Do you think it is good that the ranger has to be a minimum distance from the enemy to use a bow?

ArchivedUser

Like others have mentioned, I would assume the ranger can employ melee weapons when enemies are too close. I don't see the point of a minimum distance. If the devs want to encourage rangers actually fighting at range, perhaps they could give a damage bonus when fighting at maximum range.

ArchivedUser

Arrows traveling further lowers the impact of the arrow... So that is actually counter intuitive...

I'd personally like to see something similar to DnD Pointblank shot feats. Or a limit based on bow types. A longbow should have a minor dead zone simply due to it being unwieldy. Shortbows however were designed for quicker short range shots with a penalty to range.

Not really a range limit so to speak but a penalty to capability due to the function of the bow in general. Like was said you could simply have rangers switch to melee in close quarters. A ranger with a short bow should still be able to moderately effectively engage even at rather close range.

Considering a short bow that is... Switching to melee does make more sense however.

ArchivedUser

I voted no. Unless there is parity with all other ranged classes. Having the ability to use your bow against a melee combatant is a must if you're locked in place and can't move because of a tanks 'get over here skill' or some other type of movement immobilization skill that prevents you from  trying to move/kite around your target. 

ArchivedUser

Karthos said:

Yes, because it makes you have to play smart, and not just stand and go PEW PEW PEW. Positioning, risk analysis and tactics will be something a good ranger will need to consider. 

I plan on playing either a ranger or a mage, and I'm in favor of minimum distance requirements. 

I've always hated arbitrary distance rules in games.  Especially close distance restrictions, as it is very immersion breaking.  I could shoot someone point blank with a bow in real life, and it would hit them just the same.  So to have it totally unusable makes no sense.  I'm okay with there being penalties for trying to operate a given weapon in a really close range, but to not be able to use it at all is just a real no go, as that's not how weapons work in the real world.

ArchivedUser

It has been mentioned previously that there will be a close ranged melee attack with a bow or secondary weapon.
It has been mentioned previously that there will be Ranger based root attacks (e.g. arrow to the foot/knee, traps/snares).
It has been mentioned previously that Rangers will have a dash move to get out of range of melee attackers.
It has been mentioned previously that any character can equip any weapon, therefore a Ranger could be trained in any melee weapon to switch to if necessary.
It has been mentioned previously that the game is built with the Holy Trinity in mind which would assist in keeping mobs from getting within the Rangers minimum distance, therefore solo players will need to adapt (such as taking a melee weapon specialty as well as bow, or learn to kite!) to be effective.

ArchivedUser

First off a Ranger is, in most fantasy settings, someone that is a scout/ explorer who is generally good at surviving in the wilds for extended periods of time.

Secondly I shoot bows pretty frequently, there isn't a minimum distance that would make sense because shooting something up close works just as well as shooting them from a distance. Unless they have a shield. In which case you're kind of screwed...

But I would say that it would make more sense to not have the standard MMO archer class that shoots approximately ten billion arrows a second. I would like to see something like an actual load time for nocking arrows and drawing. That way you would be much more inclined to actually kite and not just stand there but it could still be an option

ArchivedUser

kelijahf said:

First off a Ranger is, in most fantasy settings, someone that is a scout/ explorer who is generally good at surviving in the wilds for extended periods of time.

Secondly I shoot bows pretty frequently, there isn't a minimum distance that would make sense because shooting something up close works just as well as shooting them from a distance. Unless they have a shield. In which case you're kind of screwed...

But I would say that it would make more sense to not have the standard MMO archer class that shoots approximately ten billion arrows a second. I would like to see something like an actual load time for nocking arrows and drawing. That way you would be much more inclined to actually kite and not just stand there but it could still be an option

FANTASY VIDEO GAME.

IT'S A FANTASY VIDEO GAME, NOT REAL LIFE.

ArchivedUser

I think a better system would be to have a reduced damage on shots taken closer than a certain distance but not stop it working at all.. if i was to shot a bow at someone right next to me it would still work in real life... and i would probably get a surer better hit at close distance... but for a game we can reverse it so close up its a penalty. 
this would also work well if the ranger can switch to melee on the fly of course so that someone cant just run in and stay on top of them preventing them using a weapon.

ArchivedUser

I think "melee" range should be self-explanatory. If someone manages to get in close, it's time to drop the bow and whip out a sword.

ArchivedUser

I think it would be fine as well, there's no doubt to be escape skills of some kind or at least some way for the Ranger to do a little damage up close so they aren't completely handicapped. It forces players to play smarter so I like it, used to be that way with WoW hunters and it was fine for me then too.

