none.
The REAL reason people say archery isn't a class is simple. Archery is SO over nerfed, people regard it as unplayable standalone.
What does this mean? it means that some people define a class based on it's performance NOT on skill point investment. This is a mistake. Just because the skills you have perform poorly does not mean it is not a class. If you think logically about it, what you're essentially saying is that those skills are pointless. To skill into archery is wasted points, and then to ask further, why even have it in the game in the first place? Why have skills that are useless in the game? Because they're NOT supposed to be useless, they are overnerfed and badly balanced. It is the skills that make the class NOT the performance.
"Mounted Archery is the strongest class" :
This is an easy one. When people complain about mounted archery, what they're actually complaining about is not the mounted or archery part, but the fact that most people who use mounted archery are also mages.
They are able to run away and heal their horses without dismounting and rejoin combat over and over. Creating a scenario you simply can't win if you're on foot. But notice, it is that they can HEAL that makes the MA broken, NOT mounted archery in and of itself.
Take mounted healing your own horse away from a MA, and what you'll find is something very easy to deal with as long as you have a ranged weapon of any kind. Infact, even a foot archer is superior to a mounted archer once you take away the healing. Why? Because it is easier to hit a person on a horse from foot than it is to hit a person on foot from a horse. You don't even need to be skilled in archery to hit a horse since the target is so huge and has a clear directional momentum that it is tied to.
A mounted archer who can't heal their horse whilst mounted only really excels at killing other people's horses, but guess what? Mages do it batter. Infact, what we'll find as we explore this thread, is mages do all but one thing better than archers (more or less).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Archery is So Bad
This can be broken up into two parts :
1. Archery is a Slow Projectile Based Weapon, Not Hitscan.
What does this mean to those who are uninformed? It means when you fire an arrow, the arrow has a travel time before it hits the location it was aimed. The opposite of this is "Hitscan".
Hitscan aiming is where the moment you press to fire your attack/weapon, it has no travel time. So long as your cursor is over the target the moment you press, your attack will hit.
Now, mages have some projectile attacks, but for the most part they have hitscan spells. Overall, mages simply do everything better than archers aside from a couple of things. Mages have more utility, and more damage. Their array of options is simply huge compared to that of an archer, Their only downside is that mages have more significant limitations whilst wearing heavy armor.
People say "archers can move and attack, so it is balanced." To those people i say : Try shooting a bow whilst moving. You will immediately see that you aren't going to be hitting much if you try to shoot a bow whilst moving.
The correct way to look at it is like this :
Mages charge their attack then can move freely and aim without much disruption to their aim. This comes at the cost of having to move slowly whilst charging.
Archers can't really hit anything due to massive aim disruption whilst moving and charging, so they must stand still to take their shot, but CAN stay mobile and charge.
When looking at it like this, you realize that it is actually the same but simply swapped round. Mages have a limited charge mobility, archers have limited shooting mobility.
I'd say mages have the slight edge here too, because you can do the slow part behind a rock, then stay mobile when you have to take your shot. An archer has to stop their mobility whilst in the field of view of the target.
So, archers are at a disadvantage there too.. But they do have ONE other areA they have an advantage, but it is a near useless for reasons i'll explain after disclosing this advantage. An archer's attack can go all the way up to the draw distance. That means archers have more range than any other class by a huge margin, however, your shots will take about six seconds to arrive at their destination after you fire it due to how slow the projectile speed is.
Infact, even at mid range, you'll find your arrows move VERY slowly. Anyone who has tried PVPing with a bow against a foot based opponent will know, once they know you're shooting at them, hitting them can become near impossible, as they can literally see your projectile and side step it before it lands.
I once had three mounted archers all shooting at me with their bows at close to medium range, whilst they were stationary, and i literally just stood there moving slightly left and right to avoid their shots, and they simply could not hit me. Why??
Because the projectile speed is TOO SLOW.
This is one of the BIGGEST issues with archery. It is essentially useless against an opponent who has an awareness of you. This in turn makes it only good for stealth/distraction attacking, which we'll find it is also useless in this area because the damage archery deals is so tiny against anyone wearing armor (even just light armor).
Am i saying archery should be hitscan like magic? NO
I think it feels great as a projectile based weapon, but the speed of the arrows needs to be readjusted significantly. I get that someone at a really long range should be able to see an arrow coming, but when even in medium to close range they can sidestep them, that is not good enough.
If any of you do not believe me, i urge you to go and try this. Have someone shoot at you with a bow, and all you have to do is sidestep their shots.
Also.. If you're going to have weakspot depend solely on headshots? This projectile speed is simply unacceptable.
2. Heavy Armor Archers and Bow Damage Versus Armor
So, not only is archery harder to aim than magery, it does TINY damage against anyone wearing even the lightest of armor.
So mages not only get hitscan aiming, which is significantly easier and more reliable than projectile aiming due to it having no travel time, mages also have significantly more damage.
WHAT?!
How did this happen? Well, one reasons i can theorize this is the case is simple : you can wear heavy armor AND use archery to it's full effect more or less.
I think this is a really poor design choice. Why? Because now we have tanks who are also the best archers, but also the best in melee damage.
In what game with archtypes does the tank also get to be the ranged DPS? It is a really nonsensical design choice. Because they've foolishly allowed this, archery as a skillset HAS to be overnerfed.
By doing this, if one is say, a light armored archer, they are now at a HUGE disadvantage for not using heavy armor, because not only are they using a skillset that has been overnerfed BECAUSE of heavy armor, they are also not using heavy armor.
The correct solution to this should be obvious : make aiming with heavier armor more difficult. People in heavy armor should not be aiming a bow with perfect accuracy... They're using a helmet with guantlets.. Bows require dexterity and precision, you would not be aiming well in full plate armor. But realism aside, it is just poor design in terms of role balancing.
