Guild Wars 2

A huge issue with the ranger’s longbow and mesmer’s greatsword is that their auto-attack damage is based off the range to the target. The design of these skills rewards and encourages poor group etiquette, expecting the player distance themselves from enemies and allies in order to maximize their damage, which also puts them out of range of support skills and generally supports poor positioning.

Players should not be encouraged to keep distance to deal damage, but instead be encouraged to use whatever distance is best suited for the environment. Keeping distance, or sticking close to the target, should be enough of a reward in itself through the mechanics of the encounter; we don’t need mechanics which make the player feel forced to keep huge distances no matter the situation.

Please get rid of this ridiculous mechanic, at least in PvE where it plays no positive role.

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.

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

Carighan.6758:

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

Good one.

I see no problem with distance based damage and other effects like warriors shout “fear me!”
At longer range Mesmers have a harder time dealing good damage with their GS, and I suppose that’s pretty much why the distance slightly increases their #1 damage, same goes for ranger. Imo there should be more things like this.

Bri.8354:

[…] these skills rewards and encourages poor group etiquette, [..]

The only poor thing is, that GW2 pve allows teamstacking in 1 point and fighting melee to be that efficient.

It is not that Greatsword or Longbow enourage poor group etiquette, it is the bad design, which allows your whole group (inclduing “glassy” DDs) to stand togther on one point in melee range of the enemy.

Not Mesmer GS or Ranger LB should be changed, the dungeon design should be changed into no allowing melee cuddleing.

EverythingEnds.4261:

Bri.8354:

[…] these skills rewards and encourages poor group etiquette, [..]

The only poor thing is, that GW2 pve allows teamstacking in 1 point and fighting melee to be that efficient.

It is not that Greatsword or Longbow enourage poor group etiquette, it is the bad design, which allows your whole group (inclduing “glassy” DDs) to stand togther on one point in melee range of the enemy.

Not Mesmer GS or Ranger LB should be changed, the dungeon design should be changed into no allowing melee cuddleing.

So being close to your team is now bad? I did runs last night with my usual group, I ran turrets being lazy we had a guardian, a theif, and two eles. one ele used scepter, but stayed near us cause he knew if I laid down turrets, he was gonna put down a fire field, and we would get 18/21 stacks of might. which make the fight MUCH faster. I find it funny that playing as a team to you is counter intiutive.

You can range a fight without being 1200 units away. Those weapons reward you for being miles away from a fight, if you get downed, harder to rez. you dont get buffs/healing circles/turret buffs all the way over there.

Simple fact of the matter is, the game even before the “stacking” meta because a thing, clearly rewarded you being near friends.

Fix it the easy way: Full collision detection. Team mates, bodyshielding, projectiles hitting friendly targets, everything.

Mind you, hilarious fix, too.

Carighan.6758:

Fix it the easy way: Full collision detection. Team mates, bodyshielding, projectiles hitting friendly targets, everything.

Mind you, hilarious fix, too.

this does not stop us all from standing within 240 radius of one another and blasting fire fields tho soooooo it adds unneeded complications without fixing the “melee” ball. even if you dont perfectly stack, you still are so much better off right next to one another.

how about the lb shoots faster the closer ur target is to you… balance it so the speed of the shots balances out with the damage from max range, keep the damage reduction tho

Dungeons are a joke…There’s “certain” ways to run them, you can’t play the way you want to play, if you do than you get the boot. Stacking in a little corner is fast sure, but I’m sure the designer’s did not intend it to be this way. Every dungeon is a burn session and it’s sad, but whatever.

I kind of think PvE just needs more opposing forces so that ranged options are more relevant. What I mean by opposing forces is where a player mechanic persuades one behavior, and an enemy mechanic persuades the opposite. Or, where two of your own mechanics persuade you in different directions with a clear set of pros and cons, and you have to consciously choose when to make that tradeoff.

Like, fights that tend to use heavy targeted AOEs to the point your active defenses are overwhelmed, are better than fights that can’t make it past them. Because that’s when your Buff mechanics are persuading you to cluster up, but the enemy’s targeted AOE mechanics are persuading you to scatter apart; so you experience an internal conflict and start having to make heat of the moment choices about movement and space.

A game encouraging you to perform a one certain way is nice and all, but without something opposing it the gameplay’s more of a simple knowledge or reflex check than something truly active and interesting.

Melee and Ranged are usually opposing forces of the second variety.
There’s clear risk/reward pros and cons to doing Ranged or Melee, and you’re expected to switch off in the middle of a fight as your healthbar demands. For a number of reasons, that dynamic ends up pretty choppy and inconsistent in this game. To the point I don’t really think it works.

It might be more interesting if it went about it another way.
Like, making the tradeoff different so that going Melee or Ranged has a different set of Pros and Cons that avoids some of the problems trading off risk has. (ex: giving mobs more natural locomotion and less reliance on melee autoattacks. So that risk is no longer a factor, and melee is higher DPS but needs somebody else using control skills to help them land things, and ranged is lesser DPS but more self sufficient.) Or something added to mob melee autoattacks that pushes you to retreat by overwhelming or undermining active defense, but there’s also ‘other things’ going on during the fight. (So a fully melee character doesn’t have to stop contributing they just switch gears for a bit.)

