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

Yes, although I would change it to: All opinions count as long as you have had some experience with it. The biggest noob's experience counts just as much as the highest elite player with 10k kills, simply because it would preferably be fun for both regardless of how good you are with it. This also counts for being at the receiving end.

I have also mentioned many times that in the end balance is not the main goal. Fun is the main goal. If a balanced gameplay is not fun for most people then it should change, even if it becomes unbalanced in the process. As long as the game is fun the game is good. However, in almost every game the balanced state of the game will be the most fun.

Yes, which is why you should make threads based on opinion and facts. But keep in mind that anyone who makes a thread of "Magrider OP/UP" already has revealed his opinion: he wants a change for the Magrider because he finds the current mechanics unfun.

(that said, after playing with the Magrider it is a massively fun and versatile weapon of mass destruction).

Not much, as I said before.

There's no reason to give it this slight buff. It wouldn't matter enough to notice this, and if you do make it matter enough to notice you would have made the weapon too good at it's role.

Because it's not functionally reasonable. That's why it's wrong.

It would be incredibly wrong, and it would be OP.

See how "good" your argument is? My argument is just as good as yours simply because it's a statement of opinion. Now I've already mentioned multiple reasons to support my argument but you haven't done so. Which means there's all the reason to believe in my argument, and only one miniscule reason to believe in yours: your opinion. However, my opinion is the opposite so it would cancel each other out, meaning you are back to zero and I still have a supported argument.

You yourself already name it a "nerf" instead of a real nerf because it barely matters for the weapon! How can this be a counter balance if you already made the weapon function twice as good as it did before?

+ Lower damage so it doesn't 2shot the MAX.

Are people complaining about the Archer on MAXs or the Archer as a all round weapon?
Cause the way I see it, it's a One Man Cannon against MAXs and I think it's already OP against MAX.. and it's a "Anti-Matter" Rifle designed for Light Armour and MAXs.. not on people..
It's like a Rocket Launcher that doesn't need Reloading.. and no Single man should have the power of 3 or 4 people..

So what's the problem here? Do people want a weapon that's even more powerful than the HA's Rocket Launcher?

Sorry, I'm just not seeing the problem here, unless people are sour about being killed by a MAX.

I will say this! I wish the Reload Animation didn't show the Arm/Hand pulling the chamber while zoomed in, it's so off putting and distracting.. Sometimes it makes me flinch and I think a person is there.. -.-

It doesn't 2 shot a max BTW.......

Wasn't it 2 headshots or 1 headshot 1 bodyshot and a sneeze?

That is the killer of the spitfire auto turret.

Its 1 head shot and a body shot or 3 body shots if no other damage is taken

Nope thats slightly incorrect

It takes 2 headshots to kill a MAX under 125m

It takes 3 headshots to kill a MAX past 125m.


It takes 3 body shots to kill a MAX regardless of under 125m

It takes 4 body shots to kill a MAX past 125m.

It takes 1 headshot & 2 body shots to kill a MAX regardless of range(over & under 125m)


Kinetic Armor increases the shots needed to kill by 1-2(potentially 3) depending on range & where the shots hit(body or head)

Factor in various ranges,repair rates & movement(also the Kinetic armor)......... MAX's stay alive suprisingly long against the Archer.

Your logic is concerning.

Its like the most backwards logic I've ever seen.


You're parents must have really had bad hand-eye co-ordination when you were a infant.

Baby step buffs are the best way to balance niche weapons.


25 more velocity on the Archer will help over longer ranges, while not turning it into a sniper rifle or a poverty lancer.

It is if you ever had a max crash coming straight at you or a ADAD AV max on the hill.

3 new scopes would make it OP?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


25 more velocity would make it OP?


BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


1 less second of chamber time to make the weapon functionally better would make it OP?

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL


Balancing takes baby steps, not sledge hammer steps.

Less movement means weakness when caught off guard or in bad positions.

Also if 0.75 ADS barely matters for the weapon, then why keep it?

Aside from the completely out of line insults at my adress, what's concerning about it? The goal of the game is fun. Balance usually gets you fun, but is not required. The game Evolve for instance is based around imbalance: you have 1 dude who is OP against 4 dudes who need active teamwork to defeat him, which is out of balance as well as it's 4 dudes against one. The game is build around it and it's fun because it's imbalanced at it's core. Ofcourse there is some kind of balance overall to be found by forcing teams of 4 to attack the OP player and enforcing teamwork but at it's core the game

For those that need balancing. Also, halving the chamber time and doubling ROF through it is not babysteps.

There's no need for it. 25m/s is too small to be noticed and adding enough to make it noticeable would make it perform too well in area's it shouldn't (read: acting like a real sniper rifle against infantry)

MAX crash? AV mines now OHK MAX's and explode when they are near, that's your answer there. Also an ADAD AV MAX? You are making stuff up now thank you very much.

Get over yourself, seriously. I have given arguments for everything and all you do is insult and repeat your opinions. I have never said that the scopes would make it OP, yet you somehow think I did. I never said 25m/s extra would make it OP, and here you are again saying I did. I did say 1 second less chamber time would make it OP, and it is but you completely fail to see it or provide proof for your arguments. That's your problem.

Yes, but Archers don't really make use of those as they don't have the DPS to take advantage of it against other infantry and against MAX's you will not be moving a lot while scoped. Which you should know if you used the weapon.

