Being melee at level 80

[Lenn]

1. Melee weapons are high risk/reward weapons. They deal significantly more damage than most ranged but are also a lot more dangerous to use. They have their place, just don't expect to use them all the time in Dungeons.

2. ALWAYS have a ranged weapon available to you in Dungeons. I'd also recommend having one in WvW or you'll be missing out on a lot of fights. Most ranged weapons are actually a lot cooler than they seem at first. They just require a little getting used to.

3. Pure damage builds are very popular (and powerful) in PvP but have no place in Dungeons. You should always run dungeons with a significant amount of Vitality and/or Toughness.

4. Warriors are a very good class if you use the full potential and don't just sit there with your 5 passive singets and expect to wield a greatsword 24/7.

This is pretty close to what I was going to type to the OP. Except that I'm not going to say Anet intends for these to happen, it just seem to be the safest way to go about things. I do imagine there are people who can pull all dps stat 2 melee weapons off and still manage to be as effective...but personally I'd feel crippled without a ranged weapon knowing there is no way I would be fighting most mobs in dungeons in melee full time.

The fights that aren't trivial in this game, in my experience, get really scrappy. And I've come to love all the defensive/support/control skills.

[Shadylol]

Melee is at a disadvantage, in Guild Wars 2. It's not crippling, and it's mitigated by Melee doing more burst damage, but there is a clear imbalance

[Teabaker]

You are probably one of the warriors without any Vit and Toughness. Get some "solder"-gear or get some defensive traits :>

[Shadylol]

Of course, if you talk about it on this board, people will try to turn it into a "L2P" issue. It's a simple fact that ranged weapons are easier to play. There's simply no two ways about it.

Well fans of a game will try to turn anything into a "L2P issue", but these are usually casual players who have not played games competitively. Almost everyone who has played at or near an E-Sports level of any game will be open to the idea of discussing balance, for the improvement of the game. I've noticed this a lot in GW2, where people claim that Melee and Ranged are perfectly balanced, but they're not even level 80 yet

[Kelesti]

Of course, if you talk about it on this board, people will try to turn it into a "L2P" issue. It's a simple fact that ranged weapons are easier to play. There's simply no two ways about it.

Ranged is easier to play. Melee has a higher skillcap does more damage. Ranged is easier to play, sure. Pretty sure that makes ranged easier to play, and melee a "L2P" issue. You're right in that there's no two ways around it.

Considering that was the design intent, I don't see why this needs to be implied as if it's a problem?

[Artorias]

I'm finding that melee is absolutely more difficult than ranged (at any level), but you also get the payoff of exceptionally higher damage in most cases. As a warrior I simply do a ton more DPS with sword/axe over a rifle or longbow. Thee trade-off is that you are right in the thick of combat and have to actively dodge and read the enemy like it's your job. It's all situational of course.

---------- Post added 2012-09-25 at 01:05 PM ----------

That doesn't even make sense, it's just silly mincing of words. I don't know why people are resistant to the simple statement of, "Ranged is simpler than melee."

Actually that's exactly what he said. Ranged is easier than melee, but melee is more rewarding than ranged.

[DrakeWurrum]

Actually that's exactly what he said. Ranged is easier than melee, but melee is more rewarding than ranged.

^this so much (cept that the correct pronoun here is "she")

I really don't know why anybody is surprised by ranged being easier to play than melee. For most encounters in WoW, outside of VERY special mechanics in specific fights, the same is true.

[DrakeWurrum]

Sure, and no one is arguing against melee being more rewarding. It's just silly when the topic of, "Ranged is simpler than melee" comes up and people get all reactionary with the L2P nonsense.

What Kelesti is saying with the "L2P" phrase is how so many people go around bitching and moaning about melee being impossible or worthless. I don't know why you say it's nonsense when it's absolutely true that if you're failing at melee, you simply need to learn how to play melee.

I think it's silly that so many people see "L2P" as purely an insulting, derogatory term.

[Kelesti]

Sure, and no one is arguing against melee being more rewarding. It's just silly when the topic of, "Ranged is simpler than melee" comes up and people get all reactionary with the L2P nonsense.

No one's sayig Ranged isn't simple, at all. And no one is saying melee is simple. No one. They're saying melee is doable. They're saying if you have problems as melee, it's more than likely a L2P issue, as you have to work harder for it.

Seeing as this is exactly the design intent, why is this an issue for people to wrap their heads around?

[DrakeWurrum]

Because it is.

No. It's really not.

---------- Post added 2012-09-25 at 12:21 PM ----------

No one said anything about failing at melee or melee being impossible or worthless.

Actually, plenty of people have, all across this board.

[Kelesti]

Except I'm not.

Ranged is simpler, no one's arguing that

.

But for it to be "simpler" would imply that it needs to be simpler than the alternative. What is the alternative? Melee. Why is it simpler? Because melee has a higher skillcap. Why does mele have a higher skillcap? It does more damage but is always in danger. Design intent.

Arguing against myself? Try actually following through something to its logical conclusion. It might seem scary, but it's not that big of a jump, I promise.

[Shadylol]

No one's sayig Ranged isn't simple, at all. And no one is saying melee is simple. No one. They're saying melee is doable. They're saying if you have problems as melee, it's more than likely a L2P issue, as you have to work harder for it.

Seeing as this is exactly the design intent, why is this an issue for people to wrap their heads around?

He never said he was having problems as Melee

---------- Post added 2012-09-25 at 01:34 PM ----------

Arguing against myself? Try actually following through something to its logical conclusion. It might seem scary, but it's not that big of a jump, I promise.

