Jump to content
  • Sign Up

[Suggestion] Ranger long bow damage function compose to change behaviour


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'd really like to see the ranger long bow not nerfed but changed, and thus for all modes. In open world to stop having to shout "come close !" "pack !", "cac !", In WvW and PvP to stop seeing : "come here you coward !"' (this is for the picture)The change, applying this function to damage : g() = 1-abs(2*f(d)-1) ; f is the current damage function ; d is distance.In words : currently damage increases, linearly or not with distance. by applying 1-|2x-1| the function would give lowest damage at start and at end, max damage at half distanceIn maths : assume that half distance is half damage (linear as an example)oJ1iDeP.png

What do you think about that ? I'd really like to give a try (I have a ranger which I play from time to time now : ^^ )note : this could also be applied to greatsword on mesmer (I currently mainly play with my mesmer ^^)

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would any weapon deal more damage the further you get away? It's a silly AA for a LB and should really be reversed so that it deals more damage the closer you are to the target. That would make realistic sense. Then Lead the Wind would also make sense.

Staying at Range to fight a Ranger now means you get damaged more, so you gap close and then not only does the Ranger not get a benefit from his LB Trait, he also does less damage. For the AA to deal more damage up close makes more sense because there is a trade off, you need to gap close the Ranger so you can get into melee damage, but to do so means you will take more damage.

Imo, it should just be a flat damage like nearly every single other AA and not based upon range. Same goes for Lead the Wind, either remove the range requirement or reduce it to 600-750.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582 said:Why would any weapon deal more damage the further you get away? It's a silly AA for a LB and should really be reversed so that it deals more damage the closer you are to the target. That would make realistic sense. Then Lead the Wind would also make sense.

Eh there's such a thing as terminal velocity in IRL projectile weapons. A projectile fired from a gun doesn't reach its max speed (and therefore its max energy delivered on impact) until a short time (and fairly long distance) after it leaves the barrel.

That being said, the actual guns in GW2 don't even take into account this terminal velocity phenomenon, so you might find it unusual that longbow has this.

I think the truth is that ranger longbow severely underperforms compared to almost any other offensively-oriented weapon, and many of the odd changes to it over the years have been trying to address this fact. Even with the damage being higher at longer range, it still doesn't hit that hard. If you happen to have been ganked by a longbow ranger in WvW with Sic Em, you died to a meme build that has numerous countermeasures. Ultimately I think the damage scaling with distance should stay, for what little it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

@"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:Why would any weapon deal more damage the further you get away? It's a silly AA for a LB and should really be reversed so that it deals more damage the closer you are to the target. That would make realistic sense. Then Lead the Wind would also make sense.

Eh there's such a thing as terminal velocity in IRL projectile weapons. A projectile fired from a gun doesn't reach its max speed (and therefore its max energy delivered on impact) until a short time (and fairly long distance) after it leaves the barrel.

That being said, the actual guns in GW2 don't even take into account this terminal velocity phenomenon, so you might find it unusual that longbow has this.

I think the truth is that ranger longbow severely underperforms compared to almost any other offensively-oriented weapon, and many of the odd changes to it over the years have been trying to address this fact. Even with the damage being higher at longer range, it still doesn't hit that hard. If you happen to have been ganked by a longbow ranger in WvW with Sic Em, you died to a meme build that has numerous countermeasures. Ultimately I think the damage scaling with distance should stay, for what little it's worth.

Terminal Velocity has to do with falling and gravity, not fired projectile speed. As in, how fast will that car go if we drop it out of a plane? Maybe you're thinking of Point Blank Range? Although that has to do with trajectory and projectile arc anyway.

A projectile fired from a rifle will exit the barrel at the muzzle velocity, before that, we have the bullet accelerating in the barrel. After that we get into transitional ballistics. Transitional Ballistics ends when the pressure behind the projectile is equalized and the propellant is having no further effect on it. That point is when the maximum speed is obtained, from there is only slows down. That part is external ballistics.

Newton's first rule: An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force. The external forces in this case is drag, air resistance, gravity, wind resistance etc, all acting against the projectile to slow it down.

This is why longer barrels obtain greater velocities because the projectile is inside the barrel for longer, meaning you can use more and slower burning powders to create a larger pressure and force behind the projectile to drive it. The one notable example I like is the custom wildcat cartridge .17 "Flintstone Super Eyebunger". I am not even joking, that is what they named it. Anyway, P.O Ackley developed it and the Australian Gun Smith Bill Hambly-Clark, Jr. built a rifle chambered with it in a 52-inch (1,300 mm) barrel. Super long so you could drive the projectile for longer and achieve 5000fps.

Once the projectile is no longer being accelerated by the force of the expanding gasses, drag takes over and starts to slow it down. This happens within just a couple of metres of the muzzle. That's why when you use a Chronograph to measure muzzle velocity and you place it 5-10m down range - so the muzzle blast doesn't knock it over - you have to allow for that and add an amount back in. The calculation is (distance from muzzle in m) x 2.5 = fps to add back to the measurement.

Sorry for the wall, I like ballistics.

Anyway, a longbow is a very different beast to a rifle but the same physics apply, once the arrow leaves the bow, its at its maximum velocity within a very short distance and from there, it slows down.

