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

I'm not suggesting anything. What I am saying is that the risk of long range combat is negliable. Both of yur scenarios don't result in the archer dying. And both assume the person realizes they are being shot at. Also, a bow isn't the archers only weapon. This thread was about archers tankiness for a long range class. An archer has a stone sword and pretty good armor, +the punch bow. It's problem is the fact that it can keep itself from dying short range while completely dominating long range.

 

You're right, I shouldn't be talking about the bow itself. I didn't intend it in this way. I intend to talk about it in a way oriented towards the arrows. Your arrows mean you have 128 durability assuming all else. Regardless of whether you hit or miss with those arrows, that's what you've got. As for swords: iron has 251, diamond with 1562, and gold with 33, though in this case there's an unbreaking enchantment applied to it, meaning that it has a lot more durability than it would usually have. This applies to successful hits, not missing, and so a regular iron sword from a soldier is capable of doing over it's lifetime much more damage independent of damage received. You're much less likely to hit with a bow and arrow than with a sword because you have to be accurate. What makes the difference is the range feature in the first place. You have more a more limited chance with a bow to hit with arrows, in terms it'll last a lot shorter, but equally you can do the damage safer because you're at that range. With a sword you can deal a lot more damage in terms of it's lifetime, but that lifetime never gets reached because you're at short range and you'll get hurt. What I'm trying to say is, put a new archer, and they're not likely to hit many targets, they're very wasteful with arrows and if they last long enough their arrows can become a limiting factor. Archer is meant to be a long range counter, and part of that means whilst it's safer, it deals with a limited (although high and replenishable) number of arrows and limited ability short range.

As to your other point about dying, other reasons to avoid dying are because you have the flag, you're trying to recover the flag, or trying to take out strategic people important to your enemies game. If you were constantly dying before you could achieve these goals, then you would not be effective in helping your team win. There is a fair balance between not caring too much about dying, and caring too little about dying. You need to care at least a little bit, as if you are too reckless you don't help your team win the game because you waste all you health before you get to achieve your aim

To respond to @obikenobi21 's post above, as I didn't see it until I'd finished writing this, it should be less risky for the archer to use long range inherently, because archer was always designed to be able to counter other classes at long range in the first place. The question that really comes to mind is, is the problem with archer more about the long range mechanics of archer (which people talk about an awful lot) being too good, or the short range mechanics not being weak enough (as it's meant to be countered by classes short range, but punch 2..) The stone sword is not great compared to other short range classes (and rightly so) but is good enough to take out some weaker armoured classes when combined with the heavier armour and that punch 2 on the bow.

 

I see where you're coming from now. +1

Although I would like to say, 128 arrows is usually more than enough for me because 99.8% of the time (accurate number, actually) I'll either get PvP'd or headshotted to death before running out. But other, more long-lasting archers such as you, I suppose 128 is fairly limiting; nonetheless, most archers shouldn't need as many arrows as they get.

 

yeah, this is where it gets messy, because unfortunately people don't really like archers and so will go for them given the chance, which really limits how much an archer can do. Like the other classes, archer doesn't really last long enough to use all it's arrows usually, but I daresay it happens more than other classes running out of sword durability before dying. The real question now is, taking how long each individual class into account, does archer deal the same amount of damage compared with the other classes. I personally think it's probably higher than the average, which is why the equation needs to be changed so that either the archer does less damage, or doesn't last as long.

 

As far as time, perhaps 64, if you wanted to get extreme use 48, arrows should be decent for an archer. It does at least some small good for inaccurate camping archers, since they'll have to either die more or be lucky to find a good medic. (@__Mountaindew__ @MissFlea c: ) It does absolutely nothing to the too-high power of archer, but for the same reason it shouldn't be a problem and will encourage less bowspam.

 

I can fix all above issues with archer while still keeping it as a powerful ranged class, and I can do it easily.

Scenario one:
-give archer 64 arrows, turn Punch 2 into sword Knockback 2, and give it a full 4 steak, OR
Scenario two:
-give archer 128 arrows, make Punch 2 into power 2, remove the helmet, and give it 3 steak, and a regular gold sword.

As well, on both options, make headshots only possible after a full 10(?) seconds of holding a drawn bow.

Both options make archer much less tanky in CQC but still give enough power to survive, as well as nerfing their headshot without destroying them. It makes the archer rely more on aiming than spamming, more on actual tactical placement than on relying on KB to keep people away, and enough challenge to make archer dueling much more fun.


HOWEVER, archer would be much harder to learn, and would gain a considerable learning curve. Consider also the tradeoff between new players playing archer and new players not dying because of them.

 

No, no, no. HELL NO to the 10 second after fully drawn bow headshot. Thats worse then ****ing pyros draw back. Archer needs to fire off headshots right away, its a needed class to kill cappers. Especially on maps like beaver creek.

