who's better, Archers or mages

[BulgarianMenace]

That wasn't a jab, it was a fact.

But it is a completely legit strategy, and although I curse everyone when they do it to me, I do it too when I'm low on health and need a heal, or when I'm warrior and facing multiple opponents (then I just lmao at the bunch of mages chasing me, all wanting the kill, not stopping to think they can't catch up to me).

[BulgarianMenace]

Uh, well, you could just take a few mages and warriors and just go up with the cover of a shield. From there, the archers just kinda die and then get spawned camped for the rest of the match.

I find it pretty funny that before this you write a long paragraph about how I'm conceptualizing the field in an unrealistic way, then you come out with this. (that was a jab btw =P) You're right of course, a bunch of mages and warriors could coordinate and get to some archers, who are alone, without anyone else doing anything, and kill them. But what if the archers have mages with them? What if a scout comes in the middle of the mage/warrior group and they don't have the discipline to keep their shields up (god knows they almost never do)? What if the archers have some warriors with them who charge into the group and force the shields down? And what's to stop the archers from running away/what's forcing them to just wait there? Finally, what if there is more than one spawn point (I hear that happens sometimes ;O)

As for my scenarios, in general I do view it from the perspective of a single person, because that's the way I think. But it is also rare that people will be grouped together all the time unless it's ctr or a campy stage in tdm (mines of moria). And while a mage may usually be close to his allies in tdm, many of the times there is enough distance that they cannot arrive in time to save them. As you said, it does not take long for someone to kill an ally, especially one already hurt.

As for most stages not allowing archers to "maintain an unimpeded line of sight for even most of the stage," I would challenge that. Here's a look at the stages that (I think) do:

isengard (tdm and conquest)
pellenor (all)
mines of moria (tdm and conquest)
minas tirith tdm
minas morgul ctr (middle bridge)
osgiliath (all)
mount doom (htdm)
the black gate (all)
the shire (all)
weathertop (conquest)


and a lot of stages give the archer less, but still a great deal of sight

minas tirith top (tdm)
mines of moria (ctr)
minas morgul (tdm and conquest)


now let's look at stages that hinder archers' vision

helm's deep (all)
minas tirith (conquest)
minas tirith top (ctr)
mound doom (conquest, ctr)
rivendell (all)
weathertop (tdm)


Most stages don't actually impede line of sight that much.


So ultimately archers have a much larger sphere of influence than mages do. What that does for their support ability may not make them as good as mages in that area, but it does make up a great deal for not having a heal or a shield to support with. Combine that with their obviously superior killing ability (not only in terms of raw power, but once again because of their greater sphere of influence, which allows them to affect the battle in ways mages cannot), and that is why I believe they are a better class in tdm and htdm, debatable in ctr, and worse in conquest (mages are the best for capturing, by a long shot).


EDIT: What's most interesting about the list, now that I look at it again, is that most of the stages that hinder sight are conquest stages, and we already agree archers aren't the best (or even very good) in conquest anyway. lol

[Linty]

In Team Death Match, from experience Mages are amazing. Thats why i perfer all my 2v2s and/or 1v1s to be TDM. It takes skill as an archer to get mages 75%+ dead. Though Im actually one of that, no arrogance intended. Im an Archer,Mage, and scout. So i know what Mages AND archers can do. Hero Team, Mages take quite a few lightnings to kill. Archers are better in Hero Team. Though a GOOD mage could beat a majority of archers in TDM. I go with archers though for better, them needing a lot more skill to use.

[Joppi]

That wasn't a jab, it was a fact.

Oh you

I find it pretty funny that before this you write a long paragraph about how I'm conceptualizing the field in an unrealistic way, then you come out with this. (that was a jab btw =P) You're right of course, a bunch of mages and warriors could coordinate and get to some archers, who are alone, without anyone else doing anything, and kill them. But what if the archers have mages with them? What if a scout comes in the middle of the mage/warrior group and they don't have the discipline to keep their shields up (god knows they almost never do)? What if the archers have some warriors with them who charge into the group and force the shields down? And what's to stop the archers from running away/what's forcing them to just wait there? Finally, what if there is more than one spawn point (I hear that happens sometimes ;O)

The difference in the incredulity of our two situations is that yours is silly because you're making 5/8 players totally focused on taking out one mage, whereas mine is silly because people are just stupid. In a better world (one that isn't too ridiculous for this debate, considering that you're assuming almost perfect accuracy for the archer), the tactic could work just fine. As long as one mage kept the shield, the warriors and other mages should be able to fend off any attackers, and keep the eye out for scouts.

But it is also rare that people will be grouped together all the time unless it's ctr or a campy stage in tdm (mines of moria). And while a mage may usually be close to his allies in tdm, many of the times there is enough distance that they cannot arrive in time to save them. As you said, it does not take long for someone to kill an ally, especially one already hurt.

I don't mean in large 8-man clusterfuck groups, I just mean simple 2-3 person groups that almost always naturally occur throughout the game. The mage doesn't have to hyper-organize to get together with a warrior/mage and archer and become really really hard to kill.

