Guild Wars 2

LB1 and GS1 damage range mechanics are a contrivance for whatever reasons ANet might have had to implement them. Given that both weapons have a push-back attack, it was probably done to give a “flavor” to the weapon. ANet weapon skill design includes several “use this skill to provide greater benefit to that skill.” mechanics. While such design considerations are cute, their inclusion feels to me more like ANet holding my hand and deciding the way I play, not like innovative and deep game mechanic design.

What is the goal inherent in having ranged attacks do inherently less damage than melee? The obvious answer is that attacking at max range involves less risk than attacking at melee ranges. More risk —→ more reward. Would it not then make more sense for ranged attacks to do more damage at melee ranges rather than less? Why are these attacks, which provide much of the damage the weapon offers (especially for LB), an exception? Why don’t all ranged weapons do more damage at point blank range than at long range?

Carighan.6758:

Bri.8354:

The major difference is that melee attacks and skills that get stronger the closer you are, aren’t in conflict with support and AoE mechanics like attacks that force you to keep huge distances are.

Neither are ranged weapons, inherently.
If I take 5 people, and we all stand at 1200 range, I feel perfectly fine with my GS in the middle of them. How does that not work support/AE wise?

The issue there is, as IndigoSundown puts pretty well, “their inclusion feels to me more like ANet holding my hand and deciding the way I play, not like innovative and deep game mechanic design”.

No other weapons in the game force such a limited play-style on your team that is in conflict with the vast majority of weapons and encounters. Every other ranged weapon has the capacity to adapt and cooperate fully with every melee weapon and ranged weapon (with the exception of the ranger longbow and greatsword) without being disadvantaged.

In order to use the greatsword or longbow to full effect you need to have an entire team that:

• Consists entirely of players with long range weapons
• Never switch to closer ranged weapons
• Have no blast finishers or other support effects that take effect at the location of the enemy
• Have no summons or pets that could could take advantage of support effects or provide them
• Are fighting enemies that can’t pursue you
• Have all enemies within AoE range of each-other

Whereas any other ranged weapon can work with any team composition (with the exception of the one limited to the greatsword and longbow) without issue.

IndigoSundown.5419:

What is the goal inherent in having ranged attacks do inherently less damage than melee? The obvious answer is that attacking at max range involves less risk than attacking at melee ranges. More risk —-> more reward. Would it not then make more sense for ranged attacks to do more damage at melee ranges rather than less? Why are these attacks, which provide much of the damage the weapon offers (especially for LB), an exception? Why don’t all ranged weapons do more damage at point blank range than at long range?

You’re right in that there’s a ‘risk=reward’ calculation in there, but that’s only one of a lot of factors. A few of them;
Projectile attacks are easier to punish than ranged attacks; projectiles can be destroyed and reflected, while melee attacks cannot. Projectile attacks also do not properly trigger counterattack skills like Riposte.
Requiring extreme range is just as much of a weakness as requiring melee range. Siege Tanks are useless against enemies in melee. Being extremely powerful at range is allowable, as enemies can actively negate that power by closing the distance.
A game in which the ‘optimal state’ for all players is melee would be dreadfully monotone. Different classes and different weapons should feel and play differently, and require different tactics.

Bri.8354:

Whereas any other ranged weapon can work with any team composition (with the exception of the one limited to the greatsword and longbow) without issue.

Five scepter necros, or any other bleed-stacking ranged weapon.

Bri.8354:

No other weapons in the game force such a limited play-style on your team that is in conflict with the vast majority of weapons and encounters.

Oh, it’s not true that any other ranged weapon works with any team composition, btw. not at all. First, remove all condition weapons. We’re doing dungeons, so those are naturally out. Then, remove all low-AA weapons like Mesmer Scepter or Necro Axe. Again, we’re trying to do DPS in a dungeon here, they’re out. Then, chain weapons are also out on most bosses, or weapons balanced around multiple targets. Engi Rifle, Engi Pistol, Necro Staff, Ranger Axe, etc.

And Ranger Longbow and Mesmer GS need some special treatment? Really?

All the weapons in this game have their limitations. In some form of another. Some are ladden with an AA-condition. Some are balanced around AE. Some scale off in melee range. Some need to chain. Some only work in melee. Some don’t actually focus on damage on their AA.

And? And that’s all good, but the decreased damage of Longbow and Greatsword at close range somehow is unique and bad and needs to be changed?

