Guild Wars 2

One of the key elements in Guild Wars 2’s balance among weapons is that ranged weapons will always do lower DPS than melee weapons. The reasoning is explained as such, typically in terms of risk and reward: Being in melee puts you at higher risk, while being at range is safer. Ergo, melee weapons and attacks should do more damage to be balanced.

I’ll straight up say it: this is an ineffective way of balancng ranged vs. melee combat and is a contributor to some major class imbalance we right now. It is entirely possible to give ranged and melee weapons similar sustained DPS while keeping them “balanced.”

The most important thing to consider is that damage is only one element of the balance equation. Ranged and melee weapons can deal similar damage while having drawbacks in other areas. The obvious drawback of melee weapons is that you have to get into your enemy’s face.

As stated before, the chief drawback to ranged weapons is that you will deal lower damage. However, this drawback can be shifted to other areas to maintain balance even if they deal similar damage. Here are a few:

1. Mobility. In real life, accurately shooting while moving is very, very difficult. It is also very difficult to shoot moving targets. Ranged weapons can be less accurate against moving targets (this is already the case with some weapons), less accurate while you are moving, and in some cases, unable to be fired while moving.

2. Effective range. In real life, at certain distances between you and your attacker, a ranged weapon may be ineffective. Ever heard of the 21 foot rule? Look it up. There is a reason police and SWAT don’t use sniper rifles in room clearings – they’re too big for the job. Similarly, large ranged weapons can have a minimum effective range while smaller ranged weapons are more maneuverable (The Ranger’s longbow already has some implementation like this, but I think it’s absolutely horrible).

3. Boss encounters and fight design. There are plenty of bosses that punish ranged/immobile styles of combat. If you aren’t constantly moving/dodging while fighting a boss like Lupicus you’re going to be dead very quickly. A few bosses use reflects, but this isn’t very common. It’s entirely possible to design boss encounters that are equally challenging to both ranged and Melee combatants (Lupicus is an example, while Subject Alpha is arguably more dangerous to ranged fighters).

4. Limited ammunition. This one might be very unpopular, but it’s absolutely realistic. Melee weapons need to be maintained, but a dull sword is still minimally functional. In contrast, a pistol or bow without ammunition is just a big paperweight. Damage of ranged weapons can be balanced by a limited ammunition supply.

These are just a few ways of balancing ranged vs. melee combat without making ranged weapons’ damage intrinsically lower than melee weapons by default.

When ever you start an debate about MMO mechanics with “In real life..” you’re on the wrong track.

Reducsing long range accuracy and creating forced misses is going to lower the over all dps of ranged weapons even more. Misses combined with dodges in blocks could mean you could go with out doing damage for an extended period of time. It would also be an incredably frustrating mechanic.

No one is using a sniper rifile in GW2, no one is even using a scoped weapon. Having a close range dead zone would create incredable class inbalances and any time a gap closer was used it would force the ranged user to switch to a melee weapon. This is helping ranged balance how?

Adding ammunition only adds tedium. No one actually runs out, it just takes up space. This also doesn’t add balance at all. It only adds an extra requirement for using the ranged weapon at all, not balancing it while it is being used.

What you need to keep in mind is that while ranged weapons might be taking in these new disadvantages, they would also be gaining some substantial advantages, such as much greater damage (I would give the Ranger’s longbow 3-5x its current damage, increasing its default range to 1500, but give its 1, 2, 3, and 5 skills a 600 range minimum while making the 1 skill stationary)

CryxTryx.9208:

When ever you start an debate about MMO mechanics with “In real life..” you’re on the wrong track.

Reducsing long range accuracy and creating forced misses is going to lower the over all dps of ranged weapons even more. Misses combined with dodges in blocks could mean you could go with out doing damage for an extended period of time. It would also be an incredably frustrating mechanic.

I disagree. The original Guild Wars, I think, had much better balance between melee vs ranged combat (even though the same philosophy still applied). With the proper setups, ranged weapons were capable of doing quite substantial damage (Barrage + splinter weapon = holy numbers galore). Additionally, different types of bows, depending on the situation, had tradeoffs. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow summarizes it better than I can.

