Not Hurting PvP to Address PvE Imbalances / PvE Solution To Ranged PvE Imbalance


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ideascale Threads:

Don't Unbalance PvP to Balance PvE

PvE Solution to Ranged PvE Imbalance


Andius wrote:
The recent thread on balancing ranged attacks by making all players stationary while executing a ranged attacks takes us down a scary path seen in many other games.

I would like to point out two things:

1. My topic was imperfectly presented as it focused very heavily on the way the current ranged system affects PvE and paid no mind to PvP. This is largely due to my bias towards PvE.

2. Many players and the developers have expressed complaints that the current ranged system also makes PvP uninteresting. This is a matter of opinion, but one that I understand is fairly widely accepted at one level or another.

THEREFORE, your impetus for these Ideascale threads is flawed.

THAT SAID, you bring up a good point. There will always be a tension between those of us who want a good, balanced PvE system and those of us who want a good, balanced PvP system. I think you are right that, in general, balancing efforts to one area should always be made with careful attention to the other. Since GW wants to make a great game, I have no doubt they are already doing this.

Where ranged is concerned, they seem to think (and I agree) that the current system does not work as intended for EITHER PvP or PvE. So the fix should apply to both.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As I said in one of my posts, the problem is not with having mobility while using ranged combat, it is with the mobs having really stupid AI.

You don't have the same issue with PvP, or at least I hope not.

Kiting, is countered by closing the gap abilities or with ranged attacks. The mobs being on a leash, and then returning once you get out of their starting aggro range is the issue.

The mob's aggro range should move with him, and the only way you break the aggro is by:

1. Killing it
2. Stop attacking and exceeding its aggro range

The mobs should not come to the end of their chain, turn around and try to return to their start location, while at the same time you continue to shoot them in the back. That is "stupid AI".

Goblin Squad Member

Recommend keeping the expression of your thoughts simple. Remove all the antagonistic baggage and you might get somewhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

As I said in one of my posts, the problem is not with having mobility while using ranged combat, it is with the mobs having really stupid AI.

You don't have the same issue with PvP, or at least I hope not.

Kiting, is countered by closing the gap abilities or with ranged attacks. The mobs being on a leash, and then returning once you get out of their starting aggro range is the issue.

The mob's aggro range should move with him, and the only way you break the aggro is by:

1. Killing it
2. Stop attacking and exceeding its aggro range

The mobs should not come to the end of their chain, turn around and try to return to their start location, while at the same time you continue to shoot them in the back. That is "stupid AI".

I completely agree Bluddwolf and I think you have this exactly right. The PVE AI is currently really poor and it is very much the reason that the PVE is extremely uninteresting. With 2 level 4 fighters with longbows and a level 3 mage (wizard, whatever the class is), we were able to clear a group of 4 ogres with ease. We didn't even leash them, just ran them around in circles.

The mob density is great, but with how easy the mobs are, it's more of a nuisance than a fear-inducing factor like it was in FFXI.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some statements from Ryan on AI:

The AI is going to be stupid and simple for a long time. We plan to invest as little into PvE as necessary. Crowdforging will define "necessary".
Ryan Dancey wrote:

The purpose of the mobs is to be farmed for loot. They don't produce XP.

While it may be unsatisfying to be killing mobs that are dumb, the opponents you need to be worried about won't be dumb. They'll be other humans. The tactics that work against the dumb AI mobs won't work against coordinated groups of human opponents.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

It would be trivial to make AI that would destroy the players. The AI after all can "cheat" as no information is hidden from it. But even if it simulated just normal senses for the AI minions, it could still easily beat you. It will always have perfect aim, perfect timing, perfect positioning, etc.

The challenge is actually making an AI that is JUST GOOD ENOUGH to challenge most players without being so good that it TPKs all the time. Nobody aw to to play against AI that usually wins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's all stuff I agree with for now, but as the rest of the game isn't implemented, PFO is currently a very poor PvE game while we hope for PvP to become viable in 2 months, at which point half of the server has stated that they plan to use a NAP to avoid PvE then, so for MANY players, PFO = PvE for the foreseeable future of the next 3-5 months.