This brings us to E=mc². The velocity is the square of the energy. This means that if you double the velocity of a projectile, be that a bullet or arrow, then you will quadruple the energy it has that can be transferred to a target. Energy transfer here is what we will call the power of the projectile or its damage. So as you can see, if you are closer to your target your arrows or bullets will have more energy to be able to deliver more damage. In the case of arrows (and bullets really, except frangible ones designed to expend their energy on impact), you will obtain greater penetration, enough to go through armor, indeed enough to go through most things and not actually expend their energy because the broadhead will cut right through. I used to have a 205# Recurve Crossbow that every time you pulled the trigger, you lost the bolt because it had such penetration that it simply disappeared into the ground behind whatever you were shooting at.

So when I think of our Ranger's Longbow, I have some interesting ideas for making it more realistic, the opposite of its current state which is actually the opposite of the laws of physics! Ultimately I think the damage scaling with distance should stay too, but it should be the opposite of what it is now.

Currently;Long Range ShotShoot your foe from long range. The farther the arrow flies, the more damage it does.Maximum damage: 347 (0.9)?Minimum damage: 270 (0.7)?Combo Finisher: Physical Projectile (20% chance)Range: 1,500

I would change it to;Penetrating AttackShoot your foe. If your foe is within the range threshold, your arrows pierce and deal 15% more damage. Range: 450.Damage: 347 (0.9)?Combo Finisher: Physical Projectile (20% chance)Range: 1,500

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would change it to;Penetrating AttackShoot your foe. If your foe is within the range threshold, your arrows pierce and deal 15% more damage. Range: 450.Damage: 347 (0.9)?Combo Finisher: Physical Projectile (20% chance)Range: 1,500

This makes sense. but more chance for it to be obstructed coz the game wasn't designed for the ranger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am aware that "terminal velocity" is a physics term specifically referring to the maximum downward velocity attained by falling objects that encounter atmospheric (or other) resistance - despite the presence of gravity or another force. That being said, I've seen/heard people who I consider experts in firearms use "terminal velocity" to refer specifically to something you yourself mention:

Once the projectile is no longer being accelerated by the force of the expanding gasses, drag takes over and starts to slow it down. This happens within just a couple of metres of the muzzle. That's why when you use a Chronograph to measure muzzle velocity and you place it 5-10m down range - so the muzzle blast doesn't knock it over - you have to allow for that and add an amount back in. The calculation is (distance from muzzle in m) x 2.5 = fps to add back to the measurement.

I think many of the chronograph tests show that there can be a very brief interval after exiting a barrel that a projectile still experiences a small increase in velocity after leaving the muzzle. A lot of folks consider this interval negligible, and for most ballistics purposes, I would agree it is. However, as you yourself say, aerodynamic drag does not necessarily overwhelm forward acceleration immediately upon the bullet exiting the barrel, meaning that the conventional wisdom that muzzle velocity is the absolute maximum velocity a bullet experiences may not be entirely accurate. I've heard folks refer to this post-muzzle-exit-maximum-velocity as "terminal velocity." I would agree that this usage is an unfortunate overlap with the universally accepted use of "terminal velocity", and if I had to guess, the usage may have risen from kind of chimera-izing concepts of "terminal ballistics" with the idea of a bullet's true "maximum" or "terminal" airspeed.

None of this matters though. You seem to have missed my original point entirely, which is that it's dumb to base weapon performance on IRL physics. All in-game weapon output should be based on in-game performance, in my opinion. Otherwise, why aren't we squished when siege engine rocks land on our heads? How can warriors keep up autoattacks from rifles that have no magazines? How can my reading glasses have identical defensive properties as a full plate helm? Again, I'm not a fan of inserting complicated systems into the game out of some mania for realism - output should be tweaked to reflect in-game performance and balance, as far as I'm concerned.

Which pains me, because I actually really like this idea and consider it an overall buff to LB auto:

@Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582 said:

I would change it to;Penetrating AttackShoot your foe. If your foe is within the range threshold, your arrows pierce and deal 15% more damage. Range: 450.Damage: 347 (0.9)?Combo Finisher: Physical Projectile (20% chance)Range: 1,500

I think LB ranger should be punished for letting an enemy close within 400-500, especially if the ranger doesn't choose to swap out. I would consider your suggestion n awesome buff to longbow (as a ranger main who runs longbow in open world pve). I just don't see it fitting with overall design at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"voltaicbore.8012" said:Yes, I am aware that "terminal velocity" is a physics term specifically referring to the maximum downward velocity attained by falling objects that encounter atmospheric (or other) resistance - despite the presence of gravity or another force. That being said, I've seen/heard people who I consider experts in firearms use "terminal velocity" to refer specifically to something you yourself mention:

Once the projectile is no longer being accelerated by the force of the expanding gasses, drag takes over and starts to slow it down.
This happens within just a couple of metres of the muzzle
. That's why when you use a Chronograph to measure muzzle velocity and you place it 5-10m down range - so the muzzle blast doesn't knock it over - you have to allow for that and add an amount back in. The calculation is (distance from muzzle in m) x 2.5 = fps to add back to the measurement.

I think many of the chronograph tests show that there can be a very brief interval
after
exiting a barrel that a projectile still experiences a small increase in velocity after leaving the muzzle. A lot of folks consider this interval negligible, and for most ballistics purposes, I would agree it is. However, as you yourself say, aerodynamic drag does not necessarily overwhelm forward acceleration
immediately
upon the bullet exiting the barrel, meaning that the conventional wisdom that muzzle velocity is the absolute maximum velocity a bullet experiences may not be entirely accurate. I've heard folks refer to this post-muzzle-exit-maximum-velocity as "terminal velocity." I would agree that this usage is an unfortunate overlap with the universally accepted use of "terminal velocity", and if I had to guess, the usage may have risen from kind of chimera-izing concepts of "terminal ballistics" with the idea of a bullet's true "maximum" or "terminal" airspeed.