Dice Dragon.4326:

So being close to your team is now bad? I did runs last night with my usual group, I ran turrets being lazy we had a guardian, a theif, and two eles. one ele used scepter, but stayed near us cause he knew if I laid down turrets, he was gonna put down a fire field, and we would get 18/21 stacks of might. which make the fight MUCH faster. I find it funny that playing as a team to you is counter intiutive.

You can range a fight without being 1200 units away. Those weapons reward you for being miles away from a fight, if you get downed, harder to rez. you dont get buffs/healing circles/turret buffs all the way over there.

Simple fact of the matter is, the game even before the “stacking” meta because a thing, clearly rewarded you being near friends.

Did you even read my post?
I don’t say being close to your team is bad, I say it is bad that this is possibile.
I’m really happy that GW2 doesn’t have Trinity, however, being able to run a dungeon with a full zerker (aka “DDs”) group, who are fighting in melee range seems pretty bad design.
Yes, teamstacking is great since it allows mightstacking and maximazes aoe boons / heal.
However, the fact that the positions of teammates are decided more by maxing out boons and are rarely boss specific is in my opinion bad.

Hell, why does this game even feature weapon swapping, when you only need to stay in melee? To optimize some skill rotations? It should be more that there are phases where you aren’t able to do melee / ranged damage, or where zerker builds have to into ranged combat since they would die in melee.
Not just “ok, we push the enemy into that corner over there, everbody gets there, lets stack some might and in 10s the boss is dead”.

EverythingEnds.4261:

Dice Dragon.4326:

So being close to your team is now bad? I did runs last night with my usual group, I ran turrets being lazy we had a guardian, a theif, and two eles. one ele used scepter, but stayed near us cause he knew if I laid down turrets, he was gonna put down a fire field, and we would get 18/21 stacks of might. which make the fight MUCH faster. I find it funny that playing as a team to you is counter intiutive.

You can range a fight without being 1200 units away. Those weapons reward you for being miles away from a fight, if you get downed, harder to rez. you dont get buffs/healing circles/turret buffs all the way over there.

Simple fact of the matter is, the game even before the “stacking” meta because a thing, clearly rewarded you being near friends.

Did you even read my post?
I don’t say being close to your team is bad, I say it is bad that this is possibile.
I’m really happy that GW2 doesn’t have Trinity, however, being able to run a dungeon with a full zerker (aka “DDs”) group, who are fighting in melee range seems pretty bad design.
Yes, teamstacking is great since it allows mightstacking and maximazes aoe boons / heal.
However, the fact that the positions of teammates are decided more by maxing out boons and are rarely boss specific is in my opinion bad.

Hell, why does this game even feature weapon swapping, when you only need to stay in melee? To optimize some skill rotations? It should be more that there are phases where you aren’t able to do melee / ranged damage, or where zerker builds have to into ranged combat since they would die in melee.
Not just “ok, we push the enemy into that corner over there, everbody gets there, lets stack some might and in 10s the boss is dead”.

I think this has to do with alot of enemies gimmick is “Reflects projectiles” which deletes ranged as an option, I love running close range rifle on my engie, but its problematic when all projectiles just hurt me and my team, nades feel this really hard.

As for melee being the only option, this has to do with the meta, and if you have one dude at 1200 range, and everyone else at melee, if the 1200 range dude takes a hit(aka a non perfect scenerio, aka he kittens up a dodge) going to rez is costing us not only dps, but time to run over and rez him, and he is away from protection.

My group runes with 2/3 range and 2 melee though, so dont let the meta get to you. we generally stay around 600 range of the enemies so I can blast for the melee and the backline at the same time easier, we disperse as needed.

I see alot of “omg stacking zerker meta!!!” in posts, and I agree, this the most OPTIMAL strat for burning through the bosses. Well, my dungeon group isnt slow and isnt fast, we are pretty average. And even despite skype, we have a bit of trouble in certain “Cordinated” situations, and run with a soldiers spec, 2/3 zerkers and I run whatever we need since I have most of the armor sets in safe boxes. And we get through just fine. no matter what even if they nerf stacking, the next new meta will be something diffrent and you will be kicked for not doing it.

TL:DR you can and will clear dungeons with all GS mesmers if you try. the meta will change and will always punish those who dont follow it.

Bri.8354:

A huge issue with the ranger’s longbow and mesmer’s greatsword is that their auto-attack damage is based off the range to the target. The design of these skills rewards and encourages poor group etiquette, expecting the player distance themselves from enemies and allies in order to maximize their damage, which also puts them out of range of support skills and generally supports poor positioning.

Players should not be encouraged to keep distance to deal damage, but instead be encouraged to use whatever distance is best suited for the environment. Keeping distance, or sticking close to the target, should be enough of a reward in itself through the mechanics of the encounter; we don’t need mechanics which make the player feel forced to keep huge distances no matter the situation.

Please get rid of this ridiculous mechanic, at least in PvE where it plays no positive role.

sorry, what? are you one of those rangers that sits in a boss’s face and just pewpews all day? while i agree that longbow needs some huge attention from arenanet(bow sniping is why i wanted to play ranger) this is one part of the weapon i don’t see as a problem.

Even if stacking were removed this would still be an issue. Take level 49-50 fractals where players often melee a boss until they get hit down a bit, then range while their health is recovering or there is a good opportunity. Some fights are even done with primarily ranged weapons, such as the room with the champion rabbit in the harpy fractal.