If the main content for the next 3+ months is something that had "as little as necessary" invested into it, that's not a good state for the game.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Some statements from Ryan on AI:

The AI is going to be stupid and simple for a long time. We plan to invest as little into PvE as necessary. Crowdforging will define "necessary".
Ryan Dancey wrote:

The purpose of the mobs is to be farmed for loot. They don't produce XP.

While it may be unsatisfying to be killing mobs that are dumb, the opponents you need to be worried about won't be dumb. They'll be other humans. The tactics that work against the dumb AI mobs won't work against coordinated groups of human opponents.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

It would be trivial to make AI that would destroy the players. The AI after all can "cheat" as no information is hidden from it. But even if it simulated just normal senses for the AI minions, it could still easily beat you. It will always have perfect aim, perfect timing, perfect positioning, etc.

The challenge is actually making an AI that is JUST GOOD ENOUGH to challenge most players without being so good that it TPKs all the time. Nobody aw to to play against AI that usually wins.

Its kinda funny you posted those... Because the changes suggested in Ideascale are for PVE purposes.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Non-Aggression Pact under discussion seemed to have little common-ground among participants beyond "hands off the Alpha Ring", while all Settlements seem to desire more benefits than their Alpha Rings can provide. I presume I'm not the only one expecting scuffles around the rest of the towers Settlements want.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
...the changes suggested in Ideascale are for PVE purposes.

My first thought around the "stationary" conversation was "that'll affect the attack, regardless of the target". If one's nailed in place against an ogre charging you, one's nailed in place against Xeen charging you, too.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If meleer and bowman have equal time in the game their HP should be equivalent. If the bowman sees the meleer he has 15 meters to get his shot off before the meleer can get within charge range. That is already a chunk of health the meleer is down by the time he has the archer within reach IF the archer is stationary. The bowman has to make a meaningful choice whether to spam low damage evasion shots that propel him out of melee range already.

If you add in the ability to backpedal the disadvantage for the meleer is compounded.

Since the archer also has the ability to melee I think the PvP aspect is the more compelling reason why the issue of kiting needs to be addressed, whether now or later but before war of towers.

Goblinworks Game Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Three notes:

1) Creatures aren't leashing. They do not have a fixed distance where they give up and go home like many MMOs. Instead, they have a threat decay over time, so if they can't get to you to damage you and you're not hitting them, their initial "on awareness" threat dissipates and they go home. Even if you are hitting them, if you're damaging them slowly (I can't remember where the exact DPS breakpoint is), they're losing threat faster than they're gaining it and the eventually give up and go home. If you're damaging them faster than they dissipate threat, they should follow you indefinitely.

The simplest fixes to prevent that kind of thing result in even more undesirable behaviors (e.g., sharing threat such that creatures always dogpile a single player even in a big group, chasing you for hundreds of yards the first time they see you, etc.). More nuanced solutions have to wait until creature behavior is back to the top of the priority list of our programmer than handles the AI and a bunch of other stuff.

2) This is not a PvE-only fix. Ranged currently has a huge advantage in both PvP and PvE because several of the systems to govern it aren't in yet.

3) We're sometimes going to have to make a simple fix because that's what we have time to do now (with the plan to create a better solution later) when the choice is to slightly overcorrect now or leave a glaring problem for an indefinite duration. This change may temporarily make ranged slightly worse than melee, we admit. It was either that or leave ranged as dramatically better than melee--so good that players aren't having fun playing melee--for longer than we were comfortable with.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen, thanks very much for chiming in with some developer intent :)

I do hope we get a chance to experience the results of such a change in Alpha before we get into Early Enrollment.

Goblin Squad Member

One more quick question, Stephen.

If y'all decide to add Stationary to all (or most or some, whatever) Ranged Attacks, will there also be a corresponding rebalancing of Damage Factors and/or Stamina/Power Costs?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

First couple of days of EE - Slaughtering 1st level enemies for +0 gear.

