Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
snowmizer

Running and shooting with the Ranger class....

Recommended Posts

Few people complained about the confessor, as I recall. It was more aimed at the melee archetypes. 

 

How many people complain about the confessor now? They are the most mobile archetype out of the four.

 

Do you seriously think our complaint is archetype-specific?

 

Of course we're raging again, since Ranger and Siege Perilous were supposed to be a step forward into decent combat.

The only reason we have been mostly quiet in the past months was because we were lead to believe so.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh, Ranger locked in place for that long to shoot does look kind of questionable to me, but if it does not work they can always reduce that time later or remove that rooting mechanics alltogether. So, as of now it's not really a problem at all.

Edited by rajah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the new video....it appears that the ranger bow powers can only be used while standing stll.

I'm sure this fact (if true on release) will be upsetting to many players, who planned on running/shooting/kite.

Thoughts? Should a ranger be able to shoot while moving????

I think ranger would benefit more from a "artillery" mode where you plant yourself and light people up from long ranged but can't move (or move slowly) and a "survival" short-medium range mode. Lower damage attacks while on the move.

 

Hard to pass judgement on what they got now without trying it out, but I was never a fan of animation lock anyway.

Edited by helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you seriously think our complaint is archetype-specific?

 

Of course we're raging again, since Ranger and Siege Perilous were supposed to be a step forward into decent combat.

The only reason we have been mostly quiet in the past months was because we were lead to believe so.

Were you expecting them to remove animation locks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that to release the combat system will be like in this video?

 

0:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbxMi74MNJI

 

I think most archetypes won't have split body animations, so far there's only the Champion ranged attack that works this way.

 

https://youtu.be/13f1-w8IPsY?t=56m8s

 

https://youtu.be/dcigy2eD9Jw?t=34m36s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the other archetypes can move while attacking, except for certain abilities. Why should the ranger be any different?

Dunno. Why should those certain abilities allow movement? Did they draw them out of a hat, or are there actual reasons? My money's on the latter. Are all the existing archetype just running around non-stop with shaken bottles of Damage champagne, constantly spraying everyone with it, or do they simply possess a limited mobility in their offense?

Edited by Lephys

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was this outrage when we learned that confessors were stationary while casting spells?

While I won't say with certainty that Confessors should never have any additional mobility whatsoever, they aren't having to strike people only with projectiles the size of an arrow. When you're casting a much larger net, it's less of a problem that you remain stationary. Thus, they're more in the same park with melee folks, with "what if I'm chasing someone and I keep stopping to attack? We need some kind of momentum!"

 

I'm honestly not sure the whole momentum problem wouldn't benefit better from both coming-to-a-stop momentum AND increased mobility all around (more attacks that simply lock you into slower movement speed for the duration of the attack animation, instead of rooting you in place.

 

Most actual fighting isn't comprised of sequential moving and stopping in alternation. You kind of move while you attack, with conventional weapons at least (can't really comment on magic). You step and swing, step back and parry. You just don't move the same way as you do when you're simply trying to get from point A to point B.

 

The problem with other games that have everyone jogging around and just stacking theit attacks on top of full-speed movement isn't that people aren't stationary while attacking. It's that the movement isn't adjusted/restricted enough/at-all.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think ranger would benefit more from a "artillery" mode where you plant yourself and light people up from long ranged but can't move (or move slowly) and a "survival" short-medium range mode. Lower damage attacks while on the move.

Like the Archer's Siege Stance, and Gunner's Missile Stance in Skyforge.

 

Speaking of which, Skyforge capably handles this with movement debuffs that apply automatically when you're attacking, combined with certain special/more damaging abilities that require you to be stationary, and temporary rooting for particular abilities (like the Gunner's Plasma Beam, which roots you for 1s whilst you drop to one knee and fire off the shot). They even have a ranged casting class that's primarily rooted during the majority of its abilities: Necromancer. This frankly makes it a bit of a pain early into playing it - particularly if you're used to the fact that most classes have mobility whilst using their basic attacks - but once you've got the majority of abilities and augmenting talents unlocked, and adapted to the style of play, the apparent clunkiness of being rooted for most of your abilities is minimalised.

