Curse

Epinephrine · Apr 19, 2005, 01:23 PM // 13:23

Right - first of all, I am not going to suggest the usual host of crossbows, two handed swords, dual wielding, guns etc...

This has to do with the weapon damage/requirements aspect - as weapons improve in effectivness they have more and more in the way of requirements, which is fiine, but it has one very limiting aspect which is that while there are many ranged weapons (bows, staves, rods etc.) dealing various damage types and requiring different abilities, the melee weapons are only available to warrior classes (in that they all require a mastery). Having played a caster using melee weaponry it was frustrating to be forced to use a weak weapon as a melee option just because I didn't have a warrior sub class - with the number of smiting spells, elementalist powers etc. that operate at close range it isn't uncommon to want to be up close engaging, and a melee weapon is a great way to automate this - I target them, hit smite and I am on my way into battle, getting ready to activate close range spells, swinging away when I am not casting.

What I would like to see are melee weapons that increase in power based on casting attributes - however, a warrior might be really annoyed by a sword that had great damage but required smiting lvl 10, so it may require a new class of weapons (or not...), though a melee staff/cane would be a fine option for me. If a new class were needed daggers and maces are staples of mages and priests in gaming, and thus would make sensible options, though I think that it would make more sense to rarely have swords, hammers and axes spawn with smiting, fire etc as the required attributes - in the hands of the appropriate Wa/Ele for example, the right fire sword would be a neat touch, while for the Mo/ele using smiting and fire it would also be a nice fit, and allow a melee option that also scales damage upward.

Slade xTekno · Apr 19, 2005, 02:06 PM // 14:06

You are under the impression that your character is supposed to be able to do everything. I mean, who wouldn't want to be able to Heal, zap enemies with Lightning, and do massive damage in melee. If the higher-tier weapons did not have a Warrior attribute requirement, who would honestly play Warrior? If I knew that I could play my Necro tank without needing Swordsmanship points for the powerful sword I had, I would gladly take Monk as my secondary.

Guild Wars promotes teamplay and cooperating with others that complement your skillset. If everyone could do everything, why would I team up at all? It's rather simple, but if you truly want to do lots of weapon damage, take Warrior or Ranger.

Epinephrine · Apr 19, 2005, 02:54 PM // 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slade xTekno

You are under the impression that your character is supposed to be able to do everything. I mean, who wouldn't want to be able to Heal, zap enemies with Lightning, and do massive damage in melee. If the higher-tier weapons did not have a Warrior attribute requirement, who would honestly play Warrior? If I knew that I could play my Necro tank without needing Swordsmanship points for the powerful sword I had, I would gladly take Monk as my secondary.

Guild Wars promotes teamplay and cooperating with others that complement your skillset. If everyone could do everything, why would I team up at all? It's rather simple, but if you truly want to do lots of weapon damage, take Warrior or Ranger.

Um, the adavantage of playing a warrior is still there: Massive armour, skills to use said weapon (as a monk/elementalist I still end up swinging it on default - no bonus damage), strength bonus. I get a high damage weapon anyway in my Smiting Rod, and I can use it up close, it's a ranged weapon instead but isn't hampered by being next to the opponent. The only thing this would change is the look of the character and the ability to close to melee range with the weapon. It would actually possibly help warriors more, as a warrior elementalist could look for the right elementalist sword to complement his abilities, especially if the abilities on a weapon are likely to be in associated with the required attribute.

I don't need to do tons of damage, I need flexibility. It's silly that a sword requires some mystical attribute that only warriors have - I like flexibility - if I want to swing a melee weapon as a monk I should be able to. Games like Diablo 2 allowed it - as a sorceress you could swing a claymore if you wanted to - without melee skills it was ill advised, but it could be done. It's not about damage - I can do the damage from any range with my smiting rod. If I have an 11-22 smiting rod requiring 9 smiting, why couldn't I have a 12-25 axe requiring smiting? It gets a bit more damage as it is melee (as it should, melee requires exposing oneself to danger) and would be a nice weapon for the monk to switch to, and possibly benefit a Wa/Mo who uses axes. I don't wantan uber (I can do anything!) character, I have always played weak combinations like melee sorceresses, or hunter druids, or a maul wielding amazon in D2, and I would like the ability to play the game with the weapon I want. As it is I swing a 7-9 damage sword... because it has no requirements. If there were melee weapons on par with the caster weapons with caster requirements it wouldn't be unbalancing, merely another way to add options.