He did follow through logically, though. You and another poster (who shall remain unnamed) turned it into something where you both imply that he's too bad to figure it out, kind of like he said people turn things into an "L2P" argument

He only maintained that melee and ranged are not balanced in Guild Wars 2. He didn't say that either one was grossly overpowered, just that they're not equal... which they aren't

---------- Post added 2012-09-25 at 01:34 PM ----------

Actually, plenty of people have, all across this board.

"No one" said anything about that in this discussion though, which we both know is what he was referring to

---------- Post added 2012-09-25 at 01:36 PM ----------

What Kelesti is saying with the "L2P" phrase is how so many people go around bitching and moaning about melee being impossible or worthless. I don't know why you say it's nonsense when it's absolutely true that if you're failing at melee, you simply need to learn how to play melee.

I think it's silly that so many people see "L2P" as purely an insulting, derogatory term.

He never said he was "failing at melee". He said there was an imbalance. For all we know, he plays a Ranged Class, and maintains this opinion

[Kelesti]

He never said he was having problems as Melee

He's implying tht melee being harder than ranged is not part of intended design, because when he brings up that they're not equal, it comes up as L2P (when ranged is intended to be easier, and even the devs told people to L2P when it comes to melee).

Take the jump.

[Artorias]

Look at Diablo 3, and you'll know how well the melee/ranged concepts are setup in this game.

In D3: Ranged was very easy to play, all they had to do was kite and spam one or two abilities to kill monsters. At the same time, they did exponentially more damage than melee classes, to the point of annihilating enemies before they could even be hit. Melee on the other hand had to get right up in monsters faces, did much less damage, and still took almost as much damage as ranged classes. Melee got destroyed quite frequently.

In GW2: Ranged is still very easy to play, you just have to stand back and avoid any collateral damage. You can DPS like you normally would, but you can't do nearly as much damage as a melee class. The tradeoff for melee classes having higher damage is that they, once again, need to get right up in the face of the enemy and actually play with some skill (dodging, evasion skills, stuns, etc.). Melee still gets beat up pretty good, but with a little skill (and some support from the ranged classes!) they can avoid/mitigate most of the damage.

Get it? It's very well balanced right now. Every class in the game can fight at range, but it takes some actual skill and understanding to go at it as melee.

[Shadylol]

He's implying tht melee being harder than ranged is not part of intended design, because when he brings up that they're not equal, it comes up as L2P (when ranged is intended to be easier, and even the devs told people to L2P when it comes to melee).

Take the jump.

No, he's saying that it's imbalanced

And what jump?

[tjanson]

Ranged weapons are just another tool in the kit for a warrior, just like melee weapons are. If you can handle/avoid the damage, use a melee weapon. When it gets too hot close up, swap to a gun or bow and kite away. You'll get better at knowing when to swap with time.

Don't use a hammer, though. God, I hate it so much when some idiot knocks everything out of the aoe.

[Shadylol]

Look at Diablo 3, and you'll know how well the melee/ranged concepts are setup in this game.

In D3: Ranged was very easy to play, all they had to do was kite and spam one or two abilities to kill monsters. At the same time, they did exponentially more damage than melee classes, to the point of annihilating enemies before they could even be hit. Melee on the other hand had to get right up in monsters faces, did much less damage, and still took almost as much damage as ranged classes. Melee got destroyed quite frequently.

In GW2: Ranged is still very easy to play, you just have to stand back and avoid any collateral damage. You can DPS like you normally would, but you can't do nearly as much damage as a melee class. The tradeoff for melee classes having higher damage is that they, once again, need to get right up in the face of the enemy and actually play with some skill (dodging, evasion skills, stuns, etc.). Melee still gets beat up pretty good, but with a little skill (and some support from the ranged classes!) they can avoid/mitigate most of the damage.

Get it? It's very well balanced right now. Every class in the game can fight at range, but it takes some actual skill and understanding to go at it as melee.

Diablo 3's ranged/melee thing was just bad gear scaling, and tuning for Inferno, not an actual design flaw. Melee Classes in D3 even take a static 30% less damage from all sources, to compensate from the fact that they're in close quarters

In Guild Wars 2, the whole thing is built from the ground up, giving ranged advantages

---------- Post added 2012-09-25 at 01:41 PM ----------

Ranged weapons are just another tool in the kit for a warrior, just like melee weapons are. If you can handle/avoid the damage, use a melee weapon. When it gets too hot close up, swap to a gun or bow and kite away. You'll get better at knowing when to swap with time.

Don't use a hammer, though. God, I hate it so much when some idiot knocks everything out of the aoe.

Melee Classes with Ranged weapons out doesn't work as well as you think. For one, you're not doing as much damage as some Ranger's auto attack. Next you have the issue that if you want to go Ranged with a Melee Class, you have to spec, and gear for the Ranged setup, which makes your Melee bad

[Artorias]

RANGED:
Stands farther away, therefore is easier to mitigate damage, therefore takes less damage.
Deals less damage in order to maintain balance.

MELEE:
Stands close to enemies, therefore is more difficult to mitigate damage, therefore takes more damage.
Deals more damage in order to maintain balance.

/thread

[tjanson]

Diablo 3's ranged/melee thing was just bad gear scaling, and tuning for Inferno, not an actual design flaw. Melee Classes in D3 even take a static 30% less damage from all sources, to compensate from the fact that they're in close quarters

In Guild Wars 2, the whole thing is built from the ground up, giving ranged advantages

Ranged does much less damage than melee, and is less dangerous(usually.) Are you being deliberately obtuse for the sake of debate, or do you just not get that you are putting out about half the damage when you swap to a bow or a gun?

[DrakeWurrum]

I swear, you guys will argue against ANYTHING

Anybody who takes offense to being told to learn to play is taking it way too personally. People can use it as an insult, but really, you can use anything as an insult.

In many cases, it's simply objectively true that somebody needs to get better, and learn how to play.