Guild Wars & ranger combat - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Tahlia Tane

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2006

W/

07 Aug 2009 at 12:47 - 1

What I loved most about GW the first time I played was the ranger combat. It was exceptional. It was basically the first time a MMO-style game had done ranger combat right, in my opinion. So many other games have done it so poorly (shoot... awkward pause... shoot... awkward pause). Playing as a ranger made me feel like Robin Hood and Legolas put together.

My love of ranged combat grew still after I found out that range and damage increases if you take the higher ground. That's just so awesome. But there does seem to be a problem here. In the game, this little fact is rarely exploited. On occasion, I would see a fellow party member (ranger) actively take the higher ground, and that's great to see. But looking at the formation of some mobs I have encountered, it's quite clear this aspect of combat has not been put to use, fully. For example, I would come across a bunch of dwarf mobs, and I never see the ranger dwarves take the higher ground. Instead opting to simply stay back a little while the warrior dwarves take my party head-on. It seems obvious that they at least try to stand on a hill or ridge of some sort, and show some tactical prowess while going on the offensive (and, as me and my fellow party members would rip into those dirty-damned dwarves, subsequently go on the defensive).

It is true, and a pity, that Guild Wars does not fully and completely nail the aspect of ranged combat (or, at least, the aspect which is most fun), yet it has all things considered done a marvelous job. There are no games that do a better job, very simply put. It makes me even more hopeful of Guild Wars 2.

Pikey

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Nov 2006

United Kingdom

Mo/

07 Aug 2009 at 12:52 - 2

have you also noticed that you can dodge arrows unlike other games where they seem to have heat-seeking lock-on arrows :P

Tahlia Tane

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2006

W/

07 Aug 2009 at 13:07 - 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pikey

have you also noticed that you can dodge arrows unlike other games where they seem to have heat-seeking lock-on arrows :P

Absolutely! It's awesome when you're the one doing the dodging, but terrible if you're the one shooting those arrows.

The element of speed of the arrow becomes important because of this. Slow-moving projects can be dodged by side-stepping. 'Called Shot', for example, is a lightning fast arrow that can't be dodged easily.

Ichabod The Ranger

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Sep 2005

USA (EST)

DaP

Mo/

07 Aug 2009 at 13:14 - 4

I also like how the game increases your range depending on your type of bow, and also how it calculates the difference in elevation.

Dronte

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Sep 2006

07 Aug 2009 at 13:15 - 5

I have to agree that GW got ranger combat almost perfectly. Really fun to play ^^

Bug John

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Aug 2005

07 Aug 2009 at 13:19 - 6

Ranger is one of my favorite classes in GW, not just for marksmanship, but for the whole concept.

I tried playing a ranger in other games, but it's really nothing like GW.

englitdaudelin

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jul 2006

East Coast

Soldier's Union [SU]

N/Me

07 Aug 2009 at 13:32 - 7

Different refire rates for bows, too, which you must trade off for range or flight of the arrow. I love the speed of the half-moon, but that requires getting nearly into melee range--which isn't so bad in NM--while flatbows allow the same refire rate at long distance, but create an easily dodged flight.

The "obstructed" mechanic gets a little annoying sometimes, when you can't arc arrows over things, or when a bridge ALLEGEDLY blocks the arrows. But all in all, great fun.

subarucar

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jul 2006

New Zealand

None

07 Aug 2009 at 13:34 - 8

Bows are a very well done mechanic, the only thing I dislike is they have no strings.
In terms of you comment earlier about the enemies not taking higher ground, this is AI we are talking about here, they will either miserably at it. If you have seen the way AI reacts with AoE damage over the years, (Its pretty dodgy), you will realise that attempting to include this in-game could cause all kinds of AI issues.

Arduin

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: May 2005

The Netherlands

Limburgse Jagers [LJ]

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 13:50 - 9

Anyone knows how much bonus damage gets added when you are on an elevated position? Any calculations? Never really bothered to test it

EDIT: Wow, LESS damage against targets above you?! Never knew that. Thanks, Tenebrae.

Tenebrae

Forge Runner

Join Date: Feb 2007

Spain

LHV

R/N

07 Aug 2009 at 13:54 - 10

Projectile weapons inflict more damage against foes at lower elevation and less damage against foes at higher elevation.

* Testing has yielded attacks that can do up to 200% of the listed maximum damage (not including modifiers)
* Critical hits are not affected by elevation. If the elevation bonus is higher than a critical can achieve that value is used instead.

