I left out the speed of the AK-47 as well as many other vital thing

My point was that AWP is very deadly at long range (just as the archer), where as if they get caught by a guy with an AK-47 in close range, the AWP still has a chance, but the AK-47 sure as hell is in advantage

The part I wanted to highlight is "I can say what if, and but" - and it's what I did.

that is if your so lucky to be a warrior to face them, where as assassin has no way of controlling the archers draw of the arrow with stance, he has one option and it's, "be quick - or be dead".

I also don't see people not using archers arrows to it's fullest extend, and this is myself included, I'm not even close to be one of the good archers out there, but I get the basics.

Then i guess leap, and 80 damage in the back isn't a good argument either.

@Tura
Even on damn holidays do I have to hear bad thnings aimed at arTura!?

I think that drill max dmg should deal 100 dmg. For normal arrows I'd suggest 64 dmg and for flare about 70-80 dmg

For me long range is at least the distance between 1 castle and the other (while the distance between the edges of the bridge is more of middle range and the distance between the middle of the bridge and the edge of the bridge or less is close range). What is the average percentage of your successful hits when you shoot smb on the opposite side near the castle when u r near your castle? I believe it's close to 0

What ?! if these kinds of arrows will do this dmg,archer will be a very lethal class..(if i cannot say the most lethal)
The pro archers can kill easily the most other classes with the settings of the arrows that we have now in the server..also and me (archer = my worst class) can hit someone at least 2 times..but if i will have flare arrows that deal 70-80 dmg i could kill very easy other classes...and im talking for me,if will be tura ? with so much dmg he will just RULE xD

Anyway, I meant I have to hear bad things aimed at myself!

Furthermore, this exemple is kinda bad, you're comparing the archer, who cannot instant kill at long range, with a game where weapons can instant kill at long range, which, in my opinion, make a big difference.

I could remove the "if" part from the sentence and yet it'd still be right. Also , you keep saying that archer has the fastest fire rate, which is so wrong. If i remember well, a lightning mage can shoot as fast an archer, and of course, all the slashers will do higher damages and faster. And don't forget that arrow's damages are dependant of the drawn, so if an archer decides to fully draw his arrows, he won't be faster than a warrior to do his stances.

I didn't encounter such problem while trainings against EnerGi or Hell, who are both excellent archers, when i was assassin. An assassin can go poison daggers, rush on him, slash or stance, run away, wait a bit, come back and repeat. Or he can even throw a bomb and it'll be faster.

Also, archers can do nice burst of damage at long range... That involves that they hit the enemy AND damage him. Isn't it why warriors have shields and why assassins have cloak? Plus as assassin, nobody asks you to charge like a tard from the front, you can go in enemy's back with cloak.

Now, about this, don't forget that archer has to spend mana for all his special attacks except normal/double/triple arrow, and in the case of the both last, it costs him his mobility and his stamina. Drill arrow has an insane mana cost, ok, it hurts a lot, but after 3-4 arrows, you're out of fight unless you go back to normal arrow. Also, don't forget that the effective arrows for archers are costing a lot of skill points. Drill costs 9 skills points, and that's without any upgrade on composite bow or reload speed. Even flare can have a significant mana cost. To the guys often playing archer, who has never been out of mana while a long duel vs an archer?

Yes, archer was the most balanced class in my opinion. "Was" because now of the sidehits, he is now inferior to other classes , and the add of a headshot function would compensate it. Why would melee classes have bonus damage when they hit on sides or backs, and archer not a single bonus damage when even hiting in the head. A warrior who hits you in the back can do 80 dmg, whereas an archer who would bombard your head and your spine with arrows will still do same damages.

It is, get your facts straight, because your own arguments distinguish your other arguments.

I could use the same with any other class to make my point.
- Mages are awesome at ranged combat, but when it comes to melee fights, they could be weak - that is why they have Fire Orbs (talking about Fire Orbs before the nerf, which is 127 damage on impact). Which means ... they can fight in melee quite awesome, so they are completely balanced (I see no reason to change anything there).

- Priests have a poison cloud ability! True, they need to spend what, 5 points for it? But if the player just happens to not notice the big cloud of green smoke forming out of nowhere and passes right through it, owww yeaaa he gets poisoned. True that the ticks are 1 damage per second and it lasts around 10 seconds at the most and that Poison Arrows have the same effect and costs only 3 points ... but Priest DOES have this kind of an ability, which means, this ability doesn't need any modifications! But than again, why no one uses poison cloud? Oh yeah, Archer must me overpowered because he needs 2 less points to have the same effect, he can be mobile with it, and can shoot anyone with it ... but than again, Assassin has similar effect, he just needs to get a little closer ... but you all know what that means, right? PRIESTS NEED MORE POWAH!

