Mordhau

Peregr1ne Talks 03 - Is Ranged fair against Melee?

Knight 156 154
Mercenary 225 562
  • 11 Apr
 Izıl

Ranged will never be fair against melee by nature, thats why we're getting an archerlimit :-)

Knight 614 1112
  • 11 Apr
 Uncy

Ranged class is supposed to be a support for melee soldiers, not something even

Knight 254 693

It seems people have forgotten about shields in addition to the fact that there is a large parybox against projectiles that goes as far down as your knee.

Knight 50 163
  • 11 Apr
 owen

archer is for weenies

Knight 766 3312
  • 11 Apr
 Mittsies

Time to buy a pop filter.

1570 1626

@MrGhostTheFlyingFlail said:
It seems people have forgotten about shields in addition to the fact that there is a large parybox against projectiles that goes as far down as your knee.

And then there is also healing on melee kills, the huntsman perk and smoke bombs. Heavy armor is also ridiculously effective against ranged weapons and you can just use bandages to heal you up.

Knight 3303 6769
  • 3
  • 11 Apr
 Bodkin

@MrGhostTheFlyingFlail said:
It seems people have forgotten about shields in addition to the fact that there is a large parybox against projectiles that goes as far down as your knee.

Tbh more arrows get blocked by random swings than anything. Hitboxes are huge on it.

Archer limit is a necessary evil because you could nerf it into the ground and it would still be annoying to fight a bunch of them

Archers on their own are currently not very strong. They are decent but not nearly as op as some people make it out to be. Annoying and OP are two very different things. The only times archers get ridiculous right now is on bad maps like pit where theres no cover or if you have many working together.

This is why archers are getting damage buffs to heavy (about equal to medium) while also heavily limiting the amount of archers present. Making individual archer stronger but keeping them from having 5 man archer deathsquads outside of maybe frontline

One thing I notice consitently is people acting like you shouldn't ever be able to do well as an archer. They post scoreboards of known decent archers as if it is an issue. If someone is just really good at it and kicking ass, that is not a problem. That is someone doing really good and kicking ass. I guarantee someone really good in melee will do better in the majority of cases. I play archer a bit and I still find it easier to topscore as melee support than as ranged support. Ranged support just has more flavor. Like yea as archer youll die less if theres no huntsmen but getting kills is more time consuming.

Also, not helping your team at all and only shooting almost dead enemies or meme rats to skew scoreboard is not scientific whatsoever. That is literally just setting yourself up for the best case scenario and being selfish.

Duke 2266 4009
  • 11 Apr
 Huggles

@Bodkin said:

@MrGhostTheFlyingFlail said:
It seems people have forgotten about shields in addition to the fact that there is a large parybox against projectiles that goes as far down as your knee.

Tbh more arrows get blocked by random swings than anything. Hitboxes are huge on it.

Archer limit is a necessary evil because you could nerf it into the ground and it would still be annoying to fight a bunch of them

Archers on their own are currently not very strong. They are decent but not nearly as op as some people make it out to be. Annoying and OP are two very different things. The only times archers get ridiculous right now is on bad maps like pit where theres no cover or if you have many working together.

This is why archers are getting damage buffs to heavy (about equal to medium) while also heavily limiting the amount of archers present. Making individual archer stronger but keeping them from having 5 man archer deathsquads outside of maybe frontline

If someone is just really good at it and kicking ass, that is not a problem. That is someone doing really good and kicking ass. I guarantee someone really good in melee will do better in the majority of cases. I play archer a bit and I still find it easier to topscore as melee support than as ranged support. Ranged support just has more flavor. Like yea as archer youll die less if theres no huntsmen but getting kills is more time consuming.

Ya, archery in mordhau does take a lot of skill to do as well with it as a melee player. In chiv you could be a trash archer and still do better than melee because of more damage, faster proj speed, and lack of answers to ranged attacks in general. Buff and limit I'd say.

30 42
  • 1
  • 11 Apr
 Vaygr

The times i have seen archers do well in TDM are when there are 3-4 of them and those games were horribly frustrating, especially on Pit as the whole team was stuck in base and the few times anyone got close to the archers they had 3 arrows every other second to try and dodge which they could not.
Archers are a risk factor in balancing TO, as it is frustrating that someone out of your control does damage and obscures your vision as you are busy engaging in melee combat. In Chiv vanilla they were one of the major frustrations with the pub TO mode and one of the major factors contributing to the games bad player retention. Peregrine can be unpleasant to deal with if you have low hp as he is a decent shot but if you reach him he can barely parry or read so its a free kill which feels balanced.

Mercenary 2190 3903

Wanting archery limit on its current state in Mordy is just as retarded as wanting DoUbLe K.O.

