Is it fair for a class to have a greater reach over another class.

[jgeezz.7832]

I ask a simple question is it fair for a one class to have a greater reach over an another class? or should all class have a balance reach meaning they can all reach the same point( i am referring to skills)

 

[EmmetOtter.8542]

Yes, it's fair. All classes, even with the same weapons, are meant to be unique, play differently and have different ranges on comparable skills.

[Trise.2865]

What do you mean by "reach"?

Do you mean range? mobility? speed?

Do you mean utility? flexibility? niche?

Do you mean sourcing? attack angles? penetration?

Do you mean area? zone coverage? height?

[IndigoSundown.5419]

The idea was that professions could be different but balanced, with different professions being good at different things. This works in theory, but not in every possible practical gameplay situation. So, some professions are just going to be better than others in specific situations.

 

For example, in WvW, some professions will be better at roaming (burst, mobility, stealth) while others will be better at group play (boon application, boon strip, healing, and pressure). I see a lot of Soulbeast rangers roaming in WvW. However, rangers are generally not wanted in a squad as anything other than a scout.

 

Why is it this way? Perhaps because if all professions are the same in whatever "reach" is to you, then one of the trade-offs in the balance system is lost.

[demitel.1340]

It's fair in a sense that as a Longbow Ranger you are not really effective with close combat for example, greater range does not always equal as being better than something else.

 

Like IndigoSundown mentioned, some professions does some roles better than others. Range does not have anything to do with it most of the time.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> I ask a simple question is it fair for a one class to have a greater reach over an another class? or should all class have a balance reach meaning they can all reach the same point( i am referring to skills)

>

 

By "reach" do you mean range? If so, you are aware that all classes have access to ranged weapons, right? And all but 2 are capable of swapping between two weapons in combat. This makes the range vs. melee balance less of an issue as there are no pure melee or pure ranged classes in this game.

 

So, is it fair? I think so. My sword weaver is more or less locked into melee range and I do more than fine with it in pvp, wvw, and pve. No problems here!

[Henry.5713]

Builds come with their unique strenghts and weaknesses. Play the build with the longest reach if that is the thing you care about most. The only thing truely unfair would be a build that is able to do everything perfectly at the same time but those do not exist outside of the forums.

[Danikat.8537]

The whole point of having different professions available is that they do things in different ways, if they were all equally good at everything there would be no point having more than 1 profession. The trick is to find the ones that are right for you - the ones which suit how you want to play.

 

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> The idea was that professions could be different but balanced, with different professions being good at different things. This works in theory, but not in every possible practical gameplay situation. So, some professions are just going to be better than others in specific situations.

>

> For example, in WvW, some professions will be better at roaming (burst, mobility, stealth) while others will be better at group play (boon application, boon strip, healing, and pressure). I see a lot of Soulbeast rangers roaming in WvW. However, rangers are generally not wanted in a squad as anything other than a scout.

>

> Why is it this way? Perhaps because if all professions are the same in whatever "reach" is to you, then one of the trade-offs in the balance system is lost.

 

I know it's annoying for a lot of people who prefer playing rangers and want to do WvW but in a way that's quite appropriate since that's exactly what a ranger would do realistically. So I suppose it could be argued that it's working as intended by encouraging the profession to fit a specific role.

[BlaqueFyre.5678]

The only “unfair” Issues on range are some weapon skills are listed as 1200 or 1500 but hit from much further away than other skills with ranges listed as 1200 or 1500, where some “1200” range skills hitting from further than other skills listed as “1500”

[jgeezz.7832]

this is why the range on a ranger need to be checked

https://imgur.com/vDF1rI1

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> this is why the range on a ranger need to be checked

> https://imgur.com/vDF1rI1

>

>

 

Why do you think that's related to a range problem? in otherwords, what leads you to conclude the reason he can hit you and you can't hit him is a problem with range if you think you have the same range? If anything, that makes me thing it's NOT a range problem.

 

I mean, why is it NOT fair a class has longer range than another? Why would anyone expect that to not happen in a game with meaningful differences between classes and weapons?

[pninak.1069]

I wonder if range works similiar like in gw1, where rangers get a very strong advantage when using high positions. https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Range under projectile range. I don't think it is a problem. I think it is intentioanlly there to offer defenders more available options to attack the attacking squad in wvw. For the same reason you get the defense buffs pretty much, since you are more likely to lose the objective that you are currently defending.

[Trise.2865]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> this is why the range on a ranger need to be checked

> https://imgur.com/vDF1rI1

>

>

 

All you're showing is a screenshot of a Deadeye kneeling in a field next to a Keep.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

Its fair to have classes have different ranges with specific weapons. But only if there is as easily a way to close the distance.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> this is why the range on a ranger need to be checked

> https://imgur.com/vDF1rI1

 

Was the ranger hitting you with all kinds of skills, or only with barrage?