Now enough of these damn archer idea nerfs. Archer is balanced enough. End of story. Archer is the least of ctfs problems, it either will never get a nerf or will 2+ years from now

 

I didn't bother reading through all this stuff. First of all, elf can fly to whereever, and archer usually takes a minute or so to get back to his camping spot (you can tell I'm not a great fan of ar cher). But still I think archer has to stay this tanky to be able to survive a ninja.^^ Yes, I'm that ninja that goes attacking archers, and I cannot usually kill (experienced) archers in one go. But two is usually possible.. (ping below 400 required). If this gets changed to one, that balance would be destroyed, too..

So - I don't see an urgent reason to change it. I only see stuff unbalances.

 

Only nerf i would be ok archer is its helmet and boots are removed, and thats it.

 

800% agree with both scenarios. It makes you wonder why original CTF (original CTF, not MCPVP) didn't make it like either of those when the abilities were perfectly available and simple. But the 10 seconds on headshot... I must ask, where the HECK did you get that number?! xD I agree with @boomdrone, archer's needed to headshot flag carriers. Perhaps a headshot only when the bow is fully drawn back, or at the very very most 2 seconds I'd be okay with, however removing the element of quickdraw is a little disappointing since that's one of the more fun parts of archer. Also, archer fights would be that much more straightforward and predictable. But anyway.... yeah, like the ideas.

I honestly don't know how often you play elf, but in my opinion anyone who plays the class should know full well that a supply of only 10 arrows (which regenerate once per roughly four seconds) being your fuel for both combat and flying is a horrible depletion of your means of escape. It leads to death. A lot.

 

I stopped playing elf a while ago, but the wind element or whatever its name is is still fkn op. I'd not speak too loudly there if I were you^^

 

Wind element is great when you have arrows. When you're out of ammo, it's completely useless. All I'm saying.

 

Elf is a little underpowered with its armor, but its pretty balanced. Archer needs no nerfs and no buffs. Archer needs to headshot rapidly if a swarm attacks the base at once. It also needs to headshot flag carriers, especially soldiers on maps like beaver creek. If archers dont do their job on that map, it ends in 3 minutes. Archer would be destroyed if it had a nerf like pyro. This discussion was made by someone who gets headshot a ton, and doesnt play archer to understand its harder then its thought. Archer and heavy are the 2 balanced classes, archer had below average armor and a below average sword, It is extremely balanced. I am not being biased here, it is common knowledge that archer needs punch 2, and its headshots. If it gets swarmed it needs to survive to defend its team. It does its job guys, and we need to appreciate that. It is an offense/defense/offense support/defense support class, and nothing more. Archers only competition thats harder to master is the class of chemist, although people like blackfurrykitty make it look easy. Good luck to getting a balanced class nerfed.

 

archer is op

 

Only when an expert is using it. Its not like assassin where noobs do simple crap. Its harder then it looks, and you, me, winter, and brand know this. Only difference between us is that I dont want a balanced class nerfed.

 

Archer is really easy. I don't play often, but I can come back and easily get 10 or higher streaks. Granted, I'm not new to the game, but even back in the day I was really good at it. It's a very easy class to learn and very powerful at the same time.

 

Doesnt matter, its balanced, end of story.

Archer is strong when you know how to use it, but its still weak af and quite easy to kill in pvp. Btw, I believe we have 4 classes that can destroy archer easily: ninja, pyro, soldier, and mage. It does not need a nerf, its only strength is its range abilities, if you weaken them in anyway it will be underpowered and useless to recovery efforts, or any efforts in general.

 

30 or 25 or 20 blocks (whatever the heck the headshot range is) is not far. I'm not sure I've seen you around in-game too much, but if you're as skilled as you say you are/were, you should know that that range is very easy to hit targets from, so archer is extremely strong at any kind of a distance. I don't deny the class of its credit for that role in the game, though; at least in CTF's current state, archer's role is essential in making games last longer than four minutes. It's just that the instakill is both very abuse-able and extremely overpowered when used by people who have picked up on archery very well.

All that being said, it's also not the most easy to kill in pvp. Yes, it's one of the weaker classes in close-quarters combat, but armor nearly as strong as a soldier's, a stone sword, and four steaks makes it very effective in pvp, especially with skilled fighters. As for your examples of archer short-range counters: pyro and mage are broken anyway, ninja actually isn't hard to kill unless they're very skilled--in which case that ninja deserves the kill as a product of their skill--and soldier can be pvp'd and shot with well-timed arrows.

 

"Other people are arguing better than me! I must immediately declare complete victory to ensure that I do not lose!"

You're a fantastic pigeon chess player, boomdrone. It doesn't matter how well we play, you're just going to knock the pieces over, sh*t on the board, and fly off as if you just made a statement.

 

Your right, it doesnt matter how much you complain about archer, it wont get nerfed cause its too balanced. Deal with it.

95% of ninjas i am against are above average.