Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
The two fastest speed shooters in the world shoot 1 arrow at about 1.3s (not counting Lars who uses a very low draw weight and holds all his arrows to achieve just under 2 arrows a second) note they don't have to deal with someone attacking them while they do this. The huns which are often considered the best archers in history shot about 1 arrow every 1.5s or so. so the best archers in the world (even better then Legolas can shoot 1 arrow every 1.3-1.5 seconds.
The average time it takes a trained shooter to draw and fire a handgun is 1.7 seconds. Now the 21 feet rule states some one with a blade can close the 21 foot gap and kill someone faster then the average person could draw and fire a gun. which means someone within 21 feet of the fastest archers in the world would be able to stab them before they can nock and pull back a string. The time obviously gets lower the closer they get. There is also the point that unlike a bullet in the chamber an arrow can be grabbed and un-nocked from a bow. So someone close enough could just slap the arrow out of the bow (really annoying)
And I'll reiterate. Doing LARP and trying to shoot a bow while someone is beating you in the head/arm with a foam weapon is hard. you're trying to dodge attacks while nocking a arrow and every time you pull back the string some dude slaps your arrow out of your bow. This I can only imaging only gets 10x worse when the weapon is wooden or sharp metal and actually hurts when you get hit.
Now this is a game and only needs as much realism as the devs want. But it also has to be balanced and a melee character has a limit on how far away he can attack, Casters often have long cast times that can be interrupted. But archers usually have instant cast attacks and if they have no minimum distance there is no way to shut them down like other classes/roles.
B: Are we really going into the dynamics and statistics and times of actual shooting? I mean, you have summoners that can bring life? If you were going to actually replicate real-life; classes would be non-existent. Casters do indeed typically have long cast times. Casters usually also have instant spells too. They are normally weaker than the timed shots. The same go with rangers. Rapid fire shots would not do near the damage a long range shot would.
I mean, if we are going to go all out real on this real scenario, I am not just going to stand there while you run up on me either. I would side step, and back peddle while I am loading my arrow in "1.5 seconds" to get a quick shot off into your chest while you're charging me with a blade. Or...I would just take it from you. Oooooor I wouldn't even bother with the bow. I would just shove the arrow in your throat. However, with a minimum distance of shooting, this would be quite impossible. It doesn't bother me much, because I don't typically play a ranger anyway. I still think it's ridiculous to think that one cannot get a shot off when someone is right on top of you.
Source? 30 years of archery.
And this guy
Ranger/rogue
Ranger/fighter
Ranger/tank..
I mean if we are going to use a modern day ranged master to argue for Ranger would we not have to compare them to a modern day melee master?
If melee classes have to use a separate weapon for ranged attacks, why wouldn't a ranged class have to use a separate weapon for melee attacks?
Why not have two weapons? I don't understand why not being able to shoot someone in melee is a huge deal. Many post in this forum, along with the last live stream, indicated IS is planning ways for a Ranger to "back out" of melee even while attacking.
It sucks when you get pinned down by someone. When Rangers are nailing Tanks that can't keep up as they run away as well as Rangers getting a little to close to the Tanks. Why give only one class the advantage in this scenario?
Though I, myself, plan on going Mage/rogue..
Slap up classes with magic spells then when they get in close thinking yeboii can finally hit this annoying mage.. they get a dagger to the face.
Look, I get it. You don't like being pinned down by archers and want to pummel them when you get the chance. It's really no different than rogues vs mages. As rogues typically stun lock their opponents. So a mage has never stood any chance vs rogue in pvp battles. Does that mean you take away their ability to stun lock? Or a warriors ability block with his shield while I'm close quarters and have to rely on blocking strikes with strictly the sword for an even playing field? The ranger is known for his bow. Let's just take that away from him when you get close because it isn't fair? Lol Of course, it doesn't really matter. As it seems it will be implemented. Luckily, it doesn't effect me any, as I always play a paladin or necro. Still seems silly.
safe to assume that a Ranger should have some sort of close-quarters combat proficiency ?
Even WoW did it, and then stopped. Most ranged classes had a slot where they could attack, and part of playing that class was getting the advantage of having longer ranged attacks, while working around the disadvantage of up close combat.
Can't have your cake and eat it too folks.
If you wanted to survive you had to place more points in melee skills which took away from your bow so you were more like a rouge class without the cool tricks. Only time we were of any use was siege defense/attacking or if you got lucky and were able to one shot a caster which is why I switched to the armsman until they gave the ranged classes a buff.
So if they are going to implement a minimum distance then they need to make sure they can handle themselves in melee without taking away from their bow. After all you pick a ranger class for the bow.
Just my opinion on the matter either way I will still play one.
You're the one who brought up real life "Why? Because in real life, there is no real minimum distance I can use my bow. I can draw and shoot you point blank with my Mathews I have hanging on the wall" I merely pointed out that it wouldn't be feasible and used math to prove it.
please don't personalize this "I'm" not going to charge you with or without a blade.