 

To be honest, coming from a Shadowbane background specialising in Fury & Channeler builds, I'm used to being stationary whilst casting. However, Shadowbane also has target locking, auto-rotation with a 360 targeting arc limited only by ability range & static object LoS, only friendly fire on certain AoEs, and no body-blocking. That's really something you need to give due consideration to with this style of combat; rooting ranged characters for varying duration whilst they perform attacks, is potentially going to make it incredibly tough to score hits in larger, more hectic fights. They need some form of mobility for at least a reasonable number of attacks, so that they can try to maintain direct line of sight on a particular opponent. Otherwise ranged combat could easily degenerate into a situation of constantly cancelled casts and re-positioning, whilst your melee groupmates have all the fun. Or am I wrong in thinking that that could be a possibility? I'm speaking from experience limited to what I've seen via YouTube videos of the Hunger Dome.

 

Hopefully Siege Perilous will have fights large and hectic enough to demonstrate the issue.

Edited by Zarae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unit with reach superiority obviously shouldn't have movement superiority too.

 

Centaur should be able to move forward while attacking, artillery should struggle with it.

 

No matter what happens artillery will require less mobility, so they won't be able to escape no matter how much they can move, and their attacks will suffer more than infantry from the amount of maneuverability all the other classes gain to compensate.

 

Design a game, not a character.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The unit with reach superiority obviously shouldn't have movement superiority too.

 

Centaur should be able to move forward while attacking, artillery should struggle with it.

 

No matter what happens artillery will require less mobility, so they won't be able to escape no matter how much they can move, and their attacks will suffer more than infantry from the amount of maneuverability all the other classes gain to compensate.

 

Design a game, not a character.

 

This isn't always true though.  I think. (your opening sentence).

 

"The unit with reach superiority obviously shouldn't have movement superiority too." would only be true if damage output from range is such that kills are guaranteed from Range.

 

There  are all kinds of factors involved in this equation, all of which directly influence the nasty, unstable, whipsawing balance issue of Ranged vs Melee - how should it work.

 

For myself I've always thought about a two-sided coin in regards to feature/function in a game:  Feature/Function  . . . . and . . . Calibration of said function.

  • A feature/function can be perfectly fine for a game, but is causing trouble because it's not calibrated properly.

If we have a case of Ranged with the Calibration of their DPS set low that mandates kiting on their part to effect kills, then we know Ranged should in fact have mobility advantage.  Because it was designed that way. 

 

"Ranged Superiority" can be meaningless IMO, depending on the game.  "Ranged Advantage".   Superiority.  Advantage.

  • Is ranged designed / allowed to kill from Range?  Is Ranged Damage only set to be initial front-load DPS / Bleeds?

Often times games negatively (intentionally) affect "ranged advantage" simply because of Range, and thus generate a paradox:  Ranged Advantage that actually isn't, or worse yet given over to Melee.  Examples:

  • Range of 40M reduced 1/2 by melee 20M Gap Closers.
  • Melee classes effectively altered to Ranged Advantage delivery of melee dps and CC  through Gap Closers.
  • Ranged subjected to HERDING by melee, with mobility required to counter.  Melee able to face-first zerg forward through DPS forcing Ranged to kite to try and maintain distance.
  • Range is Fragile/two faced as an Advantage:  Specifically:  I can hit that guy at 40M out.  But he's within 1M of escaping my reach, around LOS, etc.  Conversly, if I have Melee on me I'm buried into the deepest part of his reach where stuns/snares will abound and potentially guaranteed with on-tap gap closers meters in range.  Landscapes are full of LOS easily leveraged to counter Range.  LOS a warrior in your face not likely.
  • CC - Who has it, who doesn't, does range have it as a Ranged attack?

