Curse

Weezer_Blue · Dec 01, 2005, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Wow! That's the most text I've ever had to read to essentially get "it's unneeded so, no". A lot of things are not necissary. We don't need a ninja class. We all know it's just going to be a variation of a warrior. Or a Ranger/Warrior. Do you really need anything in the game? No. It could have turned out any number of ways... See... that's the point of a suggestion. To change the game in one of it's aspects or add a new one.

As for beeline AI's and babysitting, I guess warrior's suck cause they're not convenient.

Chev of Hardass · Dec 01, 2005, 09:16 PM // 21:16

A major mechanic of the game would change with this implemented.

Currently, casters can do damage while the target is running (if they don't just dodge the projectiles), but they cannot do damge while in pursuit.

This would allow casters to do damage while running, and still not do damage while the target is evading.

Essencially, this would give some added percentage for the extra time that the caster can deal damage, but loose some amount that the anti-Melee type counters would help.

How that would effect balance, I don't know exactly. But, it is another thing to keep in mind.

jesh · Dec 01, 2005, 09:32 PM // 21:32

What? Casters can do WHILE running simply because they have melee weapons. I think not.. unless the target is snared or you have a speed boost. Either case is stupid, as you should not be trying to do actual damage with a caster weapon in the first place.

Siren · Dec 01, 2005, 11:05 PM // 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

Wow! That's the most text I've ever had to read to essentially get "it's unneeded so, no". A lot of things are not necissary. We don't need a ninja class. We all know it's just going to be a variation of a warrior. Or a Ranger/Warrior. Do you really need anything in the game? No. It could have turned out any number of ways... See... that's the point of a suggestion. To change the game in one of it's aspects or add a new one.

As for beeline AI's and babysitting, I guess warrior's suck cause they're not convenient.

Weezer, please, just let your suggestion die, man.

If you (or anyone) can't be bothered to manually find your optimal positioning...why should the game do it for you?

Also, you may very well end up having to find optimal positioning yourself when the crux of the melee caster weapons idea fails, putting you back to square one.

Now how useful was your suggestion then?

Just think critically about it. There's obviously been a ridiculous amount of "critical thinking" on your part in coming up with this suggestion, so it's only fair to allow the same level of critical thinking to fashion a rebuttal to it.

And so far, I think the rebuttal is highlighting the flaws in your suggestion. It has raised the issues of the (largely) broken AI pathfinding in the game, a player overdependence on automated responses (thereby removing a significant portion of the player skill involved), and generally, what may very well result in sloppy combat dynamics...close-quarters spellcaster builds will become nothing more than "SPACE BAR SPACE BAR SPACE BAR."

And I find your Warrior point kind of redundant (not to mention a very weak rebuttal) here, because a good Warrior, like a good spellcaster, should not rely on the AI pathfinding in the heat of battle, primarily because the AI cannot recognize those strategic chokepoints--and let's be honest here. If a Warrior can't do strategic chokepoints...that Warrior isn't worth anything.

Come on, man. Just let this thing die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesh

Either case is stupid, as you should not be trying to do actual damage with a caster weapon in the first place.

Exactly why melee caster weapons are an entirely useless suggestion.

Schorny · Dec 04, 2005, 03:25 AM // 03:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

If you (or anyone) can't be bothered to manually find your optimal positioning...why should the game do it for you?

So we need to remove the auto follow option?

It is already in the game. There is no new gameplay feature or anything beeing added.

The 'problem' is simply, you need auto-follow to stay close at your target. Auto-follow is not for finding the right spot to position yourself but just for following a feeling foe.

Imagine a warrior striking a kiting monk without the ability to auto-follow him. It would be very very hard and a good monk could evade most of the damage by running like a rabbit. That is not what it is supposed to be - we hopefully agree on this.

Now consider a touch ranger. He needs to stay in melee range all the time, but can't use touch skills all the time (cooldown, energy probs,...). So what to do? You are essentially not different from a warrior. You do damage with your weapon and when ready, firing your melee attack skills. Exactly the same thing a warrior does.

So is it too easy for a warrior to hit his target? IMHO it is not, but the point here is: why should a touch ranger have a big drawback?