None of this matters though. You seem to have missed my original point entirely, which is that it's dumb to base weapon performance on IRL physics. All in-game weapon output should be based on in-game performance, in my opinion. Otherwise, why aren't we squished when siege engine rocks land on our heads? How can warriors keep up autoattacks from rifles that have no magazines? How can my reading glasses have identical defensive properties as a full plate helm? Again, I'm not a fan of inserting complicated systems into the game out of some mania for realism - output should be tweaked to reflect in-game performance and balance, as far as I'm concerned.

Which pains me, because I actually really like this idea and consider it an overall buff to LB auto:

@"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

I would change it to;
Penetrating Attack
Shoot your foe. If your foe is within the range threshold, your arrows pierce and deal 15% more damage. Range: 450.
Damage: 347 (0.9)?Combo Finisher: Physical Projectile (20% chance)Range: 1,500

I think LB ranger should be punished for letting an enemy close within 400-500, especially if the ranger doesn't choose to swap out. I would consider your suggestion n
awesome
buff to longbow (as a ranger main who runs longbow in open world pve). I just don't see it fitting with overall design at this time.

Yes, that interval after it exits the barrel and is still being pushed by the expanding gasses is Transitional Ballistics, but it occurs and ends very quickly and your OP stated it was "a fairly long distance".

It's not dumb to base things on IRL physics. That's why the LB projectiles have an arc. That's why you get obstructed by objects or take falling damage or need to wear armor. That's why when a siege rock lands on you, you get flung away. You've gone all Reductio ad absurdum.

Games are not meant to duplicate reality, otherwise there would be no point playing them, but they should reflect reality in some respects. And physics is one of those respects.

Why should a Ranger be punished for for letting an enemy close within 400-500 range? What tools does he have to prevent it? 1 or two at best? No, It's not the Ranger that should be punished, its the Attacker. That's the counter play. You can't match the Ranger at range with his LB, so you need to gap close but if you do so, you will take greater damage. Your way, the Ranger cannot possibly maintain range for long and not only does he lose a lot of the benefits of his main weapon trait, but he also does less damage the closer his attacker gets. Where is the counter play for the ranger? I mean, if the LB had a Death's Retreat type skill like Deadeye Rifle, then sure. But you can't open that gap up again once it's closed. For the attacker, lets assume melee, he can do no damage at range so to gap close is of benefit and he has no negatives for doing so. LB is a strong weapon, but not if you are being pressured, then its quite bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582 said:

It's not dumb to base things on IRL physics. That's why the LB projectiles have an arc. That's why you get obstructed by objects or take falling damage or need to wear armor. That's why when a siege rock lands on you, you get flung away. You've gone all Reductio ad absurdum.

Games are not meant to duplicate reality, otherwise there would be no point playing them, but they should reflect reality in some respects. And physics is one of those respects.

I'll readily admit I went fully slippery-slope on this, but it was done with purpose. In effect, all you're doing is deciding to pick and choose who gets more IRL physics and who doesn't. I happen to think there's enough paying homage to IRL physics in the game as it is, and you happen to advocate adding even more. I think adding more is deeply misguided, as the game is already discrepant enough.

Why should a Ranger be punished for for letting an enemy close within 400-500 range? What tools does he have to prevent it? 1 or two at best? No, It's not the Ranger that should be punished, its the Attacker. That's the counter play. You can't match the Ranger at range with his LB, so you need to gap close but if you do so, you will take greater damage. Your way, the Ranger cannot possibly maintain range for long and not only does he lose a lot of the benefits of his main weapon trait, but he also does less damage the closer his attacker gets. Where is the counter play for the ranger?

Counter play is weapon swap. Believe me, I'd like to be able to make use of LB a bit at close range, but I accept that it's designed to perform well at range and quite poorly against things right in your face. If you want a large window of opportunity to pewpew a target, you either find a perch where you can maintain line of sight and range before the enemy can close on you (including no-port spots to handle port-to-target abilities), pick a target in an open area that can't hide from your arrows, etc. You speak later on about how DE rifle isn't punished as harshly for allowing enemies to gap close, and I'd call that a design problem with DE rifle.

If the LB had a Death's Retreat type skill like Deadeye Rifle, then sure. But you can't open that gap up again once it's closed.

Incidentally, this is exactly what is taken care of by having weapons on swap, or as a soulbeast having a swoop pet on merge. GS3, merge + swoop, sword 3 + about face sword 2 - these all create distance. Again incidentally, things like Death's Retreat and ludicrous access to long-stacking durations of stealth are what make DE un-fun to play against. It's just about impossible to punish a gap-creating DE (either by hitting or even just following). They can maintain the advantage of range pretty much indefinitely with rifle 2, rifle 4, and stealth if all else fails. I consider this a design problem, as Death's Retreat allows for more than straight retreat - it can port the DE to places much like mesmer staff 2 does.

For the attacker, lets assume melee, he can do no damage at range so to gap close is of benefit and he has no negatives for doing so. LB is a strong weapon, but not if you are being pressured, then its quite bad.

And I don't see a problem with that. As a melee attacker, the disadvantage of being at range against an LB ranger is that you can literally do nothing to the ranger. This is countered by the advantages you get when you close the gap against the ranger. I don't see why you have to add a penalty to the one thing you can to do have anything other than a total disadvantage against LB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

Yes, that interval after it exits the barrel and is still being pushed by the expanding gasses is Transitional Ballistics, but it occurs and ends very quickly and your OP stated it was "a fairly long distance".