No one is using a sniper rifile in GW2, no one is even using a scoped weapon. Having a close range dead zone would create incredable class inbalances and any time a gap closer was used it would force the ranged user to switch to a melee weapon. This is helping ranged balance how?

Arrow carts in WvW have minimum range, but nobody calls them useless.

What I would do is a radical overhaul of 75% of the combat mechanics in this game so that “dead zones” or “ineffective zones” would not be a class imbalance. We can go into that another day.

Adding ammunition only adds tedium. No one actually runs out, it just takes up space. This also doesn’t add balance at all. It only adds an extra requirement for using the ranged weapon at all, not balancing it while it is being used.

That’s because ammunition, in most games, “just takes up space” rather than being meaningful. If the ammunition limit is meaningful while keeping ranged weapons appropriately powerful it can be balanced.

In real life……

/facepalm

Stonehead.5108:

In real life……

/facepalm

What’s wrong with that? Some real life principles and concepts can be effectively applied in game design.

In real life, as ranged weaponry has become 1. more affordable and accessible 2. easier to use 3. easier to manufacture 4. more reliable and 5. more deadly it has displaced melee combat. Infantry today use their knives mostly as utilities rather than weapons. We can take some of the advantages and disadvantages ranged weapons have had through history and current practice and combine them to create balanced combat that does not start with the premise that “ranged weapons should always do less damage.”

Go play real life then, i heard is more realistic and has better graphics

TheKillerAngel.3596:

What you need to keep in mind is that while ranged weapons might be taking in these new disadvantages, they would also be gaining some substantial advantages, such as much greater damage (I would give the Ranger’s longbow 3-5x its current damage, increasing its default range to 1500, but give its 1, 2, 3, and 5 skills a 600 range minimum while making the 1 skill stationary)

CryxTryx.9208:

When ever you start an debate about MMO mechanics with “In real life..” you’re on the wrong track.

Reducsing long range accuracy and creating forced misses is going to lower the over all dps of ranged weapons even more. Misses combined with dodges in blocks could mean you could go with out doing damage for an extended period of time. It would also be an incredably frustrating mechanic.

I disagree. The original Guild Wars, I think, had much better balance between melee vs ranged combat (even though the same philosophy still applied). With the proper setups, ranged weapons were capable of doing quite substantial damage (Barrage + splinter weapon = holy numbers galore). Additionally, different types of bows, depending on the situation, had tradeoffs. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow summarizes it better than I can.

No one is using a sniper rifile in GW2, no one is even using a scoped weapon. Having a close range dead zone would create incredable class inbalances and any time a gap closer was used it would force the ranged user to switch to a melee weapon. This is helping ranged balance how?

Arrow carts in WvW have minimum range, but nobody calls them useless.

What I would do is a radical overhaul of 75% of the combat mechanics in this game so that “dead zones” or “ineffective zones” would not be a class imbalance. We can go into that another day.

Adding ammunition only adds tedium. No one actually runs out, it just takes up space. This also doesn’t add balance at all. It only adds an extra requirement for using the ranged weapon at all, not balancing it while it is being used.

That’s because ammunition, in most games, “just takes up space” rather than being meaningful. If the ammunition limit is meaningful while keeping ranged weapons appropriately powerful it can be balanced.

I’m not sure how the arrow cart comparison is relavent. I don’t feel I should even have to point out the reasons why.

The only way that I could see a meaningful way to add ammunition to combat is to make a reload time similar to an FPS. That could be an idea, personally I think that may make the comat feel a little clunky but it could work.

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Stonehead.5108:

In real life……

/facepalm

What’s wrong with that? Some real life principles and concepts can be effectively applied in game design.

In real life, as ranged weaponry has become 1. more affordable and accessible 2. easier to use 3. easier to manufacture 4. more reliable and 5. more deadly it has displaced melee combat. Infantry today use their knives mostly as utilities rather than weapons. We can take some of the advantages and disadvantages ranged weapons have had through history and current practice and combine them to create balanced combat that does not start with the premise that “ranged weapons should always do less damage.”

