Linkamus said: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?
I don't think it was necessarily them being 'worthless', but more the strategy they were forced into made them this way. That is to say the issue was the content they were up against, not so much that they didnt have a place in ranged combat. I strongly believe issues like that are a thing of the past and most designers avoid alienating classes from certain fights, and make sure everyone is included in their own way.
What about a way to split into two separate archetypes at a certain level? One route goes to arcane archer type with debuffs and bow being the main method of dps, and the other archetype is melee based with damage shields and limited crowd control. I just made that up as I typed but you get the idea.
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.
Yep. Got it in the first sentence.
Nothing worse than being able to do nothing in a combat, BUT there's nothing wrong with an encounter that requires an emphasis on ranged tactics. So what if the warriors take a back seat for once?
disposalist said: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.
Yep. Got it in the first sentence.
Nothing worse than being able to do nothing in a combat, BUT there's nothing wrong with an encounter that requires an emphasis on ranged tactics. So what if the warriors take a back seat for once?
Causing a class or classes to "take a back seat" in the ONE thing they excel at needs to be done very conservatively. This doesn't just go for warriors, but talking EQ, melee classes in general aren't able to get things done like the hybrids, priests and casters. Where they ARE able to get things done is when the chips are down in a dungeon or raid. Take away the warriors need to tank or the monks need to pull or the SK's need to taunt and what do those classes have left? Your mage or druid is already tremendously more powerful in most situations.
disposalist said:Yes, conservatively, that's why I said "for once" and spoke about "an encounter" not "once and for all" and "all encounters".
Lol you may have drunk too much caffeine today.
You asked so what and I answered your question.
"in eq" an unhasted pre planer level 50 monk could only with GREAT risk, kill a sand giant. Whereas a level 34 druid or necro could easily dispatch a sand giant. That is POWER. Where classes like Monks/rogues/warriors/sks excelled was what I call "effectiveness". They were effective at getting things done, but they were not powerful.
Taking away the effectiveness from a melee class is more severe than taking away from the effectiveness of a caster. If a caster doesn't excel in certain encounter, they enjoy it less and that sucks and it should also be done conservatively, but they can turn around and go pillage other things. That's my point. Perhaps we agree. I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just riffing on your post.
disposalist said:Yes, conservatively, that's why I said "for once" and spoke about "an encounter" not "once and for all" and "all encounters".
Lol you may have drunk too much caffeine today.
Forgive me for being nitpicky here but in common English parlance the phrase "for once" means that something rarely/never happens and should happen much more frequently.
"Go do some work for once in your life you lazy bum."
"Why don't we let the guy who makes 100 grand pay for his own meal for once?"
"Jennifer, why don't you wash your own clothes for once?"
I digress.
I agree with what I feel is the undelying thought of the OP that there should certain aspects of the game that not every class can preform at (much like EQ) and that ranged attacks should be one such area. I also however am weary to add any situations where any class loses the ability to do the one and only thing the class can do. Warriors in EQ didn't do loads of DPS, they set the DPS bar because of how aggro in EQ worked and they could deal a respectable amount, but a half decent monk or rogue could easily out DPS a warrior if they were so inclined. Warriors could take hits and that was more or less it. So adding a fight to EQ that makes it so that the warrior doesn't get to take hits or isn't needed to take hits would be pretty bad design. Taking a warriors ability to tank away from him isn't like making it so that casters can't deal damage to a mob either, no casters can do all sorts of things, like buffing and healing; hell even wizards got some decent CC spells. Such a penality tuned for casters would be like turning all the magic off for everone: all buffs cleared, no CC, no magic damage, no heals. No reason whatsoever for a caster to even come to the fight, all he gets to do is auto-attack.
Disclaimer: I'm cautiously taking a contrary position here in order to continue the discussion...
I simpy think it would be good to have some interesting variety even if it means that, yes, occasionally a tank can't tank very well or a wizard gets resisted a fair amount or a thief can't sneak up or an enchanter can't control minds.
Sure if every encounter was freaky it would make the class system a shambles, but to *never* allow a fight to require conventional tactics to be reconsidered might be a tad boring?
