Mordhau

I play with bows and sometimes with shields I paid for the game too

Knight 394 850
  • 1
  • 17 May
 Alphonse

@blankc35fd07d35d64832 said:
We can't load and shoot an arrow before the enemy recovers from a kick ... hell we can't even change to fists and throw a punch before the recovery.

Like I said, you can load a crossbow and shoot it at point blank range. I don't know if the loadout points allow it, but you might get a shot in with the recurve (not before the opponent's shield block recovery though) with backpedaling, the move faster perk + a dodge or whatever.

By your own admission, a kick would be useless for an archer while taking aim anyway. You want to kick them to stun a shield THEN shoot at it to get a free hit. Sounds either lame or Lord of the Rings tier, not to mention the animation would look somewhat dumb.

And I will ignore your 20 archers thing because the 20 archers will die to infantry if they are just mildly good infantry men and know how to time blocks.

You clearly never experienced the hell that was Chivalry. Just a single skilled archer could totally mess with the other team.

You're also assuming each of those 20 archers would be sniping 1 of the 20 opponents. Not that 3 archers might try to snipe the same dude or shoot at the back of an enemy. Or that Frontline team fights are 24 / 32 so, minus 20 archers, that leaves a few slots for melee bodyguards. Or that there are catapults and ballistas which could be reinforced by having a shit ton of archers.

523 561
  • 17 May
 Deadmode

@BudSpencer_vs_TheHound said:

@Deadmode said:
This is what I don’t get. Why are archers so worried about their position on the scoreboard!?

Killing other player is fun.Getting more assists then kills not so much. People use the scoreboard as measuring tool to check how many kills they get compared to other classes.

Archers are a support class for the frontline troops, assisting is what they are doing. As I mentioned in the above post; if archers actually played like an archer unit then you’d have a more authentic and profitable experience.

Go around soloing, expect to struggle. Sit in a squad of archers volleying the enemy approaches from behind the frontline melee players, see those points rack up.

But regarding comparing to other classes; you won’t get the same tallies as melee players because you don’t engage anywhere near as many opponents in a game. Your scoring opportunities are less. You won’t compare at all by bow alone. That’s the nature of archery vs melee anyway.
Most archers that confess to high scores are from large numbers of melee kills bolstering their stats.

21 19

Bows are perfectly fine as is.

Shields got the nerf they deserved, and kick needed a range buff.

Sincerely,

-A Shield/Sword Main

162 103

@Deadmode said:

@BudSpencer_vs_TheHound said:

@Deadmode said:
This is what I don’t get. Why are archers so worried about their position on the scoreboard!?

Killing other player is fun.Getting more assists then kills not so much. People use the scoreboard as measuring tool to check how many kills they get compared to other classes.

Archers are a support class for the frontline troops, assisting is what they are doing. As I mentioned in the above post; if archers actually played like an archer unit then you’d have a more authentic and profitable experience.

Go around soloing, expect to struggle. Sit in a squad of archers volleying the enemy approaches from behind the frontline melee players, see those points rack up.

But regarding comparing to other classes; you won’t get the same tallies as melee players because you don’t engage anywhere near as many opponents in a game. Your scoring opportunities are less. You won’t compare at all by bow alone. That’s the nature of archery vs melee anyway.
Most archers that confess to high scores are from large numbers of melee kills bolstering their stats.

I don't care about realism in video games and neither does this game, or else we would not have slow motion arrows and horses phasing through enemy groups without getting slower.

I only care about my class being fun to use and so do you.You guys always bring up that support class argument when it suits your point.Again we have already established that the game is not historical accurate. I don't play archer to weaken the target for you so that you can kill steal from me.Im not your bitch just because you define my class that way. Most archer play because they want to kill like anyone else and not because they want to assist you into killing someone.

43 36

@Alphonse said:

@blankc35fd07d35d64832 said:
We can't load and shoot an arrow before the enemy recovers from a kick ... hell we can't even change to fists and throw a punch before the recovery.

Like I said, you can load a crossbow and shoot it at point blank range. I don't know if the loadout points allow it, but you might get a shot in with the recurve (not before the opponent's shield block recovery though) with backpedaling, the move faster perk + a dodge or whatever.

By your own admission, a kick would be useless for an archer while taking aim anyway. You want to kick them to stun a shield THEN shoot at it to get a free hit. Sounds either lame or Lord of the Rings tier, not to mention the animation would look somewhat dumb.

And I will ignore your 20 archers thing because the 20 archers will die to infantry if they are just mildly good infantry men and know how to time blocks.