@Fuzz
You said that archer is deadly long range...I have to completely disagree here. Let's take as an example ctf3. For me long range is at least the distance between 1 castle and the other (while the distance between the edges of the bridge is more of middle range and the distance between the middle of the bridge and the edge of the bridge or less is close range). What is the average percentage of your successful hits when you shoot smb on the opposite side near the castle when u r near your castle? I believe it's close to 0. Well, maybe you can claim that you often hit smb there but well...for ex when I play vs EnerGi/Jilako/Tura/any good archer I will hardly get any shot from such distance and same is when I try to reach ppl there. Arrow speed is too low to reach your target fast enough at this distance so that he couldn't evade it and even if u hit it it's 99% a random hit (most likely he just accidently walked in it somewhy and he thinks wtf I saw this arrow come-why do I walk in it?-I guess happened to every1 many times). And this is while playing any class. And if we take into account shield/cloak/bug with blocking arrows with fireballs or brambles or forbs or lorbs/healing...I doubt Archer turns out to be as deadly as u say..I mean I can't even call this class deadly at long range..even fire mage is more deadly considering he is even more good at middle range, not to tell ya about priest with full range corrupting or lightning mage...

As for middle range yea I can admit that archer can be called "deadly" however u still have shield, mage>archer in most cases (ye as we decided we compare equal skills), good priests also>archers...

Another example is when I usually pick archers: 1)many sins 2)many archers - for me they r the easiest targets (however Jil already said that Assassin doesn't have that many problems dealing with archers and as for archer vs archer-sorry, that doesn't count for obvious reasons). Other classes pretty easily handle this class that's why I don't even pick it then coz it is kinda useless and I'd better go another class like sin/mage/priest/warr.

No, it makes perfect sense, [...]

Also I've experienced LOADS times that you can keep slashing the back of an archer, but it never hits. - see what I did there? I put the warrior/assassin in disadvantage, just as you do with the archers.

Archers do have the fastest fire rate, lightning mages can't shoot as fast at all.

Yes archers damages are dependent of the draw, but the max damage is still as fast as a regular stance, where as archers 45 damage, is a bit faster, where warriors has no middle thing, unless you speak of slash, which damages aren't even close to the stances, and this is again assuming the warrior is in damn range.

Lol... And nobody asks an archer to tunnel vision and not watch his back once in a while.

Shields is only effective to a certain range, and assassins have no shield, as for cloak, they are still visible, unless they stand completely still and then they are no thread for the time being, unless you walk into them.

I never forget an archers manapool, which is why i usually attack an archer using drill arrows after he missed a few shots... But don't forget that warriors special attacks consumes loads of mana as well (last stand, battlecry), or affects his mobility, (charge, leap) so they are in the exact same spot as archers, except archers has the range advantage, just as warriors has sidehits, backhit advantage.

Sure who hasn't been out of mana as archer vs archer, but who hasn't been out of stamina as warrior or assassin vs an archer as well? True they regenerate it fast, if skilled in stamina. But the crucial fact of the little setback you get might as well cost you the range needed for the archer, or an opening to even kill you. (yes I can't stress this enough, ranged classes huge advantage is the damn range.)

Why is 80 damages and leap a good argument, but oneshotting and twoshotting archers, is not? Warriors still only twoshot even if they do 80 damages, and that is if they have skilled full strength.

When i refer to range, long range, or even longer range, it's taken from the melees perspective. Meaning no, not from one map edge to another. Yes it's a small chance of hitting, but the fact it's still there shouldn't be forgotten. Warriors have no across map range at any kind? When i refer to range i simply mean where archers are able to hit, and melee is not. (even if warriors has shields, e.g legs, head.)

Isn't the fight often won by priests there? NERF THE PRIESTS, lololol. It's the same argument.

About your absurd comment on there are always many assasssins jada jada

Warriors have no across map range at any kind? When i refer to range i simply mean where archers are able to hit, and melee is not. (even if warriors has shields, e.g legs, head.)

As for middle range mages and archers fights are indeed often won by the mage, but what about priest versus mage? Isn't the fight often won by priests there? NERF THE PRIESTS, lololol. It's the same argument.