Mordhau

The Longbow Isn't Worth 11 Points

41 31

If its all the same, I'd rather the Longbow were improved somewhat, rather than having its point cost reduced.

104 70
  • 26 Jun '19
 urm

@CocyxTheGaySkeleton said:

@urm said:

@CocyxTheGaySkeleton said:

@urm said:
Can we get this thread back on track?
If you want to discuss the powerlevel of archery, there are already multiple threads with that topic.
This is about longbow, and specifically its point cost.

yah, i think it's weighted correctly atm because it's a very situational weapon. in my mind it should be used as like an AWP in csgo where it should be fairly useless in a fair amount of situations (unless you're insane like s1mple and just noscope dudes all day). it's a specialist weapon, reducing the point cost so ppl could make more hybrid classes seems bad to me

I disagree. If anything, it is more of a lack of all trades compared to recurve and xbow. I would always prefer recurve against melee and xbow against other ranged, and only in the rare (in small scale/compet) case where I care about both I would pick longbow.

i sniped an edit in there so i'll just post it here instead: perhaps it can use a buff so it's more weighted as a specialist weapon, cause i like the idea of specialists classes being used in certain situations. it would make the comp scene more tactical oriented, yah?

basically rather than reducing it's point value so ppl can make more hybrid classes (which i dislike), u make it WORTH the points it costs

With the way archery mechanics are, I doubt longbow can ever be a specialist weapon
Also specialist weapons should be generally cheap for their power level, or there is no reason to run them, you are better off just practicing and using the weapon that's always useful.
Longbow damage numbers are already about as high as devs are willing to see them on a ranged weapon. I doubt it will ever be directly buffed in its power.
Also if a ranged weapon was powerful enough to use exclusively, its point cost would largely stop mattering, as you don't need a proper melee with it or even armor, as other ranged will one shot you with huntsman anyway

Knight 156 154
  • 26 Jun '19
 Peregr1ne

@urm said:
This doesn't seem to match my or pretty much anyone's experience, honestly. Longbow/crossbow only one shot naked body or other archers when using huntsman. If bows were that strong, you would see them used in skirmish and FL pugs/scrims/competitive all the time, however very few teams even try, and it rarely goes well.

Longbow and crossbow mains are about the only thing I see in terms of archers every time I go into an average FL server. I dunno what kind of servers you were blessed with if you haven't seen the same. And competitive teams don't use archers generally (I'm the only one I see who mains archer in scrims), although the few times they do decide to run an archer they will usually run crossbow or longbow too. Needless to say, whenever these kinds of archers are around, trying to compete with them is near impossible.

@urm said:
Also landing long range shots on someone who is actively dodging is just not going to happen reliably. The arrows actually travel relatively slow, and if you move in an unpredictable way, you are almost guaranteed to dodge them. The only realistic way to use archery is shooting at unaware targets that are occupied with something else, or are traveling in a straight line (such as running up to a point fight).

Longbow arrows travel fast enough that I have a harder time dodging them than I do recurve arrows. And it happens much more reliably than you think. Even novice players have been known to just casually turn around and take me out when I try to attack them. Or I land two hits on them but they trade me when I land the second hit. And that's only IF I managed to find out where they're hiding which..oh boy..is a whole other nightmare.

But that's the main thing about high projectile speed weapons which I hate, and frankly the reason why they're overpowered. Being able to maintain more range while only having at most as much difficulty as a recurve archer at close range when it comes to hitting targets opens up more options for cover. This means you can be out of sight for as long as you choose to be while recurve archers are forced closer to the targets if they want reliable hits. Consequently this means they have limited options for cover and are thus are far too vulnerable to any high projectile speed weapon. And the fact that you only need one shot with huntsman to take out said recurve archer, so they don't have a chance to find out where you are shooting them from.

21 44
  • 26 Jun '19
 HumbleTactician

@smellycathawk said:

@Saoirse said:
Prove me wrong.

If you hit all your shots you have higher damage output/second than any other weapon in the game.

Get better at aiming.