Tahlia Tane

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2006

W/

07 Aug 2009 at 14:15 - 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by subarucar

Bows are a very well done mechanic, the only thing I dislike is they have no strings.
In terms of you comment earlier about the enemies not taking higher ground, this is AI we are talking about here, they will either miserably at it. If you have seen the way AI reacts with AoE damage over the years, (Its pretty dodgy), you will realise that attempting to include this in-game could cause all kinds of AI issues.

It's AI, but something at least should be done about enemy placement. When foes patrol, you can't change much. But if there are some stationary foes, at some sort of an enemy outpost, rangers should take the higher ground at some sort of a ledge not too far away. I think it's like that in a particular mission @ Tyria, but that's an exception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by englitdaudelin

The "obstructed" mechanic gets a little annoying sometimes, when you can't arc arrows over things, or when a bridge ALLEGEDLY blocks the arrows. But all in all, great fun.

I think that has more to do with the fact that you can't see the enemy from the character's perspective, while you can from your third-person point of view. You can't shoot arrows at a foe you can't see.

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 14:15 - 12

hmm, well GW has certainly made bows easyer to use than most other games, but basically it is probably more wrong than most other game implementations.

Fire rate is way too high, should be more like 5 seconds.
Range is way too low
Accuracy at range is too high
Damage is way way too low, these things were one-shot lethal, in GW they are pathetic pew pew.
Bows in close combat? er just no.

Mix the ease and usability of GW with some of the realism of DAoC and you would be pretty close, though still not right.

GW is a game, they made the archery work as a game don't even think it comes close to real archery, or being "right" because it doesn't.

Faer

La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo

Join Date: Feb 2006

07 Aug 2009 at 14:17 - 13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahlia Tane

I never see the ranger dwarves take the higher ground

This is because the Guild Wars NPC AI is rather lacking and, in many cases, terrible.

YunSooJin

Pyromaniac

Join Date: Aug 2005

Mo/W

07 Aug 2009 at 14:19 - 14

Yeah well warrior's aren't supposed to be able to swing their weapons for hours at a time, and I'm pretty sure people don't fire magical purple spells, or heal them by waving their wands, or call meteors that coalesce from the middle of the air..

I'd say GW did rangers just fine.

Tahlia Tane

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2006

W/

07 Aug 2009 at 14:25 - 15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

hmm, well GW has certainly made bows easyer to use than most other games, but basically it is probably more wrong than most other game implementations.

Fire rate is way too high, should be more like 5 seconds.
Range is way too low
Accuracy at range is too high
Damage is way way too low, these things were one-shot lethal, in GW they are pathetic pew pew.
Bows in close combat? er just no.

Mix the ease and usability of GW with some of the realism of DAoC and you would be pretty close, though still not right.

GW is a game, they made the archery work as a game don't even think it comes close to real archery, or being "right" because it doesn't.

So what? It's missing the point. There are so many things that aren't realistic. There's a difference between realism that is nice and realism that is just plain old dumb boring realism. It makes the world more believable and better if something is realistic, but it isn't any good if that goes at the cost of gameplay. Sword gameplay is similarly unrealistic, but still awesome. You may not have seen two people going at it in medieval times, swinging and hitting each other dozens of times with their swords and walk away. But it's the only way for a game to be enjoyable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theocrat

This is because the Guild Wars NPC AI is rather lacking and, in many cases, terrible.

People always complain about bad AI no matter the game, but in this case it's not such a difficult thing to do. I'm talking about formation and enemy position, and for the game to emphasize how height is important. I mean, 200% is even more damage than I thought.

BenjZee

Forge Runner

Join Date: Dec 2006

The Overacheivers [Club]

Mo/

07 Aug 2009 at 14:52 - 16

HAPPY TOPIC! makes me quit this awful deep groups and loads up ranger for barrage fun...oo pet buff yesterday

Arduin

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: May 2005

The Netherlands

Limburgse Jagers [LJ]

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 14:57 - 17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahlia Tane

I think that has more to do with the fact that you can't see the enemy from the character's perspective, while you can from your third-person point of view. You can't shoot arrows at a foe you can't see.

Yet an Elementalist can blast enemies with Searing Flames, even if they are behind a wall. How does the magic gets targeted, is it homing in on the energy of the foe?

To be effective with your bow as a Ranger, you need to keep moving. This make sense when you are stupidly firing at a wall, but it gets annoying indeed when there is a clear line of sight between you and your enemy, and your Distracting Shot gets blocked by some invisible bridge or something.

Targren

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2007

Primeval Warlords[wuw]

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 15:10 - 18

I agree with the other guys who think the biggest problem is the screw "obstructed" mechanic that was apparently programmed by an ostrich.

