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.
Should the weapon system be changed?
nachty
Member, Alpha Two
I think AOC wanting to give the players the freedom to equip and utilize any weapon regardless of their class creates more pathways for creativity. However, I believe subjecting bows and other ranged weapons to the "Ranged Weapon Slot" or even having a ranged weapon slot in general takes away the reliance of the ranged based classes on the range based weapons. Maybe that's the point of it all, but I think it really does the Ranger and the other range based classes a disservice.
The whole idea of a Ranger applying damage to their enemies from afar get's overshadowed (at least to me) by the fact that the tank or fighter are also applying ranged damage right next to you. In PVP scenarios, I feel as though the whole point of being a Ranger specifically, is being able to apply burst damage from afar, get away, and repeat. This pattern for Ranger combat exists because the armor that they benefit from the most to fit their "DPS" style of play, typically makes them squishier than the front line fighters. Applying this logic to AOC would mean that the Ranger would be less likely to apply this same strategy and would need to change up their approach. Ranger pokes fighter/tank from a distance. Fighter/tank fires arrows back to apply chip damage, uses gap closing abilities, and then puts the ranger in a body bag. Sure, the ranger can equip a sword and fight back from close range and sure the Ranger has specific skills that may give them an advantage from a distance and vice versa for the fighter/tank, but will it be balanced in a way that won't make it feel one sided in favor of melee combatants?
Please don't misunderstand. I do not think there is necessarily an issue with the fact that you can use all weapons, regardless of the class. I just think that it's more favorable for melee classes than it is for Ranged classes. In my opinion, the problem truly lies in the fact that AOC has created a separation between melee and ranged weapons. Of course they are different, but are they really? You could make the argument that a fighter's main weapon is a melee weapon. Many would also say that the primary weapon for a tank is the sword and board. For Rangers... the bow! So why would the dev's separate weapons by their "types" instead of calling them "Primary" and "Secondary" or "Weapon 1" and "Weapon 2"?
Semantics aside, others may have a different opinion, but I don't want to have to equip a melee weapon or even use a melee weapon as a Ranger or another range based class, unless it makes sense. An example for this would of course be if the melee weapon provides buffs or stats that boost what I want it to boost, but at that point the weapon slot is purely a stat booster and really isn't being utilized. Those same stats or buffs could be tied to another ranged weapon and at that point it would not only be utilized (Short bow for speed and single target DPS and Long bow for big opening damage and applying DOTs) but the same stat boosters would be a bonus to its utility. Using the example for a Ranger, there are long bows and short bows in the game and I feel as though I should be able to equip both, one in the primary slot or Weapon slot 1, and the other in the secondary or Weapon slot 2.
At it's core, the long and short bows are different and both have their pros and cons. That being said, it's frustrating that as a Ranger, I can't use both at the same time because I can only equip one (1) ranged weapon. The same can be said for fighters and tanks. Giving them the freedom to equip multiple melee weapons opens up the possibilities for combat. In the same way as allowing a Ranger to equip multiple ranged weapons, there are different melee weapons that a melee build should be able to equip simultaneously. There's a distinction between a long bow and a short bow for a reason, so why is it that I don't actually get the feeling of freedom? Well... I think it's because of the fact that I can only equip one at a time. It is my belief that giving the melee builds the freedom to use ranged weapons works more so in their favor than the other way around for range focused builds.
Again, I think it's great that a tank can wield a bow and draw aggro right off the rip or not feel as though they are at a disadvantage at range, but as the Ranger standing next to them, I can't help but feel overshadowed because the very weapon my class was designed to use has turned its back on me.
tldr: Instead of a Melee weapon slot and a Ranged Weapon slot, I think changing them to Primary and Secondary weapon slots or even a Weapon 1 and Weapon 2 slot will help drive the creativity that AOC is looking for in weapon combinations. For the sake of wanting to have a short bow/long bow pure ranger build, I hope this changes.
Thoughts?
The whole idea of a Ranger applying damage to their enemies from afar get's overshadowed (at least to me) by the fact that the tank or fighter are also applying ranged damage right next to you. In PVP scenarios, I feel as though the whole point of being a Ranger specifically, is being able to apply burst damage from afar, get away, and repeat. This pattern for Ranger combat exists because the armor that they benefit from the most to fit their "DPS" style of play, typically makes them squishier than the front line fighters. Applying this logic to AOC would mean that the Ranger would be less likely to apply this same strategy and would need to change up their approach. Ranger pokes fighter/tank from a distance. Fighter/tank fires arrows back to apply chip damage, uses gap closing abilities, and then puts the ranger in a body bag. Sure, the ranger can equip a sword and fight back from close range and sure the Ranger has specific skills that may give them an advantage from a distance and vice versa for the fighter/tank, but will it be balanced in a way that won't make it feel one sided in favor of melee combatants?