Complete bullshit. Many weapons easily out-damage it "If you hit all" slashes / pokes. Are you some kind of a retard?
On top of that as an archer you need to go back to resupply after a few shots and depending where the next one is, you are not doing any damage for that time. Nobhead

717 604

@urm said:

@CocyxTheGaySkeleton said:

@urm said:

@CocyxTheGaySkeleton said:

@urm said:
Can we get this thread back on track?
If you want to discuss the powerlevel of archery, there are already multiple threads with that topic.
This is about longbow, and specifically its point cost.

yah, i think it's weighted correctly atm because it's a very situational weapon. in my mind it should be used as like an AWP in csgo where it should be fairly useless in a fair amount of situations (unless you're insane like s1mple and just noscope dudes all day). it's a specialist weapon, reducing the point cost so ppl could make more hybrid classes seems bad to me

I disagree. If anything, it is more of a lack of all trades compared to recurve and xbow. I would always prefer recurve against melee and xbow against other ranged, and only in the rare (in small scale/compet) case where I care about both I would pick longbow.

i sniped an edit in there so i'll just post it here instead: perhaps it can use a buff so it's more weighted as a specialist weapon, cause i like the idea of specialists classes being used in certain situations. it would make the comp scene more tactical oriented, yah?

basically rather than reducing it's point value so ppl can make more hybrid classes (which i dislike), u make it WORTH the points it costs

With the way archery mechanics are, I doubt longbow can ever be a specialist weapon
Also specialist weapons should be generally cheap for their power level, or there is no reason to run them, you are better off just practicing and using the weapon that's always useful.
Longbow damage numbers are already about as high as devs are willing to see them on a ranged weapon. I doubt it will ever be directly buffed in its power.
Also if a ranged weapon was powerful enough to use exclusively, its point cost would largely stop mattering, as you don't need a proper melee with it or even armor, as other ranged will one shot you with huntsman anyway

well basically it'd have to be weighted in a way to make it worth the points & be on par/slightly better than the other bows, but not be stupid OP. it'd def be a delicate process with lots of testing, but i think that's the way to go rather than just reducing point cost. i don't think u should be able to use it for an entire match, but it'd be super powerful at certain points within the match, u dig?

182 110
  • 26 Jun '19
 bobbydigital

Bows aren't worth it generally.

1756 1812
  • 1
  • 27 Jun '19
 SWSeriousMike

@Peregr1ne said:
The longbow needs tweaking generally. Maybe the point cost could be the same as the recurve and crossbow but honestly the longbow and crossbow are both stupidly overpowered at the moment, for the same reasons crossbows were overpowered in Chivalry. Both weapons boast insane damage which at times can one tap people in the chest which might be okay if the arrows/bolts didn't travel like bullets. I can tell you that trying to dodge such projectiles with a recurve even with ranger is next to impossible. And one lucky bodyshot will end everything for me.

I just don't see how people can think these two weapons are weak. The few times that I use the crossbow or longbow are when I pick them up off the ground from a teammate/enemy and even then, with only 3 shots at my disposal, i'm capable of doing some significant damage to the opposing team. Enemy archers especially I can pick off one by one while barely even trying. By contrast, whenever i'm up against the average longbow/crossbow main the amount of times I get killed by them is absolutely ridiculous. I've played scrims fairly recently, using the same loadout I use in pubs, and I've actually had more trouble dealing with the average pub longbow/crossbow main at range than a full tier 3 competitive player in melee.

Both weapons are specifically designed to kill archers. Of course you would notice them most.
I still think Huntsman is bullshit, but honestly I won't bother with archery at all. If I'd want to play a ranged class I would go for javelins.

That's stronger than the longbow, don't puts a magic debuff on you and costs less points.

Knight 156 154
  • 27 Jun '19
 Peregr1ne

I'm pretty sure the devs didn't design them specifically to be a counter archer weapon. Sure, they ended up being capable of decimating other archers (particularly recurve archers) like they're nothing but I think they simply intended them to be high power, low fire rate weapons. These sorts of weapons tend to be good for killing generally whereas high fire rate and low damage weapons are more for assisted kills or finishing off weakened enemies.

