[Suggestion] How to improve the Archer in 3 easy changes.

Well technically you only double the ROF for each magazine. As the reload time doesn't half, it isn't a complete doubling of ROF overall. That aside, I agree.

Scr1n, you only put up the same thing over and over. As many have said, the reasoning behind is is missing.

Opinion: The Archer needs a bit more velocity to hit targets consistently over long range.
Fact: So Increasing it by 25 m/s velocity solves that problem.
But you are ignoring that while it solves your opinion, many of us feel that the bullets are fast enough and/or can hit consistently enough over range. So what is the reasoning for that it can't hit consistently enough? And saying that MAX units can duck into cover isn't enough. It is already a victory for a lot of people to put a MAX out of commission for some time as it is in cover.

Opinion: The Archer lacks some engagement ranges scope option wise.
Fact: The Archer should have access to the 6x & 3.4x NS scope options so solve this.
Although the step to the reason here is small (the fact that the Archer doesn't have a whole lot of scopes available), it is missing from the reactions I've seen. It is such a small step to just include it, so it boggles my mind.

Opinion: The 2 second chamber time hurts the Archer against moving targets or targets with a brain.
Fact: Decreasing the chamber time down to 1 second allows for faster follow up shots,better weapon performance over a wide array of distances & more consistent results.
Again you try to fix an opinion with a fact. The opinion is nearly voiced as a fact, so kuddos. But it doesn't mean we still need a reasoning behind this. Why does the Archer need a better performance? Why do we need better follow up shots? And show this with facts.

Opinion: 0.75 ADS doesn't make any sense being on the weapon & doesn't help it do its job.
Opinion: Simply decreasing the ADS speed down to 0.5x solves this, while keeping balance of the weapon.
You aren't even trying? An opinion to support an opinion. Why does 0.5 make more sense? Why is 0.75 a problem? It doesn't help its job, so why does changing it to something that generally doesn't help it in its job either help?

The gist of the matter is that we need reasoning. When you have two parties just giving opinions, nothing will happen in the argument but polarisation. For example, if I like SMG playstyle and you like LMG playstyle, we will never convince each other of why we like it if we just keep saying "I like SMG" and "I like LMG". We will need to bring in arguments that we can see and understand on a less emotional level. Like "LMG has a large mag" or "SMG has a better hipfire". Facts that can support your opinions, giving the other person reasons to doubt their opinions and in this example possibly have both at the same time.

Your claim for the archer needing the 1 second re-chamber is by giving it that, it will allow for more rapid follow up shots to better improve it's niche. The problem with this is that it can already excel in it's niche if used in a group environment. Just like how the lancer by its self is an ok weapon, as soon as there is multiple lancers in the same area, it becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. The same applies for the archer.

No
No
aaaand No.

Honestly I don't see a need for the Archer to be just OP against Max units. Max units outside already have a very short lifespan unless they have all kinds of support. Which an Engineer with an Archer requires none.

Well that's fair enough -- but practically speaking ROF doubling on any gun is pretty much per mag. Since no gun in the game can fire for 1 minute strait without reloading and all. All weapons ROF is determined and demoted by how many bullets they could fire were they to fire without mag limits. But by this logic ALL weapons would not have their ROF doubled by doubling the number of bullets they fire which is pretty much a semantical argument.

On original topic --

I see no reason the Archer SHOULDN'T have access to a wide variety of scopes. This increases the versatility of engagement ranges without improving the weapon. Since it is limited by its slow reload I would totally support this change. Especially when you consider that you have to choose your scope ahead of time -- it rewards smart Archer users but in no way penalizes smart MAX players.

I see no problem with the muzzle velocity changes. It does travel rather slow and the 25 m/s wouldn't make it really any more lethal -- just function more sniper like. It has the disadvantages of a sniper so it should have the advantages as well.

I think the ADS speed is fine where it is. Allows for pop out of cover shots when facing maxs which is important. Specifically I think a weapon like this NEEDS the ADS speed.

And I disagree with the chamber time thing. Thats a LOT of DPS vs maxs which die to a lot at the moment considering nanite investment.

These changes wouldn't make the Archer OP vs anything.

It is personal as you have yet again to provide anything other than an opinion. I am going to re-write your supposed factual statement.
The Weapon is amazing due to a Niche.
That Niche is being done amazingly well, which is not a problem.

See, all opinion, no facts, and a direct counter to your argument.

From dictionary.com as I really do not believe you understand what an opinion is:

Opinion:
noun

1.

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2.

a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Its not.


But theres some really simple tweaks that can be done to solve it.

Dear Scrincrusher. Let's put it in the simplest terms that you hopefully can understand:

Prove it with facts.

I have.

Use the archer over a long period of time & you will see fixable flaws.

As multiple people before me have already mentioned (some of them who agree with you) you haven't proven it with facts.

Also the flaws you mentioned were mostly disadvantages to keep it in it's role. You could say "CQC weapons have high ROF but the flaw of lower accuracy at range, let's remove that flaw". But that you destroy the whole purpose why the weapon had that flaw in the first place.

Theres a difference between disadvantages & flaws that screw it up.



Look...............


What would be so wrong with giving it access to the NS 6x scope & NS 3.4x Scopes?

What would be wrong with minorly buffing the velocity up to 550?(the velocity currently is 525)

What would be wrong with making the chamber time functionally reasonable to make it do its job effectively?