How many arrows can you carry in real life?

Stonehead.5108:

Go play real life then, i heard is more realistic and has better graphics

Yeah but the storyline sucks.

CryxTryx.9208:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Stonehead.5108:

In real life……

/facepalm

What’s wrong with that? Some real life principles and concepts can be effectively applied in game design.

In real life, as ranged weaponry has become 1. more affordable and accessible 2. easier to use 3. easier to manufacture 4. more reliable and 5. more deadly it has displaced melee combat. Infantry today use their knives mostly as utilities rather than weapons. We can take some of the advantages and disadvantages ranged weapons have had through history and current practice and combine them to create balanced combat that does not start with the premise that “ranged weapons should always do less damage.”

How many arrows can you carry in real life?

Hunters today typically carry a quiver with 3-6 arrows, 12 at the most. Archers back then would carry 24+.

CryxTryx.9208:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

What you need to keep in mind is that while ranged weapons might be taking in these new disadvantages, they would also be gaining some substantial advantages, such as much greater damage (I would give the Ranger’s longbow 3-5x its current damage, increasing its default range to 1500, but give its 1, 2, 3, and 5 skills a 600 range minimum while making the 1 skill stationary)

CryxTryx.9208:

When ever you start an debate about MMO mechanics with “In real life..” you’re on the wrong track.

Reducsing long range accuracy and creating forced misses is going to lower the over all dps of ranged weapons even more. Misses combined with dodges in blocks could mean you could go with out doing damage for an extended period of time. It would also be an incredably frustrating mechanic.

I disagree. The original Guild Wars, I think, had much better balance between melee vs ranged combat (even though the same philosophy still applied). With the proper setups, ranged weapons were capable of doing quite substantial damage (Barrage + splinter weapon = holy numbers galore). Additionally, different types of bows, depending on the situation, had tradeoffs. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow summarizes it better than I can.

No one is using a sniper rifile in GW2, no one is even using a scoped weapon. Having a close range dead zone would create incredable class inbalances and any time a gap closer was used it would force the ranged user to switch to a melee weapon. This is helping ranged balance how?

Arrow carts in WvW have minimum range, but nobody calls them useless.

What I would do is a radical overhaul of 75% of the combat mechanics in this game so that “dead zones” or “ineffective zones” would not be a class imbalance. We can go into that another day.

Adding ammunition only adds tedium. No one actually runs out, it just takes up space. This also doesn’t add balance at all. It only adds an extra requirement for using the ranged weapon at all, not balancing it while it is being used.

That’s because ammunition, in most games, “just takes up space” rather than being meaningful. If the ammunition limit is meaningful while keeping ranged weapons appropriately powerful it can be balanced.

I’m not sure how the arrow cart comparison is relavent. I don’t feel I should even have to point out the reasons why.

The only way that I could see a meaningful way to add ammunition to combat is to make a reload time similar to an FPS. That could be an idea, personally I think that may make the comat feel a little clunky but it could work.

The arrow cart comparison is to show that minimum range requirement’s don’t automatically make a ranged weapon useless. A high enough volume of fire will repel an assault and damage the attackers meaningfully by the time they reach the defender.

Anyway, I don’t see anything wrong with a ranger switching to a backup melee weapon if an enemy uses a gap closer after taking a few shots at range. Some ranged weapons, such as the longbow and thief’s pistol offhand, have ways to counter melee damage (knockbacks, blind fields).

What I really want to emphasize is that ranged weapons and melee weapons needs more distinct roles. Perhaps rifles and longbows might lose a substantial amount of effectiveness at close range, but that’s not their point – their purpose is to fight an enemy at range and excel at that.

I don’t think a lot of players are looking for a realistic experience to firing a bow and/or gun when playing this game.

If you were realistic about firing a long bow a player might realistically get one or two shots off at a charging attacker, using your system because the attacker is moving one would probably miss, the other would be blocked.

Long Bows were used for group volly fire at a mass of targets, they are virtually ineffective against one two or even 3 targets.

