Guild Wars 2

haviz.1340:

Give mobs and bosses fast leaps, condition removal so they can remove snares and make them aggroing ranged players more often.

You want to add more risks in ranged attacks?

I love how people obsess over defining classes as melee or ranged in MMOs. Firstly, the Ranger is called a ‘master archer’, which it is – no other profession uses both bow types and no other profession does almost melee-strength DPS at range. That is not meant to be extended into ‘bad at melee’ or ‘good with all ranged weapons’. Currently, ranged damage is designed to be slightly inferior to melee damage due to uptime and risk vs. reward, and with rangers the gap is smaller than it is with other professions. Rangers should, like other professions, do slightly greater damage at melee than at range for the same reason every other profession does – being in melee (theoretically) puts you at greater risk and also (theoretically) requires you to spend more time moving and dodging, meaning bigger gaps in your attacks. Whether those things are actually true is a little debatable, but if it changes for rangers it needs to change for everyone else too.

This obsession stems from the fact that simplistic gamist-style systems (like WoW) just love to create this needless and arbitrary distinction between ‘melee’ and ‘range’ and then pigeonhole entire classes into one or the other, which is stupid. Guild Wars 2 does it right by mostly eliminating that distinction when it comes to classes and giving everyone multiple tactical options that are meant to seamlessly supplement each other.

The simple fact is if you’re somewhat good at one you’re likely to be somewhat good at the other too. NOBODY would ONLY use a bow or ONLY use a melee weapon – bows and swords are weapons with two different tactical uses. Most people who used one some would use the other to supplement it when needed. I.e. no matter how good an archer you are, you’d virtually never try to use a ranged weapon in a close range skirmish.

Trixie.7614:

I find it funny that there is “reflect projectile”, but there is no “reflect hit” (not counting Retaliation, because it works for ranged too).

Retaliation do not reflect tho. You still take damage, and the damage done to the attacker is not based on the damage you take.

coglin.1867:

For months after release, players made thread upon thread demanding that melee weapons do more damage. They suggested the risk of melee range deserved more damage. Which in itself is a good point.

If your unhappy that melee weapons do more damage then ranged weapons, you need to be unhappy with the posters who flooded the forums demanding this situation.

Must have happened on a different sub-section, or before i took a active interest in the forum, as i don’t recall seeing them.

digiowl.9620:

Must have happened on a different sub-section, or before i took a active interest in the forum, as i don’t recall seeing them.

I don’t recall it much after release, but I do recall the cry that melee’s risk/reward wasn’t good enough during the beta events.

The PvE meta is melee, all classes.
Btw, I have a Ford Ranger and it fails at killing stuff far away. But I can absolutely kill stuff with it in melee range.
Proof that Ranger is a melee class.

Einlanzer.1627:

The simple fact is if you’re somewhat good at one you’re likely to be somewhat good at the other too. NOBODY would ONLY use a bow or ONLY use a melee weapon – bows and swords are weapons with two different tactical uses. Most people who used one some would use the other to supplement it when needed. I.e. no matter how good an archer you are, you’d virtually never try to use a ranged weapon in a close range skirmish.

Well said. But when it comes to PvE in GW2 it’s almost always a bad choice to use ranged weapons. There’s no tactical use case for them. Or in other words: GW2’s PvE is all about pure raw DPS. Since melee gives the most DPS ranged is out.

woeye.2753:

Einlanzer.1627:

The simple fact is if you’re somewhat good at one you’re likely to be somewhat good at the other too. NOBODY would ONLY use a bow or ONLY use a melee weapon – bows and swords are weapons with two different tactical uses. Most people who used one some would use the other to supplement it when needed. I.e. no matter how good an archer you are, you’d virtually never try to use a ranged weapon in a close range skirmish.

Well said. But when it comes to PvE in GW2 it’s almost always a bad choice to use ranged weapons. There’s no tactical use case for them. Or in other words: GW2’s PvE is all about pure raw DPS. Since melee gives the most DPS ranged is out.