First couple of weeks of EE - Gathering and crafting like mad for +1 gear.

Next week or so of EE - Claiming the ring of towers around each settlement. (Overlaps with frenzied gathering & crafting.)

Very shortly after that, I think the settlements will be ready for the PvP game, as the other towers become the focus. I hope reputation-neutral PvP will be ready for us by the time we're ready for it.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
...if you're damaging them slowly...they're losing threat faster than they're gaining it...

I'm playing a spell-casting Cleric, and this explains a comment I heard the other night. A couple of times, when I'd attacked a different target from the rest of the group, it would stop attacking me and return to its camp, and someone wondered why.

Comments from designers are incredibly useful.


Wonderful discussion. Thanks yall. It was enlightening.

Nihimon wrote:
If y'all decide to add Stationary to all (or most or some, whatever) Ranged Attacks, will there also be a corresponding rebalancing of Damage Factors and/or Stamina/Power Costs?

I would also like to see an answer to that question.


T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:
...if you're damaging them slowly...they're losing threat faster than they're gaining it...

I'm playing a spell-casting Cleric, and this explains a comment I heard the other night. A couple of times, when I'd attacked a different target from the rest of the group, it would stop attacking me and return to its camp, and someone wondered why.

Comments from designers are incredibly useful.

Yeah this explains why when I pop the archer one good, the melee guys only charge halfway before turning back while I continue to work on the archer. It also explains why I find myself turning around to face the guy I was attacking while his buddies are all running home. I'm ignoring them, but the DPS on him is still high enough to keep his attention.

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds like the mobs need two aggro meters - one is "are you angry? Y/N" the other one is "suppose you're angry, who are you angry at?", with the first one being shared by an entire camp but the second one being individual.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:

2) This is not a PvE-only fix. Ranged currently has a huge advantage in both PvP and PvE because several of the systems to govern it aren't in yet.

Ok, I can say this. The only time I have engaged in pvp that is relevant. I was locked down no problem while trying to be mobile. But that could just be the difference between a beginning character in T1 gear and a month old character in T3 gear.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:

2) This is not a PvE-only fix. Ranged currently has a huge advantage in both PvP and PvE because several of the systems to govern it aren't in yet.

Ok, I can say this. The only time I have engaged in pvp that is relevant. I was locked down no problem while trying to be mobile. But that could just be the difference between a beginning character in T1 gear and a month old character in T3 gear.

I'm not sure if this is the "relevant" experience you were talking about, but when I was killing you in PvP, you had just as much XP as I did, and just as much opportunity to get the T2 gear I had from Bonny. I made a point of insisting that Bluddwolf get his T2 gear from Bonny before I engaged him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:

Three notes:

1) Creatures aren't leashing. They do not have a fixed distance where they give up and go home like many MMOs. Instead, they have a threat decay over time, so if they can't get to you to damage you and you're not hitting them, their initial "on awareness" threat dissipates and they go home. Even if you are hitting them, if you're damaging them slowly (I can't remember where the exact DPS breakpoint is), they're losing threat faster than they're gaining it and the eventually give up and go home. If you're damaging them faster than they dissipate threat, they should follow you indefinitely.

The simplest fixes to prevent that kind of thing result in even more undesirable behaviors (e.g., sharing threat such that creatures always dogpile a single player even in a big group, chasing you for hundreds of yards the first time they see you, etc.). More nuanced solutions have to wait until creature behavior is back to the top of the priority list of our programmer than handles the AI and a bunch of other stuff.

2) This is not a PvE-only fix. Ranged currently has a huge advantage in both PvP and PvE because several of the systems to govern it aren't in yet.

3) We're sometimes going to have to make a simple fix because that's what we have time to do now (with the plan to create a better solution later) when the choice is to slightly overcorrect now or leave a glaring problem for an indefinite duration. This change may temporarily make ranged slightly worse than melee, we admit. It was either that or leave ranged as dramatically better than melee--so good that players aren't having fun playing melee--for longer than we were comfortable with.