The thing with range in these situations is that its best for the team if everyone stays close together. If someone goes down you can easily revive them and you’re always in range of support skills and finishers. As a ranger you want to be in range to give your allies spotter, frost spirit, and healing spring, but if you’re sitting back at 1,000+ range you’re only a liability to the party, not granting them your support abilities and not being affected by theirs.

I hope people can understand the conflict between support mechanics in a group and the design of these skills.

I have to say though, I don’t generally see the issue with players wanting to stand together. What’s bad about it?

Likewise, as I said above, melee weapons do very low damage outside of ~130 range. Seems to bother no one. But Longbow doing less damage at closer range is a big deal? Why not just use a closer-range weapon when fighting up close? Rangers can wield two weapon sets. And switch to longbow when at range or when you need to AE or stealth?

Carighan.6758:

I have to say though, I don’t generally see the issue with players wanting to stand together. What’s bad about it?

Likewise, as I said above, melee weapons do very low damage outside of ~130 range. Seems to bother no one. But Longbow doing less damage at closer range is a big deal? Why not just use a closer-range weapon when fighting up close? Rangers can wield two weapon sets. And switch to longbow when at range or when you need to AE or stealth?

The design of melee weapons doesn’t have the negative effects on a group that distance based damage does. Could you imagine if melee weapons did less damage the more allies that were close to you? That’s the kind of effect distance based damage has on the group.

And yet I’m sure some players would rally around that kind of mechanic using some of the same arguments found in this thread.

Bri.8354:

The design of melee weapons doesn’t have the negative effects on a group that distance based damage does.

Eh, sure do?
Try this for comparison:

• Entire party equips ranged weapons, stacks at range.
• You equip a melee weapon, go into melee.

How many players are standing next to you now?

And now reverse the distances and weapon loadouts. The only difference is that with the melee weapon you have to close in first, but in return everything cleaves automatically, daggers excepted ofc.

Bri.8354:

Could you imagine if melee weapons did less damage the more allies that were close to you? That’s the kind of effect distance based damage has on the group.

Let me try to understand this: You do less damage with a ranged weapon the more allies stand next to you? How does your ranged weapon work exactly? Mine don’t change in damage unless that ally next to me buffs me with might.

Now if you meant that you equip your Longbow and then move into melee range, again, why are you using a ranged weapon in a melee fight? Do you use your melee weapon at 1200 range, too? And then complain about it?

Carighan.6758:

Eh, sure do?
Try this for comparison:

• Entire party equips ranged weapons, stacks at range.
• You equip a melee weapon, go into melee.

How many players are standing next to you now?

And now reverse the distances and weapon loadouts. The only difference is that with the melee weapon you have to close in first, but in return everything cleaves automatically, daggers excepted ofc.

The group can use both melee and range weapons while still being in support range with each-other. Its only the design of distance based damage that expects ranged players to stay out of range of both melee and mid range party members.

Carighan.6758:

Let me try to understand this: You do less damage with a ranged weapon the more allies stand next to you? How does your ranged weapon work exactly? Mine don’t change in damage unless that ally next to me buffs me with might.

Now if you meant that you equip your Longbow and then move into melee range, again, why are you using a ranged weapon in a melee fight? Do you use your melee weapon at 1200 range, too? And then complain about it?

The design and balance of melee vs ranged weaponry is so different that you can’t make direct comparisons like that. That’s why I used another comparison, one that has the same effect on the group based play that distance based damage does, although I probably shouldn’t have made that comparison at all; the two are so different that neither comparison holds ground.

Carighan.6758:

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

you dont need larger range damage ( hi GS #4 ), you have a 1200 leap to smash bow users face, .

Counter counter question:

Why GS have cleave and LB not?

LB1 is kinda dinky anyway, even if you use it at its intended range, and closing that range wouldn’t actually make it a viable weapon.

Also, dividing skills between gametype is bad, unless you want people going to the sPvP forums and going “lol wtf y dos lb suck in pvp but its awesum in pve?”

Doesn’t fix a problem, and adds unneeded complexity. I don’t think it’s a good idea.

Sarrs.4831:

LB1 is kinda dinky anyway, even if you use it at its intended range, and closing that range wouldn’t actually make it a viable weapon.

Also, dividing skills between gametype is bad, unless you want people going to the sPvP forums and going “lol wtf y dos lb suck in pvp but its awesum in pve?”

Doesn’t fix a problem, and adds unneeded complexity. I don’t think it’s a good idea.

It would be a step in the right direction at improving the weapon at least.

When it comes to balancing around different game modes, Its a mistake in my opinion not to separately design and balance the skills around each format. PvE, PvP, and WvW are just so different that you’ll never achieve an acceptable balance unless you do.

Whenever this is brought up ANets argument always seems to be that they don’t want to confuse players moving from one game mode to another, but if they want a well designed and balanced game in every area you cannot use the exact same skills across every format.

Perhaps a good solution would be allowing players to select multiple variations of each weapon loadout? This would allow players to select more appropriate skill sets for each format, or use the same one in every format if they wish, eliminating that confusion.

This would also allow players who like the distance based damage design to still use it, while allowing viable alternatives to those who don’t.

Bri.8354:

It would be a step in the right direction at improving the weapon at least.