ArchivedUser

I think initially yes.  Based on how we choose a main class then a secondary class I'm hoping that there will be some specialisation where later on perhaps a ranger or crossbow user could spec into firing at point blank with whatever disadvantages that might give them for choosing that.

ArchivedUser

It's interesting because Steven called the ability Point Blank Shot - but I think the description is actually the opposite.
Point Blank Shot is typically what PlagueMonk describes and could include multiple arrows at higher levels.
Coupled with a Dash, I would expect PBS to rush the Ranger forward and then release arrow(s) at point blank range.

What Steven described is rushing away from the target and then releasing the arrow(s) from outside of melee range.

I'm not sure they actually had names for all the abilities, though.
Plus I'm sure they will change.
Seems like they just finished brainstorming the abilities, otherwise Steven would have memorized them instead of using a cheat sheet.

ArchivedUser

As someone who has first hand experienced how op ranged classes like in BDO can be at all ranges i don't really have an opinion.
It depends on a lot of factors..
Enemy armor rating and dps vs's ranger dps when forced to swap to melee....
Being forced to have updated gear for melee+bow is an absolute hastle so I would almost immediately say that any ranged class should be allowed to cast/use anything at any range.
Its like saying a spell caster can't cast a fireball at close range to prefire a corner an NPC is coming around because its too close...
It makes no sense and would just be a crappy mechanic that most would find a hastle to work around and very clunky.
Myself included, I wouldn't even play the class if this was the case at launch without proper testing prior to

--
Until you actually get to play the game and experience every class in a pvp and pve environment then data cant be accurately gathered to construe a single shred of useful feedback for a developer to go off of.
--

ArchivedUser

Aguasatori said:

Like others have mentioned, I would assume the ranger can use employ melee weapons when enemies are too close. I don't see the point of a minimum distance. If the devs want to encourage rangers actually fighting at range, perhaps they could give a damage bonus when fighting at maximum range.

Yes, but they won't have access to their bow abilities while wielding a melee weapon.
Similar to how a Tank won't be able to Shield Bash without a shield.
We can expect Rangers to also have melee abilities, though.

ArchivedUser

Karthos said:

Gothix said:

Only if mage fireball will also have minimum distance.
And healers heal also.
And every other ranged weapon out there.

This makes no sense. Can you explain what the reason behind this would be?

The reason is so that the mage is not OP as hell,and ranger a poor guy that gets locked down in melee range and suck.

Classes need to be balanced.

If melee people have X gap closers, and mage and ranger have around the same number of GAP "makers", with mage being able to shoot from any distance and ranger not, then mage is OP compared to ranger.

And I highly doubt they will give to ranger a double amount of GAP makers than to a mage.

And if ranger will have minimum shooting distance then he should have double amount of GAP makers and CC compared to mage (and any other ranged classes).

ArchivedUser

It depends on what range you class as melee range. If you say 1 meter with a sword and board is the minimum and 3 meters with a spear will be the max reach that still gives you a chance to get in close to the enemy and fire a few arrows before you have to pick up a sword. I just don't want to see people who are being hit in the face still use a bow as that just looks silly  

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

It depends on what range you class as melee range. If you say 1 meter with a sword and board is the minimum and 3 meters with a spear will be the max reach that still gives you a chance to get in close to the enemy and fire a few arrows before you have to pick up a sword. I just don't want to see people who are being hit in the face still use a bow as that just looks silly  

But that can also be said for fireballs...

Warrior is stabbing you in the face, and cutting your hands off, and you are still chanting your spell like it's nothing?

Casting fireball when warrior is in your face is equally silly as using the bow when warrior is in your face. So if your argument is logic, then both mage and archer have minimum range, or both don't.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

nagash said:

It depends on what range you class as melee range. If you say 1 meter with a sword and board is the minimum and 3 meters with a spear will be the max reach that still gives you a chance to get in close to the enemy and fire a few arrows before you have to pick up a sword. I just don't want to see people who are being hit in the face still use a bow as that just looks silly  

But that can also be said for fireballs...

Warrior is stabbing you in the face, and cutting your hands off, and you are still chanting your spell like it's nothing?

Casting fireball when warrior is in your face is equally silly as using the bow when warrior is in your face. So if your argument is logic, then both mage and archer have minimum range, or both don't.

