You can back up into an area where the archer no longer has sight of you, because you can still fight while walking backward, in fact, walking backward is what you will mostly be doing when being teamed on anyway.
But even in that situation, there are still things you can do. Now when you are surrounded in a 1v4 with an archer shooting at you, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EVENLY MATCHED, you are at a severe disadvantage when being teamed on and you should be.
So in saying that you can't do anything against archers, you are saying that range is way better than anything else combined. Archer is terrible at melee combat, Health, stamina preservation, mobility when aiming a bow, damage output, etc. In anything other than ranged shooting, the archer is terrible at. I play pretty much every class pretty equally, and I can 100% notice the downsides and weaknesses of archers. I and probably many other people who know how archer works get really annoyed by this argument. "You can't do anything against archers." Think about any time in history, and you will notice that long-ranged combat has always existed. This is because in warfare or in any kind of action battle, It is a fundamental thing to have a role for someone who attacks from afar. Think about it, think about any other multiplayer game you have played, and think about what the long-ranged playstyle is. If you have ever played another multiplayer game that has classes or a variety of playstyles, there is almost always a ranged playstyle or class. If the devs didn't have archers in this game, then along with huge backlash by people who want archers, they wouldn't be accomplishing the goal of what they want this game to be by a long shot. If you can name me a piece of medieval media that doesn't have archery, that would be a very rare thing. When people think of a medieval battlefield, archers are probably the second most popular soldier type behind knights. Even if you aren't talking about historical accuracy, archers are a hugely prevalent thing in anything medieval, definitely including medieval movies. The devs have stated many times how this game is based on the theme of medieval Hollywood. The sole premise of this game is being a medieval game. The game is not a medieval game because it's big on melee It's big on melee BECAUSE it's a medieval game. This game has ballistas, catapults, throwables, bows, crossbows, horses, objectives, and big sieges. Yes of course melee is a big factor in this game, but only because that is what a medieval game entails. My response to this would be simply that the sole premise of this game is not a "melee game" it is a "medieval game". Probably one of, if not, the most prevalent arguments anti-archers make. "Archers don't belong in a melee game." If you have read any of my comments on this subject you might hear some points or statements that sound familiar because this is a clump of points against just about every argument I hear against archers. This post is against people who think archers shouldn't be a role in this game. If you simply think that the crossbow nerf was fine, but nothing much further, this post isn't against you. This is a post against people who think archers should be removed or nerfed into near-zero viability or enjoyment. With the new crossbow nerf there have been a lot of controversies brought back up on the subject of archers in chivalry 2.
0 kommentar(er)