It never annoyed me particularly to find in the odd fight "omg this guy has amazing magic resistance, I'm pretty much going to have to get my staff out" As long as it's just the odd fight it actually adds a challenge to the group dynamic. As long as it's not a whole zone of magic resistent freaks and a mage may as well not turn up...
And back to the OP and ranged weapons, if everyone is given an interesting alternative to their 'conventional' form of attack then that's all cool no?
Anistosoles said: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?
I'm hoping the recently announced Rogue iconic ability allows for thrown alchemy vials (that go boom) and do just this.
Umbra said:Anistosoles said: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?I'm hoping the recently announced Rogue iconic ability allows for thrown alchemy vials (that go boom) and do just this.
Oo where is that annoucement? I'm not finding my way around here too well yet...
I think Rangers of course should use bows for damage.. Monk's shurikens. Rogues can land an assassin shot with a bow maybe if in sneak/hide? Warriors throw axes maybe. I don't know. I agree range dps should be implemented more in Pantheon
disposalist said:Umbra said:Anistosoles said: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?I'm hoping the recently announced Rogue iconic ability allows for thrown alchemy vials (that go boom) and do just this.
Oo where is that annoucement? I'm not finding my way around here too well yet...
In our April newsletter just fresh off the press: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3130/april-monthly-newsletter-the-rogue-and-more :)
disposalist said:Oo where is that annoucement? I'm not finding my way around here too well yet...
It's under 'News', but a link within that post takes you to an updated Rogue summary page where Improvised Alchemy is briefly discussed.
...and beaten to it by Kilsin :)
halflingwarrior said:I think Rangers of course should use bows for damage.. Monk's shurikens. Rogues can land an assassin shot with a bow maybe if in sneak/hide? Warriors throw axes maybe. I don't know. I agree range dps should be implemented more in Pantheon
Rogues = Throwing Daggers! ;)
Kilsin said:halflingwarrior said:I think Rangers of course should use bows for damage.. Monk's shurikens. Rogues can land an assassin shot with a bow maybe if in sneak/hide? Warriors throw axes maybe. I don't know. I agree range dps should be implemented more in Pantheon
Rogues = Throwing Daggers! ;)
You are right Kilsin, that really does make more sense. When I think of the rogue I think of a character trying avoid carrying clunky stuff like a big bow. Throwing knives it is!
Personally I think that melee should have the ability to use a range type of weapon, but its the intent behind it that I think matters, If tanks wanna use a bow to pull a mob, ok sure. Melee DPS wanna tag a mob with throwing dagger? im ok with that. But I feel that the only melee based class that should be using range weapons to deal significant damage should be ranger. Just my 2cents
Innate said:Personally I think that melee should have the ability to use a range type of weapon, but its the intent behind it that I think matters, If tanks wanna use a bow to pull a mob, ok sure. Melee DPS wanna tag a mob with throwing dagger? im ok with that. But I feel that the only melee based class that should be using range weapons to deal significant damage should be ranger. Just my 2cents
As long as we don't have token horrible encounters like EQ had that require you to be at range, basically making your class dead weight on a given fight...
Honestly though, I don't really see an issue with Rogues being able to be competitive DPS with throwing weapons. As long as things are itemized and balanced correctly I could honestly see this being a huge win for Pantheon. Being married to a specific weapon type doesn't really make sense to me outside of simplifying gameplay for practical reasons, but if Rangers are already balanced in such a way that their melee/ranged are competitive with eachother, I see no valid reason why it couldn't be expanded to other classes.
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.
second paragraph opens some interesting ideas.
your group comes across a party of orcs - berserker with greataxe, scout with knives and bow, grunt with a club. just root the scout, he fires arrows. root the grunt, he might throw his club (because he isnt smart) and resorts to punches, for less damage. any CC to the berserker (who will never throw his prized axe away) sends him into a rage after it breaks resulting in an increase in his damage. in this basic idea, it opens some tactics. do you deal with the grunt first, risk the berserker slaughtering the tank in his rage? do you deal with the scout, who may also try and snare/root members of your party, essentially trying to kite the tank - and if you dont get him fast enough the other two break out of CC. do you kill berserker first, and hope the scout doesnt start shooting you. do you snare the grunt - who might throw his club causing a stun to a party member (oh no! the healer!). of course having enough straight up sleeps or whatever in your group changes this as well, i guess, which is why i think mesmerising should be a far riskier, less reliable form of CC (though more effective if it lands) than a root or snare, others may disagree.
