I prefer to melee. Seems more personal and I never like the "lead fro behind" mentality. Even in games like M&B:WB after the enemy forces have dwindled and I have the time to, I hunt down the fleeing peasants or the odd knight who yet lives.
As far as safety goes I think ranged should be generally safer but aggro management should be a big deal so they can't just spam skills. To counter being in harms way, melee DPS should do more damage/time and have better aggro management skills.
I just don't like melee for having to judge combat range and track moving mobs, especially in PvP.
I prefer range, so I have more freedom of movement, positioning, view of the combat area.
However, I don't see that agro or damage should be any different. I see no reason why a sword should do more damage than a fireball, just because it was performed closer to the mob.
Beefcake said:I don't see a higher risk from melee combat, definitely not one that deserves a reward.
Positioning as a ranged DPS is irrelevant usually, and you don't have to worry about jousting AEs.
As it is in EQ, melee are basically worthless, honestly. Ranged DPS has always been king.
You read through this and see people talking about risk/reward of melee...They don't say it straight out but seem to feel ranged characters tend to be more simple/boring.
Keeping ranged characters engaged is extremely difficult but I would like to put in my two cents that finding ways to make it happen is worth it. Dungeons and Dragons has come up with many dm guides regarding how to keep ALL of the PCs engaged..I'd start there.
Also folks say having high risk/reward for melee is great...but if you do that the balance forums will probably get full of inferior ranged characters pretty quick. Why can't ranged characters have their own risks?
I prefer ranged over melee for the ability to see the whole field of battle.
BeaverBiscuit said:You read through this and see people talking about risk/reward of melee...They don't say it straight out but seem to feel ranged characters tend to be more simple/boring.
Keeping ranged characters engaged is extremely difficult but I would like to put in my two cents that finding ways to make it happen is worth it. Dungeons and Dragons has come up with many dm guides regarding how to keep ALL of the PCs engaged..I'd start there.
Also folks say having high risk/reward for melee is great...but if you do that the balance forums will probably get full of inferior ranged characters pretty quick. Why can't ranged characters have their own risks?
Don't put words in my mouth. You missed the entire point of what I said. The problem is that historically (in EQ specifically), ranged classes have the freedom to do what melee classes can with none of the drawbacks of being a melee. If ranged classes are challenged in some way comparable to the natural challenges of being a melee, I don't care if melee have an advantage. The problem is that some things just don't apply to ranged characters.
Ranged classes don't have to worry about positioning much, just line of sight and very generous range.
Ranged classes don't have to worry about PBAEs, they're already outside of the radius of them, generally.
Ranged classes don't usually have positional abilities, so it's irrelevant if you're nuking from the front or the back. Maybe a Ranger will see a mob dodge more arrows from the front, but that's it.
I just don't want to see that happen.
Liav said:BeaverBiscuit said:You read through this and see people talking about risk/reward of melee...They don't say it straight out but seem to feel ranged characters tend to be more simple/boring.
Keeping ranged characters engaged is extremely difficult but I would like to put in my two cents that finding ways to make it happen is worth it. Dungeons and Dragons has come up with many dm guides regarding how to keep ALL of the PCs engaged..I'd start there.
Also folks say having high risk/reward for melee is great...but if you do that the balance forums will probably get full of inferior ranged characters pretty quick. Why can't ranged characters have their own risks?
Don't put words in my mouth. You missed the entire point of what I said. The problem is that historically (in EQ specifically), ranged classes have the freedom to do what melee classes can with none of the drawbacks of being a melee. If ranged classes are challenged in some way comparable to the natural challenges of being a melee, I don't care if melee have an advantage. The problem is that some things just don't apply to ranged characters.
Ranged classes don't have to worry about positioning much, just line of sight and very generous range.
Ranged classes don't have to worry about PBAEs, they're already outside of the radius of them, generally.
Ranged classes don't usually have positional abilities, so it's irrelevant if you're nuking from the front or the back. Maybe a Ranger will see a mob dodge more arrows from the front, but that's it.
I just don't want to see that happen.
I dont agree with this at all.
Ranged EQ players had many things that they needed to be wary of. Generally speaking ranged classes were able to out damage the melee's, which meant they had to temper their ability to nuke-nuke-nuke with the knowledge that over-nuking would draw agro, cause the mob to charge, force the melees to chase it to recapture agro, etc. It took restraint and finesse to tread that line, providing the greatest benefit to the group without becoming a hazard. The ranged were often more heavily equipped with damage over time and area of effect attacks that would be catastrophic in engagements that required CC if not properly managed. Again, player knowledge and skill coupled with finesse were key. Also, generally speaking, ranged had more utility functions that were only situationally appropriate. Knowing what you should do on the fly besides just nuke, and more importantly when to do it took player knowledge and skill up a notch to really become effective.
