History repeats itself: Time for the Great Archer Nerf of 2011

[Reika]

Alls i can say is... Arrows.

[Augury]

I'm pretty sure no one read my post and just went on arguing blindly.

Not so much- I read it, but by then it was too late to comment without a large necro-bump of the post. Our concept of "balance" is a pretty foolish one in that, as is Thaumaturges and Archers aren't overpowered, because they do their jobs, but they don't do them too well. The true balance exists not in how many points the job gets to score up in a period of time in a race with another job, but if it portrays and conveys the flavorful message in it's play. As it is, an Archer is a valuable party member to increase damage output- but it's far from perfect, as it must either outdamage it's target very VERY quickly, or rely on another player to defend it. But it's hard to look at something with clarity when you get your feelings hurt because you feel that they were more useful than you in a party- when infact the idea of a party is for the complete mutual benefit of all involved.

The flaw with the view some have on the archer is the concept of "melee DD" vs "ranged DD". Melee characters are designed to THRIVE against physical blows, Archers are not, the end. Because of this, if the melee character shelled out more damage in the critical short-clock that Archers have before they need to run from their target, then it wouldn't be very well constructed. It's because out concepts of the game are so bogged down by MMO jargon that we forget that roles are an act of imagination, and the only true "DD" is the character who has no other means of survival.

[Physic]

Not so much- I read it, but by then it was too late to comment without a large necro-bump of the post. Our concept of "balance" is a pretty foolish one in that, as is Thaumaturges and Archers aren't overpowered, because they do their jobs, but they don't do them too well. The true balance exists not in how many points the job gets to score up in a period of time in a race with another job, but if it portrays and conveys the flavorful message in it's play. As it is, an Archer is a valuable party member to increase damage output- but it's far from perfect, as it must either outdamage it's target very VERY quickly, or rely on another player to defend it. But it's hard to look at something with clarity when you get your feelings hurt because you feel that they were more useful than you in a party- when infact the idea of a party is for the complete mutual benefit of all involved.

The flaw with the view some have on the archer is the concept of "melee DD" vs "ranged DD". Melee characters are designed to THRIVE against physical blows, Archers are not, the end. Because of this, if the melee character shelled out more damage in the critical short-clock that Archers have before they need to run from their target, then it wouldn't be very well constructed. It's because out concepts of the game are so bogged down by MMO jargon that we forget that roles are an act of imagination, and the only true "DD" is the character who has no other means of survival.

your whole theory of archer is a feasible imagining of what an archer should be, the problem with your theory is this, In this game, as it is, versus any monsters that a tank can hold, if an archer can put out less damage, and require less upkeep then he is better than the other DD.
Melee DD take damage, they need to cure themselves(getting hate while not doing dmg) or have some one cure them. the archer does more damage, and has no maintenence cost, in a party.
So, why would a person picking a party to be able to handle the tougher content, who has a capable tank and healer choose anyone else? How are any of the other DD allowing an archer to survive? when you add a tank to the equation, and now you have to use add DD, why would you choose a lancer, marauder, or pugilist

Now since the focus for future content is on party play, and good items will probably require a team, what future does a person with tanking potential have, if they never have to tank.

The idea that an archer should be more damage comes out of no where, archers strength should be in attacking at opponents weakness/softening up enemies, and manipulating the flow of combat, as well being able to do damage without taking much risk. But there is no logical reason they should do MORE damage over time than any other DD. Spears, swords and etc are actually more lethal weapons, the only disadvantage is the range. Archer only has an advantage versus soft targets that it has the jump on in real situations. In game situations, i dont know why people assume it should be different, and looking at thier description of archer, no where did they say does the best damage, but is very weak.

Archers never need to run from thier target if the tank is good, and they watch thier hate, no matter how good the tank is, and how carefully a close fighter watches their hate, they will take damage.

People are not making up the numerous times that in order to fight hard monsters, people took to using ranged charachters and running, negating anyone who needs to be close, and just as often having 1 tank who can take damage and having ranged attackers stand outside and pepper the enemy, because the other DD take too much damage/require too much heals.
Having the advantage of taking less damage, and doing more damage is the problem.

like i said, burst damage is fine, debuffs and dots are fine, special tactics like shadowbind sleep arrows, etc make perfect sense, but why should they take no damage and do more.

Basically its fine if your archer exists, as long as they have a real threat of danger. Right now, and in most other games, they dont have that. For your archer to make sense in a party balanced situation, they need to have content that makes them run away some times, in that case the other DDs have balance.

[Augury]

Physic- You should read your posts more carefully, they are based on MMO jargon and player perception; not actual aspects of the game, but the player perception in party-member choice. What you've basically said is that if a 4 player party already has a Pug/Mar/Lan/Glad, it would pick an Archer instead of another? To me that sounds almost ideal for the game's sake considering there are 3 ranged offensives and 4 close-ranged ones.

You're also assuming that the conditions are "right"- and that the designated "tank" isn't having difficulties, and the designated "healer" is keeping both of you in good shape. To me that just sounds like a functioning party, nothing game-breaking. I could agree, that some "archer hate" might do the game good, but nothing meriting nerfing or changing the game's mechanics to favor a second martial job over the variety added by the Archer.