It's not dumb to base things on IRL physics. That's why the LB projectiles have an arc. That's why you get obstructed by objects or take falling damage or need to wear armor. That's why when a siege rock lands on you, you get flung away. You've gone all Reductio ad absurdum.

Games are not meant to duplicate reality, otherwise there would be no point playing them, but they should reflect reality in some respects. And physics is one of those respects.

Why should a Ranger be punished for for letting an enemy close within 400-500 range? What tools does he have to prevent it? 1 or two at best? No, It's not the Ranger that should be punished, its the Attacker. That's the counter play. You can't match the Ranger at range with his LB, so you need to gap close but if you do so, you will take greater damage. Your way, the Ranger cannot possibly maintain range for long and not only does he lose a lot of the benefits of his main weapon trait, but he also does less damage the closer his attacker gets. Where is the counter play for the ranger? I mean, if the LB had a Death's Retreat type skill like Deadeye Rifle, then sure. But you can't open that gap up again once it's closed. For the attacker, lets assume melee, he can do no damage at range so to gap close is of benefit and he has no negatives for doing so. LB is a strong weapon, but not if you are being pressured, then its quite bad.

What you write here makes no sense. Ranger's longbow has a great advantage simply by the fact that it has the longest range of every weapon in the entire game. And the weapon playstyle definitely is focused on maintaining distance to your enemy!

You say that you have 1-2 tools to keep an enemy at distance? That is far from the truth, not sure if you are claiming this just for your agenda while you know that it is false, or if you simply not recognise all the tools available for you to maintain distance.

Just looking at longbow itself, there are already 3 tools in that weapon kit alone.Longbow 3, you gain stealth and therefore the enemy doesn't know where you are moving for a few seconds. You can adjust your movement to your enemy's and increase the distance to them that way.Longbow 4, pretty self explanatory, you will push an enemy away from you and you push them further the closer they are to you.Longbow 5, crippling your enemy gives you movement speed advantage to kite the enemy.

Then you also have your pet, which can get used to CC enemies to prevent them closing the gap. You can achieve this through either the pet skills or traits (beastly warden).

You can also slot utility skills for this task.Either, again, by impairing the movement of your enemy (muddy terrain, frost trap, spike trap) or improving your own movement to kite the enemy (quickening zephyr, lightning reflexes).

Under the assumption that the enemy already closed the gap, there are some more CC spells which can help you opening the gap again (signet of the wild, entangle, frost spirit activation, stone spirit activation).

You definitely have tools to keep kiting enemies at range, it is up to you if you want to use them or not.And even if all of this fails, you can still weapon swap into a melee weapon.

Longbow is supposed to be a weapon that requires you to kite the enemy. Rewarding you for failing to do that is weird. You say that it would be a trade off, I say you just want to have the best of two worlds.... you want to have the superior range and then also get additional damage if the enemy successfully counterplayed your range by closing the gap.... just no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

It's not dumb to base things on IRL physics. That's why the LB projectiles have an arc. That's why you get obstructed by objects or take falling damage or need to wear armor. That's why when a siege rock lands on you, you get flung away. You've gone all Reductio ad absurdum.

Games are not meant to duplicate reality, otherwise there would be no point playing them, but they should
reflect
reality in some respects. And physics is one of those respects.

I'll readily admit I went fully slippery-slope on this, but it was done with purpose. In effect, all you're doing is deciding to pick and choose who gets more IRL physics and who doesn't. I happen to think there's enough paying homage to IRL physics in the game as it is, and you happen to advocate adding even more. I think adding more is deeply misguided, as the game is already discrepant enough.

Why should a Ranger be punished for for letting an enemy close within 400-500 range? What tools does he have to prevent it? 1 or two at best? No, It's not the Ranger that should be punished, its the Attacker. That's the counter play. You can't match the Ranger at range with his LB, so you need to gap close but if you do so, you will take greater damage. Your way, the Ranger cannot possibly maintain range for long and not only does he lose a lot of the benefits of his main weapon trait, but he also does less damage the closer his attacker gets. Where is the counter play for the ranger?

Counter play is weapon swap. Believe me, I'd like to be able to make use of LB a bit at close range, but I accept that it's designed to perform well at range and quite poorly against things right in your face. If you want a large window of opportunity to pewpew a target, you either find a perch where you can maintain line of sight and range before the enemy can close on you (including no-port spots to handle port-to-target abilities), pick a target in an open area that can't hide from your arrows, etc. You speak later on about how DE rifle isn't punished as harshly for allowing enemies to gap close, and I'd call that a design problem with DE rifle.

If the LB had a Death's Retreat type skill like Deadeye Rifle, then sure. But you can't open that gap up again once it's closed.

Incidentally, this is exactly what is taken care of by having weapons on swap, or as a soulbeast having a swoop pet on merge. GS3, merge + swoop, sword 3 + about face sword 2 - these all create distance. Again incidentally, things like Death's Retreat and ludicrous access to long-stacking durations of stealth are what make DE un-fun to play against. It's just about impossible to punish a gap-creating DE (either by hitting or even just following). They can maintain the advantage of range pretty much indefinitely with rifle 2, rifle 4, and stealth if all else fails. I consider this a design problem, as Death's Retreat allows for more than straight retreat - it can port the DE to places much like mesmer staff 2 does.