Sin · Apr 19, 2005, 05:27 PM // 17:27

More clamors of "games like blah blah did this so guildwars should have it." I know it's blunt but I have to be honest: GuildWars is not that game, please accept that. Besides, currently you can use any weapon in the game. In post-searing before Lion's Arch you'll find many 6-11 damage weapons without any attribute requirement, they are rare as what you are proposing for a smiting attribute version but they exist. Also above you recognize the same limited function in Diablo for a caster to use a sword, "...as a sorceress you could swing a claymore if you wanted to - without melee skills it was ill advised, but it could be done" and somehow you respect it there. As far as I know what you described is identical in GuildWars.

So far it seems like you are asking for what you already have available. Also why do you need a special melee weapon based on non-melee profession attributes when your caster weapons are fine? If you want flexibility use the sword with skills in your bar that accomplish your goal. You don't need a sword with smiting as much as skills to complement you using a sword instead. The flexibility in any game is in learning, and going by, the rules of the game mechanics and design. With GuildWars, pursuant to the game mechanics, the flexibility is in the skill sets and correlative attributes. Make your adjustments accordingly. If you don't have the skills you need to be a caster who wields a sword look to this as the reason you don't have the flexibility you'd like to have.

Otherwise what you are suggesting is just one more example of the "conditioning" of the run-of-the-mill orpg. It'd be great if people who want to "fix" GuildWars would realize the entirety of the difference that makes GuildWars appealing to them is the way the game works as a whole--that there isn't some "change this one thing and it's better" available. GuildWars balance is design around a cooperative team environment 8V8 while sporting a remarkable PVE. It appears this was done with full intention to disrupt and shatter the old models of rpg gaming because that is how Arena.net will succeed to make a niche market. Please get used to this difference and respect it. GuildWars is an rpg that makes an evolutionary leap from.... "Get the uber leet weapon from hell that makes me a god and thus the game is boring because all challenge just disappeared".... to.... "I need to learn skill sets to counter skill sets and learn the best skills for how I am equipped." Although you are not be trying to make such a character, the change in focus and balance of GuildWars game mechanics causes the type of thing you are asking for to be unavailable.

Also consider that the way GuildWars is built and changing it will be rare indeed for someone else's build, equipment, enhancements, and attributes to be identical to yours unless you tell others. If you stand back from the weapons idea and look at all of what I just mentioned you'll find your flexibility is far from hampered.

Epinephrine · Apr 19, 2005, 05:58 PM // 17:58

Firstly- I am using a 7-9 sword, that averages 8, so your 6-11 is the same weapon really (who cares about a half point).

Secondly - the skills are there for both elementalists and monks to go HtH - what they are lacking is weapons. Elementalists have armour and buffs, monks have protection and buffs - reason dictates that some will want to combine armour, protection and doubled buffs and attack in melee, yet there is no real option. If you don't like it that's fine, you don't have to agree with me. I think a melee weapon for casters of equivalent damage to their ranged weapon would be nice, and not an "uber leet weapon from hell ". I have said more than once that I don't want them overpowered - on par with the other caster weapons is all, but a melee version.

Thirdly, this is a suggestion forum. It is here that we, the players, provide feedback to the designers. You don't have to like it, but the faction that rejects all suggestions of change because they like the game as it is doesn't really fit in a suggestions area. I recognise that GW is a new game, and it IS breaking many boundaries - I wouldn't want to be suggesting things that aren't within the scope of the game. Melee weapons exist however, we can use a small handful of them, but for some reason better melee weapons are the province of warriors alone - and it is done deliberately. It doesn't need to be is all; few mages would give up range to swing a weapon up close as most are going to be using spells from a distance, but the cumbersome nature of switching to a sword, targetting the opponent to run it, then once in melee switching back to a staff/cane to deal damage is absurd. I need to get into melee to use spells like symbol of wrath and crystal wave, but the targetting system stops me at my missile range if a missile weapon is equipped, so I have to juggle my inventory. It'd be simpler to have the option of using a cane or staff as a melee weapon.