Improving the weapon from a player standpoint, or improving the weapon from a design standpoint?

Encouraging you to play differently by varying the mechanics on each weapon is good design. While it might make the longbow more powerful, it makes it less interesting.

Bri.8354:

When it comes to balancing around different game modes, Its a mistake in my opinion not to design and balance the game differently for each major format. PvE, PvP, and WvW are so different that you’ll never achieve an acceptable balance unless you do things separate for each one.

Whenever this is brought up ANets argument always seems to be that they don’t want to confuse players moving from one game mode to another, but if they want a well designed and balanced game in every area you cannot use the exact same skills across every format.

Being balanced does not necessarily mean that it is a good game. Rock paper scissors is a balanced game, but it is not necessarily a good one. Rock paper scissors spock handgun is a balanced game, but it’s worse than rock paper scissors.

I disagree very strongly that it would be a better designed game if it were to change skills for balance when moving between modes. Keep in mind that you aren’t asking for a simple numbers adjustment; you’re asking to change LB1 into a completely different skill by removing the variable damage.

“It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.” Excessive complication makes a system worse, not better.

Bri.8354:

Perhaps a good solution would be allowing players to select multiple variations of each skill, or perhaps each weapon loadout? This would allow them to create multiple builds of each weapon suited more for one game type than another without causing that confusion.

This would also allow players who like the distance based damage design to still use it, while allowing viable alternatives to those who don’t.

This is the goal of the weapon spread system. There is a variation of the longbow, which instead of being an extreme-range weapon, is an extreme melee weapon- It’s the greatsword.

Sarrs.4831:

Improving the weapon from a player standpoint, or improving the weapon from a design standpoint?

Encouraging you to play differently by varying the mechanics on each weapon is good design. While it might make the longbow more powerful, it makes it less interesting.

How, from a design standpoint, is encouraging a play-style that is detrimental to the team unless everyone is also using the exact same play-style, considered healthy for group based play or of good design?

Sarrs.4831:

Being balanced does not necessarily mean that it is a good game. Rock paper scissors is a balanced game, but it is not necessarily a good one. Rock paper scissors spock handgun is a balanced game, but it’s worse than rock paper scissors.

I disagree very strongly that it would be a better designed game if it were to change skills for balance when moving between modes. Keep in mind that you aren’t asking for a simple numbers adjustment; you’re asking to change LB1 into a completely different skill by removing the variable damage.

“It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.” Excessive complication makes a system worse, not better.

The issue is this; some classes, weapon choices, skills, ect are fine in one game mode but have no competitive place in another. The game is not not equal in every aspect, and so the same skill won’t fit in everywhere. This has lead to a plethora of uncompetitive options, creating a very poor variety in competitively viable builds and options.

Rather than having a lack of competitive options we should be working to make those aspects viable in more areas of the game. I don’t suppose you have a better approach to doing this that wouldn’t impact them in other formats, making them overpowered or ruining them in one area for the sake of another?

Sarrs.4831:

This is the goal of the weapon spread system. There is a variation of the longbow, which instead of being an extreme-range weapon, is an extreme melee weapon- It’s the greatsword.

The only suitable ranged weapon for a power based ranger is the longbow. However, because of distance based damage I take it players are not meant to use this effectively and instead behave like the infamous “bearbow ranger”? So then, if your “weapon spread system” worked, where is the weapon that functions properly in a group based PvE environment?

But wait! We could just add another real variation to the longbow, one that truly fits into group based play through something like I suggested.

Bri.8354:

How, from a design standpoint, is encouraging a play-style that is detrimental to the team unless everyone is also using the exact same play-style, considered healthy for group based play or of good design?

It’s not detrimental. It’s subpar. There’s a distinct difference between the two.

And no, it’s not healthy. However, the problem is deeper than these two skills. Changing Long-Ranged Shot and Laser Pew Pew will not fundamentally change how dungeons work; it’s a bandaid fix, and not one that’s even assured to make LB/GS viable.

Bri.8354:

The issue is this; some classes, weapon choices, skills, ect are fine in one game mode but have no competitive place in another. The game is not not equal in every aspect, and so the same skill won’t fit in everywhere. This has lead to a plethora of uncompetitive options, creating a very poor variety in competitively viable builds and options.

Rather than having a lack of competitive options we should be working to make those aspects viable in more areas of the game. I don’t suppose you have a better approach to doing this that wouldn’t impact them in other formats, making them overpowered or ruining them in one area for the sake of another?

“Not all weapon, skill and trait combinations are viable in all aspects of the game. Therefore, change.”

I think Swagg made a series of threads about this. I could link you to them. I don’t agree with him at all, however he was very in-depth, so his list of changes could be considered a fair approximation of what you’re asking me to do. I think, in total, it was over 100 posts worth of changes.

Please reduce the scope of what you’re asking me to do.

Bri.8354:

The only suitable ranged weapon for a power based ranger is the longbow. However, because of distance based damage I take it players are not meant to use this effectively and instead behave like the infamous “bearbow ranger”? So then, if your “weapon spread system” worked, where is the weapon that functions properly in a group based PvE environment?

It’s the greatsword. Or sword/warhorn. I think you’re supposed to use them both, actually. I’m not a master ranger but that’s what I heard somewhere.

Bri.8354:

But wait! We could just add another real variation to the longbow, one that truly fits into group based play through something like I suggested.