For the attacker, lets assume melee, he can do no damage at range so to gap close is of benefit and he has no negatives for doing so. LB is a strong weapon, but not if you are being pressured, then its quite bad.

And I don't see a problem with that. As a melee attacker, the disadvantage of being at range against an LB ranger is that you can literally do nothing to the ranger. This is countered by the advantages you get when you close the gap against the ranger. I don't see why you have to add a penalty to
the one thing
you can to do have anything other than a
total disadvantage
against LB.

In what way is it deeply misguided?

No, weapon swap is not a counter play in the realm of the LB, you may as well say that not even slotting it is also a counter play. You shouldn't have a glaring disadvantage to using a weapon without also some advantage in the same circumstances. Imagine if a Necro weapon AA dealt less damage the more conditions there are on the target, its a stupid addition that makes the weapon worse without any benefit in any circumstances. Same goes for LB doing less damage the closer you are to the target. There are NO other weapon skills in the game that provide a negative to the player without also providing some other benefit.

As a melee attacker, you have all sorts of teleports (which Ranger has none at all) projectile destruction, reflection, retaliation and block chains you need to gap close, there is not much disadvantage at all to beginning a duel with a Ranger at greater than 1500 range. Since you WILL be bringing these things in any scenario where you will be 1v1 with a Ranger, the Ranger will never be able to maintain a range to get any benefit from Lead the Wind. I mean, sure if you are playing against useless people, but against good players you're not opening up that kind of gap very frequently.

@Kodama.6453 said:

Yes, that interval after it exits the barrel and is still being pushed by the expanding gasses is Transitional Ballistics, but it occurs and ends very quickly and your OP stated it was "a fairly long distance".

It's not dumb to base things on IRL physics. That's why the LB projectiles have an arc. That's why you get obstructed by objects or take falling damage or need to wear armor. That's why when a siege rock lands on you, you get flung away. You've gone all Reductio ad absurdum.

Games are not meant to duplicate reality, otherwise there would be no point playing them, but they should
reflect
reality in some respects. And physics is one of those respects.

Why should a Ranger be punished for for letting an enemy close within 400-500 range? What tools does he have to prevent it? 1 or two at best? No, It's not the Ranger that should be punished, its the Attacker. That's the counter play. You can't match the Ranger at range with his LB, so you need to gap close but if you do so, you will take greater damage. Your way, the Ranger cannot possibly maintain range for long and not only does he lose a lot of the benefits of his main weapon trait, but he also does less damage the closer his attacker gets. Where is the counter play for the ranger? I mean, if the LB had a Death's Retreat type skill like Deadeye Rifle, then sure. But you can't open that gap up again once it's closed. For the attacker, lets assume melee, he can do no damage at range so to gap close is of benefit and he has no negatives for doing so. LB is a strong weapon, but not if you are being pressured, then its quite bad.

What you write here makes no sense. Ranger's longbow has a great advantage simply by the fact that it has the longest range of every weapon in the entire game. And the weapon playstyle definitely
is
focused on maintaining distance to your enemy!

You say that you have 1-2 tools to keep an enemy at distance? That is far from the truth, not sure if you are claiming this just for your agenda while you know that it is false, or if you simply not recognise all the tools available for you to maintain distance.

Just looking at longbow itself, there are already 3 tools in that weapon kit alone.Longbow 3, you gain stealth and therefore the enemy doesn't know where you are moving for a few seconds. You can adjust your movement to your enemy's and increase the distance to them that way.Longbow 4, pretty self explanatory, you will push an enemy away from you and you push them
further
the closer they are to you.Longbow 5, crippling your enemy gives you movement speed advantage to kite the enemy.

Then you also have your pet, which can get used to CC enemies to prevent them closing the gap. You can achieve this through either the pet skills or traits (beastly warden).

You can also slot utility skills for this task.Either, again, by impairing the movement of your enemy (muddy terrain, frost trap, spike trap) or improving your own movement to kite the enemy (quickening zephyr, lightning reflexes).

Under the assumption that the enemy already closed the gap, there are some more CC spells which can help you opening the gap again (signet of the wild, entangle, frost spirit activation, stone spirit activation).

You definitely have tools to keep kiting enemies at range, it is up to you if you want to use them or not.And even if all of this fails, you can still weapon swap into a melee weapon.

Longbow is supposed to be a weapon that requires you to kite the enemy. Rewarding you for failing to do that is weird. You say that it would be a trade off, I say you just want to have the best of two worlds.... you want to have the superior range and then also get additional damage if the enemy successfully counterplayed your range by closing the gap.... just no.

It makes perfect sense. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean the idea isn't valid. Having a weapon that does an extra 300 range over other weapons is not a big advantage, if it were then Rangers would be desired for places in which a greater range is an advantage, like WvW. But they are not. Even for roaming the Ranger on a LB will be outclassed by any number of other builds if played by a reasonable person.

Yes, the 1-2 tools that are on the LB itself are the ones I was referring to. Stealth itself is not really a tool for creating range, it just means the enemy cant see you while you kite. PBS is, yes that's one and HS kinda is, assuming you hit your target. That's the tools that are on the bow. Barrage is not a good tool unless the target is already at range, because standing still for 2.5s to channel a few seconds of cripple is not a good use of time when dueling.

See, by taking all the other tools to help you kite, you are a good dueling and roaming class and build, but that doesn't change the fact that at times you will not be able to and you will be stuck on LB and at a disadvantage for absolutely zero reason other than the name of a skill.

You are creating an entire build around trying to mitigate the negative condition from a weapon AA.