I am perfectly capable of using the skills on the tree to adapt my builds to the game. I've done that for years in many settings, but since the designers read these to get ideas, I am suggesting something I would like to see, and that would improve my enjoyment. Can I swing a weapon? Yes. Is it limited to sub-par weaponry? Yes. Can I be more effective using other weapons? Yes. Should I have to use a cane or staff to be effective? In my opinion, no. Warriors will be better at melee than other classes just based on skills. Axes aren't better for them than swords, nor are hammers - they are all different. Likewise, I don't think a melee caster weapon would be better, just different. Casters in this game have melee range skills and are well suited to the role, it's a shame not to give the melee option to them. I don't want there to be this munchkinising force stereotyping casters to picking canes and staves because that's what they get damage with and that's what have the attributes they want.

Maybe something as simple as a weaponsmith being able to "customise" your staff/cane into a melee version? That would avoid the annoying juggling, and I could deal with smacking a ghoul around with a flaming cane. Standing in melee range firing a blast from a cane feels wrong with a "smiting" monk.

Sin · Apr 19, 2005, 09:20 PM // 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

What I would like to see are melee weapons that increase in power based on casting attributes - however, a warrior might be really annoyed by a sword that had great damage but required smiting lvl 10, so it may require a new class of weapons (or not...), though a melee staff/cane would be a fine option for me. If a new class were needed daggers and maces are staples of mages and priests in gaming, and thus would make sensible options, though I think that it would make more sense to rarely have swords, hammers and axes spawn with smiting, fire etc as the required attributes - in the hands of the appropriate Wa/Ele for example, the right fire sword would be a neat touch, while for the Mo/ele using smiting and fire it would also be a nice fit, and allow a melee option that also scales damage upward.

Please note you are the only one "stereotyping."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I get a high damage weapon anyway in my Smiting Rod, and I can use it up close, it's a ranged weapon instead but isn't hampered by being next to the opponent. The only thing this would change is the look of the character and the ability to close to melee range with the weapon.

Just try to accept the game as it is. So really this is just some cosmetic thing though you are asking for a weapon with attributes linked to the attributes of non-warrior professions. Yet you do admit....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

few mages would give up range to swing a weapon up close as most are going to be using spells from a distance, but the cumbersome nature of switching to a sword, targetting the opponent to run it, then once in melee switching back to a staff/cane to deal damage is absurd.

So you want a weapon to be made that is a special drop for this miniscule amount of people who might actually choose do to what you want for you, which is why it isn't a suggestion for the game, merely a suggestion for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephirne

I need to get into melee to use spells like symbol of wrath and crystal wave, but the targetting system stops me at my missile range if a missile weapon is equipped.

This here looks like the suggestion you might wanna focus on--making the minimum range on the weapon that is designed for balance to meet the needs of your profession work in the environment you need it. The jugglint you mentioned previously is absurd, I couldn't agree more. However it doesn't appear it requires a sword outside the warrior attributes. It does however seem inconsistent with the skills you have, and that is not meaning you have the wrong ones, it is meaning they should make your weapon work with all your skills. That to me seems like a real suggestion for the game as it affects all players of that profession directly, not just a small group of them looking to use this as an excuse to discuss new weapons.

No wonder the sense of hostility and argument to anyone that suggests maybe you need to adjust your skill set or that this will negatively affect the design of the game.

Anyway I will make no futher effort. My apologies.

Epinephrine · Apr 19, 2005, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Fair enough on the one front - I was proposing a solution instead of stating the problem. The problem being that it can be important to close to melee range when using a misslie weapon. Since mage-types do have a weapon type that is ranged, it affects them. There are numerous solutions to this:

New melee weapon for mage-types.
Swords and other melee weapons that can be used using requirements other than masteries.
Make staves and rods customisable to be melee or ranged.
Alter the targetting to allow closing to melee with a new function, so that rangers and spellcasters can use their weapon yet still close with a target.
Make an alternate fire button for staves/rods with a melee action (swing it like a hammer(staff)/sword(rod), since those animations already exist) allowing the choice to bind either to the mouse (or both on my 5 button mouse), or simply have the key bound to the keyboard to close and swing the rod.

So perhaps I misstated my problem, which is the cumbersome targetting I had to do to engage an automatic closing with the target. Hopefully this clarifies the issue.

