That probably explains why i seem to have such relatively little trouble vs ranged, because i'm not a good player. Very frequently how bad i am wont matter and they'll die. Unless they get out a tiny sickle then they can troll me all day due to my attack speed, which i dont even mind cos it looks ridiculous. Clearly only bad players are capable of killing ranged, at least we're good for something. All irony aside, it seems like we just have very different playstyles which benefit us in different areas, ranged isnt luck - i wish it was cos sniping with bows is daft, but as long as bows are stupidly accurate you get to play mind games with them which suits me fine.
Well I think there's some truth to your statement in that a bad player will not notice how ranged nullifies skill as much as a good player. When you realize as a shielder that you'd rather fight 4 two handers than 2 archers, that fact becomes really obvious. A new player will probably prefer fighting 2 archers because his chances of winning in melee against 4 opponents are worse than those of winning against two archers due to a lack of skill. In truth I'm more than capable of killing ranged, and probably more than you given that my character is much better suited to it, and I've been using every possible potential mix of melee, throwing and cav susceptible of countering ranged over the years. The difference is that I can kill the average melee player with much less effort, much less risk, much less time and much more fun than the average ranged player with any of those "ranged counter" builds. That is probably not the case for new players. It's not about being capable of killing ranged which most players are, it's about the relative attractiveness of melee and ranged situations. For the skilled melee player, the balance is overwhelmingly in favor of getting in melee and avoiding ranged, shield or not.
