Pew! Pew! Pew!

[Rhade]

People in general don't melee you for the same reason they don't melee goretooth or harmless unless they have to.

That's kind of my point though:

People can choose to not melee me and completely negate and avoid my skillset.

I can never, ever choose not to be shot at. I must always expose myself to ranged fire if I want to do anything whatsoever, and I always have to give ranged a chance to shoot me, yet ranged never has to give me a chance to hit them. When you add in a critical mass of archers/xbows/throwers, it's just pretty evident to me that ranged rules the field. I'm not sure how to fix the issue, but it's clear to me that there is one.

Let's say, for a moment, that there was an archer as deadly as Harmless or Gore or I are in melee:

Not only would this archer be able to dominate all other ranged units with effectiveness, he'd also be able to dominate melee players before they even reached him. He would be able to beat other ranged (because he is ranged and can effectively attack them at the very moment he himself is exposed, making it fair for both ranged participants) and he would also be able to beat melee players, as he is able to either shoot them, shoot their feet, shoot over their shield, run from them and let his team shoot them/generate distance so he can keep shooting, or simply pull out a melee weapon and have a chance to attack his enemy, at the very least, before his enemy can kill him. Oftentimes this is the main frustration I feel, I never have the chance to even attack a ranged enemy or effectively defend myself, even with a shield and a shield level of 2, yet a good ranged player always has the ability to attack/defend no matter who he is fighting.

A melee "champion" is hamstrung extremely hard compared to a ranged "champion" when you think about it.

[MrShine]

I don't really know what solution you're looking for... ranged is a part of the game and isn't going anywhere.  If anything some nerfs to throwing and xbows to make them require more skills to be as useful as they are would help cut down the vast amount of players who have a ranged side arm.

 I'll stick with a 'ranged champ' vs a 'melee champ' 1v1 fight since team stuff gets murky.  In those instances I'd say it's all about the variables; what cover there is, what the distance is between the two players, if the melee character has a shield and what shield skill they have and so on.  If someone has the right shield and shield skill you aren't going to be able to hit them from the front as ranged, period.  In those cases all the melee has to do is bust the shield out and beeline it for the ranged player, the ranged can either waste arrows on the shield, run, or decide to melee.  If you are getting hit from the front you should invest in more shield skill or get a lolscarl shield.

I'd also be willing to bet the 'ranged champion' is investing a lot more points into making himself an effective ranged player than a 'melee champion' is investing to make himself protected from ranged.  They'll be more gimped when the two ultimately clash in melee.

It sounds like your primary concerns are with the amount of ranged, and getting flanked from the back or side with archer support.  Can't really help you there, best I can say is count on teammates to help avoid getting ganged on.

[Garem]

That's kind of my point though:

People can choose to not melee me and completely negate and avoid my skillset.

I can never, ever choose not to be shot at. I must always expose myself to ranged fire if I want to do anything whatsoever, and I always have to give ranged a chance to shoot me, yet ranged never has to give me a chance to hit them. When you add in a critical mass of archers/xbows/throwers, it's just pretty evident to me that ranged rules the field. I'm not sure how to fix the issue, but it's clear to me that there is one.

Let's say, for a moment, that there was an archer as deadly as Harmless or Gore or I are in melee:

Not only would this archer be able to dominate all other ranged units with effectiveness, he'd also be able to dominate melee players before they even reached him. He would be able to beat other ranged (because he is ranged and can effectively attack them at the very moment he himself is exposed, making it fair for both ranged participants) and he would also be able to beat melee players, as he is able to either shoot them, shoot their feet, shoot over their shield, run from them and let his team shoot them/generate distance so he can keep shooting, or simply pull out a melee weapon and have a chance to attack his enemy, at the very least, before his enemy can kill him. Oftentimes this is the main frustration I feel, I never have the chance to even attack a ranged enemy or effectively defend myself, even with a shield and a shield level of 2, yet a good ranged player always has the ability to attack/defend no matter who he is fighting.

A melee "champion" is hamstrung extremely hard compared to a ranged "champion" when you think about it.

Then where are these archer "champions"? Is it just that nobody who is any good plays archers (don't answer that, I won't take that answer seriously anyways)? I've been rolling with some of the best archers on the NA servers right now. I don't see them with 50-5 K/D scores. It just doesn't happen.