Sarrs.4831:

IndigoSundown.5419:

What is the goal inherent in having ranged attacks do inherently less damage than melee? The obvious answer is that attacking at max range involves less risk than attacking at melee ranges. More risk —-> more reward. Would it not then make more sense for ranged attacks to do more damage at melee ranges rather than less? Why are these attacks, which provide much of the damage the weapon offers (especially for LB), an exception? Why don’t all ranged weapons do more damage at point blank range than at long range?

You’re right in that there’s a ‘risk=reward’ calculation in there, but that’s only one of a lot of factors. A few of them;
Projectile attacks are easier to punish than ranged attacks; projectiles can be destroyed and reflected, while melee attacks cannot. Projectile attacks also do not properly trigger counterattack skills like Riposte.
Requiring extreme range is just as much of a weakness as requiring melee range. Siege Tanks are useless against enemies in melee. Being extremely powerful at range is allowable, as enemies can actively negate that power by closing the distance.
A game in which the ‘optimal state’ for all players is melee would be dreadfully monotone. Different classes and different weapons should feel and play differently, and require different tactics.

The optimal state for all players (using direct damage) already is melee range. While I’m sure some find that to be dreadfully monotone, that’s how it is.

Keeping range open versus opponents is always going to be desirable in some circumstances, especially in PvP modes. Maintaining range is a benefit in and of itself, and does not require a contrived damage mechanic to make it desirable. Contriving a “your damage stinks at shorter ranges” mechanic to “enforce” staying at range seems unnecessary.

Carighan.6758:

Bri.8354:

No other weapons in the game force such a limited play-style on your team that is in conflict with the vast majority of weapons and encounters.

Oh, it’s not true that any other ranged weapon works with any team composition, btw. not at all. First, remove all condition weapons. We’re doing dungeons, so those are naturally out. Then, remove all low-AA weapons like Mesmer Scepter or Necro Axe. Again, we’re trying to do DPS in a dungeon here, they’re out. Then, chain weapons are also out on most bosses, or weapons balanced around multiple targets. Engi Rifle, Engi Pistol, Necro Staff, Ranger Axe, etc.

And Ranger Longbow and Mesmer GS need some special treatment? Really?

All the weapons in this game have their limitations. In some form of another. Some are ladden with an AA-condition. Some are balanced around AE. Some scale off in melee range. Some need to chain. Some only work in melee. Some don’t actually focus on damage on their AA.

And? And that’s all good, but the decreased damage of Longbow and Greatsword at close range somehow is unique and bad and needs to be changed?

I was speaking about the design of the weapon mechanics which is different from the issues you listed.

For instance, weapons that have conditions and crowd control function fine mechanically, the issue comes from excessive limitations placed on conditions and crowd control. The core systems of conditions and crowd control work perfectly fine as do the skills that apply them, all that needs to be done is to cut back on the limitations.

Issues with ranged weapons being obsolete, largely but not completely due to the lack of risk when using melee, is also not an issue with the design of ranged weapons. They work perfectly fine when the content is well designed.

The problem with the longbow and greatsword however is mostly caused by their actual design being in conflict with group mechanics. On one hand you have many mechanics telling the party to stick together to apply support effects, revive each-other, control enemies, and share aggro while on the other you have distance based damage telling the player to stay in the back of the room away from all that.

I’m against good mechanics without downsides, and those weapons can rack quite some damage at a distance while staying at a safe distance. So they have to get a downside, and that downside is that you have to keep your distance.

The longbow is bad a short ranges, but rangers have decent access to immobilize, and the longbow itself has a push that pushes farther the closer the enemy is. Ranger longbow and mesmer greatsword are best used at a distance.

When enemies get inevitably close, you switch to other weapon, like greatsword with ranger or sword+focus with mesmer.

Bri.8354:

The problem with the longbow and greatsword however is mostly caused by their actual design being in conflict with group mechanics. On one hand you have many mechanics telling the party to stick together to apply support effects, revive each-other, control enemies, and share aggro while on the other you have distance based damage telling the player to stay in the back of the room away from all that.

But why doesn’t the party just stack at range then. Together and you’re at max longbow range.

There’s gotta’ be a point in any balance discussion where you sort of have to step back and figure out what you want to get out of it. Oftentimes there are multiple ways to approach a problem, and the question is less ‘how do we fix it?’ and more ‘what kind of a game will this become if we implement this fix or that fix?’

For example, another way to attack this is how support is structured.

Relative to the tight spaces we find ourselves in, the small opponents we fight against, and what little meaningful opposition they give to our clustering; ‘aiming’ a 600 range buff just isn’t very difficult. These Buffs feel more like an automatic result you can take for granted by building a certain way, than something you have to use a skillful or nuanced execution to get the most out of. So what’s the point of a 600 radius if it isn’t really furthering any gameplay?