[Aion]

ARC have no defensive measure.nuff said.

[Physic]

Physic- You should read your posts more carefully, they are based on MMO jargon and player perception; not actual aspects of the game, but the player perception in party-member choice. What you've basically said is that if a 4 player party already has a Pug/Mar/Lan/Glad, it would pick an Archer instead of another? To me that sounds almost ideal for the game's sake considering there are 3 ranged offensives and 4 close-ranged ones.

You're also assuming that the conditions are "right"- and that the designated "tank" isn't having difficulties, and the designated "healer" is keeping both of you in good shape. To me that just sounds like a functioning party, nothing game-breaking. I could agree, that some "archer hate" might do the game good, but nothing meriting nerfing or changing the game's mechanics to favor a second martial job over the variety added by the Archer.

It would be fine if it there were no other DDs, the problem is not a 4 man party having 1 archer, its an 8 man party having 6-7 archers, and people saying uhhhh you cant bring pugilist/lnc/marauder to endgame, or, you can come, just sit back there and wait for us to kill it.

The key here is also that they have already changed the games mechanics to benefit archer, and they seem to be doing more, Early on it was very hard for a tank to keep exclusive hate, but they did some rebalancing and now its easier, all monsters used to have ranged attacks, so if the rng did pull hate, he could get hit fairly fast, but they want to rebalance that.
As far as the variety added by archer, i approve of it, but it shouldnt be superiority, they should be, at best equal to other DD over long battles, Im fine with burst damage, as long as they have to reload, they shouldnt be flat out superior damage, unless there is a real cost.

I admit, a pug can deal with a bad tank better than an archer, but people want glad to have EVEN BETTER hate control than it does now. which means, taking dmg if your not a tank has even less value, and doing more damage has even more value.
Far as a healler, in all honesty an archer doesnt need a healer, it has better mp than other DD i believe, and it gets hit rarely if it doesnt go all out, in fact Archer can just not attack and it wont take any splash damage. They have a skill that allows them to dodge 1 ranged attack that lasts one minute, they have access to stoneskin, and cure, unless they are getting hit often, a ranger can afford to get hit a bit, just as long as they arent tanking many hits.
When me and my friend grouped, he told the thaum not to worry about him, he had cure 1 if he got hit. because his range is even greater than the thaum, he stood behind him, and he was the last one to die when things got bad, he had distance, shadowbind, and flee, the ability to hold back and burst when needed. Its a fine class, it doesnt need to be the best DD to be useful in parties.

[Augury]

Once again though, you're not looking at this from perspective other than the MMORPG-troupes, specifically the concept of "Damage Dealer" and "Tank" (when it really isn't that simple), which aren't the business of the developers, just MMO shorthand which is relatively meaningless in the game's actual design. When it comes to something being overpowered or broken- it isn't a matter usually a matter of game error, but of player error. The Devs shouldn't have sensitivities towards trying to making a 3 role party system, because that is a player choice on how to approach the game- not a mechanical process.

[Physic]

Once again though, you're not looking at this from perspective other than the MMORPG-troupes, specifically the concept of "Damage Dealer" and "Tank" (when it really isn't that simple), which aren't the business of the developers, just MMO shorthand which is relatively meaningless in the game's actual design. When it comes to something being overpowered or broken- it isn't a matter usually a matter of game error, but of player error. The Devs shouldn't have sensitivities towards trying to making a 3 role party system, because that is a player choice on how to approach the game- not a mechanical process.

the terminology is irrelevant, let me put it like this, if someone can keep the hate on him, then archer has infinite defenses. Any defensive abilities are usesless if you never get hit, so remove taking damage from consideration in party situations, becuase as it is, only one man usually takes damage, and its not archer.
In party situation, with a person with hate tools, you only need 1 other person to keep hate tool man alive, and then archer beats any other job for every other posistion. in a 8 man party this translates to, 6/8 would be best as archers.

this is bad for parties if this true

[Mega]

I don't understand why positioning isn't as important as it was made out to be leading up to the games release. Okay so Archer has imba damage. Does that really warrant a nerf? Allow Archers to maintain their upper tier damage in exchange for less damage output when not in position.

If a mob runs up to an Archer at melee range an Archer's damage would be reduced by 50%. Yes, 50%. Making every class equal is what is making this game so bland (among other things). By modifying the damage Archer would be a great addition to party play and at the same time would be a poor solo class.

It's a thought.

[Physic]

interesting theory, my friend thought earlier his acc was worse up close, regardless it will make playing archer solo almost impossible, especially with leash laws.

Im all for classes being different, but like has been said, if one class is a superior DD who also takes no damage when with a tank, then why would anyone pick anyone else.

Also losing dmg when the mob runs to you, yet again depends on the mob running to you, which will rarely happen less the arch goes crazy, and apparently even death doesnt change them from having highest dps. *if information provided is indeed accurate*
either archer needs a nerf
other DD need a buff
or the tradeoff of defense for damage has to become an actual tradeoff due to monster behavior.

thats the only way you wont, in the long term end up with archer burns everywhere as the best way to do things.