Why does archer have the third strongest armor, when it's a ranged class?

I played archer from 2011 to now. I have more knowledge then most people on archer. Full arrogane initiated. Archer is the first or second balanced class. Archers punch 2 is used to keep away hordes of people. If you are a beginner archer it can be one of the most confusing af classes. Its really only op when you are on risabus, brands, or my level. It can be used on several maps to clear out flag rooms. Its doing what it was meant to do. Kill people from long range, but archer is getting so much **** right now it shouldnt be. Its instakill does take skill to aim and more skill or luck to kill an experienced person. Archer takes the right angle, predicting, and timing to kill. If you screw up one of those you miss and probably die. I may suck more as archer now, but I still know my ****. Archer is one of the best classes, and one of the funnest. Anyone who rages about archers being op is probably someone who died to them constantly.

 

Allright, so in yur post it says it takes luck to kill someone? And to kill an experienced person? That's pretty broken right there.

Also, if you miss a shot as archer, who cares? Yur a long ranged class, you don't die if you mess up, you just aim and shoot again, and repeat this until you kill them. The only time this doesn't apply is when they are charging at you, and even den you can just juggle them back into range with punch 2.

Just because something takes skill doesn't mean it's not OP or broken. Everything takes skill, but it's the power output for skill in that counts, and archer has too much power for too little skill. I will admit that I could not do what very good archers do. But in a sense, I can. Anyone can accidently headshot someone regardless of skill level, and that's where the broken part of archer shows.

Also, an experienced person really can't do crap against archers from a distance, since archers a long range class. They can try to dodge and hide behind stuff, but in the long run the archer has the advantage the entire time, and can basically skrew them over with one shot. It really has nothing to do with the experience of the player, the best heavy in the game can still be killed by an archer who's playing for the first time.

 

Besides most of your fallacies the main one is believing Archer's instakill takes skill.

Anybody can aim, the "skill" needed for archer is hardly any more than the skill needed for any other class

 

@boomdrone

Archer's punch 2 is used primarily to spam the living balls out of anyone in cqc. Knockback 1 on the sword would achieve the same effect while forcing the archer to actually use the sword, while playing up the fact that it's not a cqc primary class.

As a beginner archer I used to get 15 killstreaks. It's literally the easiest class to learn, as even Heavies need to learn to avoid certain classes. Archers just sit and shoot until something dies.

Nice not-so-humble brag there, but as you admitted yourself, you're likely not on risa's, brandino's, or winter's level anymore. And, if you really are on their level after taking such a long leave, that should prove how easy archer is to pick up.

It's balanced, but can clear out entire flagrooms on their own. Contradictory.

I killed people by shooting randomly over an entire map. I killed people by punching them into the void. I killed people by sitting at a camp zone and shooting choke points. I very rarely had to aim more than a few blocks, unless I was shooting at an archer who was aware of me. Archer may take some skill, but it's not enough to justify their power. I mean, it's not like we don't have 128 chances to hit, per life.

I got angle, timing, and prediction down to second nature within, like, 5 days. An arrow will almost always go to the same place under the same circumstances, and you only experience so many circumstances as an archer.

If you screw up a shot, you've got every opportunity to take another within a few seconds. A balance to this would be a 5 second (minimum) hold time on a fully charged arrow to properly headshot somebody, (but even then if I'm not moving I'll hold a shot that long anyways.)

It might be one of the most fun, I can absolutely agree with that. However, as somebody who played archer exclusively, I can see exactly how powerful my own class was. Mostly because I was paying attention to the massive amounts of damage I could do singlehandedly to an entire team simply by camping their spawn. I mean, did you ever notice that a huge portion of the top killstreaks and K/Ds were archers?

 

I request lock since this is turning into a flame war slowly. I agree archer can be amazing in range. But archers need to adapt or die. Archers can of course keep killing, but as soon as your spotted your screwed. You can hide but they know youll be around that spot. Archer gets a ton of hate when it really is fair.

 

I counter-request that lock because people need to learn that disagreements of opinion are not automatic flame wars, and also because they're too often used to shut down a discussion when the lock-requester cannot make a proper argument.

As for your response, good attempt to get the last word by not responding to the three people who disagree with you, but no.

An archer can absolutely run to a different spot. Most maps have many lanes to fire from, and even a few minutes of a different spot will get people off your old place.

You know, you speak as though you really were not good at archer. Most players I know can survive for bloody ages.