In some situations, yes, but not universally. There are some things many people fail to consider – the most prominent being that in some fights you get more uptime with ranged weapons because you don’t need to move around or dodge as much. I would argue that that’s a bigger reason for the imbalance than the relative risk is.

In 99% group PvE, melee stacking is better than ranged. Yes, 99% is made up, but reality is probably closer to 99.9%.

The meta for group play is melee. If you go ranged, you are out of the boon zone and a burden to the group. If you take damage, learn to dodge.

Einlanzer.1627:

woeye.2753:

Einlanzer.1627:

The simple fact is if you’re somewhat good at one you’re likely to be somewhat good at the other too. NOBODY would ONLY use a bow or ONLY use a melee weapon – bows and swords are weapons with two different tactical uses. Most people who used one some would use the other to supplement it when needed. I.e. no matter how good an archer you are, you’d virtually never try to use a ranged weapon in a close range skirmish.

Well said. But when it comes to PvE in GW2 it’s almost always a bad choice to use ranged weapons. There’s no tactical use case for them. Or in other words: GW2’s PvE is all about pure raw DPS. Since melee gives the most DPS ranged is out.

In some situations, yes, but not universally. There are some things many people fail to consider – the most prominent being that in some fights you get more uptime with ranged weapons because you don’t need to move around or dodge as much. I would argue that that’s a bigger reason for the imbalance than the relative risk is.

Only time that is the case for me is with event zergs.

The Zerg – a place where people try hard to press 1, 1, oh look they press 1 again.

coglin.1867:

they already do. they get buffs that halve condition duration, already totally hosing condition builds, which all have a cap or unreasonable limits. Your suggestion would ruin all the condition builds that already have a handy cap.

Snares, you feel that is an issue? Are you not familiar with how defiant works?

I feel like we are either talking about different games or you confuse snares (soft cc) with stuns (hard cc). Condition damage builds have nothing to do with range weapons and they are maybe a couple of bosses who have decreased condition duration.

kiwituatara.6053:

You want to add more risks in ranged attacks?

More risk? How can you add more to zero?

Ranged weapons would make a little more sense if there was a tiny knock back effect to them (depending on weapon type) like Torchlight/Torchlight II. Mobs and people tend to just bum rush no matter what CC or KD you use almost making them mean nothing. They’re within melee range nearly as soon as the fight starts depending on their vitality.

http://youtu.be/0ceQwKJjUCo

Vayne.8563:

I’m 100% in favor of them adjusting the profession description. And I’m mostly in favor of giving more ranged damage, too. I’m not against that.

But I play a ranger and I know for a fact that seeing the ranger as a ranged only profession is gimping yourself.

I play a Ranger too, and use almost always melee, but players should feel free to “kitten ” themselves if they so wish if they want to play a specific playstyle-though I do not agree at all with Ranger meaning “ranged combat” nor in ranged weaponry HAVING to do more damage just because we are “Rangers.”

In short, I know one can generally do less damage with a bow, but don’t care enough about the meta to criticize others for their free choices. That said, these bow-loving players shouldn’t ask for melee combat to be nerfed or inferior to ranged just because of ANet’s “unparalleled archers” statement, though-it should just be a valid option (which even now I think it is, if you accept the tradeoffs, though most players aren’t, it seems.) Not saying you were criticizing people for going their own way, but rather, was clarifying and stating my mind, and didn’t intend to antagonize you or anyone else in these forums-just because things are “meta” doesn’t mean we have to accept and enjoy what that meta is (otherwise, the “Zerk” thing is also a “meta” and still not all players adopt the playstyle-as it should be.)

haviz.1340:

coglin.1867:

they already do. they get buffs that halve condition duration, already totally hosing condition builds, which all have a cap or unreasonable limits. Your suggestion would ruin all the condition builds that already have a handy cap.

Snares, you feel that is an issue? Are you not familiar with how defiant works?

I feel like we are either talking about different games or you confuse snares (soft cc) with stuns (hard cc). Condition damage builds have nothing to do with range weapons and they are maybe a couple of bosses who have decreased condition duration.