You clearly never experienced the hell that was Chivalry. Just a single skilled archer could totally mess with the other team.

You're also assuming each of those 20 archers would be sniping 1 of the 20 opponents. Not that 3 archers might try to snipe the same dude or shoot at the back of an enemy. Or that Frontline team fights are 24 / 32 so, minus 20 archers, that leaves a few slots for melee bodyguards. Or that there are catapults and ballistas which could be reinforced by having a shit ton of archers.

Okay first off where do you get the idea I "WANT" to kick and then put an arrow into the enemy ... the kick is in order to escape as an archer without melee weapons other than my fists. And even if I kicked and changed into fists the enemy would recover faster than that ... also who would kick while aiming? That just sounds ridiculous.
I believe you failed to understand what was written.

I have played chivalry did for a while and then I got bored of it when it started becoming sniper wars and people constantly crying and bad balancing. As an archer main I got bored ... go figure?

Catapults spawn near only 1 side on all maps ... ballistas appear on a few maps and in set spots and can be flanked with ease.
Oh and no I am not assuming it is a 1 vs 1 scenario for the 20 on 20 I am assuming mildly good infantrymen who know they are facing many archers would go shield turtle and short spear.

So no, you made your own assumptions and put them as a reasoning for my post instead of asking my point of view if you needed a more detailed explanation.

Knight 107 137

@Deadmode said:
This is what I don’t get. Why are archers so worried about their position on the scoreboard!?

As long as you are utilising your class properly then you will be helping your team. Sure, you probably won’t be top of the board compared to melee players, but they are faced with more opponents during a game anyway (so more scoring chances).

If topping a points list is important, why can’t you be satisfied with being the highest scoring archer in the match, and just accept that the archers will be lower down the list as a whole?

In real warfare, archers only fired volleys anyway. They didn’t go around solo trying to single out enemies. If archers in this game banded together more and volleyed paths to objectives to stop enemy progress, you lot probably would see more notoriety on the scoreboard and actually be of use to a team and gain support from melee players for being a useful asset.

As it stands, archers are largely just a pest for melee players and ruin the enjoyment of the combat instead of being a tactical challenge to negate. If the class is buffed in the current play style meta then it would totally ruin the melee, which is this game’s primary focus whether you like it or not.

Like Bud said, the scoreboard is an indicator of effectiveness. Both archers and melee are trying to kill enemies. One of them is highly more successful in literally every match. These are the facts. The subtext is this: if you want to be effective, you will need to play melee. More specifically: 2-hander melee.

Your take on archers as "just pests" really says it all. When Mordhau was still at Kickstarter stage, looking for backers, it really seemed to promise a variety of fighting styles. If it had clearly stated that the game was about 2-handed weapons, while everything else would be put to back row, I would not have backed it, and would not be here complaining now.

43 36

@Deadmode said:
This is what I don’t get. Why are archers so worried about their position on the scoreboard!?

As long as you are utilising your class properly then you will be helping your team. Sure, you probably won’t be top of the board compared to melee players, but they are faced with more opponents during a game anyway (so more scoring chances).

If topping a points list is important, why can’t you be satisfied with being the highest scoring archer in the match, and just accept that the archers will be lower down the list as a whole?

In real warfare, archers only fired volleys anyway. They didn’t go around solo trying to single out enemies. If archers in this game banded together more and volleyed paths to objectives to stop enemy progress, you lot probably would see more notoriety on the scoreboard and actually be of use to a team and gain support from melee players for being a useful asset.

As it stands, archers are largely just a pest for melee players and ruin the enjoyment of the combat instead of being a tactical challenge to negate. If the class is buffed in the current play style meta then it would totally ruin the melee, which is this game’s primary focus whether you like it or not.

The one point I really have to point out for you is the "In real warfare, archers only fired volleys anyway." ... your source? Because I can direct you to plenty of european conflicts where archers where in skirmishes and they represented the main force against supply units and heavy armored infantry. They also defended castles HEAVILY and they actually aimed their shots due to limited ammunition.
Volley fire only worked on open fields where two "main" armies faced each other ... not all conflicts happened like this ... please, please pick up a history book talking about medieval warfare. Also since LONG BEFORE the medieval times or Dark ages and so forth shield walls and turtle formations existed to combat archers ... the effect of archers isn't only to slow down and support it is to kill the enemy and forcing them into positions where troops get an advantage on.

So "killing" exposed troops was one of their main purposes not only support as many claim it to be.