"His foot is behind a rock! He can't be seen!"

Tahlia Tane

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2006

W/

07 Aug 2009 at 15:25 - 19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Yet an Elementalist can blast enemies with Searing Flames, even if they are behind a wall. How does the magic gets targeted, is it homing in on the energy of the foe?

To be effective with your bow as a Ranger, you need to keep moving. This make sense when you are stupidly firing at a wall, but it gets annoying indeed when there is a clear line of sight between you and your enemy, and your Distracting Shot gets blocked by some invisible bridge or something.

I don't think such problems are systematic though. I've played a lot of ranger, and never really experienced great difficulties. You seem to be describing bugs, nothing structural.

Although I do agree with another poster that it doesn't make any sense that an elementalist doesn't need to see his enemy unlike the ranger to cast his or her spells on a foe. Maybe elementalists locate their enemies using bat-like sonar?

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 17:10 - 20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahlia Tane

So what? It's missing the point.

No, I was replying directly to your point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahlia Tane

It was basically the first time a MMO-style game had done ranger combat right

It would also help if you bothered reading what I put before replying basically what I said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

GW is a game, they made the archery work as a game

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahlia Tane

I don't think such problems are systematic though. I've played a lot of ranger, and never really experienced great difficulties. You seem to be describing bugs, nothing structural.

Then you haven't played ranger enough, try shooting at something on a bridge, something stood right in front of you. Same often applies to shooting down off an edge or cliff.

Tahlia Tane

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Oct 2006

W/

07 Aug 2009 at 17:21 - 21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

No, I was replying directly to your point...

I was obviously saying that the combat was done right from a gameplay perspective. It's fun and awesome, that's all that matters. The only realism that is necessary is that the arrow flies in a curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

It would also help if you bothered reading what I put before replying basically what I said

You also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

but basically it is probably more wrong than most other game implementations.

Which seems contradictory to me. GW does it right as as game but does it more wrong than most other game implementations? I'd like to know what those other games are. I'm pretty sure GW is the best game that does it right, purely from a gameplay perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Then you haven't played ranger enough [...]

I've played ranger quite a bit, thank you very much. The problems you're describing would suggest a completely broken mechanic, and that's not the case. Things don't always work perfectly, so I don't see what the problem is. In fact, I've never heard anyone complain about ranger combat in-game. This forum just happens to be full of whiners. The only place I'd hear more squealing is on an animal farm.

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 17:48 - 22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahlia Tane

This forum just happens to be full of whiners. The only place I'd hear more squealing is on an animal farm.

Lest we descend to that level then, lets raise the civility levels.

I thought you were stating that the mechanics of bows were correct in GW. I was stating that the mechanics are wrong, more so than in other games. But I also acknowledge that for gameplay, GW works well, we agree on that.

Bow fire on bridges IS a broken mechanic, I am suprised that you never noticed that before, its certainly nothing new and has been well discussed for years. Its even often abused in PvP where there are a number of places where it is impossible for a ranger to shoot a player.

Dronte

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Sep 2006

07 Aug 2009 at 20:53 - 23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Lest we descend to that level then, lets raise the civility levels.

I thought you were stating that the mechanics of bows were correct in GW. I was stating that the mechanics are wrong, more so than in other games. But I also acknowledge that for gameplay, GW works well, we agree on that.

Bow fire on bridges IS a broken mechanic, I am suprised that you never noticed that before, its certainly nothing new and has been well discussed for years. Its even often abused in PvP where there are a number of places where it is impossible for a ranger to shoot a player.

Its not impossible, you need good positioning to hit the target, usually under the bridge or something. Its still broken though.

HawkofStorms

Hall Hero

Join Date: Aug 2005

E/

07 Aug 2009 at 21:11 - 24

All MMOs have problems with pathing and field of vision. The glitches on bridges in GW is no worse then in many other MMOs when it comes to this regard.

Anyway, rangers are quite fun. The ONLY thing that could make them better is to have the ability to attack while moving (which a few MMOs have for archers, Warhammer Shadow Hunters and Squid Herders for instance). Although that would be tricky for the game's balancing.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 21:13 - 25

the mongolian chivalry in their prime could fire an arrow every second, while riding full gallop, and be able to hit a moving target consistently. how fast an archer can shoot depends on the bow and the skill of the archer himself. as such, the 2-2.7 seconds firing rate in GW is entirely possible and reasonable.

also, keep in mind that GW combat is first and foremost about balance. obviously, 1 shot kills shouldn't be allowed.

and btw, rangers CAN attack while moving. quarterstepping yeye.