The aggro range is almost exactly the same every time. If you walk backwards while firing a long bow, you will almost always have an enemy run to right in front of you (assuming it lives) then turn around. At which point, if you wish, you can run behind it and shoot it with arrows until it gets back to the spawn spot. If there was an enemy in the game that could withstand this (very few now that I understand combat), that is what would happen every time.

I have given more thought to this range issue than I probably should have. I do not plan on playing an archer. I may spec one as an alt eventually, but I am just tired of range getting killed in games. it always becomes weak because people can't cope.

You SHOULD be able to gain ground as melee, but as I said before... if ranged is rooted, we could be talking about 2 shots, even while moving backwards, before someone is close enough to you that you can't shoot again. With short bow, it would never be smart to fire unless the person was attacking someone else.

What about when crossbows and guns come into the game? Those will be able to be fired while moving, right? Then, why use a bow?

Stam is an issue. Increase bow stam use while moving. Make it so that people would be better to learn to stop and shoot. Make it a science. Don't force rooting. There are many fixes that, sure, are much harder to implement than a standard URSTUK fix. Even 1 second of root is deadly.

I think a lot of people want to play melee and be successful. Then some archers want to be OP. Personally, I am more weighted toward the melee side because I've always felt it takes more awareness to play melee and a lot of people can lose battles by being bad at melee, because it is basically controlling the line.

This change would make it so if an archer is ever targeted (and if their dps is decent, they will be) they are dead or fleeing. It also doesn't address what I spoke of before, which is what about the melee/ranged hybrid? That would take a huge buff opposed to full range which, as I said, tends to get nerfed into oblivion in pvp games because people cannot correctly balance it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sspitfire1 wrote:

Wonderful discussion. Thanks yall. It was enlightening.

Nihimon wrote:
If y'all decide to add Stationary to all (or most or some, whatever) Ranged Attacks, will there also be a corresponding rebalancing of Damage Factors and/or Stamina/Power Costs?
I would also like to see an answer to that question.

Y'all should realize y'all are y'alling. Just sayin'

The proper usage is you'ns anyway, y'all.

Goblin Squad Member

I didn't know you were from Pittsburgh, Being.

Goblin Squad Member

Many in Pittsburgh migrated from Appalachia, specifically Western North Carolina, where Middle/Early Modern English was last spoken as a mother tongue. (Late 15th to early 17th century English)

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Y'all should realize y'all are y'alling. Just sayin'

I'm quite aware :)

I'm also fixin' to do somethin'r'nother...

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:

2) This is not a PvE-only fix. Ranged currently has a huge advantage in both PvP and PvE because several of the systems to govern it aren't in yet.

Ok, I can say this. The only time I have engaged in pvp that is relevant. I was locked down no problem while trying to be mobile. But that could just be the difference between a beginning character in T1 gear and a month old character in T3 gear.
I'm not sure if this is the "relevant" experience you were talking about, but when I was killing you in PvP, you had just as much XP as I did, and just as much opportunity to get the T2 gear I had from Bonny. I made a point of insisting that Bluddwolf get his T2 gear from Bonny before I engaged him.

That was my first alpha weekend, which was also the last alpha 6 build. I did not have as much xp as bludd did so I doubt I had as much xp as you did by far, and Bonny was not online when I was. In fact I dont think she was online that weekend at all.

I also read from cheatle around then that you guys had some t2 gear and at least one item of t3. Maybe I am wrong for your stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
I did not have as much xp as bludd did so I doubt I had as much xp as you did by far...

I'm pretty sure during Alpha 6, everyone's XP was being backdated to when the server started up. Everyone should have had the exact same total XP earned, even if their current XP was different based on what they'd spent.

Cheatle had some T3 gear, but all I had was Tier 2. I kinda wish you'd had it, too. Of all the folks I was killing when y'all were fighting us in Sotterhill, you were the most challenging. I'm curious to know what might have happened if we'd been on equal footing. Oh well, I'm sure we'll find out some day :)

And for the record, I killed Cheatle like 6 times in a row even with his T3 gear, giving him the first strike each time.