If people only seem to notice something while wielding 2 out of 60-odd weapons in the entire game, it might be better to find some other way to engage a player’s skillset.

There’s just so many ways you could attack this thing. Support changes, AI changes, ranged vs melee changes. I’m just not sure changing weapons to conform to the current state of things is necessarily the biggest bang for our buck on a format that most people can agree is not exactly at the top of it’s game right now.

/edit: edited to be less choppy.

IndigoSundown.5419:

The optimal state for all players (using direct damage) already is melee range. While I’m sure some find that to be dreadfully monotone, that’s how it is.

That’s the least of the game mode’s problems. PvE has huge problems; there are two entire skill classes which are completely useless, control and condition. Tons of weapons have already been thrown out by Defiance and the condition cap; what’s two more skills with mechanics that slightly don’t jive with group play?

IndigoSundown.5419:

Keeping range open versus opponents is always going to be desirable in some circumstances, especially in PvP modes. Maintaining range is a benefit in and of itself, and does not require a contrived damage mechanic to make it desirable. Contriving a “your damage stinks at shorter ranges” mechanic to “enforce” staying at range seems unnecessary.

A “your damage stinks at shorter ranges” mechanic is exactly what Mesmer GS needs. If it wasn’t there, it would be a melee weapon, because of the bouncing sword.

Vox Hollow.2736:

For example, another way to attack this is how support is structured.

Relative to the tight spaces we find ourselves in, the small opponents we fight against, and what little meaningful opposition they give to our clustering; ‘aiming’ a 600 range buff just isn’t very difficult. These Buffs feel more like an automatic result you can take for granted by building a certain way, than something you have to use a skillful or nuanced execution to get the most out of. So what’s the point of a 600 radius if it isn’t really furthering any gameplay?

My first thought on this was to make changes to support, but after going over what would need to be changed, its impact on the game, and what it would address, I found it would be too large of a change to fix an issue limited to very few things.

Probably the first idea that pops into people minds is “why not just increase the range of support”? At first glance it might appear to be a good solution, but could you imagine the implications? First of all, because ANet doesn’t want to split mechanics for different game modes, this would have to be a globally applied change, and could you imagine the havoc that would be caused from every support skill and effect having the 1,000+ range required to address this? And how would you address the other factors, such as the downed state and AoE applied effects like null field?

To address this issue by changing support mechanics would require nothing short of a fundamental rework of most of the support mechanics found in the game. When every other weapon works perfectly fine with the current support mechanics, don’t you think it would be best to slightly modify the 2 weapons that are in conflict with it rather than reworking the entire support system?

Atherakhia.4086:

I don’t have an issue with various weapons rewarding specific types of play. My concern with longbow is the damage penalty for being at anything but max range. As it stands, if you’re not at max range, the longbow is weaker than the shortbow. At min range it’s weaker than every weapon but axe (assuming axe only hits one target).

Either make the Longbow do the same damage from 0-900 and extra damage for 900+ or make it do the same damage over all of its range and simply give it some other benefit at further range. for example… a 0/10/20% increased chance to crit depending on range.

This is largely in reference to PvP/WvW mind you. PvE I don’t even consider this to be a valid argument because of how inferior the ranged weapons are over shortsword as it is. If the damage was even remotely comparable that would be one thing. But longbow is nearly half the damage of sword iirc. Can’t justify using it in any situation outside of ranged only encounters (which few exist).

Now as for Mesmer, it’s the only class I dont have an 80 of and know nothing about.

no, the longbow has more damage in full zerker then SB has even at short range. HOWEVER, if you play celestial + assassins SB, then the added condition damage on the bleed stacking will give you higher DPS in the longer run (LB will be superior the first 4-5 seconds then SB bleeds will overtake LB damage)

Prysin.8542:

Atherakhia.4086:

I don’t have an issue with various weapons rewarding specific types of play. My concern with longbow is the damage penalty for being at anything but max range. As it stands, if you’re not at max range, the longbow is weaker than the shortbow. At min range it’s weaker than every weapon but axe (assuming axe only hits one target).

Either make the Longbow do the same damage from 0-900 and extra damage for 900+ or make it do the same damage over all of its range and simply give it some other benefit at further range. for example… a 0/10/20% increased chance to crit depending on range.

This is largely in reference to PvP/WvW mind you. PvE I don’t even consider this to be a valid argument because of how inferior the ranged weapons are over shortsword as it is. If the damage was even remotely comparable that would be one thing. But longbow is nearly half the damage of sword iirc. Can’t justify using it in any situation outside of ranged only encounters (which few exist).