The thing is though that the reason I think they're overpowered isn't just because I get killed by them. It's the fact that general consistency has shown time and time again that archers using high projectile speed weapons are more successful than those who aren't. This was the case not only in Mordhau but Chivalry with crossbows. The most successful archers in the competitive scene for that game (at least where EU is concerned) were all crossbowmen. And in Mordhau the same thing is true where longbow/crossbow archers are more successful generally than recurve archers.

41 31

Im sorry, you think that the crossbow wasnt designed to be a counter-archer weapon?

What?

Nvm, I'm not sure I'm interested in your opinion, since you actually twice called the longbow and crossbow overpowered. The gulf in perception between where I am, and calling those two weapons overpowered is just too dauntingly wide, I dont want to bridge it.

404 604
  • 2
  • 27 Jun '19
 smug

The recurve is only weak because huntsman exists my dude. Otherwise it's the best bow for poking at the melee line for various reasons, draw speed and not being hindered by the retarded crosshair sway like the LB for starters.

The problem is you can't counterarch with the recurve which makes picking it up in scrims worthless unless the other team somehow doesn't have an archer.

777 1031
  • 27 Jun '19
 smellycathawk

@Peregr1ne said:

The most successful archers in the competitive scene for that game (at least where EU is concerned) were all crossbowmen. And in Mordhau the same thing is true where longbow/crossbow archers are more successful generally than recurve archers.

Shortbow was a beast tbh

1756 1812
  • 27 Jun '19
 SWSeriousMike

It's really sad that Huntsman and Friendly encourage staying back as far as possible while shooting into the melee. It's not only boring but also won't help improve in the game at all.

777 1031
  • 27 Jun '19
 smellycathawk

@SWSeriousMike said:
It's really sad that Huntsman and Friendly encourage staying back as far as possible while shooting into the melee. It's not only boring but also won't help improve in the game at all.

It actually just encourages flanking and effective use of cover

Knight 156 154
  • 28 Jun '19
 Peregr1ne

@BlueTeamLivesMatter said:
Im sorry, you think that the crossbow wasnt designed to be a counter-archer weapon?

What?

Nvm, I'm not sure I'm interested in your opinion, since you actually twice called the longbow and crossbow overpowered. The gulf in perception between where I am, and calling those two weapons overpowered is just too dauntingly wide, I dont want to bridge it.

Well, I don't think it was anyway. If you can find a comment from a dev or something saying otherwise then be my guest and show me.
They are power weapons for sure which means they are better for killing generally while high fire rate but low damage weapons are better for assists and finish offs. The problem with the longbow and crossbow is mainly the projectile speed giving people far too little time to dodge and generally being easier due to not needing to lead as much. That and the fact that the nature of the weapon allows you to be out of sight for as long as you choose to be meaning targets are more predictable and therefore easier to hit.

@smug said:
The recurve is only weak because huntsman exists my dude. Otherwise it's the best bow for poking at the melee line for various reasons, draw speed and not being hindered by the retarded crosshair sway like the LB for starters.

The problem is you can't counterarch with the recurve which makes picking it up in scrims worthless unless the other team somehow doesn't have an archer.

The thing with the draw speed is that the low damage of each arrow means that you have to be more consecutive with your shooting to achieve the same damage as a longbow or crossbow. And the sway of each of these weapons only takes a little getting used to, even the longbow's.

And you're right that scrims (or just general pub matches) become a nightmare for any recurve archer once a longbowman or crossbowman enters the scene. And that's why these weapons are a problem. When all you have to do is choose a certain weapon to start killing someone with ease regardless of your experience or skill level compared to them, it essentially means that skill doesn't matter when it comes to winning fights or matches. Just abuse the easiest, most unfair weapon available to you and beat your opponents every time if they aren't doing the same. This is what has annoyed me about a lot first-person shooter games but it's also apparent in slasher games too.