Engineer pistols say hello. Ever skill they have is condition damage. Grenades are very condition oriented. EG as well.

Ranger short bow also says hi.

My point is, it was mentioned to halve condition damage for the sake of the immobilize condition. Seems that would hose everyone else.

haviz.1340:

Give mobs and bosses fast leaps, condition removal so they can remove snares and make them aggroing ranged players more often.

I am not confused at all. I am simply against hosing condition builds by having mobs constantly remove conditions, simply because you want them to drop the condition known as immobilize, faster or more often. Whether it is what you meant or not, it is what you posted. ALl that would be needed is defiant, which negates all cc, hard or soft, but once conditions were mentioned, the meaning changes completely.

If the content doesn’t involve stacking like idiots and facerolling your keyboard, ranged damage is fine as it is imo.

You have to constantly dodge and reposition as a meleer (in ‘proper’ fights) which means losing out on DPS, whilst as a ranged character you dont need to do too much of that.

haviz.1340:

kiwituatara.6053:

You want to add more risks in ranged attacks?

More risk? How can you add more to zero?

Adding to zero is easy. Multiplying zero by anything is unproductive. One way to add risk to ranged would be to remove the aggro criteria “closest target.”

They really need to address this – and it is a huge issue. The ranged weapons do pitiful damage, and have virtually no tools to maintain range. Conversely, the melee weapons are devastating, and (afaik) every class can close the 1200 range gap in 1-2 seconds, rendering your attempt at ranged combat moot.

A large part of this is the weakness of the CC skills. Ranged CC should be long lasting, and it’s not. 1-2s of chilled, 1s immobilized, 2s cripple, and mostly on 30-60 second recharge. There’s nothing at all keeping the axe wielding warrior from strolling up and embedding his axe in your frontal lobe.

IndigoSundown.5419:

haviz.1340:

kiwituatara.6053:

You want to add more risks in ranged attacks?

More risk? How can you add more to zero?

Adding to zero is easy. Multiplying zero by anything is unproductive. One way to add risk to ranged would be to remove the aggro criteria “closest target.”

Why would you want to add risk to range weapons?

Ranged weapons are supposed to be lower damaging, low risk weapons.
Melee weapons are supposed to be high damaging, high risk weapons.

What you’re proposing is this:
Ranged weapons: low damage, high risk
Melee weapons: high damage, low risk

That doesn’t make sense at all. And the topic is “Ranged weapons seem to suck in this game”.

So why do ranged weapons suck?
-Melee can basically close gaps instantly or escape instantly, which negates the low risks on ranged weapons.
-Stacking and meleeing. Damage mitigation, receive boons, heals, and condition clearings from group. Used in WvW, dungeons, and fotm.

Kaiyanwan.8521:

The PvE meta is melee, all classes.
Btw, I have a Ford Ranger and it fails at killing stuff far away. But I can absolutely kill stuff with it in melee range.
Proof that Ranger is a melee class.

Every profession has the ability to kill in melee and at range. That means all professions are melee and ranged classes. That logic is wrong because ranger longbow is designed to kill things far away

This is one thing the game has done right and so many other games do wrong.

Xae Isareth.1364:

In most situations you’re in far greater risk if try meleeing. Lupi anyone?

I disagree. Phase 2 Lupicus is actually more dangerous at range because his single target projectile attack (which can 1 shot squishies) does not affect you while in melee range, and his swipe is not too hard to dodge. Phase 3 Lupicus isn’t any more or less dangerous at range because he moves fast enough to necrid trap you even if you’re using a ranged weapon.

coglin.1867:

Engineer pistols say hello. Ever skill they have is condition damage. Grenades are very condition oriented. EG as well.

Ranger short bow also says hi.

Warrior swords, both off-hand and main-hand – melee condition weapon.
Ranger longbow – ranged power weapon.