No one will ever “balance” ranged vs. melee because balance is impossible.

Situation:
1) Make Ranged and Melee be comparatively the same
2) Everyone plays range because it’s easier and safer
3) Increase melee damage to get people to go melee
4) Everyone complains that they are forced into melee to be competitive
5) Give ranged class utility/mobility to make up for lower dps
6) Melee complain that they can’t catch ranged
7) Give melee players utility to catch ranged players
8) Ranged complaining they do less damage and can’t run from melee
9) Lower melee damage, effectively making melee and ranged the same again
10) Repeat ad infinum

You can’t balance it.

In my ideal world:
Ranged DPS is lower by 15% than Melee DPS.
Give both equal gap closers/gap openers.
Punish Ranged players for being ranged in 35% of the PVE enounters.

Preparations would be nice.

Stonehead.5108:

In real life……

/facepalm

Oh no, entertainment is always improved by becoming closer to real life. For example:

“Die Hard” action movies, unrealistic version:

Guy: “The bomb’s going to explode! Run”
Guy and Gal run through the building with a wall of fire rushing behind them, jump out the window a split second before the fire bursts through and the building explodes into a shower of burning splinters.

Guy, snuffing a burning cinder that landed on his shoulder: “That was close!”

Realistic version.

Guy: “The bomb’s going to explode! R-”
Building partially collapses and burns.

Group of police and fire fighters standing around burnt out building.
Police officer: “We think there were two individuals in the building when the bomb went off, but we haven’t finished collecting all the bone fragments.”

Medical Drama “House,” unrealistic version.

House makes a mistake that almost kills his patient, then has an epiphany that leads to a cure via diagnosing some incredibly rare disorder. Everyone hugs each other except House, who just snarls a rude comment.

Realistic version:

Obituary – former doctor who became addicted to pain killers committed suicide after being fired from six different hospitals in six months. Malpractice judgments against him set a new record, called “the worst doctor ever” despite being acknowledged as a genius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I suggest a few of you read this, particularly those of you who are taking 3 words and blowing them completely out of proportion. I never made the claim that combat mechanics in GW2 should be strictly defined by realistic physics and equivalents. I simply believe that some ideas, aside from damage, can be used to balance ranged vs. melee combat.

Going back to the topic:

Aristio.2784:

No one will ever “balance” ranged vs. melee because balance is impossible.

Situation:
1) Make Ranged and Melee be comparatively the same
2) Everyone plays range because it’s easier and safer
3) Increase melee damage to get people to go melee
4) Everyone complains that they are forced into melee to be competitive
5) Give ranged class utility/mobility to make up for lower dps
6) Melee complain that they can’t catch ranged
7) Give melee players utility to catch ranged players
8) Ranged complaining they do less damage and can’t run from melee
9) Lower melee damage, effectively making melee and ranged the same again
10) Repeat ad infinum

You can’t balance it.

In my ideal world:
Ranged DPS is lower by 15% than Melee DPS.
Give both equal gap closers/gap openers.
Punish Ranged players for being ranged in 35% of the PVE enounters.

I disagree. They can deal similar damage while having drawbacks in other regards.

2) Everyone plays range because it’s easier and safer

This wouldn’t necessarily happen if range had to sacrifice some mobility for damage or there were many effective defenses against ranged attacks (blocks, mobile reflects, etc).

To be honest, I don’t really see the difference between making a ranged weapon just do straight up less damage than a melee weapon but with you being able to move around, hit the target accurately etc and all the things listed in the OP – overall, you do less DPS in any sustained fight. And doing damage at all, were it the way you suggest, would be limited by a LOT of factors.

The main difference over any time period (ie, a fight) is simply that one is easier to work into game design than the other. The devs went with the easier option – if it had been a game purely around ranged combat, they might have gone with the latter.

However, end result will still be the same. Over the course of a fight, while the initial stats on a bow and a sword might be the same but we implemented all the changes you suggest, the ranger would still do the least damage unless they got that lucky one shot in. Because, realistically speaking, you’d probably only get the chance for that one shot, sniper style.