 

I agree with most of what @obikenobi21 has said about it. I'm all for a sensible rework of archer. I would just like to point out that:

This bit isn't strictly speaking true. Though you have a lot, 128 arrows is not infinite. You do have to be conservative with your arrows to avoid that cap, especially if you're going for very long shots where you accuracy is really put to the test. You don't die if you mess up, but then the same could be said for shorter range classes. You don't necessarily die because you missed one hit with a sword. Furthermore, if you miss with a sword you can spam click it again quickly and missing doesn't lose durability like a bow. Yeah, the drawbacks are probably less so for an archer because they have less of a risk taking damage, but it doesn't mean that you have nothing to worry about.

 

You do have infinite arrows once you stop caring about dying.

 

This sounds like you are on drugs.

Most people you know also are the camping kind of archers. I RARELY camp. I only camp if I am waiting for flag carrier, or I hide if I have 2+ archers shooting down my back. I know archers op when you know how to use it. I still get reported for aimbot to this day. Doesn't mean on this server though.
I feel as if archer shouldnt be getting this kind of hate. Its not that cheap really. Archer is a fair class and 98.9% wont get a nerf now or ever. Deal with it and play ninja if you want an archer dead so bad.

Legitimately, just pay Ebola4445(hope i got numbers right) to ninja some archers.

 

How so? It's true though, death is a temporary inconvenience and ultimately restocks your arrows, steak, and health for another go. You can't cite finite ammunition when death gives it all back.

Archers who don't camp are just asking to die. Saying that archers who camp are bad archers is like saying pyros who use their fire are bad pyros. If you're not taking advantage of your power, you're not a relevant archer in the conversation.

But notice the only reason you hide is because you're being shot at by other archers. Otherwise you can usually stand out relatively open with impunity and still outrun any threat that notices you. Or, you just get killed, respawn, and then get a new angle.

You just said it yourself, archer is OP when you know how to use it. Problem is, it's too OP and not too hard to use. It's got a skewed power/skill ratio.

Just because you feel strongly about that doesn't mean that it's automatically the truth. While a ninja might be able to properly kill an archer, the archer, once made aware of the ninja, can out-steak, out armour, and usually out last a ninja unless the ninja is using their powerful 414. Otherwise, the archer can kill with impunity, avoiding nothing but other archers.

If I want an archer dead, I shoot them. If someone wants me dead, tough damn luck unless they, themselves, are archers.

 

Eh

Name one person who hasnt bragged, ever, in their life. Name one. I do love people wasting their lives hating me, cause its really easy.

 

If I'm honest, I think everyone cares just a little bit about dying, and if you don't then you don't care about the game. If you die less, you have more time to move round (less time wasting travelling back to where you were, or through a different route etc) and so you can help the game more. If you mainly try to capture, you need to avoid dying to be able to steal and capture effectively. If you're recovering, you can't recover if you die beforehand. Whether or not it's a small reason or not, people should care even just a little bit about dying

 

Fairly to say in my opinion, take out the punch 2 and just leave a punch 1 in. Because that makes it extremely annoying when fighting a bowspammer, up close short range.

 

Yeah, see, as somebody who does none of those things, and speaking ONLY of archer, who neither moves around continuously, (and technically could spend LESS time moving from their objective once respawned), attempts to capture, nor recovers, dying is literally only a slight inconvenience that simultaniously refills your capacity to fight.

Maybe the only issue is that it ends a killstreak, but honestly that's just another meaningless statistic.

Getting bothered by dying in a game that revolves so heavily around the deaths of a player is like getting bothered by dying in call of duty. Like it or not, you're going to die. Arguably it's worse in CoD, even.

@boomdrone

The point isn't that people brag, the point is that you're very, very obviously gaining enjoyment from people hating you. You know that's defined as an internet troll, right?

 

It's close enough. Who cares if it's not infinite anyway, it doesn't take 128 arrows to kill one person. And the same thing cannot be said for short range classes. Take ninja, if you miss an egg, or miss a sword hit, yur dead. Assassin, if you miss yur redstone yur dead. Archer if you miss an arrow? You just shoot another one, the opponent can't capitalize on an archer's mistake because of the range difference. I don't see how durability makes a difference in CTF, since unbreaking is a thing. They have vastly less to worry about.

 

Archers most likely not going to get a nerf, I remember when archer was praised as the best class when engie was the opest little **** there ever was. Now everyones like "nerf it, nerf it!"

