When it comes to ranged weaponry (bows and throwing weapons), in EQ the only use they had was for tagging/pulling aside from post-luclin rangers with AM3 and endless quiver.
I think other melee classes should have at least some ranged dps capability. I'm talking about warrios/rogues/monks. I remember while raiding in EQ, monks and rogues becoming completely worthless in "ranged only fights" where bosses had really intense AoEs, or AE ramps etc. Don't get me wrong, I think having some classes flourish in certain situations over other classes is key to creating class balance and versitility, but I don't think any class should ever be worthless in any fight.
So in situations where melee is not an option, monks should be able to turn on some sort of throwing discapline and do some decent damage. Maybe give rogues/warriors something similar with bows.
Do you guys agree?
Agree with Vixx, it's more of a content design issue than anything else. Mandatory melee/ranged fights are dumb, dumb, dumb.
Even so, yeah, I kind of woudn't mind seeing ranged be a little more useful than just a low damage pulling tool. I like the idea of the "pure melee" DPS class, but it stands to reason that we should at least be able to do something. No reason a Monk can't throw a shuriken at a mob for respectable damage, or a Rogue throwing a knife.
One thing I will say though is in terms of practicality, the inherent differences between ranged and melee:
I really liked the poison darts (CC, DOT, and other effects) that Rogues had in Vanguard. I can't remember much about Monk ranged abilities. Ranger had solid ranged in Vanguard all around but their melee was still their strongpoint, which is how I think it should be, ideally.
Giving melee classes some form or ranged attack would be fair. Maybe some tie in with the Relics allowing increased range on auto-attack/skills? Casters can still use spells in melee so why not. I think a better gameplay idea is short term avoidance for melee (Eq2 Dirge: Bladedance/Warden: Turtleshell) promotes class interdependance.
Linkamus said: I sort of disagree on one of your points though. I think having a class who's primary damage comes from archery is a good thing. If a player wants to role play as an archer type, there should be a class option for that in my opinion.
I agree as long as encounter design facilitates it.
EQ2 Rangers were broken for ages because of the minimum range on bows requiring you to find a "sweet spot" to stand in so that you could use both melee and ranged abilities to maximized DPS. It was a **** show. Using a bow at extremely point blank range also kind of defeats the purpose of being a ranged class, and every MMO I've ever played has had encounters that required all of the casters and everyone else to stack up really tight. It just feels weird.
If they can design the game to compensate for it then yeah, I would have no problem with Rangers, for instance, being heavily biased towards archery instead of melee. I think it would be pretty awesome.
I think ranged attacks should be available for everyone in some form or another, while obviously only certain classes should excel at them. Not to derail, but I think they should even consider a ranged auto attack system. In EQ, powerful auto attacks ended up making melee more viable in longer duration fights than casters. Would casters have had an auto-ranged attack like wands, it could have brought them more in line, without changing their fundamental role. While this isn't a request to make everyone perfectly balanced, I do feel there were certain issues that should not be replicated.
On a side note, I also think mobs should rely on ranged attacks more often when appropriate. I think it would be bad in this day and age to see mobs just helplessly standing around while rooted or mindlessly chasing you while snared without resorting to some sort of ranged attack. Obviously not every mob should be carrying a bow, but I think we can advance this area of combat to some degree and put greater importance on mesmerize and long stuns. I can tell you right now, if I were rooted before an aggressor, I'd be throwing rocks and sand in their face, not standing there waiting to be slaughtered.
Dullahan said:I think ranged attacks should be available for everyone in some form or another, while obviously only certain classes should excel at them. Not to derail, but I think they should even consider a ranged auto attack system. In EQ, powerful auto attacks ended up making melee more viable in longer duration fights than casters. Would casters have had an auto-ranged attack like wands, it could have brought them more in line, without changing their fundamental role. While this isn't a request to make everyone perfectly balanced, I do feel there were certain issues that should not be replicated.
On a side note, I also think mobs should rely on ranged attacks more often when appropriate. I think it would be bad in this day and age to see mobs just helplessly standing around while rooted or mindlessly chasing you while snared without resorting to some sort of ranged attack. Obviously not every mob should be carrying a bow, but I think we can advance this area of combat to some degree and put greater importance on mesmerize and long stuns. I can tell you right now, if I were rooted before an aggressor, I'd be throwing rocks and sand in their face, not standing there waiting to be slaughtered.
So true. Having more variety from mobs is important. As you say mobs should have more ranged attack options even if they are something that they are not very good at. No one is going to stand around while you attack them without attacking back. So yeah having mobs have at least some basic form of ranged attack would be a good addition to the game.
I played a necro and the number of times I could just kite a mob around while never taking any damage was crazy. I could solo red mobs way about my level. The rule with a necro was if you can snare it and it doesn't summon you can solo it. I'd like to see a bit more challenge than that this time around.
I like this conversation and am all for this as well. It always kind of irked me that a warrior or dark knight couldn't have some form of archery skill. It didn't need to be a primary way of doing damage, but not completely ruled out of their abilities.
The solution to ranged weapons is to make bows do a lot of damage but continue using limited ammo. I'm totally against "unlimited quiver" scenarios where you stand back and fire infinate arrows.
I'd rather bows be used in scenarios where you need to deal massive piercing damage, similar to how a Rogue uses Backstab. There should be different flavors of arrows that have different properties and effects like poison, slow, etc.
bigdogchris said:The solution to ranged weapons is to make bows do a lot of damage but continue using limited ammo. I'm totally against "unlimited quiver" scenarios where you stand back and fire infinate arrows.