It doesn’t fit into group based play. The 1’s still rubbish damage, the weapon has no cleave, its damage isn’t that great, and it provides no benefits to allies.

You’re asking that an entirely new system be brought into the game exclusively for two skills, which fixes a problem which is only a contributing factor to a bigger problem.

Sarrs.4831:

snip

While the longbow, and ranged weapons in general, are sub-par in PvE where you can just melee stack everything in, this isn’t necessarily what I’m trying to address in this thread. The issue there is very complex and difficult to address, and is something that requires a rework of the dungeons themselves in addition to possible reworks of conditions, crowd control, and weapon design.

What I’m trying to address here is situations where ranged weapons are viable, such as in fractals. In my opinion the design of fractals was a step in the right direction over previous dungeons. While they aren’t perfect, they do encourage the use of both melee and range weapons, a lot of the encounters punish direct stacking, and even at the highest levels of play you see players switching into ranged weapons frequently.

The problem I keep encountering with the longbow is that they have the annoying ranged based damage mechanic which has no place in group based content. I feel like I’m handicapped no matter what I do for using the weapon. If I stick by my allies to keep spotter on them and receive their support I’m not getting the most out of my damage. If I stay at range my team is loosing out on my buffs, and I of theirs.

All other play-styles work perfectly fine with the rest of the party. If you’re using melee you know the range players can still stick close, but not so close that they are in harms way. If you’re a ranged player you can support the melee player by sticking close to him, providing him your buffs and ready to revive him if he happens to go down.

The longbow however is completely selfish and screws you over unless everyone else in your party is also attacking at a far range. You cannot stick close to any close-mid range fighter without being penalized, and you cannot sit in the back to get your full damage without missing out on buffs.

I was also thinking my suggestion of multiple skill sets for weapons would address far more than just the longbow and mesmer greatsword. There are plenty of weapons out there that might also benefit from such a system.

And I’d love to read Swagg’s thread if you don’t mind finding it.

Bri.8354:

I was also thinking my suggestion of multiple skill sets for weapons would address far more than just the longbow and mesmer greatsword. There are plenty of weapons out there that might also benefit from such a system.

Just gonna post in response to this;

I thought you meant replacing individual skills on a skillbar, so you could replace Long-Ranged Shot with Generic Ranged Shot, for example. A system like that, I think that’d be a lot of work- weapons are balanced with their full range of skills in mind.

Adding entire new skillsets, so you could make a longbow’s 1-5 into a completely different set of skills, is I think a bit flawed. One of them; how can another player tell which skill spread you have? They’re both longbows; how do you know when they’ve changed weapons?

I think it’d be better (and by “better” i mean “super cool”) if they added new weapon:class combinations to fill those gaps. For example, instead of changing Longbow’s skills or adding another spread, add Ranger Rifle, with a range-agnostic spread of skills.

just make long bow like flamethrower tbh, make it balanced around the fact that you are not supposed to be at max range, Flamethrower is a great example of this, you buff its auto attack damage by 10% on burning targets, so if you wish to get the most of it, you need to burn the enemy 24/7 to get that boost. The issue is this is generally impossible for the engineer alone.

Make longbow have a solid normal attack like other weapons, and then give it a clause of “20% more damage if arrow travels 1000 units” or something similar. Cause as it is, GS/LB are balanced around you being at max braket, which is not practical at all. Make it REWARD you for playing a certain way, not forcing you to. You dont have to burn jack with flamethrower, but doing so sure does help you.

Littlefeather.8623:

Dungeons are a joke…There’s “certain” ways to run them, you can’t play the way you want to play, if you do than you get the boot. Stacking in a little corner is fast sure, but I’m sure the designer’s did not intend it to be this way. Every dungeon is a burn session and it’s sad, but whatever.

The dungeons in this game are the worst i have played in any MMO….EVER!

urdriel.8496:

Why GS have cleave and LB not?

Inherent cleave is the upside most melee weapons (daggers being the exception) get in return for being, well, melee-ranged.

Melee damage is higher than ranged. For obvious reasons. Exceptions are engi grenades(harder to land from far) and staff ele. Not sure for the reasoning behind staff ele. Perhaps the lack of defensive skills. Probably that lava font and meteor shower are also targeted. Also you could argue that while longbow is lower dps than sword(by a very small difference), it’s way higher than greatsword assuming max range.

Bri.8354:

A huge issue with the ranger’s longbow and mesmer’s greatsword is that their auto-attack damage is based off the range to the target. The design of these skills rewards and encourages poor group etiquette, expecting the player distance themselves from enemies and allies in order to maximize their damage, which also puts them out of range of support skills and generally supports poor positioning.

Players should not be encouraged to keep distance to deal damage, but instead be encouraged to use whatever distance is best suited for the environment. Keeping distance, or sticking close to the target, should be enough of a reward in itself through the mechanics of the encounter; we don’t need mechanics which make the player feel forced to keep huge distances no matter the situation.

Please get rid of this ridiculous mechanic, at least in PvE where it plays no positive role.

Why on earth want you to range in the first place in PvE?

ArmageddonAsh.6430:

Littlefeather.8623:

Dungeons are a joke…There’s “certain” ways to run them, you can’t play the way you want to play, if you do than you get the boot. Stacking in a little corner is fast sure, but I’m sure the designer’s did not intend it to be this way. Every dungeon is a burn session and it’s sad, but whatever.