Please don't misunderstand. I do not think there is necessarily an issue with the fact that you can use all weapons, regardless of the class. I just think that it's more favorable for melee classes than it is for Ranged classes. In my opinion, the problem truly lies in the fact that AOC has created a separation between melee and ranged weapons. Of course they are different, but are they really? You could make the argument that a fighter's main weapon is a melee weapon. Many would also say that the primary weapon for a tank is the sword and board. For Rangers... the bow! So why would the dev's separate weapons by their "types" instead of calling them "Primary" and "Secondary" or "Weapon 1" and "Weapon 2"?
Semantics aside, others may have a different opinion, but I don't want to have to equip a melee weapon or even use a melee weapon as a Ranger or another range based class, unless it makes sense. An example for this would of course be if the melee weapon provides buffs or stats that boost what I want it to boost, but at that point the weapon slot is purely a stat booster and really isn't being utilized. Those same stats or buffs could be tied to another ranged weapon and at that point it would not only be utilized (Short bow for speed and single target DPS and Long bow for big opening damage and applying DOTs) but the same stat boosters would be a bonus to its utility. Using the example for a Ranger, there are long bows and short bows in the game and I feel as though I should be able to equip both, one in the primary slot or Weapon slot 1, and the other in the secondary or Weapon slot 2.
At it's core, the long and short bows are different and both have their pros and cons. That being said, it's frustrating that as a Ranger, I can't use both at the same time because I can only equip one (1) ranged weapon. The same can be said for fighters and tanks. Giving them the freedom to equip multiple melee weapons opens up the possibilities for combat. In the same way as allowing a Ranger to equip multiple ranged weapons, there are different melee weapons that a melee build should be able to equip simultaneously. There's a distinction between a long bow and a short bow for a reason, so why is it that I don't actually get the feeling of freedom? Well... I think it's because of the fact that I can only equip one at a time. It is my belief that giving the melee builds the freedom to use ranged weapons works more so in their favor than the other way around for range focused builds.
Again, I think it's great that a tank can wield a bow and draw aggro right off the rip or not feel as though they are at a disadvantage at range, but as the Ranger standing next to them, I can't help but feel overshadowed because the very weapon my class was designed to use has turned its back on me.
tldr: Instead of a Melee weapon slot and a Ranged Weapon slot, I think changing them to Primary and Secondary weapon slots or even a Weapon 1 and Weapon 2 slot will help drive the creativity that AOC is looking for in weapon combinations. For the sake of wanting to have a short bow/long bow pure ranger build, I hope this changes.
Thoughts?
1
Comments
Weapon versatility is important, so why not have 4-5 of them on your paper doll? Also brings a little more rock-paper-scissors by way of the weapon skill tree. Then do something similar for magic.
This game won’t be balanced player-to-player. Closer to balance in group-to-group provided the players know what they are doing and can work together well. It’s a bit more involved than spamming a few buttons and calling that a fair fight. True skill is about making an apparently fair fight unfair.
It probably wont mesh with your class kit abilities as well as bows but nothing is stopping you.
As for being a walking weapon rack get real...you only have 2 hands. trying firing an arrow while throwing a spear in RL
You have you equipment slots appreciate the logical limitations.
I challenged this notion in my original post and explained my POV of why this is less favorable for Rangers than it is for melee builds.
I don't think you understood my original post if one of your takeaways was that I don't like bows. If you also interpreted my reasoning as wanting to be a "walking weapon rack" I suggest reading my post again. I disagree that wanting to equip both a long bow and a short bow at the same time in each of the weapon slots makes anyone a "walking weapon rack." To me, it's no different than equipping a sword and a bow or a sword and a mace. We should be allowed to get creative regardless if the weapons are ranged or not. Your next points about throwing a spear and firing a bow at the same time and to appreciate "logical limitations" are ridiculous. There is magic, flying horses, and elves. It's a video game, not RL. Many of the players will be coming from other high Fantasy MMOs and the argument of logical limitations seems to have been debunked by a lot of those games.
I appreciate your opinions on this. We're in the Alpha phase so I am gauging other people's opinions and hoping to drive discussions. Obviously, my opinion still hasn't changed and hope that AOC considers this change before launch.
100% Agree.
Perhaps rangers should be able to equip a long bow in the melee* slot