Plus, you're ignoring cavalry "champions", to steal your term, which will rape most ranged.

Some of this thread's criticisms of crossbows versatility and (lol)throwing's accuracy are fair, but meh, nothing new, this has been discussed ad nauseum so we'll see what happens in the upcoming patch. Aside from that, goddamn I'm tired of hearing 2H'ers bitch. "People can choose to not melee me and completely negate and avoid my skillset." Deeeeeerp. Of course there's a balance. As an archer, you can say the same thing about plate armor, huscarl shields, ninjas (who know how to do it), dedicated sniper crossbowmen in cover (1-shot 95% of the time), half-decent cavalry, and the list goes on. Make your own server with only 2H'ers so you can all jack each other off with platemail and barmaces if it pisses you off that much.

Otherwise, look at the scoreboards. Cav and 2H'ers. Occasionally 1H+Shielders. From time to time, the freak that is DarkKarma. I've yet to see an archer working alone top the scoreboards.

"I can never, ever choose not to be shot at. I must always expose myself to ranged fire if I want to do anything whatsoever." This is an absurd exaggeration. Use cover and/or make a friend who uses a huscarl and hide behind it. Or get an armored cavalry buddy to disrupt ranged attacks. Frankly, it's that easy- you just have to use friends to counter your own counters. Teamwork wins consistently.

"I'd also be willing to bet the 'ranged champion' is investing a lot more points into making himself an effective ranged player than a 'melee champion' is investing to make himself protected from ranged.  They'll be more gimped when the two ultimately clash in melee."

@MrShine: Absolutely. Archers almost require a pure build. Crossbows and throwing don't, especially since Xbowers can wear any armor without WPF penalty, but without 100% dedication you're significantly less effective than the purists. Throwing is designed to be hyrbid, which would be a really cool and interesting option of speed/utility if it weren't so deadly and the slow speed were not so easily overcome.

Side note: The "Force Field" effect is generally too frustrating for most archers to bother with shooting at feet- 2H'ers are plentiful and are always target priority. Archers may shoot at the lowest quality shields, but by and large even weak shields are rarely worth shooting at.

[Knute]

"Let's say, for a moment, that there was an archer as deadly as Harmless or Gore or I are in melee:

Not only would this archer be able to dominate all other ranged units with effectiveness, he'd also be able to dominate melee players before they even reached him. He would be able to beat other ranged (because he is ranged and can effectively attack them at the very moment he himself is exposed, making it fair for both ranged participants) and he would also be able to beat melee players, as he is able to either shoot them, shoot their feet, shoot over their shield, run from them and let his team shoot them/generate distance so he can keep shooting......."

Not sure if you played CRPG before the January patch, but you're describing archers and horse archers with high level multi generation wpf (think 250-300wpf) and .50 cal ballista bows to a tee.  Archers now are individually less powerful than they used to be and fire at a slower rate.  Of course, crowds of ranged working together can still mess you up though.

Solution to getting lit up by shooters/throwers rage?  I don't know.  For me, mostly playing on siege, it's fun to have a couple alts so if it's not fun being one class I can switch to another just like you would in native.  It keeps the game fresh plus helps you learn the strengths and weaknesses of different classes/weapons when you go up against them with your main.  For example: If I'm on the attacking team on siege and starting to feel like a clay pigeon, I'mma switch to archer and get even.  Then if we don't have enough melee, back to my 2hander.

[Rhade]

Neither of you had the ability to address the viable concern of a melee player always having to expose to the risk of a ranged player's attack, but a ranged player always being able to avoid the melee player's attack.

Blabber on about "OMG TEAMWORK AND TACTICZ" all you want, this is a discussion about sheer gameplay balance for the sake of balance, not how you have to get other people to augment you for you to be viable.

[Kophka]

Neither of you had the ability to address the viable concern of a melee player always having to expose to the risk of a ranged player's attack, but a ranged player always being able to avoid the melee player's attack.

Blabber on about "OMG TEAMWORK AND TACTICZ" all you want, this is a discussion about sheer gameplay balance for the sake of balance, not how you have to get other people to augment you for you to be viable.

