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

[jgeezz.7832]

You know that is not what i am saying.

[Obtena.7952]

@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.

That doesn't make sense ... how do you know Anet didn't do that and balance the game by adjusting the range for different weapons?

[Obtena.7952]

@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.

That doesn't make sense ... how do you know Anet didn't start with everything equal and make changes to balance the game from there? What makes you conclude that a class having more 'reach' (whatever that is) over another isn't the RESULT of balancing to the themes Anet wants classes to have? I can tell you it is exactly that ... the differences are there for meaningful choice for players.

I mean, what you are literally saying is that everything should be the same and to be fair, from a completely technical point of view, that's true in a totally balanced game. But we don't have that ... at all ... so if that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the goal here ISN'T total balance, then what makes you think any argument you present for things being equal makes any sense to begin with?

Honestly, just sounds to me like you don't like the unfairness and think the game should change to cater to you ... this isn't a class balance issue. He's in a keep, at height ... OFC he has an advantage to at shooting you. If that bothers you, don't attack keeps with rangers guarding them because the game isn't going to change for that.

[AliamRationem.5172]

@jgeezz.7832 said:You know that is not what i am saying.

We all know what you're doing. You're irrationally upset because something happened that you didn't understand, you set it in your mind that it was unfair, and now you're incapable of letting it go even though the mechanics behind it were explained to you.

You aren't seriously asking for range to be equal. How would that even work? Does my sword weaver get to point his sword at you and hit you from 1500 range now? No? Then what?

[caveman.5840]

nothing is fair , and people crying about balance in the forums destroyed WVW and PVP

[keenedge.9675]

@"jgeezz.7832" said:this is why the range on a ranger need to be checkedhttps://imgur.com/vDF1rI1

Oh, another ranger Longbow rant from a ?thief? ...

Rangers are the ORIGINAL sniper. You can't change the past.

[Shining One.1635]

@jgeezz.7832 said: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? LOLActually, longbows had greater range, accuracy, and fire rate than the guns of the same time period. Guns replaced bows due to their ease of use.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

The only game I can think of that is inherently fair is 'chess', and you could still argue that the player who gets to move first has an advantage.

And anyone who thinks that a bow cannot be on par with a firearm has obviously never seen First Blood Part 2. :trollface:

[Kulvar.1239]

@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.

@jgeezz.7832 said:You know that is not what i am saying.

What you said range fromEquity: "we should have a classless system for everyone so there's zero difference between what a character can do but how you build it and how you use it."toEgality: "all characters should have the exact same capabilities without any choice of build"

I wouldn't mind the first as I prefer to have only 1 character if we had a lot of possible choices, but I would leave the game in a heartbeat at the second

[Dayra.7405]

There is a simple solution to your complain: use the class you are complaining about!

But in fact you don‘t want them equal, you want the advantages of one class and deny others the advantages of their class.

[Trise.2865]

@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

It's called "ballistic trajectory". A bow doesn't need a straight line to its target. A gun does. It's the same principle that guides Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, or ICBM.Rifled weapons simply can't match that kind of range.

[Bridget Morrigan.1752]

OMG, I don't even have a horse in this race but obviously when the response to "the bow has an arc!!" is "it's a magic bow and a gun," the point of the second statement is not "let's argue magiphysics!" but the game creates its own rules so it should have rules that are fair.

The game has an 8-bit VR system and floating rocks. It's not obeying rules of Earth history OR physics. Any argument that uses Earth history or physics to support it is ridiculous.

[XenoSpyro.1780]

@Linken.6345 said: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.Good lord this is still such a bad argument. An arc doesn't mean one weapon should have more range than another weapon despite both being listed with the same value, regardless of whoever has the high ground. It's completely unfair to bullet weapons. It is a fact that arrows have more distance than bullets, and it doesn't matter why. So the solution is : Change the system, or change the labelling.

Apparently none of you have done the math. If you drop Ranger Longbow 1's real range to about 1200 units, then the extra distance those arrows get will equal 1500, matching the skill description.Or alternatively, if arrows travel 1500 units, then projectile disappears. Curve or no curve.

I also want to point out that the Ironsight transforms projectiles to arrows (even affects down skill 1), yet they still act as bullets, and don't magically gain range buff.

[Westenev.5289]

When I roll another class, I expect that class to play and feel different. Standardizing weapons or effects is a problem, and really hurts the games replayability. It also encourages meta classes, since standardizing leads to better designed classes excelling over poorer designed classes.

So, do I think it's fair that only one class has 1500 + arc range? Yes, if that's what it takes for the class/weapon to become unique.

[Obtena.7952]

@XenoSpyro.1780 said:

@Linken.6345 said: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.Good lord this is still such a bad argument. An arc doesn't mean one weapon should have more range than another weapon despite both being listed with the same value, regardless of whoever has the high ground.

Let's be clear ... there is nothing unreasonable about giving a ranged weapon user the advantage of longer range for holding higher ground.

I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but what I would find unacceptable is if the theif didn't get the same ranged advantage as the ranger when holding the higher ground. Then there is definitely something weird about how the ranger bow physics works over the theif rifle.

[Dante.1763]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@XenoSpyro.1780 said:

@Linken.6345 said: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.Good lord this is still such a bad argument. An arc doesn't mean one weapon should have more range than another weapon despite both being listed with the same value, regardless of whoever has the high ground.

Let's be clear ... there is nothing unreasonable about giving a ranged weapon user the advantage of longer range for holding higher ground.

I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but what I would find unacceptable is if the theif didn't get the same ranged advantage as the ranger when holding the higher ground. Then there is definitely something weird about how the ranger bow physics works over the theif rifle.

as a note thats how it works. Rifle skill stop dead at max range regardless of height. Bows keep going for another 300+. Same with Pistols and Shortbows. Rifled weapons have a downside and its range, but they travel faster than arrows.