I'd rather bows be used in scenarios where you need to deal massive piercing damage, similar to how a Rogue uses Backstab. There should be different flavors of arrows that have different properties and effects like poison, slow, etc.
I love the idea of arrows that do status debuffs. I also like the idea of high arrow damage but much more limited quiver capacity, like twenty to a quiver, to make those arrows count. Possibly not arrows that do status effects but skill shots on a body, like an arrow to the knee but much less cliche.
Krixus said:Encounters that can't be meleed is more of a mistake than giving monks and rogues a viable ranged attack is a solution.
Just my opinion but I believe that encounters that cannot be meleed or "ranged only" is actually a strategy that raid leaders use to overcome difficult mechanics in some encounters. I can't believe the intention of the dev is for the raid to take this route.
When I say it is a strategy it is because when your fighting something and its throwing stuff at your raid where they are dying you back it up. Next pull the tank goes in and and you try to keep him up while everyone stays ranged and you just try to figure it out. Sometimes you can take the mob down at range. This becomes the strat on that mob until you get your resists or coordination of avoiding multiple and or overlapping AE's (or whatever) up to par.
I do agree that beyond having a minor ranged attack for pulling I do not think every class should have viable ranged attacks. Mixing class roles or allowing everyone to do everything is what kills the requirement of the roles/classes in your group. In the end if we don't need each other to some degree we will not play together. The proof is in any current MMO. No one plays together and I am sure there are a hundred reason but I will say most of all it is because they do not need to.
What Jamie said.
There's generally many ways to slice up a raid encounter, but you probably only did it one way or two at most and the problem might not actually be that you're worthless for a particular event but rather it's how your raid leader is having the event done. In this case, you need to take it up with your raid leader.
Ensuring everyone has a resemblance of proficiency with a ranged skill borders dangerously on infringing the heart and soul of interdependability and the primary reason why we invite classes to a group or raid other than those like us.
Taking this topic a step farther (or maybe it's a totally different idea), what if a rogue class can specialize in ranged and it is magical in nature? Firing bolts of energy, so to speak? Helps alleviate the "melee dps don't require ammo" and gives rogues the opportunity to either melee dps or ranged. Just a goofy idea that popped into my head...
I think it should be seperate but it should depend on the class and if it makes sense for them to use a ranged attack. After that then it comes down to how often or how much damage these ranges attacks should do. For instance Monks having a limited Chi blast sort of ability.
Slightly off topic:
I am not a one weapon per class kinda guy. I think certain classes like warrior should be able to wield anything they put in their hands. But other classes should have options too. But there would be trade-offs and different skill caps of course. So maybe a rogue can use swords or dual-wield daggers or crossbow. Swords = less damage/more parry, Daggers = more damage/less parry, Crossbow = less damage/no parry/more utility (just an example, put away pitchforks). This could work for mages too. Staff = more damage/less utitlity (debuffs dont stick as hard or long), Wands = less damage/more utility.... etc
Maybe its influence from other games and novels, but I have to say while I defintely do want to play Bard, I always saw them as a ranged class. Not just with instruments, but with Bows as well. I know it was in EQ and other games but swords and daggers seem out of place to me. For this reason I hope when Bard does make it to the game it either only uses Instruments (includes sound damage) or at least has the option to use Bows/Crossbows. Its not a make or break think but I really dont want my bard to use melee weapons.
@Vade
That is the best avatar ever!!!
Archery should be treated no different than direct damage spells. There must be a 'cast' time after which the arrow is released and damage is done. But if you want range damaged to be a powerful tool, you must give up nearly all your melee capabilities. You cannot have both. Casters do not get both. So which do you want more? Powerful archery but crap melee? Archery just as a pulling tool with powerful melee? Or middle ground on both which is your worst option.
EQ1 Rangers post AAs had very powerful archery abilities, and very good melee ability, and yet no one was really crying for ranger nerfs, if I recall. Personally I loved having the versatility, but because of the class versitility in the game, I never really felt "overpowered". However, if the devs think a ranger should primarily do archery damage, and very little melee damage, I won't cry too much, so long as there is a class available that uses archery as its primary function I'm happy.
Linkamus said:However, if the devs think a ranger should primarily do archery damage, and very little melee damage, I won't cry too much, so long as there is a class available that uses archery as its primary function I'm happy.
I would be very disappointed if this were the case (as would many in the general ranger community, I suspect). Just recall how in EQ the initial intent was to make the ranger 2.0 a bow instead of a sword. The outcry was great enough that they changed the reward in the eleventh hour and we wound up with an epic quest where you gathered all the components for a bow and combined them to create a sword (the Aurora was pretty sweet though).
Aside from the fact that 'ranger' is not a synonym for 'archer' there are practical reasons why an over-emphasis on archery dps would be bad for the class. Traditionally rangers have seen benefits while in outdoor zones. In the old days in EQ many of our spells only worked in outdoor zones. This alone crippled us to some degree in dungeons. It's not hard to believe that we'll be seeing some bonuses in the wild in Pantheon as well. Now when you tack on archery to this, it typically doesn't work well in close-quarters. I couldn't tell you the number of times I inadvertently pulled a group of adds to my group during the LDoN expansion just because I was trying to get sufficient range to shoot targets in tight dungeon corridors. Adding one more thing to hamstring the class in dungeon environments wouldn't be a good thing.