The answer is nothing would be wrong, nor would it be OP.



Also like I've been saying they can "nerf" the archer to counter balance this stuff by removing 0.75 ADS off of it. Since its out of place on the weapon anyways.

While I generally agree with that sentiment, I do feel the need to point out that it's not fair or right to completely disregard opinions either, so long as they are based on sufficient experience.

For example, I have nearly 10k shotgun kills across my accounts. While I may not have facts ready and waiting, I feel like I may be somewhat more qualified to suggest balance changes for Shotguns then someone who's never picked up a shotgun in their entire PS2 career, but is looking at spreadsheets and databases and API's alone. Of course, I have enough experience to know why the stats show what they do, thus I wouldn't suggest a change that makes no sense based on the current spreadsheets either.

It's really unwise to have balance suggestions be based on facts alone. Sometimes the spreadsheets and databases are actually deceptive in nature because of the sheer quantity of variables to consider...


coughcoughMagriderscoughcough


That being said, I do disagree with OP on most of his points. While I don't see any reason it shouldn't have more scope variety, I do wonder if OP has ever faced an Archer as a MAX unit. That thing ******* decimates them already, and for a 450 nanite vehicle that's a pretty hard counter.

Sure, 1/3 of a MAX's HP may not exactly be a death sentence alone, and the Archer does have a slower TTK then some normal small arms, normal small arms still can't deal 1/3 of a MAX's HP from a completely safe distance in a single shot. Then, if we consider the already quick TTK(In perspective of what the MAX's intended role is) of small arms, suddenly losing 1/3 of your HP becomes significantly more lethal in the grand scheme of things. A single Decimator shot after an Archer shot can kill you, a single hit from even the stock launcher can after a headshot. A full magazine from an auto-shotty would leave you with a sliver of HP, even with max Kinetic Armor.

I have at various ranges.

It really doesn't "decimiate " them.


For the Weapon designed to kill MAX's, the already established ways do it more effectively.

You really need to re-check your math/information

The Archer doesn't remove 1/3rd of a MAX's HP per shot.


Also you just listed that already established MAX killing methods are more effective then a weapon DESIGNED TO KILL MAX'S.

True, because Decimate means to remove 1/10th. So you got me there.

Other methods may be more effective, but they are higher risk. You are significantly more likely to get killed trying to gun down a MAX with your HA or RL, and C4 is both high-risk and resource intensive.

The Archer, is resource free. It works from safe distances. And it deals massive alpha damage.

Quote from the Wiki:

Refer to above. Archer is safe, Archer is free, and Archer is sustainable. Pop a single shot into a MAX who is in the middle of a firefight and suddenly a huge chunk of it's HP advantage is gone.

Debatable when you consider how random the fights can be & player skills etc.

Its a sniper rifle that is only effective against MAX's & deployables.......

Are you not factoring in the damage drop off past 125m?

Its a Niche weapon that lacks at its job.

It really matters less then what your hyping it up to be as.

The 2 second chamber time makes follow up shots come less then what they need to be.(even with straight pull bolt)

The 525 velocity lacks abit so over range work is sometimes problematic.

Those 2 listen above together make fighting moving/ADAD or smart MAX players a tough time to counter.


Also the fact that the Scope options are missing a 6x scope & close range 3.4x scopes really hurt the Archer at certain ranges.

Archer will still always be the safe, efficient and sustainable option. That's what matters.

DBG spefically said it's the counter to MAX units, so what?

No, I'm disregarding it because MAX's can't even hurt you outside 50m. Vehicle combat is an entirely different can of worms.

Indeed it is niche, but it certainly doesn't lack. If you want faster TTK, risk the time, resources and respawn of tossing a conc, hitting with the decimator, and then unloading with the auto-shotty. Works only a single time per resupply, takes time to rearm and will often result in your own demise. Is also useless against MAX's who have camped you in or are heavily supported.

As I said, this I am perfectly fine with.

Then why don't you see more archers in situations Archers are designed to excel at & against Target rich enviroments they are supposed to work in?

You tell me.

AI MAX's with the Long range AI weapons can.

Also you are seemly forgetting AV MAX's & AA MAX's.


Also you shouldn't disregard it.

Go test in VR & then consider Kinetic armor,movement,cover & repairs.

It does lack.

Over longer ranges the velocity just doesn't cut it.

In situations where you REALLY need to bring MAX's down the 2 second chamber time screws you over significantly.

Its the least they could do.

The archer can kill a full HP max in about 2-4 seconds

If you land one headshot its shot reload shot dead

If not then you have to reload twice assuming hes not damaged in any other way at all

Unless im misunderstanding you could kill a max in 1-2 seconds instead starting from your first shot again ignoring any other incoming damage

Thats an extremely fast drop for something that costs more than half of your nanite pool with relatively little risk

The max could use nanite armor to help reduce that but explosives take the place of archer shots (Which are still extremely effective) in killing a max far too quickly for its cost

Am i misunderstanding something here?

This is a Scr1nRusher thread.
Your arguments are meaningless.
Your agreement is anecdotal.
Your understanding is unnecessary.
There are only two positions: accept the premise or be considered irrational.

I gave reasoning through out the thread.

The difference is I'm not just looking at things from a players perspective.