Once more, Long Range Shot is the only weapon skill in the game that acts like this. Dealing less damage based on distance and not providing anything in return. You could claim Spatial Surge perhaps, which is quite similar, but that does more damage than LRS and on 3 targets, not 1.

If someone can provide a single good reason or purpose that the AA on a ranged dueling and kiting weapon should do less damage to targets the closer they get, contrary to actual physics, I'm all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582 said:

If someone can provide a single good reason or purpose that the AA on a ranged dueling and kiting weapon should do less damage to targets the closer they get, contrary to actual physics, I'm all ears.

I already told you.

Kiting and keeping enemies at range is the intended playstyle. Your enemies are supposed to get rewarded for closing the gap. But you want to punish people for using the counterplay to your weapon, making them receive more damage when they finally managed to get to you while you kept attacking them from miles away.

You even call it a kiting weapon yourself, why should you get more damage for failing at kiting here? What is that?

This design would be completely backwards. Look at meteor shower from elementalist staff, for example. It's weakness is it's long cast time, so if you interrupt them during that cast, then the skill will deal less damage for being interrupted early. With your design philosophy, meteor shower should deal more damage if it gets interrupted, so if you failed at get through the whole cast time. It makes no sense.

Also you say that stealth can't get used to create distance? Did you ever try not to move in the exact same direction like your enemy while stealthed? Because this does create distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kodama.6453 said:

If someone can provide a single good reason or purpose that the AA on a ranged dueling and kiting weapon should do less damage to targets the closer they get, contrary to actual physics, I'm all ears.

I already told you.

Kiting and keeping enemies at range is the intended playstyle. Your enemies are
supposed to get rewarded for closing the gap
. But you want to punish people for using the counterplay to your weapon, making them receive more damage when they finally managed to get to you while you kept attacking them from miles away.

You even call it a kiting weapon yourself, why should you get
more
damage for
failing
at kiting here? What is that?

This design would be completely backwards. Look at meteor shower from elementalist staff, for example. It's weakness is it's long cast time, so if you interrupt them during that cast, then the skill will deal less damage for being interrupted early. With your design philosophy, meteor shower should deal
more
damage if it gets interrupted, so if you failed at get through the whole cast time. It makes no sense.

Also you say that stealth can't get used to create distance? Did you ever try not to move in the exact same direction like your enemy while stealthed? Because this
does
create distance.

Yes, the reward for closing the gap is being able to deal damage to the Ranger. Melee weapons deal greater damage than ranged weapons for this reason. The mere nature of them is the counterplay, they already deal greater damage and they will continue to deal greater damage than the longbow. And the fact there a dozens of gap closers for this counterplay. Attacking at LB range is not the advantage you think it is.

Yes, it is a kiting weapon, I made that part clear. But it is not a good kiting weapon, you need to kite with it because it is weak when you are close. What other weapon AA penalises the player conditionally based upon their play? Name one. Take literally any other AA skill in the game and apply the characteristics of LRS to it. You can only hit 1 target and it does less damage the closer you are. What purpose would that serve?

The design is already backwards, that's physics, it is backwards to make it deal less damage the closer a target is. E=mc², I already explained all this.

Your analogy is wrong. You cannot compare one of the highest damaging skills in the game with a 30s CD to an AA. You're comparing Apples to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Imagine if the damage reduction on Meteor Shower were not per target, but it just dealt 30% less damage if the target struck is less than 1200 range from you. I'm glad you brought Meteor Shower up actually, because it's one skill that can actually out range a longbow on flat ground.

I didn't say stealth can't be used to create distance, I said its not really a tool for creating distance. Just like a spanner isn't used for putting nails in, but you can hit them with one enough that it will work. Stealth doesn't create any distance itself, it just allows you to kite without being seen. Meaning it makes your kiting more successful. Quick Shot is a tool for kiting, for example. Short Bow is the quintessential kiting weapon, LB is only kiting by necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

Yes, it is a kiting weapon, I made that part clear. But it is not a good kiting weapon, you need to kite with it because it is weak when you are close. What other weapon AA penalises the player conditionally based upon their play? Name one. Take literally any other AA skill in the game and apply the characteristics of LRS to it. You can only hit 1 target and it does less damage the closer you are.

Spatial Surge (mesmer GS AA) has pretty much the exact same limitation (does less damage as the target closes distance). The only difference is that Spatial Surge pierces through up to 2 targets naturally, without any traits.

What purpose would that serve?

You answered your own question - to make it a kiting weapon, to make sure it's better at range than it is in melee. You simply don't agree with this purpose and engage the "because physics" excuse without offering any reasonable limitation on that line of thought. Case in point:

The design is already backwards, that's physics, it is backwards to make it deal less damage the closer a target is. E=mc², I already explained all this.

Guess what else doesn't respect physics to this degree? Every single fantastical attack in the game that has no root in IRL physics, or is at least deeply violative of the basic laws of our own universe. So why can an elementalist summon a localized meteor shower out of nothing in the first place, and why doesn't it cloud the atmosphere and kill off the larger Saurians? Why does the Spatial Surge beam end at 1200 range like some measly projectile, when it's a mighty beam attack that doesn't have the limiations of earthly physics?

The answer is... wait for it... balance! Very pointedly, not physics. When push comes to shove, balance considerations trump IRL physics each and every time, and rightly so. These attacks of course need not be identical, but they do need to fit into the same overall boundaries according to several parameters, because this is a game and a variety of classes and playstyles need to be competitive with each other. One of those parameters is range (not identical, but within a similar vicinity). Another parameter is damage (there is a much wider range here, and the devs have demonstrated a sad inability to control this based in trait and multiplier interactions). There are others, but I hope you get the point; almost any property, positive or negative, is pretty much a parameter.