While it's wholly wrong to suggest that melee's are nothing more than brutes and meat shields hacking mindlessly at a mob, it's equally false to suggest that ranged classes were just mindlessly lobbing crap at the encounters without danger to themselves.
I'm a fan of both. I have never liked the idea that in a lot of situations ranged is more safe. In some games I've played, the progression guilds I were in adopted the mentality to learn our raids as ranged dps to learn mechanics easier.
If some of the design turns out to be what I hope, I would prefer them to have different content and encounters that puts extra emphasis on one or the other since we could just switch to one of them.
The worse part of melee is when things don't feel fluid, especially in pvp. It's always fun when chasing your target who is right next to you smashing abilities and it just reseting your global cooldown because the person is "out of range".
Eliseus said:I'm a fan of both. I have never liked the idea that in a lot of situations ranged is more safe. In some games I've played, the progression guilds I were in adopted the mentality to learn our raids as ranged dps to learn mechanics easier.
If some of the design turns out to be what I hope, I would prefer them to have different content and encounters that puts extra emphasis on one or the other since we could just switch to one of them.
This is an excellent point. There's no reason at all that the mechanics of fights cant place the ranged at equal levels of danger. (Although I tend to disagree that they are at notably less danger as it is.) Mobs that throw molatov cocktails out away from melee range, spell casters that create rockfalls from cavern ceilings. or AOEs that increase in intensity as they spread. There are a million ways to keep the squishies on their toes.
Which is another factor to keep in mind. There's a reason that squishy, low-health, relatively unarmored people dont get within arms length of the baddies. When a casual swipe of the arm can be instant death, you stay clear. While a melee that screws up and gets attention from the wrong thing might withstand only half of the blows from even low-level flunkies in a dungeon, the wizard might not withstand one. One mistep is all it takes to end him. Not many melee's risk the same, if any.
Feyshtey said:Eliseus said:I'm a fan of both. I have never liked the idea that in a lot of situations ranged is more safe. In some games I've played, the progression guilds I were in adopted the mentality to learn our raids as ranged dps to learn mechanics easier.
If some of the design turns out to be what I hope, I would prefer them to have different content and encounters that puts extra emphasis on one or the other since we could just switch to one of them.
This is an excellent point. There's no reason at all that the mechanics of fights cant place the ranged at equal levels of danger. (Although I tend to disagree that they are at notably less danger as it is.) Mobs that throw molatov cocktails out away from melee range, spell casters that create rockfalls from cavern ceilings. or AOEs that increase in intensity as they spread. There are a million ways to keep the squishies on their toes.
Which is another factor to keep in mind. There's a reason that squishy, low-health, relatively unarmored people dont get within arms length of the baddies. When a casual swipe of the arm can be instant death, you stay clear. While a melee that screws up and gets attention from the wrong thing might withstand only half of the blows from even low-level flunkies in a dungeon, the wizard might not withstand one. One mistep is all it takes to end him. Not many melee's risk the same, if any.
I agree that Ranged aren't always safer. A better way to put it is there is less human error to continue dpsing. What I mean by that is let's say a boss drops a circle of lava under your feet. Being ranged typically allows you to run in any direction while continuely dpsing. As for melee, if you don't strafe to the left or the right while mainting your rotation, it would typically result in a loss of damage. So, the intention behind my comments wasn't entirely meant to be directed that ranged most of the time can just sit back and spam 1 over and over without ever having to worry. I just feel that it allows for less human error. So in a perfect world / playing with the best players possible, it could be completely irrelevant.
If ranged characters need to rely on positioning then I would be ok if damage output is generally the same, but if an arrow can magically go through player characters and mobs without some sort of tohit penalty, then there should be some sortof damage offset to make up for the fact that range is now just long range melee combat without the consequence of being within actually melee range.
__ [ IMO ] __
In the past (1999-2008) I chose a Rogue (melee dps) in EQ1 & EQ2. Arguably, it was more fun in EQ2 because we got evac, and poison was eventually a reasonable system in EQ2. I learned how to manage aggro, but as a 'meta game' or 'hidden mechanic' it's really not that innovative. But 'more fun' is a bit like saying yard privileges in prison is 'more fun' because you get to be outside. You're still in prison. ;)
I've also played ranged DPS, and honestly, there is no comparison in terms of role fulfillment, in my opinion. Ranged DPS, if you take the role of ' you are a glass cannon ' , is pure cannon in all games. If you have even the slightest situational awareness, the glass part is never ever part of the equation. Melee starts the fight, Ranged finishes the fight. Threat generation by the tank determines when ranged can "begin to end" the fight, at what percentage of health. If your tank is really good? You can start at 80-90%. Bad tank? You start at 50%. Ranged DPS typically gets things like snare, root, or self runes (damage wards) to save them in the case of pulling aggro (and moving the mob). Ranged DPS can completely focus on damage in their gear choices, because as has been mentioned, they either outrange AE or have the resist gear & spells & wards to resist it. Ranged DPS gets stuns, debuffs, strips, de-aggro's, ae's, DoT's, DD's+ancillary bonus effects, charm, mez, fear, evac & more.