777 1031
  • 28 Jun '19
 smellycathawk

The recurve feels pointless. shoot like 10 people, accomplish nothing, then die to a longbowman.

switch to a longbow, shoot like 15 people, accomplish some killing and assisting, then kill some shortbowmen lol

1756 1812
  • 28 Jun '19
 SWSeriousMike

@smellycathawk said:
It actually just encourages flanking and effective use of cover

Flanking with a bow? So you get a shot for incredible 50 damage out and then die to the respawn? Or get killed by the cavalry because you can't even parry? Or just get ignored because Bloodlust makes you insignificant? Or get flushed out with smoke or fire bombs?

Easier and arguably better to just sit at your own spawn and fire at the masses.

@Peregr1ne said:
And you're right that scrims (or just general pub matches) become a nightmare for any recurve archer once a longbowman or crossbowman enters the scene. And that's why these weapons are a problem. When all you have to do is choose a certain weapon to start killing someone with ease regardless of your experience or skill level compared to them, it essentially means that skill doesn't matter when it comes to winning fights or matches. Just abuse the easiest, most unfair weapon available to you and beat your opponents every time if they aren't doing the same. This is what has annoyed me about a lot first-person shooter games but it's also apparent in slasher games too.

If it wasn't that it would be basically anything that can be thrown. The counter to fire bombs is the perk Fire-proof. The counter to longbows and crossbows is t2 helmet and not equipping a bow/crossbow yourself.

154 73
  • 28 Jun '19
 SerJaGGsaW

how about this idea; longbow does extra damage to people on horses (and to horses)

i do agree that the bow needs a buff, but to just increase its overall power is not something i am for.
maybe increase the projectile speed by like another 10%, revert the reload nerf and call it a day

Knight 156 154
  • 1
  • 28 Jun '19
 Peregr1ne

@SWSeriousMike said:
If it wasn't that it would be basically anything that can be thrown. The counter to fire bombs is the perk Fire-proof. The counter to longbows and crossbows is t2 helmet and not equipping a bow/crossbow yourself.

Seriously? You're saying the only way to counter the longbow as an archer using any other ranged weapon, is to not use any other ranged weapon? Don't you see anything wrong with that? What would be the point of using a weapon if it becomes obsolete so easily just by someone picking up another specific weapon? That essentially proves the longbow is unfair on other ranged weapons. In other games even if there is direct counter to a certain weapon or class that doesn't mean you stop using that weapon/class entirely. Take TF2 for instance. A scout is vulnerable to a heavy since like the heavy he has to get up close to do damage, but is vastly inferior in terms of health and armaments. That doesn't mean you stop playing scout the moment someone goes heavy since there are ways to avoid or deal with them, which is how it should be.

And that doesn't even counter the longbow anyway. I've seen whole matches become unplayable for one team due to the other team having 2 or 3 longbow archers. Having full tier 3 armour only does so much if you can't avoid the bullet-like arrows longbows shoot at you, especially since you are a slower target for them to hit as well.

Dunno what you're talking about when you compare a nerfed longbow to thrown weapons. You're just leaving my mind blank and confused on that one.

1756 1812
  • 28 Jun '19
 SWSeriousMike

@Peregr1ne said:
Seriously? You're saying the only way to counter the longbow as an archer using any other ranged weapon, is to not use any other ranged weapon? Don't you see anything wrong with that? What would be the point of using a weapon if it becomes obsolete so easily just by someone picking up another specific weapon? That essentially proves the longbow is unfair on other ranged weapons. In other games even if there is direct counter to a certain weapon or class that doesn't mean you stop using that weapon/class entirely. Take TF2 for instance. A scout is vulnerable to a heavy since like the heavy he has to get up close to do damage, but is vastly inferior in terms of health and armaments. That doesn't mean you stop playing scout the moment someone goes heavy since there are ways to avoid or deal with them, which is how it should be.

Dunno what you're talking about when you compare a nerfed longbow to thrown weapons. You're just leaving my mind blank and confused on that one.

You can counter recurve bows with javelins or throwing knives. You don't need a longbow or crossbow for that. With longbow and crossbow it's just more comfortable.

If you want to harass and move with the team javelins are better in my opinion. The biggest downside to them is that the opponents can pick them up and they don't suck.

Knight 7768 14310
  • 28 Jun '19
 ToLazy4Name

Remove huntsman and make it so that being shot makes you drop your bow just like melee attacks do tbh