Warrior Longbow

[Opopanax.1803]

> @"cryorion.9532" said:

> @"Opopanax.1803"

> Well ofc longbow isn't nowhere near meta builds (outside of PvE), but there isn't much else to do in this "balance" other than trying out crazy stuff.

>

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910"

> Imo longbow needs additional combo field, preferably on longbow 3. Poison field would be pretty good, sulphur themed. Pin Down CD can be reduced to 20 seconds. I agree on Smoldering Arrow to get radius increase to 240 units. Combustive Shot can pulse damage and burn ticks per second instead of every 3 seconds. The burning stack can be changed from 2 per hit to 1 to balance it.

 

I wasnt mocking you; I like that you are using it. Just pointing out how ironic it is right now.

 

I like your combo field on 3 idea, but I'd say smoke field, imo. Your F1 idea I would get behind, though since people run out of it so fast, I'd keep it to 2 stacks per hit, but reduce duration in pvp if needed.

[Taril.8619]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> "**To be fair, the functionality of skill 2 already wants you to use it in melee.

> Making it a melee weapon... With 1200 range...**"

> Hence: "I disagree with the idea that every skill of a given weapon needs to perform identically -or even similarily- in every situation/distance/position. In fact, I'd "risk" saying I think the opposite, which is why I don't exactly see that as a problem." -you really don't see the connection between the two?

 

Being against the notion that the "Ranged" weapon has its primary damage skill functionally require melee range doesn't equate to not liking or wanting versatility in how skills perform over distances/positions/situations.

 

I have no beef with things like Arcing Shot's ground target nature vs Pin Down's piercing line vs Smouldering Arrows target AoE.

 

Heck, I've even mentioned I'm not against having melee ranged attacks on primarily ranged weapons.

 

**SO LONG AS IT FITS THE INTENDED DESIGN OF THE WEAPON**

 

I.e. If a weapon is primarily ranged (Warrior Rifle, Ranger Longbow, Deadeye Rifle) and has a close range skill that aids with that, such as providing distance or burst mobility. That is fine.

 

Conversely if a weapon is primarily focused on CQC, then it'd be expected that ranged skills are there more for utility than for their damage potential (Or if they are, then they would use mechanics that promote closer ranged fighting, such as split projectiles)

 

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> One skill not performing perfectly at long range somehow makes the whole weapon design unthinkable, but when I comment "I disagree that every skill of a given weapon needs to perform identically in every situation/distance/position", you decide to sarcastically tell me that's not what you were saying and apparently I didn't read what you wrote? If that's not what you've meant here, then I feel it's not about my reading, but more about your writing.

 

It's not just "One skill doesn't work at long range" it's the fact that it's also the primary damage skill that doesn't work at long range. While nothing else in the kit of the weapon really does anything to promote or enable fighting at close range.

 

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Or maybe you still don't see how that answer was relevant to what you wrote before?

 

Maybe, you need to go back and actually read my posts. Instead of just spamming the same line over and over again like it's actually relevant.

 

Since it's obvious that you missed the entire part where I don't care about skills on a weapon working differently, but am more concerned about how they fit into the overall design of the weapon and its intended usage.

 

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Also something about "engie being short range is ok, because of stereotype of shotgun", but then you told me "**The "Usual weapon archetype" isn't even a factor in my analysis.**"

> I mean at this point it just looks to me like your justification/analysis(??) -or however you want to call it- is all over the place simply based on what argument you couuuuld stretch to support your point at any given moment. Then you try to claim it's not about that. Well, it sure looks like it is in your earlier posts, but if that's not what you've meant then fine by me. Then again, at least stop pretending you didn't write it and tell me I failed at reading what you've said. Because pretty sure that IS what you said, even if you didn't mean it.

 

It's honestly simple.

 

I don't care that it's a **longbow** being used in melee range. If its design was entirely about CQC and it all fit together, that'd be fine. Just like it is fine for Engie's Rifle to be short range.

 

The archetype of "Longbow" is not my concern. My concern is in the skills themselves, completely independent of its weapon type.

