Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Melee VS Ranged Balance
jusomdude
Member RarePosts: 2,706
Will it ever be balanced? As far as I can tell, no it won't. There's always ranged/melee classes that are far superior to play against the other compared to other classes of the same type.
But it always comes down to an arms race. Either the ranged class dominates the melee most of the time or vice versa.
Can it ever be balanced? IMO, no. I think newer games with a focus on pvp should put melee vs melee and ranged against ranged or just make everyone a hybrid of the two.
But it always comes down to an arms race. Either the ranged class dominates the melee most of the time or vice versa.
Can it ever be balanced? IMO, no. I think newer games with a focus on pvp should put melee vs melee and ranged against ranged or just make everyone a hybrid of the two.
Comments
I would love a musketeer MMO where players fire a gun once for high damage before switching to melee (you don't load a wheellock in a fight). Since you only have one shot it can make a rather nasty hit without messing up the balance too much. Or you save your shot until it truly matters.
What we don't want is rangers who runs around you while constantly firing at you.
Some games tried to force range to aim in first person but that never really works (might in VR) and instead does range suck.
As I see it, giving everyone a range weapon but limiting charges or rate of fire is the best way to balance it.
I have almost 1k hours spent on that game and it's mostly online matches. The games I played where "fine", and by fine I mean I could cope dying from archers, but then more archers kept on appearing. And more, and more and more and more. It became to point where if you didn't carry a shield with you all the time, you had to zig zag between buildings/obstacles or die.
Campy archers is not fun for melee players and that is why I hate ranged characters. I hate camping. I want to be in the front line not being a wuss in the back and run if anyone attempts to come after me.
And add block rate for shield user .
I don't like stupid system like archeage or the like where you can equip shield and bow at same time . Switch weapons like diablo 2 is the best .
Nevertheless, how do you do away with melee vs ranged imbalances? You don't limit classes or skill sets to only melee or ranged. Shoot when at distance, stab and slice when up close. Did our characters forget how to use a sword because they decided to use a bow instead? That's just absurd.
D&D for great example. Rangers. Their base feats in nearly every edition included two-weapon fighting... And they were damned good at it.
I havent played the multi player a whole lot, so I cant speak to that specifically. But in most FPS games I've played I enjoyed mauling snipers by getting up close.. Some games allow the snipers to play like they were assult with quickscoping and whatnot... So its a question of implementation and balance, I think. I didnt enjoy those games either..
My first introduction to multiplayer FPS games was Rainbow Six.. And we played this trench map, that seemed to be a competition in being the first to get to a sniping spot and nailing the other guy. That got old, really fast, so I went with lighter gear and ran across the map, while dodging and taking potshots with my pistol.. And then I mopped them up by flanking them and getting up close and personal while they were trying to snipe my team mates.. worked about 6 or 7 times out of 10.. but I didnt have my team mates covering me, I wouldnt have worked...
But these arent MMOs... In MMOs I share your pain.. (except when I was the ranger/mage).. standing around getting killed and rezzed for ages before one side falters.. Its so boring... Although in DAoC I could atleast operate a siege engine to pass the time and get some of my own back. I have to say it was worse playing my shaman because dots didnt stack and so I would have to be lucky to do any useful damage in a siege or big battle..
Wildstar nor Tera have physics only free aim. Having physics means you can shoot from farther away by aiming higher. Tera and Wildstar also have a dodge mechanic which other games don't have. Darkfall was fine? really? All videos I've seen where bunny hoppers shooting magic left and right until they died or went melee. Warband also has different damage for body parts (Head shot dealing the most damage obviously) which promoted being range even more. It's historically accurate that ranged outnumbered melee but in a game it is not fun.
Ranged has never been balanced against melee enough. Ranged is always the victor because if enough people banded together they could shred you with focus fire and no game balances that.
Second is that you're looking for the balance in the wrong place. You want to balance the different types of DPS'ers against each other, but the balance should come in the form of the PVP area itself. PVP should be about taking and holding objectives and territory. That's what wars are fought over afterall; territory and resources.
Ranged characters have an advantage at range, but they are lousy at taking points and holding them. In other words, the maps should be the balancing factor, not the classes.
Widowmaker and Hanzo, for instance, are not overpowered in Overwatch because of the fact that 100% of the missions require players to be standing near some kind of objective. Having a ranged character is great, but if no one puts their butt on the point, then the match is over and Widomaker/Hanzo are crap at holding or moving an objective.
It would have a huge impact on the traditional MMORPG combat.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And yeah, it completely changed combat dynamics from traditional tab-targeting.
Warrior beats Assassin, Assassin beats Ranged, Ranged beats Warrior.
When you start adding classes like Paladins, Clerics, Mages, Warlocks, etc, you just make sure than they fit into those roles, so they're weak against some stuff but powerful against the other.
All Mages, Warlocks, Hunters, Supports should be weak against Assassins, Thieves and Squishy but fast Melee clases.
All Warrior, Berserker, Damage Tanky Paladins, that kind of stuff shold be weak against the Ranged classes.
Assassins, Thieves and the likes should be weak against Warriors, Berserkers, etc.
Being weak against a certain class type shouldn't mean it's impossible to beat them, just that it's hard, if both players are of equal skill, the counter class should win most of the times.
You can create more class types than just those 3, but going over 5 may make it too messy to balance, 5 class types should be enough, if you have that many types, you have to make sure that every single class has at least 2 counters.
I've always thought of WoW Wrath of the Lich King as having the most balanced pvp system i have played so far, probably because WoW's animations have always been smooth and that expansion was probably the most balanced of all. Everything was killable with any class, the counters were pretty clear and obvious, except for some obvious things like healers vs healers.
I personally don't think melee verse ranged is difficult to balance in games. You have a limiting factor on the ranged class like slower movement speed with a melee option, then it's pretty easy to make it even. The problem is developers let the ranged class move faster defeating the purpose.