Agree with Vixx, it's more of a content design issue than anything else. Mandatory melee/ranged fights are dumb, dumb, dumb.
On the surface that makes perfect sense. However, I personally liked the variation. Different encounters had different requirements. Problems really only arose when a guild could not field enough of the required class to defeat the encounter.
From that perspective, perhaps it would make the most sense to give other classes some capabilities in that regard. Hypothetically, maybe if an encounter requires 10-rangers for some part of it, rogues could have archery available to them as well, but only to the extent that those 10-rangers could be replaced with 15-rogues. Rangers remain the kings of archery DPS, but other options are possible, and encounters can still be diverse.
Ranged fights are important, you see anyone rushing someone with a ball and chain? How dumb is dumb on that one?
What about a fire blaze protrouding from the boss mob. It takes 1000 dps / sec tick damage to you being engulfed in flames.
How dumb is ranged fights then?
I dont agree at all with that statement.
Now if you had the ability to forcefully drop the ball and chain from the boss mob and turn it into a melee fight up and personal, then i am ok with that statement. I still would want ranged fighters involved.
It is really what is possible, if the devs start thinking out side of the box, and start doing things different then i am ok with that. But since we had issues (and still do) with collision checks, and pushing mobs through dungeons and under the earth we will never get this far in MMO's, like forcing an axe to fall out of the hands of the boss mob.
We had so many problems with programming then, and we still do today. Much of the issues stemed from the engine, and what you could or couldnt do.
I also agree ranged fights could go the other way, the boss mob running to pickup an axe to swing.
Would that statement still stand it being dumb to range fight?
I think you're missing the point a little bit.
Fights that require you to joust AOEs are a good thing, that's a skill/attention check.
Fights that require classes to sit out of raid because they can't participate in a fight due to the mechanics are a bad thing.
Here's what happens:
All of these problems are preventable by just simply... not designing your encounters that way. There is no limitation or anything with the game engine that would require encounters to be set up this way, it is simply either laziness or incompetence on the part of the content design team. There are an infinite number of avenues you can take when designing content, and rendering an entire archetype unable to engage in that content is inexcusable.
As long as things like progression-required no-drop loot isn't limited to raids in which certain classes are more or less dead weight, it will be interesting to have different approaches to different encounters.
I'll just reiterate that I like the variation provided by some raid targets requiring primarily ranged tactics and others not and leave it at that.
GeekVerve said:As long as things like progression-required no-drop loot isn't limited to raids in which certain classes are more or less dead weight, it will be interesting to have different approaches to different encounters.
I'll just reiterate that I like the variation provided by some raid targets requiring primarily ranged tactics and others not and leave it at that.
Well, what point is there in killing a raid target if it isn't progression relevant or doesn't drop desirable loot?
There are literally a million different ways to provide variation in a raid encounter. Arbitrarily deciding that one encounter should require melee to sit out just seems really lazy when there are so many other ways to make encounters interesting.
Liav said:GeekVerve said:As long as things like progression-required no-drop loot isn't limited to raids in which certain classes are more or less dead weight, it will be interesting to have different approaches to different encounters.
I'll just reiterate that I like the variation provided by some raid targets requiring primarily ranged tactics and others not and leave it at that.
Well, what point is there in killing a raid target if it isn't progression relevant or doesn't drop desirable loot?
It doesn't have to be the only encounter that provides that particular loot.
Liav said:There are literally a million different ways to provide variation in a raid encounter. Arbitrarily deciding that one encounter should require melee to sit out just seems really lazy when there are so many other ways to make encounters interesting.
It's also a way to make them all similar in some regard. All I'm saying is that if a particular encounter isn't the only way to accomplish some step in progression, then specific tactic-centric raid mobs add variety.
Also, I know there were a few raid mobs that pretty much required a certain specific type of attack in EQ, but were there really any raids that didn't bring along any melee? I didn't do a *lot* of raiding in EQ, but I was in on several, and I don't recall that ever being the case. Heck, even getting *to* the target required pretty much all of the class/damage types.