I am not confused at all. I am simply against hosing condition builds by having mobs constantly remove conditions, simply because you want them to drop the condition known as immobilize, faster or more often. Whether it is what you meant or not, it is what you posted. ALl that would be needed is defiant, which negates all cc, hard or soft, but once conditions were mentioned, the meaning changes completely.

Cleaning conditions would make mobs more players alike and could improve the viability of control builds once unshakeable was revamped. Mobs should also get blocking moving.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Adding to zero is easy. Multiplying zero by anything is unproductive. One way to add risk to ranged would be to remove the aggro criteria “closest target.”

You can add to zero but how can you add more to zero? Zero means nothing and adding something more means there was already something.

kiwituatara.6053:

Why would you want to add risk to range weapons?

Ranged weapons are supposed to be lower damaging, low risk weapons.
Melee weapons are supposed to be high damaging, high risk weapons.

What you’re proposing is this:
Ranged weapons: low damage, high risk
Melee weapons: high damage, low risk

That doesn’t make sense at all. And the topic is “Ranged weapons seem to suck in this game”.

So why do ranged weapons suck?
-Melee can basically close gaps instantly or escape instantly, which negates the low risks on ranged weapons.
-Stacking and meleeing. Damage mitigation, receive boons, heals, and condition clearings from group. Used in WvW, dungeons, and fotm.

To improve their viability by increasing damage without making them too easy to use. Plus, currently they are 0 risk, not low risk.

haviz.1340:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Adding to zero is easy. Multiplying zero by anything is unproductive. One way to add risk to ranged would be to remove the aggro criteria “closest target.”

You can add to zero but how can you add more to zero? Zero means nothing and adding something more means there was already something.

I had zero risk. Things changed and I have some risk. I now have more risk than I had before.

Edit: Also, the assumption that range has zero risk/aggro occurs only in some situations (e.g., as a ranged character in a dungeon party with the rest melee). Since a ranged characters actually are at risk in other situations, increasing that risk would be adding a positive to an existing positive.

haviz.1340:

kiwituatara.6053:

Why would you want to add risk to range weapons?

Ranged weapons are supposed to be lower damaging, low risk weapons.
Melee weapons are supposed to be high damaging, high risk weapons.

What you’re proposing is this:
Ranged weapons: low damage, high risk
Melee weapons: high damage, low risk

That doesn’t make sense at all. And the topic is “Ranged weapons seem to suck in this game”.

So why do ranged weapons suck?
-Melee can basically close gaps instantly or escape instantly, which negates the low risks on ranged weapons.
-Stacking and meleeing. Damage mitigation, receive boons, heals, and condition clearings from group. Used in WvW, dungeons, and fotm.

To improve their viability by increasing damage without making them too easy to use. Plus, currently they are 0 risk, not low risk.

Definitely not 0 risk. Somebodies already mentioned lupicus in a few posts above. I’ve also said that melee right now has arguably lower risks due to stacking (WvW and dungeons), and numerous gap closers (WvW, PvP).

Vayne.8563:

Xae Isareth.1364:

In most situations you’re in far greater risk if try meleeing. Lupi anyone?

How about Subject Alpha? You’re at less risk meleeing him than you are ranging him.

almost any dungeon boss is harder at range…..a good part of lupicus included.
The Whole melee strategy is to maximize support and dps and negate the most mechanics possible while having free ress being Always in the range of 4 other players.

Obviously the lack of aggro system makes almost impossible splitting ranged combat and melee.

I guess this is what happens when you make all classes Jack of all trades.

stale.9785:

They really need to address this – and it is a huge issue. The ranged weapons do pitiful damage, and have virtually no tools to maintain range. Conversely, the melee weapons are devastating, and (afaik) every class can close the 1200 range gap in 1-2 seconds, rendering your attempt at ranged combat moot.

A large part of this is the weakness of the CC skills. Ranged CC should be long lasting, and it’s not. 1-2s of chilled, 1s immobilized, 2s cripple, and mostly on 30-60 second recharge. There’s nothing at all keeping the axe wielding warrior from strolling up and embedding his axe in your frontal lobe.