 

If so it's likely the reason you couldn't hit him is because deadeye skills require a target and you couldn't target him because he's behind one of the ramparts (which is exactly what they're for, both in GW2 and in real life) but he's using a ground-targeted attack which will hit anyone in the area, so he could hide behind a rampart and target it on a clear space next to you and still hit you.

 

There's a lot of other possible situations, but it's impossible to tell from a single screenshot taken after the fight what actually happened. The above is the most common tactic I see in WvW. I'm not going to try to go through every imaginable situation, but if you want to give us more details on what happened we might be able to help you understand it.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"pninak.1069" said:

> I wonder if range works similiar like in gw1, where rangers get a very strong advantage when using high positions. https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Range under projectile range. I don't think it is a problem. I think it is intentioanlly there to offer defenders more available options to attack the attacking squad in wvw. For the same reason you get the defense buffs pretty much, since you are more likely to lose the objective that you are currently defending.

 

It does work that way, you can effectively use higher ground to attack a target that's beyond the listed range, if you can target it first, it also provides a slight increase in damage(unless that's been removed somewhere along the way since release).

[jgeezz.7832]

Man you people, I was kneel and my range is 1500 the same as rangers range yet i could not hit him. If you are on a wall in the SMC a ranger can hit you from the inner wall, if you view it as if it were level ground i should be able to him him as well but i am not able GO TEST IT. It was not a barrage shot it was rapid fire shot.

[Linken.6345]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> Man you people, I was kneel and my range is 1500 the same as rangers range yet i could not hit him. If you are on a wall in the SMC a ranger can hit you from the inner wall, if you view it as if it were level ground i should be able to him him as well but i am not able GO TEST IT. It was not a barrage shot it was rapid fire shot.

 

There is a good reason for that your range is a straight line his is a bowed arc so it hits further if they are above you.

[jgeezz.7832]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> > Man you people, I was kneel and my range is 1500 the same as rangers range yet i could not hit him. If you are on a wall in the SMC a ranger can hit you from the inner wall, if you view it as if it were level ground i should be able to him him as well but i am not able GO TEST IT. It was not a barrage shot it was rapid fire shot.

>

> There is a good reason for that your range is a straight line his is a bowed arc so it hits further if they are above you.

 

That's bull shit they magical bow cause a bow will never beat a gun if this was true we would still be using them why? LOL

[Obtena.7952]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> Man you people, I was kneel and my range is 1500 the same as rangers range yet i could not hit him. If you are on a wall in the SMC a ranger can hit you from the inner wall, if you view it as if it were level ground i should be able to him him as well but i am not able GO TEST IT. It was not a barrage shot it was rapid fire shot.

 

Still wondering how you concluded that there is something wrong with that related to range.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> > @"Linken.6345" said:

> > > @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> > > Man you people, I was kneel and my range is 1500 the same as rangers range yet i could not hit him. If you are on a wall in the SMC a ranger can hit you from the inner wall, if you view it as if it were level ground i should be able to him him as well but i am not able GO TEST IT. It was not a barrage shot it was rapid fire shot.

> >

> > There is a good reason for that your range is a straight line his is a bowed arc so it hits further if they are above you.

>

> That's bull kitten they magical bow cause a bow will never beat a gun if this was true we would still be using them why? LOL

 

Well, actually it's not. It simply depends on how Anet programs it.

[jgeezz.7832]

Also its a magical gun too LOL

[Obtena.7952]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> Also its a magical gun too LOL

 

It's whatever Anet programs it to be or work. If you're argument is an appeal to realism ... well, you realize you play an MMO right? It's fantasy and magic and make believe and whatever Anet wants it to be right? Maybe it IS a magical gun ... and you got little to say about it really.

 

let's ask a fair and reasonable question: Do you think you have provided a reasonable case to change whatever you think is wrong here? What is your expectation? That you just make a thread complaining about something related to range and everyone agrees with you? You asked if it's reasonable classes have different access to ranges ... the answer is yes .... it's completely reasonable, and normal. I've yet to play an MMO where there ISN'T difference in ranged on weapons/classes.

 

So what else can we help you with here?

[jgeezz.7832]

I am say that if you mean to balance the game, the first start is to make everything equal. Not giving one class an over reach of all other classes.

[Linken.6345]

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> I am say that if you mean to balance the game, the first start is to make everything equal. Not giving one class an over reach of all other classes.

 

Yes lets make it 1 class with 3 trait lines 1 choice in each line give everyone same 2 weapons and it will be balanced.