The dungeons in this game are the worst i have played in any MMO….EVER!

Make your own groups. With your own rules. Both of you.

urdriel.8496:

Carighan.6758:

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

you dont need larger range damage ( hi GS #4 ), you have a 1200 leap to smash bow users face, .

Counter counter question:

Why GS have cleave and LB not?

because…it’s a bow.

change fortify bond to share boon in both way. Then a bow ranger and gain all the boon from stacking from their pet while staying at max range.

While I definitely agree with the generic sentiment that a scaling range mechanic is a poor mechanic, I don’t overall find it to be the core issue; which is the PvE/Dungeon issue that everybody is discussing.

“Zooming out” a bit, looking at the weapons alone, why is achieving maximum damage through a zero cooldown autoattack even an existing mechanic? In a perfect world (perfect game), autoattacking would be considered “filler” damage in a skill rotation that would be maximizing damage and encouraging active gameplay.

The fact that the game even rewards autoattacking with maximum DPS values is a testament to what mechanics would need to be changed, starting with a simple philosophy; skill rotations need to be used to achieve maximum DPS on every weaponset.

If we could make a change like that so that the longbows (mesmer greatswords as well? other than using iZerker on cooldown I’d assume) cooldown skills were actually significant additions to the damage output, then looking at the ranged based damage scaling mechanic again, depending on the severity of changes made, we might be able to leave the mechanic as is, seeing as how the skill would now just be considered a filler damage skill with bonus damage stipulations, so that the weapon would no longer be an autoattack to win weapon.

This is slightly off-topic, was I apologies in advance..

@jcbroe

I’ve really never liked that sort of logic. I don’t see any gain in adding “active” gameplay for now reason, and really Mesmer GS and Ranger SB are the two weapons I use the most and are perfect examples. For the GS I use 2, 3, and 4 pretty much off CD because they offer the best DPS. It’s very active and I am always using skills. With the SB I am mostly just AAing, sometimes going quite long periods without using my other skills because the best DPS is on the AA.

To me, the SB is much better design, not because I’m lazy and its easier, but because I am thinking about my skills. When I use a SB skill its because I want the specific special effect that skill profides for the situation I am in. I am constantly thinking, choosing, waiting, planning. It’s interactive. With the mesmer GS (with the exeption of the #5) there is very little thought. I am spamming every skill all day long purely for the DPS. Sure, I know the #3 removes boons, and the #2 gives Might, but I am not using the skills for those purposes.. they are just random bonuses that happen from the spamming to get max DPS. That, to me, is much worse design because theres no thought other than “must press all buttons!”.

Now, maybe the ranegr SB does take with slightly too far… It would be nice if all weapons had a bursting skill (like 100B, or iBerserker, etc) to give a quick sudden DPS increase, but otherall the AA should give the best sustained DPS with the other skills offering utility so that people are using them with thought and skill.

TL;DR – Interactive play >>> Active play for no reason

Cufufalating.8479:

This is slightly off-topic, was I apologies in advance..

@jcbroe

I’ve really never liked that sort of logic. I don’t see any gain in adding “active” gameplay for now reason, and really Mesmer GS and Ranger SB are the two weapons I use the most and are perfect examples. For the GS I use 2, 3, and 4 pretty much off CD because they offer the best DPS. It’s very active and I am always using skills. With the SB I am mostly just AAing, sometimes going quite long periods without using my other skills because the best DPS is on the AA.

To me, the SB is much better design, not because I’m lazy and its easier, but because I am thinking about my skills. When I use a SB skill its because I want the specific special effect that skill profides for the situation I am in. I am constantly thinking, choosing, waiting, planning. It’s interactive. With the mesmer GS (with the exeption of the #5) there is very little thought. I am spamming every skill all day long purely for the DPS. Sure, I know the #3 removes boons, and the #2 gives Might, but I am not using the skills for those purposes.. they are just random bonuses that happen from the spamming to get max DPS. That, to me, is much worse design because theres no thought other than “must press all buttons!”.

Now, maybe the ranegr SB does take with slightly too far… It would be nice if all weapons had a bursting skill (like 100B, or iBerserker, etc) to give a quick sudden DPS increase, but otherall the AA should give the best sustained DPS with the other skills offering utility so that people are using them with thought and skill.

TL;DR – Interactive play >>> Active play for no reason

That’s true, and out of any example you picked in the game, Ranger Shortbow is definitely THE weaponset to pick, as with it you should always be moving to create the flanking scenarios for the most damage, and picking the appropriate time to use the cooldown as every cooldown has a unique function and purpose (I’d argue thief shortbow is in a similar boat, unless that weapon achieves maximum DPS by doing something other than autoattacking).

I think the key to that though is that there are situations and reasons to use the cooldowns.

So maybe the idea of active gameplay should just be substituted with engaging gameplay, or as you said, interactive gameplay.

In which case weapons like Longbow still need to be changed. Vulnerability isn’t as effective against bosses, and Rapid Fire itself is a DPS loss unless used at the perfect moment in between autoattacking as to not interrupt the animation of an autoattack at all. LB 3, because it isn’t an evade, could maybe help drop aggro I guess, but you are sacrificing your DPS to stealth and not help offensively at all through the entire usage of the skill, which due to ANets dungeon mechanics is a big “no” for lots of people since the game is all about the “damage meta,” and LB 4 is a hard CC which is also not useful against a boss all that much.