Sin · Apr 19, 2005, 11:29 PM // 23:29

I was a ranger/nec and never had a problem firing my bow at melee range or using one of those nec wands (don't remember name as I don't really use em much). So I am wondering if you just encountered the odd bug from hell. If it were me i'd check with others of similar profession to make sure you weren't having an odd, and needs to be fixed, unique experience. I totally relate with your frustration. For me it's having to press the tilde key or click the chat tab then press return to chat because it interferes with the flow of battle when you have to respond during battle for some reason. I am thinking this sudden not being to attack melee up close when wanting to cast a melee range spell interferes with your flow of battle horribly.

Slade xTekno · Apr 20, 2005, 12:01 AM // 00:01

Your whole argument was answered in the following.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slade xTekno

You are under the impression that your character is supposed to be able to do everything. I mean, who wouldn't want to be able to Heal, zap enemies with Lightning, and do massive damage in melee. If the higher-tier weapons did not have a Warrior attribute requirement, who would honestly play Warrior? If I knew that I could play my Necro tank without needing Swordsmanship points for the powerful sword I had, I would gladly take Monk as my secondary.

Guild Wars promotes teamplay and cooperating with others that complement your skillset. If everyone could do everything, why would I team up at all? It's rather simple, but if you truly want to do lots of weapon damage, take Warrior or Ranger.

However, since you do not seem to grasp the fact that you can't have everything, I will take it apart and set it in front of you.
Note that I may repeat points, as you continually do yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

Um, the adavantage of playing a warrior is still there: Massive armour, skills to use said weapon (as a monk/elementalist I still end up swinging it on default - no bonus damage), strength bonus. I get a high damage weapon anyway in my Smiting Rod, and I can use it up close, it's a ranged weapon instead but isn't hampered by being next to the opponent. The only thing this would change is the look of the character and the ability to close to melee range with the weapon. It would actually possibly help warriors more, as a warrior elementalist could look for the right elementalist sword to complement his abilities, especially if the abilities on a weapon are likely to be in associated with the required attribute.

The game is fairly balanced as is. Ask yourself this - why would a warrior look for a weapon that requires anything other than its mastery? It sounds pointless, but think about it for a second. Points in Swordsmanship raise the effectiveness of many sword skills. Why have a sword that requires Wind Magic if you're a warrior? You wouldn't do nearly as well with it.
I like the way you tried to disguise your the fact that you do not play Warriors by saying how it would benefit them as well. Looking at it closely, your claims are simply false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I don't need to do tons of damage, I need flexibility. It's silly that a sword requires some mystical attribute that only warriors have - I like flexibility - if I want to swing a melee weapon as a monk I should be able to. Games like Diablo 2 allowed it - as a sorceress you could swing a claymore if you wanted to - without melee skills it was ill advised, but it could be done.

The elementalist, with the lowest armor in the game, is ill suited for melee combat. Yes, in D2, a sorceress could wield a claymore, but that requires lots of points that would have been placed into Energy to be allocated to Strength. If you can not tell, this is called balance.
She gave up quite a bit of mana, and therefore capacity to cast spells, in order to be able to wield a great melee weapon. However, you are asking for the full ability of your classes, plus more. That is not balance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

It's not about damage - I can do the damage from any range with my smiting rod. If I have an 11-22 smiting rod requiring 9 smiting, why couldn't I have a 12-25 axe requiring smiting? It gets a bit more damage as it is melee (as it should, melee requires exposing oneself to danger) and would be a nice weapon for the monk to switch to, and possibly benefit a Wa/Mo who uses axes.

I covered this above. A Warrior would not benefit from any weapon that does not require Masteries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I don't wantan uber (I can do anything!) character, I have always played weak combinations like melee sorceresses, or hunter druids, or a maul wielding amazon in D2, and I would like the ability to play the game with the weapon I want.

You are choosing to play eccentric combinations. In no way does that mean the game or its community should compensate for your choices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

Firstly- I am using a 7-9 sword, that averages 8, so your 6-11 is the same weapon really (who cares about a half point).

This has nothing to do with the argument, but a weapon's max damage increases its crit damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

Secondly - the skills are there for both elementalists and monks to go HtH - what they are lacking is weapons. Elementalists have armour and buffs, monks have protection and buffs - reason dictates that some will want to combine armour, protection and doubled buffs and attack in melee, yet there is no real option. If you don't like it that's fine, you don't have to agree with me. I think a melee weapon for casters of equivalent damage to their ranged weapon would be nice, and not an "uber leet weapon from hell ". I have said more than once that I don't want them overpowered - on par with the other caster weapons is all, but a melee version.