Being wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:

Wonderful discussion. Thanks yall. It was enlightening.

Nihimon wrote:
If y'all decide to add Stationary to all (or most or some, whatever) Ranged Attacks, will there also be a corresponding rebalancing of Damage Factors and/or Stamina/Power Costs?
I would also like to see an answer to that question.

Y'all should realize y'all are y'alling. Just sayin'

The proper usage is you'ns anyway, y'all.

And if yall are going to be yall'ing, the correct grammar is "yall" - without the apostrophe. Do it right! :P

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sspitfire1 wrote:
... the correct grammar is "yall" - without the apostrophe.

As Decius sometimes says to me when I make similarly incorrect claims:

The world disagrees with you.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
And for the record, I killed Cheatle like 6 times in a row even with his T3 gear, giving him the first strike each time.

And if ranged attacks are made stationary (assuming ranged also includes magic) he will kill you 6 times in a row, especially if you give him first strike each time.

And if you give ranged more power to balance the band-aid solution then you're wasting time balancing temporary systems, and testing nothing of long term consequence to the game.

However if you keep range like it is, and start doing things like fixing his melee maneuverability, or sticking in limitations on ranged power that are meant to be there long term, then you can test them for their ACTUAL EFFECTS. So when all of a sudden Cheatle is killing you 1, 2, or 3 times out of six. Or even just consistently getting closer to doing so. You have real data the system is moving in the right direction.

That's what I thought the point of EE was. Testing the game so we can give input on what needs to be done to prepare it for OE. Not expecting it to be a fully balanced product right here and now.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea of wasting time with software is a nebulous problem, getting the true balanced system they want could take (made up numbers) 6 months, that's 6 months of us living with an overpowered state. If it takes them 1 month to balance the not as good system to something acceptable then it's ultimately worth the time spent now versus waiting until later. It depends on factors that we certainly can't estimate and they would have a hard time estimating until they've at least discussed a few options internally.

How they should go about it is also really dependent on what the ultimate desired effect actually is: should ranged be inherently weaker to melee in a form of rock, paper, scissors? Should they be perfectly balanced so that the only difference is a mistake or (if applicable) random number coming up in someone's favor? Should they be balanced so that martial melee, martial bows, and magic act as a similar rock, paper, scissor counter?

I'm personally in favor of the idea that melee > archer > magic > melee.

Once the desired effect is decided then you can start debating how to achieve it and the value of each individual action in achieving that outlined balance and if their a nuances when comparing similar types.

Something to remember: balance does not necessarily mean equal, it means fair. Hence an asymmetric system can be balanced when evaluated under ideal circumstances. Homogeneous solutions are fair and balanced plus a lot easier to do, but also pretty boring. I prefer the former over the latter but understand the difficulty in achieving that.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
And if ranged attacks are made stationary (assuming ranged also includes magic) he will kill you 6 times in a row, especially if you give him first strike each time.

Why do you think being stuck in melee combat is a death sentence for a ranged attacker?

Lets assume both characters are constantly in melee range.
What advantages does the greatsword user have over the longbow user?

They can both wear the same armor, they both have access to the same defensive feats.
DPS is approximately the same.

The only advantage that I can see is that the longbow user will be granting opportunity. Is that really enough of a penalty to offset the 2-3 shots he got in while the melee guy was closing?

Fighter vs Wizard is a different comparison, because then you have to compare the fighter's greater hitpoints vs the wizard's greater access to status effects.

I keep seeing people (not just Andius) claim that a stationary ranged attacker dies to any melee attacker.

What advantages of melee attacking other than opportunity am I missing? Or am I just underestimating opportunity punishment?

Goblin Squad Member

When I tested the longbow I noticed my attacks didn't seem to be having as much effect if I had an enemy in melee with me. Either I was missing or doing less damage, or at least that's what it seemed like to me.