I agree that should be the case unless the spell is something like flesh burn were you must be up and close to the person 

ArchivedUser

So maybe mages and rangers should have a extra chance to be critically struck in melee range? That kinda represents the position their in. I guess they can have some abilites at range to compensate for that too.

ArchivedUser

I vote no, I see that as an arbitrary limitation.  The main disadvantage to using a bow at point blank range is that the target can easily swing a melee weapon against the bow user and a bow is usually not very good defense unless it is strong enough to maybe double as a staff.  In fact, the main weakness is the string itself, most bow users would be afraid of having the string cut in melee combat with the bow, so wise ones would shoulder the bow and draw a melee weapon when an enemy is closing with them (or run away).

ArchivedUser

I would also like to add to discussion then if this goes down this road, then melee characters should not have longer range then their weapon graphically extends.

So if warriors swing + sword length is 1,5m then he should not be able to hit characters 2 meters away.

So if we give minimum shooting distance to ranged classes, then melee classes should have realistic maximum hit range.

This means sword warriors and tanks do not get to have 5m radius AoEs. The most they get is 1,5m radius AoEs. Yeah?

(X meters distance is only approximate value, it should be realistic and tied to weapon graphically)

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

I would also like to add to discussion then if this goes down this road, then melee characters should not have longer range then their weapon graphically extends.

So if warriors swing + sword length is 1,5m then he should not be able to hit characters 2 meters away.

So if we give minimum shooting distance to ranged classes, then melee classes should have realistic maximum hit range.

That's why they should have things like pikes or spears or even better being able to switch weapons once per fight 

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

Karthos said:

Gothix said:

Only if mage fireball will also have minimum distance.
And healers heal also.
And every other ranged weapon out there.

This makes no sense. Can you explain what the reason behind this would be?

The reason is so that the mage is not OP as hell,and ranger a poor guy that gets locked down in melee range and suck.

Classes need to be balanced.

If melee people have X gap closers, and mage and ranger have around the same number of GAP "makers", with mage being able to shoot from any distance and ranger not, then mage is OP compared to ranger.

And I highly doubt they will give to ranger a double amount of GAP makers than to a mage.

And if ranger will have minimum shooting distance then he should have double amount of GAP makers and CC compared to mage (and any other ranged classes).

Cast times would balance this out. Pretty much what ever game does. 

ArchivedUser

And one more thing to consider.

"Fun factor" should also be considered, as well as realism factor. If something is realistic but detrimental to "game play fun" than I'd rather go with the fun option personally.

But I realize not everyone will think like me here.

ArchivedUser

They can do it like Sasha did.




[offtopic]for the whole scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55qlKffgad8

ArchivedUser

I don't like this idea as it's highly unlikely there will be parity with the other ranged classes. Mage, Cleric, and Summoners will be able to cast spells right on top of their targets while ranger won't. PvE it won't matter too much but PvP wise it's a significant disadvantage that other ranged characters don't have to deal with. 

ArchivedUser

Quinlan1998 said:

@Karthos I see what you mean, but if they lack the abilities to create distance between them and an enemy it could really ruin the fun in an arena type setting where enmies can just hug you 24/7

I agree with the others who've already mentioned the desire to have melee weapons for when things get too close for bow.  This was one of the things I enjoyed about my Ranger in GW2.  The ability to swap between weapons as a lot of fun for me.  I liked being a mobile Ranger, varying a fight between up close and from a distance.

ArchivedUser

Bannith said:

Arrows traveling further lowers the impact of the arrow... So that is actually counter intuitive...

Let's not bring realism into this discussion. If we were talking about realism, I wouldn't think a ranger would suddenly have a brain aneurysm and be unable to use his bow when enemies are too close. It's obvious that a bowman would find it difficult to use a bow with an enemy swinging a sword in his face, but we're talking about game mechanics here.

I don't think being unable to use my bow in melee range is fun. I'd really have to play it for myself to be certain, though. Perhaps being forced to switch to melee weapons can make the ranger playstyle dynamic and fresh.

ArchivedUser

Kratz said:

I didn't think it would be popular when mentioned but then they revealed the escape, they could even introduce a melee snare/slow for the ranger, so I don't think It'll be a problem based on what we know.  

Agree.

Gothix said:

Only if mage fireball will also have minimum distance.
And healers heal also.
And every other ranged weapon out there.

Have you ever used a REAL bow?  As a nurse I can heal by touch.  As an archer I need to be a certain distance  before I can let go of the bow.   Unless I bash you with it then I might break it.

ArchivedUser

Yes. Thats all I have to say.