They lack combat ability for a reason. Have you ever seen a high-level Sorc in D2 attack with their staff? Ever?
And why do you want a melee version? One thing Guild Wars promotes is co-op play. If you happen to be in melee range as a caster, it was the enemy's skill or your team's lack thereof. It could even be the lack of a team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

Thirdly, this is a suggestion forum. It is here that we, the players, provide feedback to the designers. You don't have to like it, but the faction that rejects all suggestions of change because they like the game as it is doesn't really fit in a suggestions area. I recognise that GW is a new game, and it IS breaking many boundaries - I wouldn't want to be suggesting things that aren't within the scope of the game. Melee weapons exist however, we can use a small handful of them, but for some reason better melee weapons are the province of warriors alone - and it is done deliberately. It doesn't need to be is all; few mages would give up range to swing a weapon up close as most are going to be using spells from a distance, but the cumbersome nature of switching to a sword, targetting the opponent to run it, then once in melee switching back to a staff/cane to deal damage is absurd. I need to get into melee to use spells like symbol of wrath and crystal wave, but the targetting system stops me at my missile range if a missile weapon is equipped, so I have to juggle my inventory. It'd be simpler to have the option of using a cane or staff as a melee weapon.

I do realize that suggestions are suggestions. However, you suggestion comes with the purpose of benefitting yourself, not the community.
Again, your choice to choose weapons outside your class's expertise is up to you.
Why are you switching weapons? If its for targeting for spells, there is a hotkey for simply targeting without attacking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I am perfectly capable of using the skills on the tree to adapt my builds to the game. I've done that for years in many settings, but since the designers read these to get ideas, I am suggesting something I would like to see, and that would improve my enjoyment. Can I swing a weapon? Yes. Is it limited to sub-par weaponry? Yes. Can I be more effective using other weapons? Yes. Should I have to use a cane or staff to be effective? In my opinion, no. Warriors will be better at melee than other classes just based on skills. Axes aren't better for them than swords, nor are hammers - they are all different. Likewise, I don't think a melee caster weapon would be better, just different. Casters in this game have melee range skills and are well suited to the role, it's a shame not to give the melee option to them. I don't want there to be this munchkinising force stereotyping casters to picking canes and staves because that's what they get damage with and that's what have the attributes they want.

My enjoyment. The problem with your suggestion is it springs from your eccentricities. Yes, I play odd combinations in many games. However, I am aware of the disadvantage in which I am placed.
Casters are in no way suited for melee. Unless they take Warrior to compensate for their lack of combat skill, most critters and players alike will tear you apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

Maybe something as simple as a weaponsmith being able to "customise" your staff/cane into a melee version? That would avoid the annoying juggling, and I could deal with smacking a ghoul around with a flaming cane. Standing in melee range firing a blast from a cane feels wrong with a "smiting" monk.

Umm, why would you want to stand next to your enemy? Unless the spell requires it, most casters would like to be as far away from the enemy as possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

Fair enough on the one front - I was proposing a solution instead of stating the problem. The problem being that it can be important to close to melee range when using a misslie weapon. Since mage-types do have a weapon type that is ranged, it affects them. There are numerous solutions to this:

New melee weapon for mage-types.
Swords and other melee weapons that can be used using requirements other than masteries.
Make staves and rods customisable to be melee or ranged.
Alter the targetting to allow closing to melee with a new function, so that rangers and spellcasters can use their weapon yet still close with a target.
Make an alternate fire button for staves/rods with a melee action (swing it like a hammer(staff)/sword(rod), since those animations already exist) allowing the choice to bind either to the mouse (or both on my 5 button mouse), or simply have the key bound to the keyboard to close and swing the rod.

So perhaps I misstated my problem, which is the cumbersome targetting I had to do to engage an automatic closing with the target. Hopefully this clarifies the issue.

The first was argued above - if you want to be so great with melee weapons, take Warrior. It's not very hard unless you make it that way.
I still see no reason for switching between melee and ranged unless one does more damage.
There already is a hotkey for just targetting. See the first forum, under the sticky labeled "Hotkeys."
You did mistate the problem, or else we wouldn't be having this argument.