So you end up just autoattacking and dropping barrage on cooldown.

So that could be fixed just by improving dungeon mechanics so you can’t just damage your way through dungeons anymore, but I do think that most people would prefer to see the weapon be changed to reflect a more engaging playstyle.

@jcbroe

While I do agree that combat in dungeons and PvE in general needs to be addressed so its less about stacking and DPS, the point I’m trying to get across is that distance based damage isn’t a good mechanic in a group based setting even if that was addressed.

The encounter in the attached screenshot a good example of a fight where both range and melee are viable, and switching between the two during the fight is common. Notice the distance everyone is fighting at? Ranged players are staying within support distance of the melee, but far enough away to avoid attacks. This is how ranged weapons are meant to be used in a group based setting, not standing in the back of the room away from everything.

Bri.8354:

Even if stacking were removed this would still be an issue. Take level 49-50 fractals where players often melee a boss until they get hit down a bit, then range while their health is recovering or there is a good opportunity. Some fights are even done with primarily ranged weapons, such as the room with the champion rabbit in the harpy fractal.

The thing with range in these situations is that its best for the team if everyone stays close together. If someone goes down you can easily revive them and you’re always in range of support skills and finishers. As a ranger you want to be in range to give your allies spotter, frost spirit, and healing spring, but if you’re sitting back at 1,000+ range you’re only a liability to the party, not granting them your support abilities and not being affected by theirs.

I hope people can understand the conflict between support mechanics in a group and the design of these skills.

ranger has pretty good movement skills if he wants to. Making every weapon fit one style of play kind of defeats the purpose of having different weapons.

I would be asking for more ways to make long range play more team synergistic, and entertaining rather than asking longbow to be force fit into a melee meta.

Bri.8354:

This is how ranged weapons are meant to be used in a group based setting, not standing in the back of the room away from everything.

Because when everyone is at 1200 range, they’re physically unable to stay close to each other, their characters actually repel one another.

Or what?

I mean what you’re saying is that a melee stack (because that’s what the 600-range thing is, you could go fully melee and still get buffs) doesn’t support range-dependent ranged weapons.

True.

Use a different weapon then?

Here’s an interesting observation I made, Mesmer:

• Staff doesn’t have damage reduction in melee.
• Scepter actually gains damage from being in melee.
• Sword works only in melee.

And you want me to use my Greatsword. Eh, why? Weapons are quite specialized in each class, why use a weapon specifically for what it isn’t meant to be used for?

No, I absolutely agree with you Bri. I know I wrote a lot of text and the point got lost somewhere in there that I was trying to make, but what I was meaning to say that the distance is just one side of the issue and that another view on it is how not healthy it potentially is for a weapon with its particular skillset to have to rely on autoattacks to begin with.

Wordy, again, I know, so let me ask my point as a question: Would distance based skills be as poorly designed if they weren’t the source of the maximum damage output? (so that a repeatable skill rotation using the autoattack as filler would be the maximum DPS)?

I mean, yes, maximum damage would still be at maximum range, but the other skills in the damage rotation wouldn’t be affected, so I would assume that it would be an overall better situation right now than having total DPS scale entirely with how far away you are to something.

Because as you said, currently, it promotes playing selfishly and at times forces you away from your team, which imo is a very, very poor design choice, especially in a game where pick up groups are going to be fairly common since it gives the impression of a person working against their team from a purely observational standpoint alone.

Sooo…What you’re trying to say is no ranged skills in an MMO?

K

alchemyst.2165:

Sooo…What you’re trying to say is no ranged skills in an MMO?

I think you accidentally a word.

Lightsbane.9012:

urdriel.8496:

Carighan.6758:

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

you dont need larger range damage ( hi GS #4 ), you have a 1200 leap to smash bow users face, .

Counter counter question:

Why GS have cleave and LB not?

because…it’s a bow.

Lightbane, was a Ironic question, becauseCarighan said->;

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

This is the first game i play where a melee weapon can hit 5 target with AA damage by default.

urdriel.8496:

This is the first game i play where a melee weapon can hit 5 target with AA damage by default.

3, and I can think of a fair few which had that. If you mean MMO, then yes, melee attacks auto-cleaving is something which is GW2-specific. But look at other games for how they handled melee vs ranged:

• DAoC had a simple system where from range, melees would die long before getting into range. But once there (= “the first line died getting there”, like a picket line rush), casters would shut down entirely (cannot cast while taking damage, at all).
• WoW didn’t balance them. They’re still struggling with their idea nowadays. In PvE, the original idea was that melee can move while still doing damage (whereas ranged lose 100% of damage doing that), but are subject to various AEs in turn. This fell apart somewhere in early TBC, and since then it’s been a quite wobbly slip’n’slide where both race each other to the most homogenized game mechanic possible. Can’t be long before Rogues get the ability to play rang… nevermind.
• GW2’s idea is that Ranged is more defensive, avoiding most damage and AE spam. In turn, melee automatically AEs, while ranged weapons which inherently AE are always restricted in some way (Necro staff is a DD attack on a DoT weapon and is line, Engi is line and shorter range, Mesmer GS has a really weird AE-line mechanic, Ranger Longbow needs a trait to AE, etc etc). Daggers don’t AE for… I’m not quite sure why. I think for lore purposes, or the idea originally was to have them deal more damage, but then it was never materialized.