I'm not so much arguing with you, because in a game Calibrated a certain way across Melee vs Ranged capabilities I might agree with you.

 

I'm disagreeing with a blanket statement that simply claims Ranged means you should get less mobility.

 

That's not always true.  That will depend on a whole lot of things, and how they are all calibrated to work together, melee and ranged.

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed, everybody should be able to move...

 

but I guess that "would be silly", just like long range combat up to 100m, eh Mr Blair?

 

I'm not really sure why you think acting like an abrasive, passive aggressive prick is acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure why you think acting like an abrasive, passive aggressive prick is acceptable?

 

I'm actually quoting Blair...https://youtu.be/05Uv8bZyoQQ?t=5m24s check it out...

 

he keeps making these random statements, without giving any explanations whatsoever.

I asked for them multiple times, never got any answers... actually MANY people asked, so you can't blame getting no answer on me being a "passive aggresive prick".

 

Give me proper reasons for these weird ass design choices and that'll make me shutup.

 

Maybe that's the luxury of being "in charge". Making statements as if they were law without having to give a proper explanation.

Edited by freeze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually quoting Blair...https://youtu.be/05Uv8bZyoQQ?t=5m24s check it out...

 

he keeps making these random statements, without giving any explanations whatsoever.

I asked for them multiple times, never got any answers... actually MANY people asked, so you can't blame getting no answer on me being a "passive aggresive prick".

 

Give me proper reasons for these weird ass design choices and that'll make me shutup.

 

Maybe that's the luxury of being "in charge". Making statements as if they were law without having to give a proper explanation.

 

I don't even disagree with you - but the sense of entitlement from some people in these forums is pretty astounding.

 

Despite that fact that you, and me, and several other people have backed this game (for more than a little money) still doesn't mean they have to justify their design decisions to us. We were supporting the development of the game, not buying the right to have our questions and concerns addressed whenever we feel like it.

 

Now, should they do that out of courtesy anyway? Yeah, and quite a few times they have - but when you start to phase your comments like that, are you actually expecting a reply, or are you just being abrasive for the sake of it?

 

If someone spoke to you like that, I doubt you'd reply either.

Edited by xaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't I reply to you, despite the fact you called me a "passive aggressive prick"?

 

I don't care how someone talks to me, as long as his points/arguments have some kinda merit... yours didn't really have that, but why not reply to someone that got offended... that's always fun.

 

But back to the point. Those are Blair's design choices and if he thinks they are ohso solid and well thought out, with a foundation of multiple years of game developing, then I'm sure he'll find satisfaction in making the little prick shutup, right?

Yet he keeps piling on these weird features, putting on bandages on fundamental flaws...and not just in my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't I reply to you, despite the fact you called me a "passive aggressive prick"?

 

I don't care how someone talks to me, as long as his points/arguments have some kinda merit... yours didn't really have that, but why not reply to someone that got offended... that's always fun.

 

But back to the point. Those are Blair's design choices and if he thinks they are ohso solid and well thought out, with a foundation of multiple years of game developing, then I'm sure he'll find satisfaction in making the little prick shutup, right?

Yet he keeps piling on these weird features, putting on bandages on fundamental flaws...and not just in my opinion...

 

You replied to me because you got defensive, probably because you knew I was right. So your attempt to make out that you offend me, or that this is 'fun' for you is very cute, but also very transparent.

 

Also, I was justified in calling you out on your acting like a brat - because you were. Your post was a bitter remark because the Devs don't feel the need to explain themselves to you, despite your money spent, or your post count - which seems to be upsetting for you.

 

Not everyone finds satisfaction in making little pricks shut up, most people tend to rise above it and ignore the pseudo-intellectual tantrum - which seems to be happening here to you, but you seem to be the only one who can't see that.

 

I don't even disagree with your opinion, more the forum warrior-esque way in which you conduct yourself.

 

But you've always been like that and I don't expect you to change. You're probably quite a reasonable, well spoken person when you're not behind a keyboard.

Edited by xaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...