The fact that you cited your past "different" builds, like melee Sorcs, talk of smacking Ghouls, and arguments for how new weapons would benefit the Warrior did not help show that you were complaining about the spell targeting system. However, since I have typed all this, I stand by my statements and will not recant.
I've never had a problem targeting with a ranged wand. I don't find it cumbersome to click a target and hit the spell right after, or target with Tab and then hitting the spell. You must be suffering from a bug or bad lag, because very few people I have talked to have talked about this problem.

Epinephrine · Apr 20, 2005, 12:49 AM // 00:49

I understand balance VERY well, having taken courses in it, and what I am suggesting is not unbalanced. Elementalists or smiters or necros already deal the amount of damage referred to with a rod. Making it melee range does not increase their power, thus does not skew balance. Think for a second, if I have a rod with +10 energy, 11-22 light damage and requiring smiting 9, and I say that I would like a melee weapon that is +10 energy 11-22 light damage and requires smiting 9, how does that alter balance? It doesn't, it allows for a weapon that is melee ranged. Same exact damage, same mods.

There is a concept called dominating strategies - as long as I introduce dominated strategies they can't alter game balance as there is a single solution that is better in every way. If you introduce the melee rod (let's say) with the exact stats of a missile rod, but only in melee, you end up with a dominated strategy, as the missile version is equivalent once within melee range, and superior out of melee range. By definition dominated strategies do not affect balance. In fact, since we are playing a game which allows conditional strategies and such I don't even need a purely dominated strategy, merely one that falls below the Pareto-optimal set of combined strategies. Don't condescend to me about the balance issue.

As for your comments about why you would want to be in melee range, many spells are fairly close range - balthazar's aura, symbol of wrath, crystal wave etc all benefit you more by being near a clump of enemies. I purposefully close with enemies all the time, and I live through it fine, part of the joy of having monks around, as well as keeping a good armour enchantment up. I'm done arguing about this - it is balanced, it requires comparatively little coding to add as the animations are already there for the swings and would add some functionality that some would enjoy. That's enough to make it not a horrible suggestion.

Sin · Apr 20, 2005, 01:33 AM // 01:33

Epinephrine, I think where the balance contentions are rooting from is that GuildWars being based around a blend of skill and attributes, to add a melee weapon based on the same attributes as weapons already for the monk, elementalist etc. would likely require warriors get a staff, bow, etc. based on warrior attributes--the purpose of professions would fly right out the window. The rules of the game, as you are surely educated, derive from this game's purposes in design. Thus it would be an imbalance for this game from it's focus on skill-in-relation-to-attribute perspective to start making cross-over weapons based on the attributes of the other classes. Please consider this inlight of the real problem you were having being the inability to carry on a melee attack with a ranged weapon. And apparently no one else has had this problem so this is strong evidence your experience was a unique and individual one--almost "instanced"

If it were me I'd do all I could to verify that it wasn't such a bug or other error that I experienced by myself.

I only see that the suggestion is unwarranted and an imbalance for the reasons I have stated because the new weapon isn't the solution to the problem. You may have a technical issue or maybe the smiting rod need to hit things at close range. If either of these are true correcting them would appear the best solution to the problem over messing with the game mechanics, adding a new set of weapon-to-attribute relationships, etc.

Epinephrine · Apr 20, 2005, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Sin, you are being polite about this, and I am trying to as well:

I don't have trouble hitting things up close. When you taget an enemy with a sword in hand the computer runs you up to take a swing. This lets you survey the battle field and so on, take a look at health bars and so on, while automatically closing with the enemy. If you target an enemy with a ranged weapon you run until within range of them, and stop. That's a smart thing to do if you want to hit from a distance. I however want to close with a target, and automatically. When the target caller calls, I press "T" and if using a missle weapon I end up pivotting to fire blasts. I want it to run up to him, so I can use my area spells (touch range works fine, if I cast it I'll run up, but I might not have one). In order to be able to take advantage of this targetting/running I need to have a melee weapon in hand, like a sword. Then to do damage I have to switch weapon sets.

Solutions to this problem are -
Carry a sword, so that you automatically run to the target, then switch weapon sets once there (problem is that you have to switch back to run to the next target, plus it's a bit clunky)
Have a button that is a "close with target" button - completely useless if you have a melee weapon anyway, as you will close, but allows a simple button press to behave as if you had a sword.
An alternate fire button on a staff allowing it to be swung in melee.
A way to customise staves to work in melee range instead.
A weapon group for non warriors that is close range, so as not to mess with the staves.