Knight 156 154
  • 11 Apr
 Peregr1ne

If those 3 or 4 archers were mostly longbowmen or crossbowmen then i'm not surprised that it is infuriating. I definitely know I have a harder time dodging shots from these types of archers as they travel like bullets giving you little time to get out of the way. When i'm nearing melee range especially it seems that no matter what I do these archers always seem to hit me. Funny thing is that I watched a twitch stream where they literally felt the need to threaten to kick anyone playing archer due to how much of a battering they were taking. And the weapon most of them were using? You guessed it. Longbows.

I know that crossbowmen were my biggest annoyance in Chivalry's TO matches. It seemed like every rank 30 with a crossbow was killing me like I was nothing, usually by being far away and out of sight like you often can be with the weapon while not sacrificing accuracy as much. I know another player who most likely played a melee class as his main also made similar complaints of nearly every death being to a rank 30 crossbowman. They were often the top archers on the scoreboard for their team with few deaths. And then there's scrims and the competitive scene. Who were the most successful archers again? Ah yes, all crossbowmen.

What both of these weapons from the two games have in common is that their projectile speed is way to high meaning you can be further away while still not having too hard of a time hitting your target. Being able to maintain more range like this has proven itself time and time again to be a much more significant advantage than let's say, fire rate or mobility (unless it is combined with high damage but usually it isn't). It's not like the fire rate is fast enough to make the weapon I use any easier to land hits with, and on top of that I have to be closer if I want to land hits reliably, with lower damage meaning I have to be more consecutive with my shooting. All this while being pressured to avoid the arrows of archers with long range weapons and generally being mere target practice for them most of the time.

30 42
  • 1
  • 11 Apr
 Vaygr

In chiv you could get 1-shot pretty often or lose 90-95% of health and its frustrating to regen in cover or have to run in with no health. You get out of spawn or half way to the objective and suddenly you are dead or almost dead =). Even the best players can get utterly frustrated by a single archer as when Giru was screaming at Crush to fix archery for 1-hour on stream. I did see Frank top score as archer in the Frontline mode and he is more of a melee hands-on laminate-everything-in-sight kind of a guy.
It will take some time to figure out how good archers are. I was kidding about the free kill but i think you have skipped melee practice a few times to watch Flintstones reruns.

Knight 156 154
  • 11 Apr
 Peregr1ne

Assumed you were exaggerating with the whole "free kill" thing but either way I wasn't offended. I know my melee isn't the greatest and it shouldn't be really considering many people train melee more than me.

Baron 129 311
  • 12 Apr
 2cool2care

Actually archery isn't fair when your team is only composed of melee enthousiasts and there's 3 peregrines stacking on the other side otherwise i don't see any problem in it except for the retarded reload speed of this bow. For 64 players archer limit is necessary for obvious reasons. It's pretty safe to assume that limits on firepots and traps will become a thing too for the same reasons.

1158 1813

I think fire pots are far more cancerous than any skilled archer and I don't think they add any skill to combat. A fire pot kills allies and enemies alike, looks ugly and holds off an area for a few seconds. Fire pots are grenades that perform high damage "area denial," which is quite literally what structures, shields, archers, pavise and melee combat are supposed to do but all for 2 points and its reloadable. Even fire pot people who tk will still get more kills than good archers, who are usually 1 shot to other archers and under their constant pressure. Getting killed as fire mage is cool cause you come back with full ammo. The best fire counter is a perk and otherwise fire is unblockable and you'll have to simply wait it out. Fire pots would have been a cool map pick up in certain settings but they've proven to be nothing but cancer and even at 1 per person we would still see their cancer.

Back to archery:
Even with 64p chaos, I don't think an archer limit will be necessary. Archery is fairly weak as is and, as you pointed out, it takes several really good archers to be of any tactical use as far as winning matches go. Not to mention most maps provide plenty of cover within objective zones. Why play archer when you can just go fire pot? Also, the map ballisas 1 shot about everything, have great fields of view, are out of range of other archers and you can use them in full T3. Unless archery is getting a buff, which I hope its not, then archer limits seem superfluous.

Also, not all archers are equal. Some guy roleplaying with light armor, longsword and shortbow, mainly meleeing is not equal to a devoted long bow archer. Also a bad archer is as harmless as the guy carrying shortbow as a secondary and why should people who want to be an archer be locked out for them? The idea of preventing a certain number of a class kinda goes against the game's customization system which has no classes.

An archer limit, if implemented, may have to block specifically the amount of longbows separately from cross bows and short bows since they're not the same at all. 6 long bows, 6 crossbows and 10 short bows or whatever arbitrary number someone smarter comes up with because the damage and annoyance dished out by each is different and just cause you've packed a bow, doesn't mean your gonna main it or even be good with it.