"I would just take it from you. Oooooor I wouldn't even bother with the bow. I would just shove the arrow in your throat." just helps prove my point. within 1-10 feet no one would bother with a bow. Its just inefficient. the archer would pull out a knife/sword, use hand-to-hand combat, or even as you said use the arrow as a dagger.
My post did mention Lars but even still his "up-close" shooting as seen in that video at 3:25 minutes in it takes him 3 seconds to shoot his first arrow in close range (and looks very clunky) now remember that 21 foot rule. 21 ft in less then 1.7 seconds 5ft would be much less. A lot of his stuff looks impressive and as a trick shooter it is. But his point-blank shooting is just for show. Remember targets don't fight back. No one is swinging a sword at him.
Now reading your post I feel there has been some confusion. I'm not saying a archer class shouldn't be able to attack at all in melee. They just shouldn't be able to use a bow in melee, They could have an attack were they stab someone with an arrow, pull out melee weapons that switch their abilities to be more melee focused until they can make distance. ect... I'm also not saying the minimum distance should be absurd like 20 feet.
1) Getting closer reduces damage to say only 5%, gradually increasing the further away you go.
2) Damage increases the closer you go because it's a point blank shot but the enemies block chance massively increases up to 90%.
Interruption rate could also increase, preventing you from firing for both methods.
As far as a fantasy Video Game goes, I really don't have a problem with this. As many have pointed out the Ranger is at a complete loss in melee, but I think that naturally extends to a Tank at Range.
I did watch his video, and besides doing a bunch of cool stuff he was quick, and I did see all the references to the different archery types from way back whenever. My point was more along the lines of @Rivest, could he do that while facing a fast/accurate swordsman?
After reading back and forth throughout this thread, I still think Yes. However, there are many good points and concerns brought up from the other side. I hope Ashes works out for those who wish to equip a bow and never let go. In the end I want everyone to play a class they enjoy and not feel "nerfed."
I made a post about this myself (should have searched first maybe
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/34468/thought-about-range-classes
So I voted with yes but only as in my post described if the classes get melee attacks as well. It just runs against my logic to try to shoot targets in close range. I just don't like this concept.
Final Fantasy XIV implemented the Red Mage recently and they gave this mage class weaker melee attacks for close combat which is pretty neat. The melee skills can be enhanced for a couple of slashes by permorming ranged attacks first. Of course you can simply keep casting even when the target is in close combat range but it just makes the gameplay feel much more immersive for me.
All in all I would really like to see such mechanics for all types of classes. Mages that harden their skin to protect them in close combat and use elemental blades for close combat attacks, ranger/hunter that can pull out daggers, swords etc. for close combat. Also maybe the other way around like a knight or soldier being able to carry a crossbow as secondary weapon. These mecahnics would make the game much more realistic and fun in my opinion, but they also would need to be really balanced.
EDIT: And the Ability will only end until it lands on something
It'll only look silly & unrealistic if its not possible to do that ... especially if its Open-World too
This could also allow for some different bow designs, some being more or less effective for a basic 'swing' attack.
What makes MORE sense to me is potentially increased damage taken by the ranger if attempting to use a ranged weapon inside the minimum range (if you're nocking a bow you are not focusing on your defense) Or better yet, simply saying if in ranged stance or using a ranged weapon, damage taken is increased 50% (or some number).. and/or melee damage taken increased 100%
A good example of this is the Witcher 3. Ranged could inflict a good deal of damage but if you were able to close the distance and the ranged did NOT switch to melee, they would take a LOT more damage from your melee until they did and it made sense.
But flat out prohibiting it never makes sense to me.
1. Either we completely disable/enable bow fire depending on distance from target.
2. Distance from target comes with a damage penalty/bonus
I like the idea of interruption. Instead of disabling the bow at close distance, why not reset the Ranger's cool down after each point of melee damage taken? You get stabbed, you add 1s or .5s to your CD for the next bow shot up to a max of X seconds. That way the ranger is now at a disadvantage, but not completely disabled. It has the same idea as nerfing based on range from target, but actually requires focus from a melee class to limit the ranger's efficiency. I like this idea since it would require both sides to play tactically.
Apologies if someone already posted this idea. Supposed to be working and no time to read all comments.
Disclaimer : AoC is not set in the real world.
Real people in the real world are not half as good as fantasy characters in make believe worlds with make believe physics.
You dont think, in a world of magic and dragons, that an elf can fire an enchanted bow in a split second?! You've never been briefed on Drizzt Do'Urden then.
I can understand scaling damage by range, but no use of a primary weapon based on proximity sounds like a logistical nightmare.
So a rogue will always beat a ranger? He appears out of thin air, to close, stun, stab, kill?
An archer will always have a huge advantage if they can keep their range, and if they dont have a huge advantage they will always be at a disadvantage. Let's not pretend that a ranged class should get melee class dmg with non bows up close, but that's what's implied by giving them anything to use up close other than bow slap.
Actually, I'm all about that. Dont change the skills, or the dmg, just the animation turns into bow slaps within 5 m.