If it barely matters for the weapon, why change it?

most people again fail to see the (high) opportunity cost involved when you choose to be an Archer-Engineer.

more precisely, you have to give up far too much just to be specialized in the anti-Max role which you cannot even do properly. with the Archer:
- you cannot participate in an anti-vehicle role because its damage is marginal
- you are far from being effective in an anti-infantry role because three body shots at any range are a death sentence in any close/midrange encounter
- you cannot even do well in an anti-deployables (mines, Engi turrets, beacons) role because the Archer (hint: anti-MATERIEL) cannot even one-shot most deployables surprisingly

people say Scr1n was trying to make the Archer OP which is absolutely NOT the case. he just wants to inject some usefulness into the weapon. as i said, you give up far too much just to run around with the Archer. if it actually two-shot Maxes via body shots, i'd say the gun would be more than fine. but it doesnt, and the gun is subpar for combat. you're actually better off just going Heavy with LMG+shield+rocketlauncher+AV grenade to kill Maxes reliably. rocketlaunchers two-shot Maxes via bodyshots and the Heavy also has his LMG to fend off infantry.

and before someone says i am talking crap let me tell you i have close to 700 Archer kills and almost every one of them was a gamble because it usually hit wounded/distracted targets. as a mere "finisher" this weapon is rather a waste of time.

There is a need for it, the velocity is not enough for over range anti-MAX work.


25 more velocity is a simple fix.

Mines are temporary & can be destroyed by other means.


Archer shots? not so much

Nothing to make up, thats reality.

AV MAX's simply strafing side to side(ADAD) counter acts the Archer.

Because the Archer use has to wait and wait and wait for the Chamber time to be done for the next shot & the velocity not being enough messes with the travel time.

You were saying all of the changes would make the Archer "OP".

I can requote what you quoted/responded to.

Depends on battle situation.

Because there is no reason why it should have it?

Also it keep a power balance.

Kinetic armor makes them incredibly weak against explosives though

Its balanced in that way

Im gonna have to agree with the other guy

An unbalanced game simply is not fun

Ironically you need a balance of both otherwise you have griefing thats fun for some and frustrating for others

Ever play warframe? Theres a reason why its dying

Well if youre shooting infantry close up youre doing it wrong

With the archer you have to go to your secondary to be viable and you should avoid any 1 on 1 situations

Aside from that

It does its job at taking out max suits and is great for harassing tanks or taking out turrets from a distance

Its a killer for max suits if they get brave

If they hide then its an effective suppressant

Otherwise max suits are going to lose viability

I said that in most games balance is the ideal way to make it fun, but it doesn't have to be. I never said that every game needs it.

Just look at C&C Generals. Anyone dare say that for instance the rocketbuggy, a super fast high-damage long range weapon is weaker than the slow, long range high damage Tomahawk, which incidentally can have it's missiles shot out of the air? It's an asymetrical game. There's balance in there somewhere, but it's not in the straight stats.
There's plenty of RTS games nowadays that also use imbalance as part of the philosophy. Team 1 is great and powerful in the beginning, having ample of oppertunity to steamroll the other teams. But team 2 becomes a powerhouse the longer the game drags on. Team 3 is somewhere in the middle etc.

A repeat of your opinion does not an argument make. (seriously, we are on page seven and you still haven't given good arguments to support it).

Yes, so? AV mines are great for destroying MAX crashes. The Archer isn't designed for handling MAX crashes and if it could it would be OP as hell. Otherwise, who would want to use an AV mine to OHK a MAX if the archer is cheaper and better? Ofcourse the AV mine has also drawbacks, it's not worth 450 resources and it can also be used for easy and safe kills on vehicles.

You realize you are trying to muck up an argument on separate things now?
1: AV MAX's strafing side to side (ADAD) counteracts the Archer.
OK, that's your statement. It's still an opinion until you support it. Now comes your support for it:
2: Because the Archer has a chamber time and the velocity messes with travel time

Just look at those beauties! Chamber time? Nothing to do with MAX's walking around, and frankly I've never seen a MAX ADAD even when I shot them with an Archer, or any other weapon for that matter. This is because MAX's are too slow to make proper use of it.
Then you come with the most beautiful beauty of all: "velocity messes with travel time". Well duh. Velocity and distance combined determines travel time. But it doesn't mean crap for your argument. I might also say "the damage per pellet messes with shotgun damage". It's self explanatory but in no way an argument in and of itself.

Please do! I'm interested where you start derailing my words and changing their meaning.

If I ever came with just the argument of "depends on battle situation" in a shotgun thread people would have laughed. Ofcourse everything depends on the battle situation! There's just too few where the 0,75 ADS will benefit the Archer.

Hey, you tell me the battle situations where the 0,75 ADS is very important for the Archer and I'll change my mind (assuming it's actually important there). This is what I've been asking of you all this time: just back it up. Show us that there's cause for everyone to believe what you say other than your word for it.

And why is there no reason it should have it? Please explain. The "also it keeps the power in balance" means nothing to me because you haven't backed up your "0,75 ADS is useful on the Archer" yet.

Which was a response to this:

...

Read it again. I said the whole would be OP. Seeing that you are halving the chamber time and thus doubling the ROF it would make the weapon OP. The fact that the two other idea's aren't very influential does not factor into it. I have already explained what I think of the other two idea's so your entire quote is... misinterpreted. as usual.

So once again I called you out on something & now you are trying to spin it around.

"once again"? Just read it damn you!
You have been called out on several things in your own thread already! You are too stubborn to admit your own mistakes! Just try it sometime, it will help people see your point of view better. Getting someone else to see your point of view and at least take it into consideration is a giant win in any argument. That's why you shouldn't just use opinions, but also facts to support it so people can see what your reasoning is besides "me no likey this, me wants change".