Will he do more damage when he gets a melee caster weapon? Indeed he will. He will be able to reduce the casting times a very little bit (because he will stay closer to the target) and he is able to attack a few times while chasing his target.

Will this make him much stronger? No.
Will this make him more enjoyable to play? Yes.

Just consider a warrior without auto-following. Would it be enjoyable to play? For some pleople it may be very enjoyable, but for most people it simple would be too boring.

You need to focus on which steps the enemy makes and do a hell lot of micromanagement that simple isn't necessary.

Imagine the party member window wouldn't be there. Imagine how difficult it would be for monks. Same with touch rangers - a crucial part of melee fighters is to be able to follow a fleeing foe. Nearly every game (including GW) provides an auto-follow feature for that cases. This auto-follow feature doesn't help you on positioning yourself right and have an overview of the battlefield - it just helps you and allowing you to not have to play PacMan with your opponent.

Quote:

And I find your Warrior point kind of redundant (not to mention a very weak rebuttal) here, because a good Warrior, like a good spellcaster, should not rely on the AI pathfinding in the heat of battle, primarily because the AI cannot recognize those strategic chokepoints--and let's be honest here. If a Warrior can't do strategic chokepoints...that Warrior isn't worth anything.

So indeed. Remove all auto following forcing warriors to do _all_ following by themseves. Forcing casters to always stay in range and not able to auto-move the 2 steps towards the target, removing the ability to follow an ally.

No, this has nothing to do with player skill. Sorry. This is not a FPS where you need to think about every step you take. It doesn't matter if you stand here or 2 meters on the left. It _does_ matter where you stand on the battlefield - do you stand in AoE range of other players, etc. but auto-following won't help you here (and _this_ is player skill).

The problem is simple:
Warrior have an advantage over touch rangers just because there are warriors.

Quote:

Exactly why melee caster weapons are an entirely useless suggestion.

melee caster weapons are for an auto-follow feature like warriors have.

Do we need them? No. We don't need wands on casters anyway. We don't need more than two types of casters (healer + damage dealer) and we definately don't need physical damage classes like warrior and ranger. We do not need traps, we do not need AoE - but it's just cool to have them.

Melee Caster Weapons allow a few new builds to become more popular and more fairer to play. ATM a touch ranger fills the exact same role as a DPS warrior by doing nice damage over time. But he is much harder to play or you are forced to use a weapon that don't suite you (like a sword).

So the questions are:

*) does it unbalance the game
indeed it does _balance_ the game by giving equal chances to players

*) do we need it
like everything that fixes a minor balancing issue: it is needed, but not in a high priority

*) does it make the game to easy and reduces it to button smashing?
it sets melee-casters on the same level as warriors. Is warrior a class that just consists of button smashing?

almightytom · Dec 04, 2005, 05:11 AM // 05:11

i disagree. the reason there are no swords or weapons of the sort for casters is the fact that casters arent meant to use that kind of weapon. you odnt imagine someone with a sword casting spells, you imagine a person with a wand or staff casting spells. now, it wouldnt be a bad idea to modify staves to be melee weapons because that is actually how you would use a staff in real life. keeping melee weapons out of casters hands is just another way guild wars is keepin it more realistic.

darkdragon99 · Dec 04, 2005, 06:10 AM // 06:10

guild wars is a fantasy game it's not supposed to be realistic it's supposed to be what ever your imagination can make it by your realistic talk i can tell you don't have a very good one

Chev of Hardass · Dec 04, 2005, 06:11 AM // 06:11

Schorny, it sounds like you want the ability to fully utilize melee weapons, and some skills as well. Perhaps some sort of secondary profession is in order? I think Guild Wars might be able to impliment a way that you can have two professions and utilize the best of both worlds.

Something like

A Ranger with Ranger skills and Expertise and a Warrior with Warrior skills. You probably should not have the primary attibute of the secondary, but that is just a formality in the suggestion we are considering here.

The Ranger side can give you your touch skills, and the Warrior side can give you the Profenciency with Melee weapons.

I think Guild Wars should impliment this seconday profession asap.

Siren · Dec 04, 2005, 06:24 AM // 06:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schorny

So we need to remove the auto follow option?