Balance, to me and most others, is balance between each of these parameters. So since the ranger LB enjoys a clear advantage over other attacks in the range parameter (which also gives it a boost in the damage parameter), it suffers in the damage parameter at close range. Melee attacks have significantly less range (and the safety that comes with it), so they hit harder when a melee attacker closes the distance. Ranged abilities reward the player for being able to stay at range, melee abilities reward the player for being able to close the gap.

You, however, seem to have a notion of balance that requires tradeoffs within abilities themselves. Long Range Shot must, within itself, contain a positive to outweigh the negatives it suffers in closer ranges. You're literally asking for a counter (improved close range performance on Long Range Shot) to neutralize a counter (closing the gap on a LB ranger). How is this balance? It's just ranger favoritism. Again, as a ranger main, I'd love to see things like your suggestion implemented. I just don't think it's a wise path to start on. I think that's what gives us stuff like Meld with Shadows, which removes revealed - our one direct counter to stealth. I'm glad we haven't seen more of that kind of nonsense that amounts to little more than an arms race in class favoritism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

@"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

Yes, it is a kiting weapon, I made that part clear. But it is not a good kiting weapon, you
need
to kite with it because it is weak when you are close. What other weapon AA penalises the player conditionally based upon their play? Name one. Take literally any other AA skill in the game and apply the characteristics of LRS to it. You can only hit 1 target and it does less damage the closer you are.

Spatial Surge (mesmer GS AA) has pretty much the exact same limitation (does less damage as the target closes distance). The only difference is that Spatial Surge pierces through up to 2 targets naturally, without any traits.

What
purpose
would that serve?

You answered your own question - to make it a kiting weapon, to make sure it's better at range than it is in melee. You simply don't agree with this purpose and engage the "because physics" excuse without offering any reasonable limitation on that line of thought. Case in point:

The design is already backwards, that's physics, it is backwards to make it deal less damage the closer a target is. E=mc², I already explained all this.

Guess what else doesn't respect physics to this degree? Every single fantastical attack in the game that has
no
root in IRL physics, or is at least deeply violative of the basic laws of our own universe. So why can an elementalist summon a localized meteor shower out of nothing in the first place, and why doesn't it cloud the atmosphere and kill off the larger Saurians? Why does the Spatial Surge beam end at 1200 range like some measly projectile, when it's a mighty beam attack that doesn't have the limiations of earthly physics?

The answer is... wait for it... balance! Very pointedly,
not
physics. When push comes to shove, balance considerations trump IRL physics each and every time, and rightly so. These attacks of course need not be identical, but they
do
need to fit into the same overall boundaries according to several parameters, because this is a game and a variety of classes and playstyles need to be competitive with each other. One of those parameters is range (not identical, but within a similar vicinity). Another parameter is damage (there is a
much
wider range here, and the devs have demonstrated a sad inability to control this based in trait and multiplier interactions). There are others, but I hope you get the point; almost any property, positive or negative, is pretty much a parameter.

Balance, to me and most others, is balance
between
each of these parameters. So since the ranger LB enjoys a clear advantage over other attacks in the range parameter (which also gives it a boost in the damage parameter), it suffers in the damage parameter at close range. Melee attacks have significantly less range (and the safety that comes with it), so they hit harder when a melee attacker closes the distance. Ranged abilities reward the player for being able to stay at range, melee abilities reward the player for being able to close the gap.

You, however, seem to have a notion of balance that requires tradeoffs
within
abilities themselves. Long Range Shot must, within itself, contain a positive to outweigh the negatives it suffers in closer ranges. You're literally asking for a counter (improved close range performance on Long Range Shot) to neutralize a counter (closing the gap on a LB ranger). How is this balance? It's just ranger favoritism. Again, as a ranger main, I'd love to see things like your suggestion implemented. I just don't think it's a wise path to start on. I think that's what gives us stuff like Meld with Shadows, which removes revealed - our one direct counter to stealth. I'm glad we haven't seen more of that kind of nonsense that amounts to little more than an arms race in class favoritism.

I already mentioned Spatial Surge, but it hits 3 targets. And does more base damage. And scales better with power. Even warrior LB does the maximum AA damage of Ranger LB and its a hybrid condi weapon.

Making LB worse at one job, doesn't make it better at another. It just makes it worse.

Magic is magical. That's that explained.

The range parameter is NOT a clear advantage, at all. You obviously have not done any roaming on a LB Ranger, I suggest you go do a few hundred hours of that at least and come back and tell me that the 300 range increase is a good trade off for doing FAR less damage the closer a target is. I would agree with you if there weren't eleventy one gap closing and projectile destroying or reflecting skills made to directly be a counter to range damage. What % of the time do you think your targets will be outside 1200 range?

Lead the Wind is another area I brought up before that is thematically designed for no good reason. Granting boons because you hit a target between 1200 and 1500 (+) range away is just plain terrible design. It's far too conditional.

There is no good reason for LRS to have the negative at all, not one single reason other than thematics and the name of the skill. It doesn't make it a better kiting weapon. Making Warrior axe do less damage on the AA doesn't make it a better burst weapon. Look at Ranger SB, now that is a kiting weapon.