I disagree with the word “pitiful” but outside of that this guy gets it. 100%. It’s not about the damage it’s about how there is no compensation for the reduced damage. NO, ranged shouldn’t do more damage. Ranged should be able to maintain spacing, without perma kiting backwards .

It goes back to my feeling about the missteps in combat design. Between the lack of enmity, true crowd control, and negative reinforcement for having good timing GW2 is button mash melee dps centric.

ArenaNet needs to acknowledge the issue and let people know if its working as they intend or if they every plan to address.

LordByron.8369:

Vayne.8563:

Xae Isareth.1364:

In most situations you’re in far greater risk if try meleeing. Lupi anyone?

How about Subject Alpha? You’re at less risk meleeing him than you are ranging him.

almost any dungeon boss is harder at range…..a good part of lupicus included.
The Whole melee strategy is to maximize support and dps and negate the most mechanics possible while having free ress being Always in the range of 4 other players.

Obviously the lack of aggro system makes almost impossible splitting ranged combat and melee.

With proper kiting and zig-zagging you can avoid like 90% of attacks. So I would like to hear which boss is harder at range.

Lupicus phase 2? Zig-zag and keep moving and he can’t catch you.
Subject Alpha? Keep moving and you won’t get hit by ice or fire attack.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I had zero risk. Things changed and I have some risk. I now have more risk than I had before.

Edit: Also, the assumption that range has zero risk/aggro occurs only in some situations (e.g., as a ranged character in a dungeon party with the rest melee). Since a ranged characters actually are at risk in other situations, increasing that risk would be adding a positive to an existing positive.

We’re playing semantics right now but you cannot add more risk to nothing, you can add just risk to nothing.

LordByron.8369:

almost any dungeon boss is harder at range…..a good part of lupicus included.
The Whole melee strategy is to maximize support and dps and negate the most mechanics possible while having free ress being Always in the range of 4 other players.

Obviously the lack of aggro system makes almost impossible splitting ranged combat and melee.

We are definitely playing different game in which I can block most of the agony and have easier time when ranging bosses.

LordByron.8369:

Vayne.8563:

Xae Isareth.1364:

In most situations you’re in far greater risk if try meleeing. Lupi anyone?

How about Subject Alpha? You’re at less risk meleeing him than you are ranging him.

almost any dungeon boss is harder at range…..a good part of lupicus included.
The Whole melee strategy is to maximize support and dps and negate the most mechanics possible while having free ress being Always in the range of 4 other players.

Obviously the lack of aggro system makes almost impossible splitting ranged combat and melee.

That’s very strange. I need to concentrate a lot less on my mesmer than on my guardian, and I’ve got maxed out equips on both of them.

I find Lupi to be easier at range on p2 because his 15k projectile is predictable as heck.

haviz.1340:

IndigoSundown.5419:

I had zero risk. Things changed and I have some risk. I now have more risk than I had before.

Edit: Also, the assumption that range has zero risk/aggro occurs only in some situations (e.g., as a ranged character in a dungeon party with the rest melee). Since a ranged characters actually are at risk in other situations, increasing that risk would be adding a positive to an existing positive.

We’re playing semantics right now but you cannot add more risk to nothing, you can add just risk to nothing.

We don’t need to play semantics. Anything bigger than zero is more than zero. And of course ranged is not zero. Quite often it’s even more risky than melee.

And yet a good longbow Warrior will own me every time in PvP. As well as a good condition build Necro, and I consider myself an above average PvPer.

haviz.1340:

LordByron.8369:

almost any dungeon boss is harder at range…..a good part of lupicus included.
The Whole melee strategy is to maximize support and dps and negate the most mechanics possible while having free ress being Always in the range of 4 other players.

Obviously the lack of aggro system makes almost impossible splitting ranged combat and melee.

We are definitely playing different game in which I can block most of the agony and have easier time when ranging bosses.

Possibly the issue a general short sight and need to judge players without even reading their posts.

If the main purpose of this forum was discussing the game wewould have understood each other points

That is also the main problem of dungeon subforum……that should not be a hall of fame.