I noticed spamming half draw seemed to work ok in melee but you still got tore up if your opponent wasn't already mostly dead.

Switching to my melee weapon solved it. I also seemed to have an easier time killing ranged opponents when in melee with them.

I have done no conclusive tests but that's what I'm basing it on.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaskon wrote:
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
And if ranged attacks are made stationary (assuming ranged also includes magic) he will kill you 6 times in a row, especially if you give him first strike each time.

Why do you think being stuck in melee combat is a death sentence for a ranged attacker?

Lets assume both characters are constantly in melee range.
What advantages does the greatsword user have over the longbow user?

They can both wear the same armor, they both have access to the same defensive feats.
DPS is approximately the same.

The only advantage that I can see is that the longbow user will be granting opportunity. Is that really enough of a penalty to offset the 2-3 shots he got in while the melee guy was closing?

Fighter vs Wizard is a different comparison, because then you have to compare the fighter's greater hitpoints vs the wizard's greater access to status effects.

I keep seeing people (not just Andius) claim that a stationary ranged attacker dies to any melee attacker.

What advantages of melee attacking other than opportunity am I missing? Or am I just underestimating opportunity punishment?

Well it depends on what you consider 'balanced' and the desired effect. I think for the most part everyone is kind of assuming that an archer will be wearing lighter armor than the typical melee because traditionally that is a true statement for the most part. Plus a longbow is not a weapon you use effectively while someone is hitting you with a sword hence the opportunity effect. So they assume that being in melee for the archer is a death sentence.

Using your example if all raw DPS is equal the question seems to be should the 'range' advantage of however many shots be balanced by the 'opportunity' bonus once the melee closes the gap, and once that is all balanced it's an equal fight if everyone stays in melee (ignoring mistakes and potential outplaying etc..).

I then ask if your desired outcome is no practical difference between range and melee outside of flavored mechanics? They are effectively no different, that would be homogeneous balancing, which is certainly an option. (I still think ranged has an edge as target identification and gap closing leave more room for error on behalf of the melee, but it's less about numbers and more about reflexes.)

I think most people are assuming it will be asymmetrical, and thus once stuck in melee the ranged will probably lose unless the skill disparity is huge.

Ideally I think the archer should switch to a more appropriate melee set that complements their ranged abilities and attempt to finish off their opponent. This results in something similar to your example but ends up being asymmetrical since there are different actions required to win, but there are still equal odds. Therefore the Archer would maybe be considered an 'advanced' technique as it requires you to swap to melee for opportune moments to finish of your opponent versus the easier technique of running around with heavy armor and a big sword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Duffy wrote:

The idea of wasting time with software is a nebulous problem, getting the true balanced system they want could take (made up numbers) 6 months, that's 6 months of us living with an overpowered state. If it takes them 1 month to balance the not as good system to something acceptable then it's ultimately worth the time spent now versus waiting until later. It depends on factors that we certainly can't estimate and they would have a hard time estimating until they've at least discussed a few options internally.

How they should go about it is also really dependent on what the ultimate desired effect actually is: should ranged be inherently weaker to melee in a form of rock, paper, scissors? Should they be perfectly balanced so that the only difference is a mistake or (if applicable) random number coming up in someone's favor? Should they be balanced so that martial melee, martial bows, and magic act as a similar rock, paper, scissor counter?

I'm personally in favor of the idea that melee > archer > magic > melee.

Once the desired effect is decided then you can start debating how to achieve it and the value of each individual action in achieving that outlined balance and if their a nuances when comparing similar types.

Something to remember: balance does not necessarily mean equal, it means fair. Hence an asymmetric system can be balanced when evaluated under ideal circumstances. Homogeneous solutions are fair and balanced plus a lot easier to do, but also pretty boring. I prefer the former over the latter but understand the difficulty in achieving that.

It seems to me like they are planning to launch the game without 'all of the systems in place.' It may not be a balance issue at all once stam is in the game. If they launch it without stam, that is an issue in an of itself.