Am I saying that anywhere? I find that the majority of the replies around here are based purely on a deliberate slanting or misinterpretation of what people say. What I've been saying is that people should not rely on the broken AI pathfinding to remain formidable combatants.

Quote:

It is already in the game. There is no new gameplay feature or anything beeing added.

For casters? It's not already in the game.

Quote:

The 'problem' is simply, you need auto-follow to stay close at your target. Auto-follow is not for finding the right spot to position yourself but just for following a feeling foe.

But you don't need to auto-follow to stay close to your target. If you're going to be chasing your target down and feel the need to auto-follow, there's either a distance between you two, or that target is going to be leading you away from the battle. That's what a good player should do if it's clear you're auto-following.

Quote:

Imagine a warrior striking a kiting monk without the ability to auto-follow him. It would be very very hard and a good monk could evade most of the damage by running like a rabbit. That is not what it is supposed to be - we hopefully agree on this.

Considering I never advocated removing auto-follow...I don't see the relevance of your paragraph here. And I'll hit that kiting Monk later.

Quote:

Now consider a touch ranger. He needs to stay in melee range all the time, but can't use touch skills all the time (cooldown, energy probs,...). So what to do? You are essentially not different from a warrior. You do damage with your weapon and when ready, firing your melee attack skills. Exactly the same thing a warrior does.

I've been playing a few different touch builds a while now, and regardless of what class/combo I play...I have never had cooldown or energy management issues. Those issues come down to the player playing smart. Not the player needing a melee weapon. Seriously, what is happening to constitute this melee weapon "necessity"? Has it gotten so incredibly difficult to manage which skills one uses and when? Two to three touch skills, and careful build development, are more than enough to stay within melee range.

Quote:

So is it too easy for a warrior to hit his target? IMHO it is not, but the point here is: why should a touch ranger have a big drawback?

If that Warrior is relying on the AI pathfinding...then he's going to have a hell of a time hitting his target.

Quote:

Will he do more damage when he gets a melee caster weapon? Indeed he will. He will be able to reduce the casting times a very little bit (because he will stay closer to the target) and he is able to attack a few times while chasing his target.

Will this make him much stronger? No.
Will this make him more enjoyable to play? Yes.

Is the touch ranger concentrating on doing damage with his melee weapon or with his skills?

Quote:

Just consider a warrior without auto-following. Would it be enjoyable to play? For some pleople it may be very enjoyable, but for most people it simple would be too boring.

You need to focus on which steps the enemy makes and do a hell lot of micromanagement that simple isn't necessary.

Again, I was never advocating removing auto-following. What I've been saying the entire time is that a Warrior (any character, really) should rarely (if at all) rely on a broken AI pathfinding to engage a target. That's just common sense.

Quote:

Imagine the party member window wouldn't be there. Imagine how difficult it would be for monks.

Your example is completely irrelevant. lol. Party member windows show a Monk the health of the team. They need the party window to function at the bare minimum.

Quote:

Same with touch rangers - a crucial part of melee fighters is to be able to follow a fleeing foe. Nearly every game (including GW) provides an auto-follow feature for that cases. This auto-follow feature doesn't help you on positioning yourself right and have an overview of the battlefield - it just helps you and allowing you to not have to play PacMan with your opponent.

And it's not the same as touch rangers. You see your target. You see where they are. That's enough. You aren't monitoring your team's health. Touch ranger following a fleeing foe...how does that relate at all to a Monk watching over the party health? Come on, use sensible examples. lol

Quote:

So indeed. Remove all auto following forcing warriors to do _all_ following by themseves. Forcing casters to always stay in range and not able to auto-move the 2 steps towards the target, removing the ability to follow an ally.

Again, I'm not advocating removing auto-following, and I never implied anything of the sort, so why the deliberate misinterpretation? You're trying to insert a point into my argument that I was never making to begin with.

Quote:

No, this has nothing to do with player skill. Sorry. This is not a FPS where you need to think about every step you take. It doesn't matter if you stand here or 2 meters on the left. It _does_ matter where you stand on the battlefield - do you stand in AoE range of other players, etc. but auto-following won't help you here (and _this_ is player skill).