As far as stages go

isengard (tdm and conquest)
pellenor (all)
mines of moria (tdm and conquest)
minas tirith tdm
osgiliath (all)
weathertop (conquest)

Agree

minas morgul ctr (middle bridge)

Not quite, imo. It offers a nice view of the middle area, but there is usually quite a bit of cover in my experience with the stage.

mount doom (htdm)

I guess, but this level is SO clusterfucky that I barely ever play archer on it either way. You can see the whole level, but you're barely at a longer range than mage heroes are.

the black gate (all)

This place is rocky/tenty enough to avoid full surveillance, unless you're on a tower (instant death).

the shire (all)

Well, in most places you can't really see the whole stage (barring, again, the hill (still instant death)). It's still huge enough that it isn't too hard to survey any relevant area without coming into danger, though.

So ultimately archers have a much larger sphere of influence than mages do. What that does for their support ability may not make them as good as mages in that area, but it does make up a great deal for not having a heal or a shield to support with. Combine that with their obviously superior killing ability (not only in terms of raw power, but once again because of their greater sphere of influence, which allows them to affect the battle in ways mages cannot), and that is why I believe they are a better class in tdm and htdm, debatable in ctr, and worse in conquest (mages are the best for capturing, by a long shot).

Honestly, this is pretty much opinion of the whole thing (except maybe a bit more towards mages on CTR).

[BulgarianMenace]

Even if you wanted to bump down the levels you mentioned into the category below, the large majority of the maps still offer damn good vision.

But it seems we've come to an accord so whetever. ^_^



Let me just say, about ctr, while the mage is important for shielding and healing the ring bearer, WHILE they are shielding hey can't do anything else, so it is usually on the archers to help clear the path ahead, which is equally important, especially at the end when the mage is usually forced out of his shield and the ring bearer goes on a mad dash to get to the goal with no protection (mage is usually occupied or dead at this point).

[megajonzero]

WHO FUCKING CARES ANYMORE? THIS GAME IS ALREADY SWARMED WITH STUPID MAGES AND STUPID ARCHERS. DEBATING ABOUT THIS SHIT ISNT GOING TO CHANGE ANYONES MIND. Damn I come back here after a few months and you people are still arguing about the same shit.

[hanzrimer]

my challenge thread has been hijacked.....


Still have not had one single person to face me mage vs archer, I bet people would jump at the chance to fight me if I were the archer and they could be a mage.

and jon, it's a message board for lord of the rings conquest, the threads will most likely be about lord of the rings conquest, not how many times did we get laid last month. However I agree on one thing, this doesn't need to be debated because it could be some what proven. I made a 8 vs 8 challenge, and a 1vs1, but it seems like the people who think archers are so good are all talk. They won't play because they know their wrong. So until the people who support archers actually play, then I'd say it's damn clear mages are better.

[Joppi]

Your 1v1 is useless. Average mages vs average archers prove nothing as to which class is better. BM and I (good mage vs good archer) have had this 1v1 several times, and it all depends on the stage. On bad stages for me, I get raped; on bad stages for him, he gets raped. In more neutral stages he tends to win, but not by a whole lot (15-13).

Of course the average mage would beat the average archer. Archers need to get headshots and multishits to beat the mage, as well as maintain significant stage advantage. Average archers don't get too many headshots, don't understand how to get multishits, and just stand in the open most of the time.

Still, that doesn't prove who's the better class.

[hanzrimer]

Nov 19, 2009 16:46:53 GMT -5 Joppi said:

Your 1v1 is useless. Average mages vs average archers prove nothing as to which class is better. BM and I (good mage vs good archer) have had this 1v1 several times, and it all depends on the stage. On bad stages for me, I get raped; on bad stages for him, he gets raped. In more neutral stages he tends to win, but not by a whole lot (15-13).

Of course the average mage would beat the average archer. Archers need to get headshots and multishits to beat the mage, as well as maintain significant stage advantage. Average archers don't get too many headshots, don't understand how to get multishits, and just stand in the open most of the time.

Still, that doesn't prove who's the better class.

Yes, talking about it on the internet proves which class is better, silly me. Since you're so wise joppi how would I prove my point in a game if for some reason 1vs doesn't prove anything

(still accepting 1vs1's by the way)

[Joppi]

I feel like BM here, but:

Wow, way not to respond to anything I just said.

[hanzrimer]

Nov 19, 2009 17:01:48 GMT -5 Joppi said:

I feel like BM here, but:

Wow, way not to respond to anything I just said.

whats to respond to exactly, I basically agree. mages are better unless the archer is really really good, or it's a surprise attack, which does not make an archer better but sneaky, like a scout. You basically agree with me but BM has brainwashed you to just disagree with me even when you agree with me.

[Joppi]

Uh, right... If that's how you're seeing this whole thing then there's no point in me saying anything more. Carry on with whatever else you were doing.

[hanzrimer]

yes, you wouldn't want to agree with me and let Bm Read it.

[Joppi]

Rather, your head is so far up your ass that you might want to contact Guinness, because you may have a world record on your hands.

[BulgarianMenace]

rofl. Did you miss us sniping at each other earlier? We may be friends, but we clearly disagreed. lol, "brainwashed," totally