I think it is something that ranged could possibly not recover from (it may never get changed and just balanced on top of) as well as it sets a bad precedent, fixing a glaring issue in an easy, thoughtless way. A way that changes the game completely for the majority.

@ the dps question, I agree w/ Andius. Not only is opportunity super OP, but even when a wolf gets up on you, you can't do anything with a bow, you have to escape to get the ability to dps again. And I believe that's how it should be, btw. There's no reason to believe someone with a longbow could stand a chance, toe to toe, with a great sword user.

Goblin Squad Member

celestialiar wrote:
Not only is opportunity super OP, but even when a wolf gets up on you, you can't do anything with a bow, you have to escape to get the ability to dps again. And I believe that's how it should be, btw. There's no reason to believe someone with a longbow could stand a chance, toe to toe, with a great sword user.

We don't have to just believe.. we can go on the alpha and test it.

I've stood toe to toe with an ogre and shot it to death with a longbow while it beat on me, but that was back in 7.1.

Wolves have a knockdown.. I wonder if it triggers on opportunity only. They have used it on me while I was wielding a sword, but I think I was moving at the time.

I haven't done as much PVP testing as I hoped to, but there don't seem to be any inherent drawbacks to using a longbow in melee range other than the opportunity issue.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaskon wrote:
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
And if ranged attacks are made stationary (assuming ranged also includes magic) he will kill you 6 times in a row, especially if you give him first strike each time.

Why do you think being stuck in melee combat is a death sentence for a ranged attacker?

Lets assume both characters are constantly in melee range.
What advantages does the greatsword user have over the longbow user?

1 vs 1 not much.

But in group combat (which PvP is supposed to be) melee feats like CLEAVE and WHIRLWIND with good feat synergy (reactive bleeding feats for example) can demolish large groups which even a "single shot kill" archer cannot achieve. In Alpha 7 with good armor and feats slotted I was able to whirlwind groups of basic low-levels like bandits far quicker than archers or wizards could drop them.

I would make several comments:

- the over-reaction to longbows seems mainly based on the fact that range killing required a lot less knowledge of the weapons, armor and feats so at a "noob" level it was a more effect weapon as you just took a bow and ran around.

- the over-reaction seemed mainly based on demolition of very very low level opposition like melee bandits.

- in D&D and pathfinder the various combat types have NEVER been balanced across the levels, Barbarians and fighters rule below level 5, the rogues and archers come into their own around 5 to 10 and from level 12 up various casters (druid, wizard, sorcerer etc) become insanely powerful. Yes individual well crafted characters break this pattern but as a rule it holds.

- the test situation was very artificial, players unfamiliar with the game, some unfamiliar with anything but offline solo theme-park adventure quest games (advantaging ranged attack) with minimal access to the gear needed to be a rogue or melee fighter (advantaging ranged attack) with an "alpha" very dumb AI that was easily tricked (advantaging ranged yet again).

Overall, longbows probably may need a mild re-balance but the ridiculous fuss about them has been insane.


Gaskon wrote:
celestialiar wrote:
Not only is opportunity super OP, but even when a wolf gets up on you, you can't do anything with a bow, you have to escape to get the ability to dps again. And I believe that's how it should be, btw. There's no reason to believe someone with a longbow could stand a chance, toe to toe, with a great sword user.

We don't have to just believe.. we can go on the alpha and test it.

I've stood toe to toe with an ogre and shot it to death with a longbow while it beat on me, but that was back in 7.1.

Wolves have a knockdown.. I wonder if it triggers on opportunity only. They have used it on me while I was wielding a sword, but I think I was moving at the time.

I haven't done as much PVP testing as I hoped to, but there don't seem to be any inherent drawbacks to using a longbow in melee range other than the opportunity issue.

aren't there melee skills that trigger effects moreso than archer? I would like to watch the test and comment on it, heh, but I am not specced for pvp at all. We would need to see two chars who are built for pvp. However, I do have a dwarf that is gaining exp... so maybe I could. But I'd need to look up what good skills were.

