Changes to the combat system

[Saryad]

Originally Posted by Mellion

most Archer spells would be useless too. Range of bows are much too short. 20m for a short bow is a joke!!!

Get a longbow

[Arafails]

Yes but 20m for a guaranteed hit while moving backwards and sideways is hardly realistic either....

[UmarilsStillHere]

Originally Posted by Arafails

Yes but 20m for a guaranteed hit while moving backwards and sideways is hardly realistic either....

And 20m is a lot more that warriors get

[_Enio_]

Originally Posted by Umaril

And 20m is a lot more that warriors get

1.2k+ normals is also alot more then any archer gets..

Thats the deal with rangeds vs melees.
Dmg both doin shud be same takin into account time the melee neeeds to get close. Then both get tools to overcome the other sides tools to mitigate/do dmg. In RO we get another thing taken into account. Area dmg&tools weight in givin the area class a penalty vs 1 to balance out the vantage they got vs group impact. etc..

Problem:
RO seems to have too many factors though to get a balance evryone is happy with..
Also we got uncounterable combinations wich work solo and not very situational. Skill is for a big part know timing for one of these combinations. not so much in the fight itself.

Spells that diminish fun in-fight by takin away counter-options (to some extend):
SoW,LP, superior speed passively, Unstoppable Madness, [SM+Steelskin+Mindblank], Ao1

[UmarilsStillHere]

The problem is archers and mages can fight as well at range 30 (more 25 for locks) as they can at range 6 (just out of warrior spear range) or even range 0. Warriors however can only function at this very very limited range, which is to be expected, after all I didnt expect massive range when picking a warrior class, but but another thing I didnt expect is archers and mages outfighting me at point blank range. Dancing around, using some CC then running back to range 30 etc...

UM dosnt diminish anything in group fights, in one on one it means you will get close to a ranged opponant without taking a load of cc spells first, without it you may never get near your opponant at all, however vs another barb both using UM is pretty boring and kind of kills the fight. And in a group, well it gives you a tiny chance to get anywere near enemy lines without them being held down by sultars, and even then pure damage will likely stop you before you are in range.

[Mellion]

I bought sockets for my short bows. Sorry, I want my xims back. SB are my main weapons as Hunter and MArks.

[_Enio_]

Originally Posted by Umaril

The problem is archers and mages can fight as well at range 30 (more 25 for locks) as they can at range 6 (just out of warrior spear range) or even range 0. Warriors however can only function at this very very limited range, which is to be expected, after all I didnt expect massive range when picking a warrior class, but but another thing I didnt expect is archers and mages outfighting me at point blank range. Dancing around, using some CC then running back to range 30 etc...

UM dosnt diminish anything in group fights, in one on one it means you will get close to a ranged opponant without taking a load of cc spells first, without it you may never get near your opponant at all, however vs another barb both using UM is pretty boring and kind of kills the fight. And in a group, well it gives you a tiny chance to get anywere near enemy lines without them being held down by sultars, and even then pure damage will likely stop you before you are in range.

Wanna tell me a good balance would be when melee can come close to rangeds without them having tools to get away?
There must be a balance between this all. something you can do to not get CCd to death but also sth the range can do to not get screwd by insane closedmg. All actions should be counterable with skill. then we had a real fight where decisions which require skill( knowing timings,classes spells,movement etc) give the outcome. atm its very onesided in some situations (no choices for either ranged or melee to react).


Try to look on it from an outside perspective, your writing sounds pretty much melee biased. Im not writing Pro-ranged only because i play Marks, im trying to figure out a balancing-way without getting new 100%-combinations.

[UmarilsStillHere]

You may have noticed I have a marks, I have not played him one on one much, and vs warriors only realy Vs Fayablasta, who is hardly a good knight, but still regardless of him being prebuffed and being 7 or so level above me I won with ease, and have done vs him several times, we will see how these changes effect things, but right now speaking as a Barb, and in a limited way, a Knight and Marks I do feal that the ranged class's have far to much of an advantage, you should not be able to keep warriors out of range so easily, most of the time simply by moving.

[_Enio_]

Originally Posted by Umaril

you should not be able to keep warriors out of range so easily, most of the time simply by moving.

Well then i dont know why your so happy about the update since it wont change anything on that issue.

[e30G]

Well the new update potentially means:

• Positioning bugs fixed which would potentially increase warrior hit rates on their targets.
• Ranged units having to stop more/longer for hits to come out allowing melee warriors to catch up. Add to this the lower damage of single hits, if you can't time your shots and movements perfectly, a warrior will have a higher chance of getting to you with substantially more hp than he would have in the past.
• A global cooldown of spells that will limit the rate at which spells can be cast (will hurt mages the most IMO).

All of these are interesting changes.

Although I play ranged classes, I am neither against this change nor for it. As much as I hate to think of it, I believe that NGD wants range classes to be almost good as dead if a warrior gets to them. Since this is an RvR game, NGD might be aiming that ranged classes (archers and mages) will have to rely on allies to control an attacking warrior and allow a ranged ally to escape.