Compare this with melee DPS, and they are expected to have gear that fills three roles. DPS, Offtank, and AE/resists. It's not one set of gear, it's three. Ranged DPS? You can happily get away with one set of gear in all group content and maybe two in raid content, in EQ1/2 today. Also, in a melee DPS role, you need weapons, and so many. It's not just one, it's at least three, if you can wield two hander, and multiply that if blunt, pierce, and slash is a thing. And god help you if you don't have those weapons, consumables, potions, everything on hand in bags-of-holding. Nothing but scorn & derision on the menu.
Ranged DPS? Nah. I'll just switch damage types trivially, mid-combat. Or I have all the damage types I need because content is designed with only two of the three or one of the three being resisted. Oh, and I have so much money, I can afford any/all consumables trivially, and I can farm so much money, money is meaningless. I don't really care about gear upgrades, I hit the cap on everything so fast I'm adding things like health, mana, stamina and resists, because I only have one stat I care about. I max that stat, then it's all fluff/gravy from that point on. And that's on group content, to say nothing of raid content. Melee gets to enjoy rampage, flurry, and enrage, all the while either soaking in AE while not getting heals or jousting like crazed idiots.
That's been my experience in more than a dozen MMO's since 1996.
Even just the concept of root & snare, plus being able to attack creatures at range gives such a massive advantage to any class that can do that, it's ridiculous that people play melee anymore. In most games now, by level 5 or 10, and certainly from that point onward, any "solo" creature that grants XP is dead before it hits the caster/ranger because either they start the fight with a snare/snare+dot, or their nukes take more than 30% of a creatures health, so they cast three times and it's dead, and the creature didn't even have a -chance- to harm the ranged player. Melee player? Oh, you get to take damage. Or you get one attack from behind that removes less than one ranged attack, then you get to melee badly until the creature is dead, the entire time dealing with dodge, parry, riposte, block, shield-block, miss.
Never mind the fact that AoE's & wards let casters trivially farm lower level areas for crafting mats & cash (mentioned above). Right now, in EQ1, I can go into any area, debuff all the mobs I want, get 50 or 100 of them chasing me on a mount, and kill them all in one cast of one spell. Wait for respawn or even better, instant respawn and repeat as desired. Completely ridiculous to attempt such a thing as a melee DPS. As a ranged DPS? Normal. And misses? No, there's no misses. If that creature is 1+ levels lower than you, every spell lands for full damage, or even better, it crits. Melee? Nope. Damage cap.
Visionary realms has a long battle ahead of them to convince me and mine to play any Melee class of any kind. So far, from what's been shown in Pantheon, warrior & cleric + 4 or 5 int casters is the best group you could ever have. Even better if you have an enchanter out of group doing the mez'ing. Then it's just /assist, nuke, farm.
__ [ /IMO ] __
geatz said:If ranged characters need to rely on positioning then I would be ok if damage output is generally the same, but if an arrow can magically go through player characters and mobs without some sort of tohit penalty, then there should be some sortof damage offset to make up for the fact that range is now just long range melee combat without the consequence of being within actually melee range.
So why have different classes?
If a ranged class is expected to do less damage because he's at range, then he should not get the penalty of being more easily killable. Which means he might as well be closer, which means he's not really ranged anymore and just a different form of melee with different graphic representation of his melee-range attacks.
If a ranged class has the possibility of his shots hitting friendlies, then the options are that his attack is negated, is less effective, or causes friendly dmg. This same logical argument could apply to melee's as well, could it not? If you're hacking at the mob over the warriors back, arent you just as likely to hit the warrior with your sword as I am with an arrow? Even if you're fanned out around the mob if there is one melee at each of the 4 sides there's absolutely the possibility for spillover onto your allies. Particularly in special attacks that are more dramatic, right?
When it's possible that the greatsword that the Crusader is weilding can smack the rogue in the face when he misses, I'll be onboard with an argument suggesting that ranged attackers should do reduced damage.
Great topic and lots of good insight from both sides.