Carighan.6758:

• GW2’s idea is that Ranged is more defensive, avoiding most damage and AE spam. In turn, melee automatically AEs, while ranged weapons which inherently AE are always restricted in some way (Necro staff is a DD attack on a DoT weapon and is line, Engi is line and shorter range, Mesmer GS has a really weird AE-line mechanic, Ranger Longbow needs a trait to AE, etc etc). Daggers don’t AE for… I’m not quite sure why. I think for lore purposes, or the idea originally was to have them deal more damage, but then it was never materialized.

Necro dagger, at least, is more powerful than every other weapon a necro has- even Life Blast.

Carighan.6758:

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

This is pretty close to what I was thinking. Ranger and mesmer have weaponswaps – the usual resolution to this problem is to use a weapon that is suited for the range you’re going to fight at.

In fact, to further reinforce your later point:

Mesmer staff can actually GAIN effectiveness at close range, due to it possibly bouncing back to you for a boon (and maybe bounce again if you have the trait). So it’s pretty much impossible for the mesmer to have an alternative to the greatsword that does not, at least potentially, benefit from being in close.

(To be fair, staff grants that benefit as long as you have SOMETHING near the target for Winds of Chaos to bounce to, but if you’re within bounce range that means you yourself are always a possible bounce recipient if nothing else.)

Carighan.6758:

Because when everyone is at 1200 range, they’re physically unable to stay close to each other, their characters actually repel one another.

Or what?

I mean what you’re saying is that a melee stack (because that’s what the 600-range thing is, you could go fully melee and still get buffs) doesn’t support range-dependent ranged weapons.

True.

Use a different weapon then?

Here’s an interesting observation I made, Mesmer:

• Staff doesn’t have damage reduction in melee.
• Scepter actually gains damage from being in melee.
• Sword works only in melee.

And you want me to use my Greatsword. Eh, why? Weapons are quite specialized in each class, why use a weapon specifically for what it isn’t meant to be used for?

Weapons with specific roles intended with them are fine, just not all of the mechanics used to create those roles.

There are many ways to design ranged weapons, but that doesn’t mean every mechanic that would support or enforce a ranged play-style is a good idea. Cripple, retreats, higher maximum range limits, and knockbacks are all examples of good mechanics.

Distance based effects in the form we see on the longbow and greatsword on the other hand are not a good mechanic. Melee and all other ranged weapons work fine together. The longbow or greatsword however are in conflict with every other weapon style because of the way support, AoE, and AI function.

Even if they were to remove the distance based damage, the theme of these weapons would remain the same. They could also add in some better designed mechanics in place of it such as:

• Long range shot arrows fly faster than arrows from other skills.
• Long range shot gives you and your pet swiftness when hitting far away enemies.
• Hunter’s shot getting a unique in-stealth skill (similar to how assassins #1 skill changes in stealth) that would teleport the pet to the target, you transfer 1 condition to your pet, and your pet would transfer 1 conditions to the enemy with its next attack.
• A new effect added to a current longbow trait: Your longbow arrows cause an effect based on the distance to the target.
  0-500 range: 1 second cripple
  500-1,000 range: 3 second cripple
  1,000+ range: 1 second stun (was thinking of immobilize, but stun would work great with moment of clarity)

jcbroe.4329:

Wordy, again, I know, so let me ask my point as a question: Would distance based skills be as poorly designed if they weren’t the source of the maximum damage output? (so that a repeatable skill rotation using the autoattack as filler would be the maximum DPS)?

I don’t find issue with distance based effects that are stronger the closer you get. Those add a level of risk to use or are a balancing aspect (imagine point blank shot having full knockback at 1,200 range) and are not in conflict with other mechanics.

For skills that get stronger the further away you are, my main issue with them is how they expect you to stay at such large distances to use the weapon effectively. I wouldn’t mind effects like cripple that would help you keep distance but don’t force it on you, it’s only things like damage force players to stay as far away as possible for the entire fight which aren’t good.

However, if done right, I think a skill did more damage the further away you were could work well. It would need to be on a long cool-down and require less distance (enough so you’re not in the enemies face, but not so far that you’re away from everything, probably 300-400 range would be good) to get its full effect. Think of an directional AoE that grows in size and damage over a few seconds in the direction you use it in.

draxynnic.3719:

Carighan.6758:

Counter-question:
Ranger’s Greatsword only works at close range, it deals very low damage at larger range. How is that not an issue but the inverse is for the Longbow?

This is pretty close to what I was thinking. Ranger and mesmer have weaponswaps – the usual resolution to this problem is to use a weapon that is suited for the range you’re going to fight at.

In fact, to further reinforce your later point:

Mesmer staff can actually GAIN effectiveness at close range, due to it possibly bouncing back to you for a boon (and maybe bounce again if you have the trait). So it’s pretty much impossible for the mesmer to have an alternative to the greatsword that does not, at least potentially, benefit from being in close.

(To be fair, staff grants that benefit as long as you have SOMETHING near the target for Winds of Chaos to bounce to, but if you’re within bounce range that means you yourself are always a possible bounce recipient if nothing else.)

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.

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?