The fundamentals of the FPS do apply. You do need to think about every step you take, because--here it comes--2 meters will matter in combat, especially when you're relying on a substandard AI pathfinding to continue to engage an enemy. The AI has no idea what to do when it comes to a kiting Monk. However, the human player does.

Quote:

The problem is simple:
Warrior have an advantage over touch rangers just because there are warriors.

melee caster weapons are for an auto-follow feature like warriors have.

And like I said before, in the thick of combat, a Warrior should not be relying on auto-follow.

Quote:

Do we need them? No. We don't need wands on casters anyway. We don't need more than two types of casters (healer + damage dealer) and we definately don't need physical damage classes like warrior and ranger. We do not need traps, we do not need AoE - but it's just cool to have them.

What relevance does any of your outside references have here? The game is not broken because melee casters don't have melee weapons. That's because melee caster weapons are not necessary.

And forgive me for sounding rude, but what in the hell is your point? "It's just cool to have them"? What is that supposed to mean? "It's just cool to have" Interrupters, as if the game doesn't really require a character with Interrupt abilities? Good luck disrupting healing anywhere without Interrupts.

Your outside references are irrelevant because not only does it seem like an incredibly lame "grasping at straws" type of rebuttal tactic, we're not talking about entire professions here. We're not talking about how the game's professions are designed to complement each other, or to counter each other.

I'm speechless, really, why you would even bring up trapping/snaring, discussing how "we don't really need them."

And regarding the kiting Monk example from before, a kiting Monk illustrates how traps and snares, Mesmer and Water magic hexes (status effects) are far, far more than just "cool to have."

Quote:

Melee Caster Weapons allow a few new builds to become more popular and more fairer to play. ATM a touch ranger fills the exact same role as a DPS warrior by doing nice damage over time. But he is much harder to play or you are forced to use a weapon that don't suite you (like a sword).

Or just use a short bow--or you can use a long sword to stay in melee range, considering you're not looking to do damage with the sword in the first place. After all, you are using the sword to simply stay in melee range, correct? The damage inflicted by the sword itself is inconsequential, because a touch ranger's effectiveness lies in....? The skills perhaps?

Quote:

So the questions are:

*) does it unbalance the game
indeed it does _balance_ the game by giving equal chances to players

*) do we need it
like everything that fixes a minor balancing issue: it is needed, but not in a high priority

*)does it make the game to easy and reduces it to button smashing?
it sets melee-casters on the same level as warriors. Is warrior a class that just consists of button smashing?

Here's a question for you: why should melee-casters behave exactly like Warriors? If you're doing melee-caster, I don't think you should also get a melee weapon just for the sake of staying within melee range.

Because you play melee-caster, there's a trade-off. Smiting builds, various types of Earth Ele builds, Touch Necros...most of those skills and spells ignore armor.

I disagree completely that in addition to possessing melee-range armor-ignoring spells, those characters should be able to highlight an enemy and hit the space bar, and suddenly be in optimal positioning to deal armor-ignoring damage.