You guys need to really think about how this would affect the game. Archer gets one nerf, itll get another nerf, and another, and another. Archer is one of the key classes and is one of the funnest to play. Pyro and engineer as well as necro was fun to play as well. Now look at them, engies easier to kill, necros worthless, and pyros just plain unfun most of the time. Archer is 99% not going to get a nerf. Get over it, this is a waste of time when it wont get nerfed.

 

How do you know archer will get multiple nerfs? You're assuming things, and kind of making things up. Archer is an important class just because of how good it is. But it's good because it's kind of unbalanced.

Engie was OP, idk how you dun see that, and yes it is easier to kill. No class should be impossible to kill, necro was worthless to begin with, and pyro is still OP. It being fun is subjective and an opinion.

You get over that archer will be discussed, and that we believe it's broken. You don't have to believe that, but you know what is a waste of time? Spouting opinionated arguments to counter facts.

 

Fine you want facts, fine. Name one class that has gotten nerfed once but hasnt gotten nerfed more.

 

It also doesn't take 128 swings of a sword to kill a person either (unless you're terribly terribly inaccurate, in which case it wouldn't matter since you don't lose any durability or ammo for missing) You're focusing on the risk of short range combat, and that is true. What I'm saying is that archer deals with other issues than being at a range where someone can hit you with a sword. Your opponent CAN take advantage of the archers mistake by either getting to cover or running out of the headshot range. Assuming an archer bow takes 2 seconds from not charged to fully charged fire and hitting its mark (which is a conservative estimate and probably not possible) that's 4 hits that could be dealt with a sword at close range. There is potential time to get out of the way, or out of the headshot distance. I don't think the problem lies mainly with the archers long range, but it's short range, as you can literally bowspam people with the punch 2 enchantment into that long range headshot.
What do you want to suggest? some kind of health penalty when an archer misses. Somehow I don't think the scaling for that will work out

 

Not necessarily, in my opinion. I mean, yes, archers who don't camp just to tick people off while racking up "stats" do surrender their (virtual) lives for the sake of being moral, but playing out in the midfield and picking your targets well does have its worth. Flag-carrier shooting is much easier when you're not cooped up in your campsite, and picking archer fights is not only entertaining but does at least one or two things to help rid the enemy team of archers for at least a few moments, thus aiding your team in crossing the map and avenging all your teammates who were killed by the campers.

@LordCh4os You seem to be quite concerned with the durability of an archer's bow. The bow--and I'm currently too lazy to check the accuracy of this statement--has somewhere around 264 durability points. An archer has 128 arrows. Basic algebra says that the archer will still have half a bow to use by the time he or she is out of stock, in which case a medic restocking him or her would also repair the bow. Or, of course, when the archer dies the whole thing doesn't matter.

My opinion on the not caring about deaths thing: Dying has no meaning unless you truly have a purpose of staying alive other than to get a killstreak. For example, it's essential to stay alive if you're to make the clutch shot on a flag carrier who's making a beeline back to his or her base. Of course in your experience you know this much, I'm just stating my view on deaths.

@boomdrone I must tell you, it concerns me that you make such arguments about archer while, based on the hundreds of posts I've read in discussion of the class, you seem to lack the knowledge of what others say about it. Especially the reason to nerf/rework it and its role in the game, whether it be essential, annoying, or both.

You said:

and...

I'm very confused. It sounds like at first you argue that archer will not receive any kind of a nerf, then you seem to state that archer will be nerfed once again in the future (being that it has been nerfed once with a slight [extremely ineffective] headshot range increase). In any case, I believe archer is impossible to rework or nerf if Brawl does not A. remove instakills from the game entirely, and/or B. rework it in such a radical way that it will have no resemblance to the way the elf class is played.

Anyway, I recommend you do some more reading on archer. Seriously, I will spend several hours at a time reading a single long post (or a lot of shorter posts). It truly helps with gaining knowledge of people's views of things and understanding and sometimes accepting new perspectives; for example, I haven't missed a single post on this thread (that's not to say I haven't forgotten any, lol), and I actually learned at least a thing or two.

Lastly, I promise you I mean no argument when I say this, rather I'm just stating what I believe: you don't have to care about people "hating" you, but you also do not have respond to it. Keeping your words matter-of-fact tends to enrage people who are legitimately flaming you (in which case you truly do have the right to laugh at it, though it's a very bad idea to say so), and otherwise it keeps a professional debate much more on-topic and better in general.