Ranged vs Melee

Questions about the game play, skills, spells, etc
Stryph
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:03 pm
Guild: Warlocks

Ranged vs Melee

Post by Stryph »

So it feels like there has always been a massive advantage to being ranged in Terri's vs melee. Hence why even the barbarians have items like the sling instead of fighting toe to toe like you would imagine a barbarian would. Is there any plans to either boost the survivability of melee classes or increase the damage output of melee classes vs ranged classes to balance this?
Stryph - Tir - Rath
Silk
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:51 am

Re: Ranged vs Melee

Post by Silk »

This definitely shouldn't be the case, so we can absolutely look into what the root cause is and then figure out how to fix it.
Stryph
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:03 pm
Guild: Warlocks

Re: Ranged vs Melee

Post by Stryph »

Perhaps this is just my opinion. The things I look at is the ability to be disengaged while still doing full DMG with aim at the target you want. Melee have to retreat off mobs and then charge the one they want at a decreased DMG.

Ranged equals safety. If you are ranged you have a very large decreased chance of being held or stunned by a large amount of mobs.

Lurk does do a wonderful job of helping squishier thief types from getting easily over ran. So love that addition.

I would be curious to see the stats of ranged vs melee weapons end game because what I have seen is very similar stats on ranged and melee weapons.

To be clear I am not asking for anything to be nurfed that always ends badly but there should be some benefit to being in melee.
Stryph - Tir - Rath
fonz
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:08 pm
Guild: Rogues
Temple: Shadows
Location: Waco, TX

Re: Ranged vs Melee

Post by fonz »

Your class affects the base minimum damage you'll do with ranged vs melee. Due to the "rolls" and all that jazz, the numbers look high and fancy, but when you use KilCli you can see what your net damage each hit is, and most of your hits are the minimum. for example, you hit for 5000, the creature absorbs 4500, your damage is 500. if you look closely, you'll do 3200, and the creature absorbs 2700, again for 500. so even though it looks like the first hit is a better one, it's really not. Every few hits you'll hit for more, but probably 75-80% of your hits are this base damage. From my experience, your base minimum is closer to 100. It increases with level, and I'm sure with skills though I was already maxxed out when i started noticing this. I don't believe the stats on the weapon changed the minimum. Also, I don't believe using the strength spells increase your ranged damage, only your melee, though I don't remember testing out if they increased the minimum damage.

Playing a Ranger in the Battlemages, I noticed that my minimum damage would go up 2 points every level with ranged weapons, and 1 point per level with melee. I never really delved further into it, but it's safe to say that the melee classes would likely have increases the other way around. It might not sound like a lot, but when you get to level 300, that's a 400 point increase on every hit from level 100, as a ranger. My guess for one handed would be something like 4 points per level as a berserker, 2 as a fighter, 1 as a monk/battlemage/thief. Just a guess. So perhaps there isn't really a difference in melee/ranged damage as pretty much everyone has to be a Monk or Ranger for NSU.

Really, the only guilds/classes that have a real advantage in melee over ranged are Thieves for assassinating/rehiding, Rogues for swashbuckling, and Knights for jousting. Maybe warriors battle tactics, if that ever started working as intended?

I'm not sure if this helped or not, and might even be a bit rambling but it felt relevant when I started.
-f
Stryph
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:03 pm
Guild: Warlocks

Re: Ranged vs Melee

Post by Stryph »

Ok thanks is very helpful thank you.
Stryph - Tir - Rath

Return to “Game Questions”