Mate, Warrior Rifle is a much better kiting weapon than Ranger LB. It's got; Aimed shot, an ammo skill that cripples and applies vuln, Brutal Shot, an ammo skill that (get this) applies immob and vulnerability , removes immob from yourself AND evades back 400 and Rifle Butt which knocks back up to 3 targets 600 range AND recharges all other skills. Its got heaps better burst damage too. Now, it does have lower AA damage, but its AA builds adrenaline you use to fuel the F1 burst skill which does the same damage as a 10 shot Rapid Fire with a single shot that pierces and is 1500 range. Oh yeah, if you use Berserker, you can 1 shot a Ranger from 1500 range with Gun Flame without any investment in Precision, wearing all valk gear so you also have 30k+ health. Plus, its got Volley which is a better Rapid Fire, it does more damage in less strikes, and is also an ammo skill that pierces.

LRS doing the same damage (or greater at shorter distances) is not a counter to gap closing it just makes the bow slightly less rubbish when you're waiting for weapon swap to come off CD. Any Ranger who camps LB, regardless of the damage the AA deals is going to be dead in no time. Assuming you're not PBSing bronze uplevels off cliffs in EoTM. I know this because I don't even roam with LB anymore, I go Soulbeast with a bird, GS and S/A. You can gap close 2600 range to a LB Ranger and down them before they have AA'd a few times and got half way though the Rapid Fire Channel you just reflected in their face.

Of course its Ranger favoritism, I have like 6000hrs on Ranger. I would like LB to be a better weapon because right now its pretty meh when you start comparing it to a LOT of other weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

Of course its Ranger favoritism, I have like 6000hrs on Ranger. I would like LB to be a better weapon because right now its pretty meh when you start comparing it to a LOT of other weapons.

I only have 4,777 hours on ranger myself, and have switched from longbow to shortbow sword/dagger condi roaming on Trailblazer stats. It's not like I don't understand that ranger LB is currently one of the worst options out there. Fun fact: I ran a gunflame build for about a month or so, just for fun, and it was sad how much more effective it was in a 1v1 compared to ranger LB. With that gunflame build, I landed most of my kills without swapping. That experience is why I don't take most of the "durr rifle on warr is unusuable" nonsense I hear being tossed about.

My bad on spatial surge. I read (but forgot) your mention of it. It's still a pretty weak AA, but I too acknowledged its baseline superiority without traits, and I clunkily referred to it piercing through 2 targets (very weakly implying that all that happens as the beam travels to its actual target). Poor writing and memory on my part there, my bad.

At this point, let me attempt a clarification on my end.

(1) Greater respect for IRL physics is obviously one reason why you like your fix.(2) However, you keep bringing up comparisons to how ranger LB performs, which is clearly much more about balance than physics.

I'm fully on board with (2). As I already mentioned, I've played a good chunk of ranger myself, and I'm not defending the LB status quo as anything to be desired. My real problem with most of what you're saying is element (1). I think that's a bad reason to be making fixes to how it LRS performs, and has no place in discussion alongside element (2) because frankly it fails to solve most of why ranger LB sucks as much as it does.

Two things we've both brought up already have much less (read: nothing) to do with physics but everything to do with better in-game design: warr rifle and mesmer GS.

Both perform pretty admirably at 1200 range without traits (volley pierces baseline, as does spatial surge). Both have much more useful space-making #5 abilites, in that they both allow multiple targets to be pushed back after they close. To boot, our space-making point blank shot is a projectile, and it pains me to admit I've instinctively fired it off into a blocking warrior more than once, or just before a firebrand puts up their f3 reflect bubble. Mirror blade on mesmer actually works better in close range with multihits, and in my experience a properly set up rifle warr actually wants an unprepared target to close to use the excellent 5 into 4/2/3 combo, or a gunflame if you have it up. These weapons are superior because of the wide array of options they provide at close range, not just better AA. Buffing LRS due to an IRL physics fetish does nothing, IMO, other than introduce a spurious physics excuse. It doesn't even make ranger LB a better kiting weapon.

You also bring up ranger shortbow as a much better kiting weapon, and I 100000% agree. Again, how much of that is about buffing some of the attacks? None, really. It's about having ready access (i.e. one button press and no cast time) cripple/daze, which is immob/stun on flanking, and having something other than AA (shortbow 2) to effectively punish gap closers with such that you can re-create space and opportunity.

So in essence, your proposed fix (while cool and inherently desirable to me as a ranger main) fails to solve the problems of LB, all while introducing a physics argument that cannot (and I believe, should not) carry the day in any balance consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@voltaicbore.8012 said:So in essence, your proposed fix (while cool and inherently desirable to me as a ranger main) fails to solve the problems of LB, all while introducing a physics argument that cannot (and I believe, should not) carry the day in any balance consideration.

Yeah, but if you are going to buff something because it is sub standard (by comparison) and giving it more realistic physics is one of the ways to do it, why wouldn't you?We started off talking about the autoattack, but I can address the other issues with it as a kiting weapon too if you like.

Ok, straight off the top of my head.LRS: Make it always do the long range damage, pierce below 600 range and apply 1s of Cripple at ranges below 300.RF: Reduce the amount of strikes to 5 and halve the cast time. Make it recharge 2s faster.HS: Grants you and your pet 4s Superspeed instead of just the pet swiftness (my god that's pathetic) as well as the 3s stealth.PBS: Is already a good example of realistic physics and could just have a couple seconds shaved off the CD.Barrage: Reduce the number of attacks from 12 to 6 and double their damage and cripple duration (So you don't kill yourself with retaliation in WvW).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...