As for the game balance issue with this, you said

Quote:

to add a melee weapon based on the same attributes as weapons already for the monk, elementalist etc. would likely require warriors get a staff, bow, etc. based on warrior attributes

I can see how you might think this at first glance, but the staff/rod already works at this range. You can fire the staff at close (melee) range, so it doesn't alter game balance, while the sword can't be fired at a range, providing that would alter game balance. What I am discussing thus doesn't actually alter anything except the targetting (closing) which is already available, albeit through the clumsy juggling of weapons, and a possible change in animations to an existing animation, merely gripping a different weapon. The issue is the ability to target and close, and why it is that you can't override this. It doesn't even matter about the animation (except for the esthetics of it) to make it a melee weapon, since it is usable with no change in damage or firing rate from any range, it is a melee weapon, just one that fires a ball. What is lacking is the targetting. Suggesting the others was an easy fix to the problem - give the casters a descent melee weapon and it'd take care of itself by hooking the same targetting code as the other melee weapons - if that is repugnant, which apparently it is, then simply alter the keys to give us a key that says "close with target, then attack", which will then make the staff indistinguishable from the melee version of it, excepting that it can still be fired from a distance. Since the functionality exists it doesn't alter balance, merely esthetics and ease of use.

Sin · Apr 20, 2005, 03:15 AM // 03:15

Thank you for a well described scene. Much easier to understand. I am a ranger/necro. Vampyric touch or even throw dirt require me to be in close range. I target with my bow, watch their life and the life of the melee, when I see they might be in trouble, I run up and do throw dirt, then, do healing spring, or if a corpse, do well of power and continue to fire on the enemy--obviously I am a PVE player. The point is that I have not suffered what you are talking about with having to switch weapons or be concerned about using a melee weapon.

Maybe this is something that just seems cumbersome to you?....hmmm....Sure you can use the tab and other hotkeys entirely, however I find that I tab to the target and then just click their health bar at the top center of the screen to start attacking. If I control click that bar it does the target call too. The thing is I can tab, click and then press the key for my skill I wanna use and I run in, do the skill, and start firing. If I do this as almost one fluid movement i run in before firing a shot and then continue to fire. I hope you can see what I am getting at and that maybe this helps some how.

*Edit* I looked at your description once more and, you can press "t" and then just press the skill you want to use, and you'll bypass your ranged situation instead to run up, cast your spell, and then attack with your normal weapon without needing to swap out a thing. The "t" thing doesn't work for me for some reason. That's why I tab and click the top bar, it seems to work just fine since, as a ranger, I am in the back anyway.

Scaphism · Apr 20, 2005, 06:30 AM // 06:30

The solution is to use the WASD keys to run up to your target.

Or you could ask the dev team to spend their time programming in a hotkey that would be useless for the majority of players designed solely to let PBAOE attackers close with their targets.

From where I sit, if you want to use PBAOE attacks, learn to close to melee distance first.

Epinephrine · Apr 20, 2005, 11:46 AM // 11:46

Yes, I can use the WASD to get there, but then iI lose out on the automatic targetting - I want to end up next to the one that the group called. The problem with a lot of PBAoE spells is that they don't have a target so they go off wherever you are - that's fine for putting one up as an enemy charges you, but not so good when you want to close with them. I didn't (and don't) think it is a big chage, as all the components of it are there excepting the key. Some people suggest dual wielding (which requires entirely new animations, new combat scripting etc, new skills and so on) or new classes and races without the amount of resistance encountered over wanting a new hotkey or melee attack for a mage. The fact that you think it would be

Quote:

a hotkey that would be useless for the majority of players designed solely to let PBAOE attackers close with their targets.

doesn't bother me. Some people wanted to be able to ignore emotes, they worked that in (and I bet that's useless for the majority of players). That's what suggestions are for, to give them ideas of ways to change the game. Since the addition of the key won't afect those who don't use it it isn't a problem for you, since it doesn't alter balance it isn't a problem overall. PBAoE is in the game, and virtually all other attacks automatically bring you into combat range - if I hit a touch based spell I run up, if I use a melee attack I run up, if I use a missile attack or spell I approach to within range, but the PBAoE spells dn't move you - that's fine, you wouldn't want to have to run up to the target every time, you may want it where you are, but since there is no "engage" key it'd be nice to have a way to do automatically what basically every other attack gets - I have suggested several ways. WASD won't automatically target, the other ways will.