As for currently archers being a pest .. guess what? Every other melee eccentric agrees with you. Guess which other mistake was made in the production of this game? Making archers and then making them unbalanced ... what did you expect? That people who enjoy using that type of class wouldn't comment on how unbalanced it is in terms of mechanics despite the PTSD of the former melee chivalry community?

If the devs wanted to avoid the drama of archers they shouldnt of had made the class available. If they made it then balance it correctly that is all.

And most people with some skill playing archers don't even want damage buffs to avoid new salt mines opening up ... "we" just want correct arrow speeds and the flinch when hitting enemies.
For all I care the devs can even remove the crosshairs I would still connect my arrows from range without it, it would just take a bit of practice as long as arrow speed isn't the same as thrown axes.

43 36

@Deadmode said:

@BudSpencer_vs_TheHound said:

@Deadmode said:
This is what I don’t get. Why are archers so worried about their position on the scoreboard!?

Killing other player is fun.Getting more assists then kills not so much. People use the scoreboard as measuring tool to check how many kills they get compared to other classes.

Archers are a support class for the frontline troops, assisting is what they are doing. As I mentioned in the above post; if archers actually played like an archer unit then you’d have a more authentic and profitable experience.

Go around soloing, expect to struggle. Sit in a squad of archers volleying the enemy approaches from behind the frontline melee players, see those points rack up.

But regarding comparing to other classes; you won’t get the same tallies as melee players because you don’t engage anywhere near as many opponents in a game. Your scoring opportunities are less. You won’t compare at all by bow alone. That’s the nature of archery vs melee anyway.
Most archers that confess to high scores are from large numbers of melee kills bolstering their stats.

I don't confess to that because I prefer upping the stakes by not carrying melee weapons. I have killed people with my fists and even with wooden hammers but that was just to stop the annoying top tier 2handers with bloodlust that would always come after me.

Most of my kills are other archers and cavalry on some maps. On others it is the 2 handers in melee vs mob players who hit each other more than the enemy. If I pick up a melee weapon and fight as an archer in melee I am doing something contradicting to my purpose ... wtf do I have an 11 point cost weapon for if I don't kill anyone with it?

But then again I might be an exception to the rule since I do like bows and can correct my aim within just 3 shots vs catapults.

523 561
  • 1
  • 18 May
 Deadmode

I get your points, and understand where you’re coming from. However, this seems to be the situation:

Archers buy melee game. Complain that ranged combat takes second fiddle to melee.

As a melee player, I can’t see any proposed buffs to archers suggested here that wouldn’t be a detriment to the flow of the melee combat, personally, especially your calls for flinching. Right now there is just the right amount of archery interference when you’re fighting, without it being something that ruins every engagement you have. Also, archers are not pathetic so much that you can ignore them, in fact, ignore them at your peril. I think the impact of ranges combat in this game is about right.

P.S. Thanks for correcting me on my historical knowledge of the use of archers in battle - I guess I was basing it purely on field battles, like you say.

Knight 890 2462
  • 18 May
 Pred

How are melee weapons in shooter games?

Are you able to consistently top the scoreboard with knife? Or are you forced to use guns?

162 103

@Pred said:
How are melee weapons in shooter games?

Are you able to consistently top the scoreboard with knife? Or are you forced to use guns?

Yes they are, look at Brigitte in overwatch for example.Doomfist is also pretty good after his buffs.

523 561
  • 1
  • 18 May
 Deadmode

The focus of this game is melee. Not ranged combat, regardless of how other titles handle the difference.

The only thing that I can say for archers is that when mod support is out I’m sure there will be some fantastic stuff created that will be more archer friendly. I would prefer the core game be melee orientated as that was the brief all along.

4 11
  • 1
  • 18 May
 4

archers are good for finishing off injured enemies running away or interrupting a good fight like the twats they are. the only good archer is one where they pick a different class. specially when there's 20 of them on my team, you're the reason we're losing. Like fucking snipers in battlefield

162 103

@Deadmode said:
The focus of this game is melee. Not ranged combat, regardless of how other titles handle the difference.