Anoddhermit.4602:

• Melee builds do more damage for every profession with no exception I can think of
• Stacking in melee allows for convenient boon stacking in a small area to put AoEs
• Melee just seems to do more damage, in general.
• Ranged weapon sets tend to have lower mobility and thus can’t effectively kite in PvP against superior mobility melee sets

You forgot:

• Enemies that can’t reach you, go invulnerable. But they can still hit you. Thus defeating the point of ranged combat.

Astralporing.1957:

We don’t need to play semantics. Anything bigger than zero is more than zero. And of course ranged is not zero. Quite often it’s even more risky than melee.

Quite often? Please, list those situations. Once I got back in about a week I might record how range is 0 risk.

LordByron.8369:

Possibly the issue a general short sight and need to judge players without even reading their posts.

If the main purpose of this forum was discussing the game wewould have understood each other points

That is also the main problem of dungeon subforum……that should not be a hall of fame.

I really would like to have a proper discussion with you some day but you always leave it before it even starts.

Hall of fame title is already in few subforums’ hands.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

You forgot:

• Enemies that can’t reach you, go invulnerable. But they can still hit you. Thus defeating the point of ranged combat.

This is great, I’ve never seen someone pointing that out. What you mean is that we should be able to climb on some cliff and shoot down on poor bosses?

Well …
Seems everyone in this thread has forgotten something rather crucial with respect to rangers: 20-40% of the ranger damage is given over to the pet. So yes, all ranger weapons do crap damage because of this stupid class mechanic.

Having said that, the ranger sword is the best consistent DPS weapon out of the lot. The longbow is good only if traited for 1500 range and the targets stay at max range. Problem is at max range the ranger looses out on any group boons, so better off going melee to stay close to the group.

I have both a full berserker guardian and an full berserker ranger. My guardian does far more consistent melee damage than my ranger ever does. Also, despite having a much lower HP pool, my guardian can more easily survive boss melee encounters than my ranger.

haviz.1340:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

You forgot:

• Enemies that can’t reach you, go invulnerable. But they can still hit you. Thus defeating the point of ranged combat.

This is great, I’ve never seen someone pointing that out. What you mean is that we should be able to climb on some cliff and shoot down on poor bosses?

No what I mean is that we should be able to make use of a vantage point, if we have frickin bows. If I climb on top of a tall mountain, and enemies below are in range, sucks to be them. And if that enemy is a boss, then he should have the means to deal with ranged opponents, and not go invulnerable. That is why the harpies in the Uncategorized Fractal are so frustrating. Not only is it clearly a bug that they go invulnerable, but they are on floating platforms, and we’re not allowed to shoot them. It blatantly puts the stupidity of this system on display.

In GW1, if you found a vantage point, you could shoot down on enemies. Hell, you can do that in WvW no problem. And then those enemies either have to run away, or go around and find a way up to where I am. That’s the whole point of a ranged weapon is it not? Being able to hit enemies from afar?

If bosses can be hit from a spot where they can’t reach us, and they need to go invulnerable because they can’t handle it, then that’s lazy design. A boss should be able to cope with the environment that was specifically designed to fight him in. Give the boss a ranged attack, maybe a pull move, or not give us a vantage point at all. But this entire invulnerable mechanic is just a sloppy solution to poor PVE ai, and it harms the tactical advantage that a ranged weapon has.

haviz.1340:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

You forgot:

• Enemies that can’t reach you, go invulnerable. But they can still hit you. Thus defeating the point of ranged combat.

This is great, I’ve never seen someone pointing that out. What you mean is that we should be able to climb on some cliff and shoot down on poor bosses?