Now as for Mesmer, it’s the only class I dont have an 80 of and know nothing about.

no, the longbow has more damage in full zerker then SB has even at short range. HOWEVER, if you play celestial + assassins SB, then the added condition damage on the bleed stacking will give you higher DPS in the longer run (LB will be superior the first 4-5 seconds then SB bleeds will overtake LB damage)

No idea whos numbers are correct, but I agree with the point Atherakhia is trying to make regardess. You should be rewarded for being at max range, not punished for being at close range. Theres a difference and its an important one, especially because all ranged weapons already do less damage than melee weapons. If our LB is already doing less damage than a sword because it’s ranged, why does it need to be futher punished for being used at close range? It’s already a sub-optimal weapon in that situation and further nerfing it only serves to make it unusable rather than undesirable.

I think, for both ranger and mesmers, we should make it only have TWO ranges;
0-600 and 600+

0-600 does X damage with Y coefficient and grants 1 stack of weakness (3 seconds) and 1 stack of vulnerability (3 seconds) per attack.
600+ does X damage + 250 with Y coefficient + 0.23 and grants 2 stacks of vulnerability (3 seconds) per attack.

This way, at short range, enemies does less damage to you (in a place where you do not want to be) and you hit them fairly hard.
At long range, the enemies will be able to rush in for a much stronger hit, at the expense of taking a lot more damage if they do not get back into melee range.

In short, it will punish melee players for not pushing the assailant out of ranged weaponry. However ranged damage in close quarters must be low enough to NOT overshadow the damage done by a guardian with 0% crit chance, 0% crit damage and 2500 power. (pure power, no crits) to simulate a full PVT geared enemy that requires to fight you in melee range.

Underwater should function the same way.

I disagree with the conditions. We need LESS condition spamming on auto attacks, not more. I personally like Mesmer Greatsword the way it is.

ArmageddonAsh.6430:

I disagree with the conditions. We need LESS condition spamming on auto attacks, not more. I personally like Mesmer Greatsword the way it is.

But it could also be argued that Mesmer GS has more mechanics working for it than the ranger longbow, like the fact that it is a beam (so no flight time) that pierces by default.

While that might not always be as significant in PvE content, it definitely helps the weapons effectiveness in PvP based combat.

Anywho, @Thread;

I agree with what some people have mentioned, that distance based skills shouldn’t be treated as a bonus damage at range while punishing players up close, but a fair base damage, and then an added bonus for being at a certain range.

In a sense, the skills with flanking requirements in the game for bonus effects are all examples of position based combat that work well, and they usually have a base effect and a bonus effect if flanking.

Similarly, I would think that adding a base effect and then a bonus “do this” function at a certain range that doesn’t necessarily hinge on maximizing damage output would be a good way to treat distance based skills.

@Bri
Not quite what I was after.
Bear with me a sec, I might have figured out a good metaphor.

Imagine a game of Tug-o-war.

On left side is all the ways the game compels you to clump up in melee, on the right side is all the ways the game compels you to scatter apart and keep your distance. Tugging between these two creates gameplay, it gives you things about movement and space to choose between in the middle of combat. In PvE there isn’t much of a game to be had; because the clumping-melee side is populated by body builders, and the scatter-distance side is populated by school children.

I’m not trying to suggest the total elimination of the game compelling you to clump up by universally removing range from all support. That’s like the school children pulling a rope against nothing, it ends the game just as much as having unequal tension does.

What I am saying is that one of the options on the table is removing a few body builders here and there so that the middle schoolers have more of a fighting chance. And, you’d try to do this where it makes the most sense for furthering the game’s gameplay for the better.

(ex: Something like; Fire Field + Blast or the Downed State is in a pretty good place gameplay wise and wouldn’t be a good idea to mess with. Something like; Empower Allies or certain shouts could be messed with like crazy, because on a practical level there just isn’t much gameplay there to screw up.)

Didn’t bother reading a lot of the subsequent posts so I’ll be posting regarding the main topic, here.

Longbow penalties should only occur within like 150-200 range. Subsequently, I think these penalties should also be steeper. This makes logical sense as skirmishing at close range with a bow while someone is swinging a sword at you s not exactly easy to do seeing as you need to knock an arrow and actually aim/release with proper technique. Anything beyond that, though, is fair game and shouldn’t be difficult to pull off. Getting penalized below “max” range simply makes no sense realistically nor balance-wise when every other ranged weapon hits fine at 900-1200 range, anyways. It would also allow rangers to trait for closer encounters and support less passive “sniping” by spamming 1 and more active kiting.