The focus of this game would still be melee even if arrows would fly 30-50 % faster, because:

  • most classes are melee classes.
  • the melee classes would still do way more damage, one or two hitting enemies with large swinging weapons and healing with bloodlust.
  • chase mechanic would still work.
  • one hitting archers with low armor while having yourself lvl 3 armor as melee class would still be a thing.
  • having not enough points to buy a good melee weapon as longbow user while fighting against large 1 or 2 hit weapons would still work.
  • not being able to interrupt the swing of a melee class with an arrow, while melee user being able to parry your arrows with their sword and hitting the bow out of the hand of a bow user would still work.
  • having to wait 1.2 seconds for pulling the bow string every time you aim with the longbow would still be a thing.
  • having random spread coded into the bows would still be a thing.
523 561
  • 18 May
 Deadmode

Getting hit by arrows when you’re fighting is irritating as hell as it is, and whilst you are right in your above post, it would still mean that more arrows hit melee players which would make archers even more of a pest than they are now and start to infringe on the quality of the melee experience.

Now that said, and I know the speed of projectiles was reduced before, it would be interesting to know why the current speed was chosen over something slightly faster.

162 103

@Deadmode said:
Getting hit by arrows when you’re fighting is irritating as hell

Having a melee player running at you in lvl 3 armor and zweihander while parrying or tanking all of your arrows and then hitting the bow out of your hand with 1 hit and killing you with the 2nd hit is also irritating as hell.

@Deadmode said:
and whilst you are right in your above post, it would still mean that more arrows hit melee players

As it should be.Bow user should also get rewarded for playing well,not only melee player.We bow user are no sub humans, even if many melee player think that way.And having way more assists then kills does not really feel rewarding to play.If the most melee players would have that much problem getting their kills they would just stop playing the game.

@Deadmode said:
Now that said, and I know the speed of projectiles was reduced before, it would be interesting to know why the current speed was chosen over something slightly faster.

They did this because melee player gave them negatively biased feedback towards archery in the alpha phase of this game, isn't that obvious ?

523 561
  • 18 May
 Deadmode

@BudSpencer_vs_TheHound said:

Having a melee player running at you in lvl 3 armor and zweihander while parrying or tanking all of your arrows and then hitting the bow out of your hand with 1 hit and killing you with the 2nd hit is also irritating as hell.

Firstly, if you get jumped by a melee player then that's you're own fault for having poor situational awareness and/or positioning. Good archers I have faced are very adept at seeing players coming and quickly switching to a melee weapon and defending themselves.

As it should be.Bow user should also get rewarded for playing well,not only melee player.We bow user are no sub humans, even if many melee player think that way.

No, you're not sub human. But you are the less important player class from a design and gameplay standpoint.

@Deadmode said:
Now that said, and I know the speed of projectiles was reduced before, it would be interesting to know why the current speed was chosen over something slightly faster.

They did this because melee player gave them negatively biased feedback towards archery in the alpha phase of this game, isn't that obvious ?

And I wonder why that was? Maybe because the game is for melee players primarily and archers were ruining the experience? Also, as the 'negatively biased feedback' resulted in archery being nerfed, it appears the developers of the game share the same view.

523 561
  • 1
  • 18 May
 Deadmode

Another thing to realise is that if archery was totally removed from the game, it wouldn't break of ruin the gameplay experience of the game at all. The core melee experience would still be as beautiful and I doubt melee players would miss it. It's only the people that bought a melee combat game to main a ranged class that seem to care.

162 103

@Deadmode said:

@BudSpencer_vs_TheHound said:

Having a melee player running at you in lvl 3 armor and zweihander while parrying or tanking all of your arrows and then hitting the bow out of your hand with 1 hit and killing you with the 2nd hit is also irritating as hell.

Firstly, if you get jumped by a melee player then that's you're own fault for having poor situational awareness and/or positioning. Good archers I have faced are very adept at seeing players coming and quickly switching to a melee weapon and defending themselves.

I switch always to my cleaver if they get too close to me.But cleaver vs zweihander and lvl 3 armor is also not a very fair fight. Beside the frontline gamemode can be very chaotic and you have to get very close to melee players as archer in order to hit them.You cant position yourself further away thx to slow arrow speed.

@Deadmode said:
Now that said, and I know the speed of projectiles was reduced before, it would be interesting to know why the current speed was chosen over something slightly faster.

They did this because melee player gave them negatively biased feedback towards archery in the alpha phase of this game, isn't that obvious ?

And I wonder why that was? Maybe because the game is for melee players primarily and archers were ruining the experience? Also, as the 'negatively biased feedback' resulted in archery being nerfed, it appears the developers of the game share the same view.

The game will get boring soon, not for all players, but for many, because most melee classes play to similar to each other.I wouldnt play the game if it had only melee combat. I love the melee combat in this game and it is very well done and i like to play melee classes 50% of my gametime, but it feels so much better if you can switch between melee and range and both feel viable.

Having a lot of classes which play very different from each other is very important for the longevity of this game.