In most games, I prefer to play tank/melee. As a playstyle to me this is just more fun. Being in the face of mobs and learning to execute your rotation well while dealing with everything around has always been fun for me. That doesn't mean I haven't and don't play ranged. I have many times. Ranged in most cases, I find harder to play because of the fact that they can't move as freely and have to preplan everything. The ranged that can move freely without interrupting their casting and things usually end up becoming what we call "mechanics B*tchs". They are the ones that end up doing the majority of the mechanic handling while still having to do their job of putting out good dps. So how do you actually balance that?
There's always ways to force melee movement and possible death just as there is for ranged. PBAoE's for melee, weaken aura's, cleaves, etc all force melee to be on their toes and pay attention. For ranged, directed aoe's, silences, reflects, and so many more options to force them to move or deal with other mechanics. All of that combined with actual threat can make fights interesting. This is Pantheon. This is not wow.
We do not want or need all classes to be equal but those classes need to bring a benefit. Maybe rangers don't do as much damage as a wizard but the rangers can kite, they can off tank slightly, they can shoot on the move, etc. Wizards may do high dmg but they are the "glass cannons" meaning if they don't pay attention they can rip threat and get 1 shot or fail to a mechanic and get 1 shot. High risk high reward. Hell maybe they just didn't notice a reflect shield go up and their own Ice Comet wrecks their face. Same thing works for melee. Maybe rogues do higher damage than a monk but the rogue requires positioning and threat control. Where as monk does steady sustained damaged, can take more hits, has self healing, etc. There should be trade offs and their should be consequences in every fight for both sides.
geatz said:If ranged characters need to rely on positioning then I would be ok if damage output is generally the same, but if an arrow can magically go through player characters and mobs without some sort of tohit penalty, then there should be some sortof damage offset to make up for the fact that range is now just long range melee combat without the consequence of being within actually melee range.
There is already a huge disadvantage when it comes to armor and hps. Ranged classes tend to have a lot less of both. More than makes up for equal DPS.
Beefcake said:geatz said:If ranged characters need to rely on positioning then I would be ok if damage output is generally the same, but if an arrow can magically go through player characters and mobs without some sort of tohit penalty, then there should be some sortof damage offset to make up for the fact that range is now just long range melee combat without the consequence of being within actually melee range.
There is already a huge disadvantage when it comes to armor and hps. Ranged classes tend to have a lot less of both. More than makes up for equal DPS.
How does a bow weilding ranger and a sword weilding melee ranger have different hitpoints or armor?
Feyshtey said:geatz said:If ranged characters need to rely on positioning then I would be ok if damage output is generally the same, but if an arrow can magically go through player characters and mobs without some sort of tohit penalty, then there should be some sortof damage offset to make up for the fact that range is now just long range melee combat without the consequence of being within actually melee range.
So why have different classes?
If a ranged class is expected to do less damage because he's at range, then he should not get the penalty of being more easily killable. Which means he might as well be closer, which means he's not really ranged anymore and just a different form of melee with different graphic representation of his melee-range attacks.
If a ranged class has the possibility of his shots hitting friendlies, then the options are that his attack is negated, is less effective, or causes friendly dmg. This same logical argument could apply to melee's as well, could it not? If you're hacking at the mob over the warriors back, arent you just as likely to hit the warrior with your sword as I am with an arrow? Even if you're fanned out around the mob if there is one melee at each of the 4 sides there's absolutely the possibility for spillover onto your allies. Particularly in special attacks that are more dramatic, right?
When it's possible that the greatsword that the Crusader is weilding can smack the rogue in the face when he misses, I'll be onboard with an argument suggesting that ranged attackers should do reduced damage.
So why have different classes?
Because the developers are creating a class based game
If a ranged class is expected to do less damage because he's at range, then he should not get the penalty of being more easily killable.
What penalty do you have that makes you more easily killed mobs have to travel to you that gives you a huge advantage, roots, stuns, slows all great for keeping the mob at a distance while you wack it whaere is the melee advatage?
If a ranged class has the possibility of his shots hitting friendlies, then the options are that his attack is negated, is less effective, or causes friendly dmg.
I didn't say or mean to imply anything about friendly fire, I said to make a tohit adjustment.
If you're hacking at the mob over the warriors back, arent you just as likely to hit the warrior with your sword as I am with an arrow.
If there is one infront of me, fine add a tohit adjustment. I'm not arguing.
Beefcake said:Hybrids are not the same. They already have their inherent drawbacks.
I believe we are discussing inherently ranged v. melee classes, such as wizards v. rogues.
That's what we are discussing?, if so then I am jumping ship. Why would we be discussing casters, they already have a disadvantage, it's called mana. I wouldn't argue they need a damage mitigator they already have one.