Battle is Battle, and Duels are Duels. Of course in a 1v1 situation the Ranger will beat the Meleer until the Meleer closes the gap. But things ARE balanced around teamwork and tactics in battle. That's the whole point of battle. You use your team to counter your weaknesses.  You may be a terrific Native dueller, but it's a battle field. If you hate something, have your team counter it, while you counter their weakness that you can handle.

EDIT : Edited for off-topicedness

[Rhade]

Battle is Battle, and Duels are Duels. Of course in a 1v1 situation the Ranger will beat the Meleer until the Meleer closes the gap. But things ARE balanced around teamwork and tactics in battle. That's the whole point of battle. You use your team to counter your weaknesses.  You may be a terrific Native dueller, but it's a battle field. If you hate something, have your team counter it, while you counter their weakness that you can handle.

EDIT : Edited for off-topicedness

Battle is a series of duels, be it 1v1's, 1v2's, 1v3's, or what have you, and if something has an extreme and distinct advantage 1v1 it will exponentially grow.

Honestly, I'm not just a native dueller, I'm one of the best native battle players as well, as per my placement on the National team for the USA in the NC. I know a thing or two about battle mode, BkS has never to date lost a single match or scrim so I'd say I have an idea about balance and how to win. That doesn't change the fact that critical mass of range units has an inherent advantage in cRPG over anything else that isn't a critical range of mass units themselves.

In the current situation, I'd have to have my team respond to mass range by them going mass range.

[Alex_C]

lrn2shield

[Nemeth]

Rhade, you're a fucking idiot.

[Rhade]

Rhade, you're a fucking idiot.

What a mature admin.

@Alex:

I have a shield, but as I said, an equal number of archers will beat an equal number of shielders.
Furthermore, it forces me to put my weapon away which not only forces me to pause once (if) I happen to reach my opponent, it leaves me helpless when a random infantry shows up.

I'm not addressing these issues because I personally have such a dreadful time handling them, I'm kind of a big deal and am amazing so I can succeed even despite these things, but the average player will simply quit and go range, which is indeed why we have so much range on the servers. I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that most of the time at least 2/3 of every team is ranged.

[Nemeth]

What a mature admin.

Firstly, I'm not an admin, secondly - look at your posts and then slap yourself, maybe then you'll realize why everyone is mocking 2h because of their constant whining how they getting shot from all angles.

[Rhade]

Firstly, I'm not an admin, secondly - look at your posts and then slap yourself, maybe then you'll realize why everyone is mocking 2h because of their constant whining how they getting shot from all angles.

My posts actually bring up valid points which people can't really address legitimately besides offering half measures and weak reasoning.

Constant whining? I'd say it's valid.

4 melee can attack one target, MAYBE.

An infinite number of range can attack one target.

This is simple logic.

[Nemeth]

My posts actually bring up valid points which people can't really address legitimately besides offering half measures and weak reasoning.

Constant whining? I'd say it's valid.

4 melee can attack one target, MAYBE.

An infinite number of range can attack one target.

This is simple logic.

That is your logic, that has aboslutely nothing to do with balance.

[Blondin]

I remember before the Big patch, i can assure you that ranged classes are much weaker now ("omg i was headshoted by a plated archer on a plated charger!")

The point is always the same, i agree there is too much ranged, and we know that ranged call ranged (it's lame to wait 2 min behind a wall till it's over), but it's a battlefield, eventually a shield and teamwork are very usefull.

I guess next patch, or next-next patch, will nerf hybrids with slots limit, we should see less ranged sidearms.

[MrShine]

Complaining that range can attack a target that can't attack back is like complaining that the sun is hot.  Of course range can attack a target that can't attack back, that's what makes ranged... ranged.  Again I don't know what you expect is going to change, it seems like you're just trying to grasp at anything at this point to be obstinate.

There are plenty of downsides to being ranged, such as reduced damage, dependence on ammunition, shield's ability to negate damage, etc.  You can either go high agi for precision aiming but hit like a little bitch, or you can go heavy strength with terrible accuracy outside of close range.   I know you tried to roll a archer and retired at 15, but really if you're going to complain about range that's not really giving it a fair shake. 

BTW I'm speaking from experience as playing an archer for a few gens; I know very little about throwing or xbows.