That happens not only when they can’t reach you. It can also happen if they have a ranged attack and you’ll keep hiding behind walls of reflection (or similar mechanics) for too long. Even if there’s a path to you they could take. In fact, with some slow moving attacks it is possible to trigger it by just strafing left-right. I assume that invulnerability kicks in when mobs are being damaged, but themselves are unable to hit their target for longer than a certain preset time.
Happens quite often with harpies in uncategorized fractal.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

No what I mean is that we should be able to make use of a vantage point, if we have frickin bows. If I climb on top of a tall mountain, and enemies below are in range, sucks to be them. And if that enemy is a boss, then he should have the means to deal with ranged opponents, and not go invulnerable. That is why the harpies in the Uncategorized Fractal are so frustrating. Not only is it clearly a bug that they go invulnerable, but they are on floating platforms, and we’re not allowed to shoot them. It blatantly puts the stupidity of this system on display.

In GW1, if you found a vantage point, you could shoot down on enemies. Hell, you can do that in WvW no problem. And then those enemies either have to run away, or go around and find a way up to where I am. That’s the whole point of a ranged weapon is it not? Being able to hit enemies from afar?

If bosses can be hit from a spot where they can’t reach us, and they need to go invulnerable because they can’t handle it, then that’s lazy design. A boss should be able to cope with the environment that was specifically designed to fight him in. Give the boss a ranged attack, maybe a pull move, or not give us a vantage point at all. But this entire invulnerable mechanic is just a sloppy solution to poor PVE ai, and it harms the tactical advantage that a ranged weapon has.

Or make a terrain flat and no one whines about bosses going invulnerable.

Astralporing.1957:

That happens not only when they can’t reach you. It can also happen if they have a ranged attack and you’ll keep hiding behind walls of reflection (or similar mechanics) for too long. Even if there’s a path to you they could take. In fact, with some slow moving attacks it is possible to trigger it by just strafing left-right. I assume that invulnerability kicks in when mobs are being damaged, but themselves are unable to hit their target for longer than a certain preset time.
Happens quite often with harpies in uncategorized fractal.

No, it never happens when you camp behind wall of reflection. It happens when you are on higher or lower ground.

haviz.1340:

No, it never happens when you camp behind wall of reflection. It happens when you are on higher or lower ground.

Then maybe it happens when you hide behind an object, like a rock for example. And if that is the case, the game discourages taking cover from enemy attacks… that makes the mechanic even more dumb!

haviz.1340:

coglin.1867:

Engineer pistols say hello. Ever skill they have is condition damage. Grenades are very condition oriented. EG as well.

Ranger short bow also says hi.

Warrior swords, both off-hand and main-hand – melee condition weapon.
Ranger longbow – ranged power weapon.

I am not confused at all. I am simply against hosing condition builds by having mobs constantly remove conditions, simply because you want them to drop the condition known as immobilize, faster or more often. Whether it is what you meant or not, it is what you posted. ALl that would be needed is defiant, which negates all cc, hard or soft, but once conditions were mentioned, the meaning changes completely.

Cleaning conditions would make mobs more players alike and could improve the viability of control builds once unshakeable was revamped. Mobs should also get blocking moving.

What in the world would possess you to mention warrior sword? You were very specific in your comments about ranged, I cannot grasp the point in so strongly contradicting yourself.

Again, your not making any sense at all in reference to condition damage. You have not offered any facts to justify further gimping condition builds in PvE. I on the other hand offered a much more logical alternative, and you shoot it down. Because of this, I am not entirely certain you want to solve an actual problem, it really appear to me as you simply are trying to promote a change that will suit your personal needs with a specific build on a specific profession.

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Xae Isareth.1364:

In most situations you’re in far greater risk if try meleeing. Lupi anyone?

I disagree. Phase 2 Lupicus is actually more dangerous at range because his single target projectile attack (which can 1 shot squishies) does not affect you while in melee range, and his swipe is not too hard to dodge. Phase 3 Lupicus isn’t any more or less dangerous at range because he moves fast enough to necrid trap you even if you’re using a ranged weapon.

The single target projectiles are easily dodged, and the aoe are easier to dodge the further away from lupi you are, although if you know how to dodge the aoe in melee it’s quite easy. I would say range and melee are at near equal danger for phase 2.

For p3 it’s only dangerous for the person who has aggro if everyone else is ranging. If everyone is in melee, they are all in danger.