That should just be common sense.

~~~

I still have not seen any sound arguments for the melee caster weapons. It's gone from convenience (which some demonstrated how it would be inconvenient) to...vagaries of points dancing around some type of damage potential reasoning (when the purpose of including close-quarters skills and spells is to inflict damage--to be effective--with those skills and spells and not with a melee weapon, presumably), to...a reasoning that depends on a "other things are useless" premise that borders on absurd.

There still is no clear, discernible sound reasoning for this suggestion and as the pages continue...the reasoning is not becoming any clearer. If anything, it's just getting more and more unfocused and vague as people attempt to justify the suggestion with sloppier and sloppier examples.

Let this suggestion die, please.

Schorny · Dec 05, 2005, 11:17 AM // 11:17

@Chev of Hardass:
a 'touch ranger' is a ranger/necro using vampiric touch and skills like that - because they are affected by expertise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

What I've been saying is that people should not rely on the broken AI pathfinding to remain formidable combatants.

And I completly agree. But auto-follow has nothing to do with this.

Quote:

For casters? It's not already in the game.

It _is_. I can pack a sword any day. But it doesn't suite me. Indeed I _have_ to take a sword, or my touch ranger would be ineffecive compared to a warrior just because the 'cast time' of my attack skills is too long (because the auto follow feature will only be active when I use skills).

See: the auto-follow feature is there all the time. I just want it active when I need it.

Chev of Hardass · Dec 05, 2005, 01:05 PM // 13:05

Well, I guess we need three professions. If two aren't enough..........

I want a skill that permanantly disables all of the skill bars on all of foes on the map.

Siren · Dec 05, 2005, 05:31 PM // 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schorny

And I completly agree. But auto-follow has nothing to do with this.

Auto-follow has everything to do with this. It's a major focal point for the suggestion. When we see reply after reply of people clearly supporting targeting an opponent and hitting the space bar to get into melee range...auto-follow certainly has something to do with this.

And like I've said before (and before and before), the auto-follow (i.e., the AI path-finding) is largely broken. Characters get snagged on even the smallest of objects. The AI understands hitting the space bar to mean follow that object, nothing more. There barely is any distinction made between a aggressive and passive targets--especially when those targets/objects are running around.

Quote:

It _is_. I can pack a sword any day. But it doesn't suite me. Indeed I _have_ to take a sword, or my touch ranger would be ineffecive compared to a warrior just because the 'cast time' of my attack skills is too long (because the auto follow feature will only be active when I use skills).

Let's see, the touch ranger uses skills like Vampiric Touch. Presumably, then, the skills are the main damage-dealers, rather than any equipped weapons. Therefore, the equipped weapon's main focus is not causing damage. Therefore, the equipped weapon's main focus is to keep the touch ranger in melee range. That already happens, and since damage isn't the concern there, therefore, melee caster weapons are again unnecessary.

Quote:

See: the auto-follow feature is there all the time. I just want it active when I need it.

Equip a "no req" sword then. You're going to be doing damage based on your skills anyway. The sword is strictly a utility item from how you want to use it.

~~~

The arguments for this suggestion are getting really sloppy now...and in some cases, contradicting other reasoning in the thread. Come on, let this die. lol

Natotiger · Dec 07, 2005, 06:23 PM // 18:23

This is probably not the correct thing to say, but (w/o reading this whole thread completely) I would like the spell 'circle' enlarged. Many a time I go to cast a spell and my character runs to within spotting range of the enemy (pulling them to me of course) before they can actually cast the spell. If I am an Elementalist (& forgive me for what I am about to say/write), then I should be able to cast spells AWAY from the enemies....similar to Storm with the XMen. She casts spells from the air/flying....AWAY from the ememy, not within immediate attack range. I realize that the ability to 'fly' or move quickly (outside of running away...which is slow) is tooooo much to ask for, but if the character is an Ele., then they can control the elements, can't they? At the least, I should be able to cast spells out of the initial aggro circle....at least an extended one. This would extend the attack range of Ele.'s and could make having them in the party more of an advantage...esp. since AoE's were nerfed (running from Firestorm...etc).

Also, if they smartened up the AI in running from AoE's, then why do the henchies not come out of the fire pool during the Ring of Fire mission? They do not have enough since to stop standing there and getting burned, but yet the enemy can run from/evade AoE damaging....??? Seems a bit one-sided to me...

PieXags · Dec 07, 2005, 10:24 PM // 22:24

Personally, I would enjoy the idea of melee weapon's for casters. In the character art they've done for the professions you see a mesmer with a rapier, but it's not possible to have on in the game. If we ditched every "we don't need it" idea that came to this forum we'd have no suggestions left! It would be a fun addition for casters who're tired of wands/staves who might want to be using melee, without having to change to a warrior secondary. Some people just like the look of it, some people would want it for the possibility of new skills to go along with them. It doesn't HURT anything, and can only make things more fun I'd have to say. So why not I figure.

Also, if more would like to continue this thread, please keep your discussions clean and constructive.

Arwen Dejang · Dec 08, 2005, 05:42 AM // 05:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natotiger

Also, if they smartened up the AI in running from AoE's, then why do the henchies not come out of the fire pool during the Ring of Fire mission? They do not have enough since to stop standing there and getting burned, but yet the enemy can run from/evade AoE damaging....??? Seems a bit one-sided to me...