 

Honestly, I couldn't care less about what weapons are doing what. Hammer and Greatsword as 1200 range weapons? Sure go ahead. Longbow as a melee weapon? 'aight, fine.

 

Heck throw out a 1500 Dagger and I wouldn't bat an eye.

 

The things I do care about, is that skills 1, 3, 4, 5 and F1 are all functional at ranges up to 1200. None of them have any sort of particular nuance leading them towards melee combat aside from travel times of projectiles which is mostly only relevant in PvP, where projectile hate is not uncommon anyway.

 

Meanwhile, skill 2, the primary damage option, has a focus on melee range to be fully functional. Which puts it solely at odds with the rest of the weapons kit.

 

Similarly, skill 3 is an odd factor, due to how it doesn't fit in with the overall theme of the weapon, which seems to be focusing towards condition damage (As opposed to Rifle which is occupying a power focus for a ranged weapon on Warrior). Given that skill 3 only does power damage and blast finisher (Unlike skill 4 which at the very least, is a projectile finisher and so can apply Burning from Fire Fields such as F1.

 

As such, I have qualms with both of these skills due to how they fit into the overall design of the weapon (Or, alternatively, I have qualms with the overall design of the weapon due to the functionality of these skills)

 

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > Warrior's Longbow doesn't have all of its skills work towards a similar playstyle. Skills 1, 4 and 5 are all functional at any range. Skill 3 is just janky with its slow travel time. Skill 2 promotes being close but has nothing to help get close in the first place (Besides immob on skill 5)

>

> Ah yes, weapon swap and utility skills are disabled while using longbow, my bad.

 

Except, a weapon is evaluated on its own terms. Not by what other weapons and skills provide.

 

Or should I start talking to Thiefs about how much mobility P/P has because you can swap to SB and run Shadowstep? Or talk to Rev's about how strong Hammer is because you can swap to S/S or M/A and start kicking out huge DPS?

 

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Are you saying that simply lowering range of 1/2/3/4/5 skills to -let's say- 600 would make its design and gameplay so much better? I fail to see the logic in that. Or I just fail to understand what exactly your point here is.

 

You fail to see the logic, because you aren't looking at the entire statement:

 

_If the intent was for it to be a close range longbow, then I'd have expected to see skills having limited ranges **further reinforced by similar power increases from being close** as well as some assistance with bridging gaps to get into optimal range._

 

It's not simply a case of "Just lower the range lul" but one where the actual design of skills are altered to reflect the preference for melee range. For example, if Pin Down had scaling stacks of Bleed and duration of its immobilize based on distance, with maximum stacks/duration up close and less at longer ranges.

 

The skill could still maintain its 1200 maximum range, but its effective range becomes lower (Though it'd still have use for a short immob to aid with getting close)

 

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Pretty sure lack of gapcloser was never a determinant for the range the specific weapon should be optimally used at. And still -weapon swap. Weapons don't work in vacuum, they -usually- work with the rest of the class' kit.

 

A gap closer is not a determinant for the range of a weapon, but it does add weight to a specific range most notably on weapons that have skills with large ranges.

 

For example, if a 1200 range weapon had a skill that would put you into melee range of an enemy, that's more suggestative of being designed for use at closer ranges compared to a 1200 range weapon that doesn't have a gapcloser (Or a 1200 range weapon that has skills that actively puts distance between you and your target)

 

Also, again, weapons need to stand on their own merits. Otherwise you can start making asinine statements about weapons having no weaknesses because "lul just swap to this other weapon!"

 

Is a gap closer necessary? No. Would one help the design of the weapon? It could, depending on how it is designed and how the rest of the weapons kit functions.

 

An example of a potential skill could be something like reworking Arcing Shot. Increasing its velocity so it lands faster and giving it a Combo Field (Fire? Poison? Ice? It's not too important exactly what), then give it a flip skill that lets you charge to where it landed and provide a finisher (Leap or Blast). Thus, it is a skill you want to try and put close to enemies for the field and then it gives options to have mobility that lets you get close and start spamming Fan of Fire on them.