I feel like med armor gives archer bonuses, too.


Nihimon wrote:
sspitfire1 wrote:
... the correct grammar is "yall" - without the apostrophe.

As Decius sometimes says to me when I make similarly incorrect claims:

The world disagrees with you.

Very first words in the description:

"Y’all (/jɔːl/ yawl) (sometimes ya'll or yall)"

That doesn't sound quite so much like disagreement, but rather concession that I am right. Just maybe not all the time :)

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:
Just maybe not all the time :)

+1 :)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's worth seven minutes time from everyone who's read this far to watch what Extra Credits has to say regarding the general subject.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I think it's worth seven minutes time from everyone who's read this far to watch what Extra Credits has to say regarding the general subject.

I definitely enjoyed watching that, and feel like I learned something.

Do you think the Basic Attack Exploits count as FOO Strategies? If so, it seems like we are appropriate enticed to move beyond them fairly quickly.

Do you see other FOO Strategies that might not be as obvious?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think the Basic Exploits are probably either a design mistake or a very elegant way to provide new players something that they can contribute to a fight. Given that it appears that there is no way to upgrade those attacks to use more keywords, I'm leaning towards the belief that they are the way new players are intended to compete with older ones.

For that to be true, there would have to be some equipment/feat combination that was more effective than setting up and using the basic exploit, but required more skill and XP to implement.

I'll have to spend some time in the spreadsheets comparing all of the weapon attacks, with a special eye on how dual wielding permutates those options, before I can tell if the basic exploit is FOO or OP.

Grand Lodge

TBH I don't honestly think the difficulty curve of ANY enemies (Except maybe those shaman) are up to par with where they are supposed to be simply because of a few, as they say, FOO strategies that simply involve running around like a toddler playing tag with arrows.

The early exploits to me seem more like coaching tool to show us PCs that we should be looking for moments of opportunity, making our attacks when they should be best placed and to watch your enemies. Without a real way for enemies to threaten you unless 2+ of any given group stuns you back-to-back I think a LOT of the possible depth to the combat is lost, and I expect to see MANY more situational dependent Feats implemented, although I'm not a huge fan of having a unique special attack for every different situation that can pop up as it will only lead to Feat bloat, and will push players further towards only working to apply the conditional effects so they can Exploit them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's probably worth noting that neither the Basic Attacks nor the Basic Exploits apply any Effects.

Goblin Squad Member

Edam Neadeinl wrote:
- in D&D and pathfinder the various combat types have NEVER been balanced across the levels, Barbarians and fighters rule below level 5, the rogues and archers come into their own around 5 to 10 and from level 12 up various casters (druid, wizard, sorcerer etc) become insanely powerful. Yes individual well crafted characters break this pattern but as a rule it holds.

I always found level 1-4 rangers quite capable of keeping up with barbarians in terms of sheer destruction with the added advantage of having more skill/utility. Maybe the barbarians I've run with weren't that good though.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius the Afflicted wrote:
Edam Neadeinl wrote:
- in D&D and pathfinder the various combat types have NEVER been balanced across the levels, Barbarians and fighters rule below level 5, the rogues and archers come into their own around 5 to 10 and from level 12 up various casters (druid, wizard, sorcerer etc) become insanely powerful. Yes individual well crafted characters break this pattern but as a rule it holds.
I always found level 1-4 rangers quite capable of keeping up with barbarians in terms of sheer destruction with the added advantage of having more skill/utility. Maybe the barbarians I've run with weren't that good though.

True

But both would smack down a wizard at level 1 or 2.

Pretty likely to be the other way around by level 16.


DeciusBrutus wrote:
I think it's worth seven minutes time from everyone who's read this far to watch what Extra Credits has to say regarding the general subject.

Mind. Blown. Thank you, Decius. I'm not going to put any thought in to this, though. Look forward to seeing what you guys come up with. New thread???

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Not Hurting PvP to Address PvE Imbalances / PvE Solution To Ranged PvE Imbalance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.