To answer this part just think about it with there curent pathing issues... Allesia runs into fire pool....OWWWW..Allesia runs back out of fire pool..Ahhhhhh...Allesia sees her best bud and Warrior partner Little Thom get burned...NOOOO... Allesia runs back in fire pool..OWWWWWW... well you get the point. :P But yes this I whole hardly agrea with henchies need to "think" a bit better though I do sometimes think there a few steps above some of the pugs i've traveled with... see the Biggest Jerk in Game forum.

As to the other Idea about having some new weapons in game neat if Aneat could try it it might be something neat to expand game play instead of focusing on why its such a bad idea because we are to set in how this game "shopuld" be played lets see if we could get some of you pro's together to see how to make it work? Constuctive critisism Req. the need to add to an idea not just shut one down.

I like the idea of the casters getting 2-handed Warstaves... pysical dmg same speed ass there wands maybe a bit slower not sure..... how would this neg. impact game play besides just chaging the style? You alaow casters close range...so? I read your previous arguments over the issue.. I understand that it would change the game play..slitly but would that be bad? If so can anyone think how to make this work?

Aenimus · Dec 08, 2005, 07:36 AM // 07:36

after reading this thread in it's entirety, i've come to an informed decision:

/signed

Siren · Dec 08, 2005, 08:40 AM // 08:40

You know what...fine. Let's implement this suggestion and when people see how abysmal the AI pathfinding is, they'll have only themselves to blame.

For the easiest example of how downright broken the pathfinding is, run around Whitman's Folly with a full squad of 8 (you and 7 henchies will be just fine for this) and tell me how well your character is navigating when the Grawls bunch up and you're trying to get in melee range for close-quarters spell casting.

This suggestion is made for the "convenience." But it's not going to be a convenience, especially when some people realize they're still going to have to take manual control and actually pay attention to their positioning--which completely castrates the suggestion, like I've said before.

I don't know why I seem to be the only one who sees that. Is it too much of a philosophical argument? Someone tell me, please.

If you want melee caster weapons...at least tell us the actual reason why, instead of the lame and completely untrue "to improve the combat of the game" types of reasons. You want variation, fine. But don't pretend it'll actually add some sort of depth or anything.

Aenimus · Dec 08, 2005, 11:32 AM // 11:32

Siren:
ok, i have vampiric touch and touch of agony, clicking on them activates the auto pathfinding.... *GASP* it's the same exact pathfinding you're claiming is broken (which i somewhat agree) for the melee weapons. no matter what, people are going to be resorting to pathfinding in one way or another. the people that take the time to intelligently navigate themselves around the map will be duely rewarded and the lazy players will be forced to stop being lazy. what does it matter to you so much, if they want to et themselves body blocked 5 inches from where they started, let them find out for themselves.

but leave us alone that want melee weapons for cosmetics and convenience. i probably wouldn't even use the damn things, but i think the option should be there.

all in all, i think you're just getting way too concerned for the people you show so much contempt for.

Arwen Dejang · Dec 08, 2005, 12:30 PM // 12:30

Why is everyone so concerned with the pathfinding??? Who cares if all ppl use is the spacebar? The point is new verity in items... or maybe a nicer way for casters to take up a closer combat role... in the end just something new but for someone to make a bland offhanded comaent such as "this cant bring depth... or your resons are lame..." wow who is that person to deside. The game I hope is ment to expand and since they are comming out with a CH 2 I assume I am correct. But how will putting in melle weapons hurt the game?

whispering · Dec 08, 2005, 04:03 PM // 16:03

Staffs are fine too. But you should be able to smack ur staff at someone "as melee" damage depending on the range rather than it would shoot fireballs when your foe is close. Some nice blunt damage there =) Maybe could be used as a stance or ar skill.

I always think of monks as martial art experts too.. so some melee damage should be good there naturally.

Mebbe a skill could look something like this.
5 Energy
Instant
20 second Recharge.

For 20 seconds. (If wielding a staff) Your staff is used for melee damage.
+ 2-20% armor penetration. depending on some stat i guess.