Sarevok Thordin

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

Scotland

W/N

07 Aug 2009 at 22:34 - 26

Rangers are fine except for their stances, so much anti-melee on a class that is stereotypically weak to them.

Escape being the worst, why do they call it escape when you can just STAND THERE AND ATTACK?

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 22:36 - 27

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the mongolian chivalry in their prime could fire an arrow every second.

Source please?

Certainly the longbow had a max fire rate of about on in every five seconds but this was rarely used (too much effort and you run out of arrows). Probably more like once every 10 seconds was more realistic.

Ugh

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jun 2009

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 22:51 - 28

Why does every topic on GWG turn into an argument? T_T

OP:
"I like how ranged combat was implemented into this game. It would be cool if the AI was improved to take full advantage of the details that players do."

GWG:
*Bicker, whine, point out bugs, complain, argue*

Anyways...

I'm also a fan of ranger combat and improved AI would be awesome. It would also be nice if rangers/paragons would change positions in response to obstructions. Now they just hopelessly fire/throw/spit stuff at a wall. Any advancements for AI in GW2 are welcomed by me.

MisterB

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Oct 2005

Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy

[ban]

W/

07 Aug 2009 at 23:07 - 29

Seeking Arrows should make your arrows unblockable, unable to miss, and able to fly around, over, or under any obstacle and home in on your target at double velocity in my opinion. It would also solve that annoying "obstructed" bug on stairs and bridges. I think it would be a fun skill with no negative balance concerns because it ends if you fail to hit.

I enjoy playing my Ranger in Guild Wars. ANet did a fine job of implementing the class.

edit: First paragraph was sarcasm. Obvious contradiction is intentional. Just poking fun at the comparisons to reality in this thread by taking the name of a skill literally, and then making it absurd.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 23:23 - 30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Source please?

Certainly the longbow had a max fire rate of about on in every five seconds but this was rarely used (too much effort and you run out of arrows). Probably more like once every 10 seconds was more realistic.

the Mongolians didn't use longbows.

http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm

according to this article, Mongolian archers could hit a target at 350 yards easily, whereas the English longbow has a max range of 250 yards. although it didn't mention as to how fast these archers could shoot, it isn't hard to imagine them using only a fraction of their bows' draw length to shoot rapidly in semi close quarters. their accuracy, range, and penetrating power likely went down the shitter, but you don't need those in the range where rapid shooting is required.

Grunntar

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Apr 2005

07 Aug 2009 at 23:24 - 31

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

Seeking Arrows should make your arrows unblockable, unable to miss... a fun skill with no negative balance concerns because it ends if you fail to hit.

Umm, I kinda see a flaw in that logic... If your arrows are unblockable and unable to miss, how will you ever miss?

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 23:27 - 32

meaning, the target won't be able to strafe it, or hide behind objects to force obstruction.

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Aug 2009 at 23:37 - 33

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the Mongolians didn't use longbows.

Indeed, but I mention them for two reasons, one, they are in GW, and two, longbows are generally thoguht to have the advantage on rate of fire (GW says no).

The composites of the mongolians does indeed have the advantage of range (GW says no) reportedly even up to 500m! But I see no evidence for a shot a second, you just wouldn't have the strength for that, pull weights of over 150lbs are pretty demanding, let alone aiming the thing.

This is all a bit academic now as I don't think anyone is claiming that GW's implementation of bows is particularly realistic, but rather that it is playable feature.

Joiry

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Apr 2005

W/Me

08 Aug 2009 at 00:00 - 34

Well, just from an aesthetics point of view, I can't stand the female ranger "gangsta" firing style. I agree ultra-realism in a game is bad, but not only do I think it looks silly, but its totally impractical. I've done archery for a few years, and shooting horizontal limits your draw length and doesn't allow you to aim using the string and arrow tip.

Mechanics tho are pretty good. I wouldn't necessarily agree with how each bow is implemented, but the fact different bows have different shooting mechanics is still neat.

Coney

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Aug 2008

08 Aug 2009 at 02:33 - 35

At least traps and nature rituals are now killer!!! <ducks>

Shadowspawn X

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Jun 2005

Fellowship of Champions

R/E

08 Aug 2009 at 03:55 - 36

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

Mongolian archers could hit a target at 350 yards easily, whereas the English longbow has a max range of 250 yards. although it didn't mention as to how fast these archers could shoot, it isn't hard to imagine them using only a fraction of their bows' draw length to shoot rapidly in semi close quarters. their accuracy, range, and penetrating power likely went down the shitter, but you don't need those in the range where rapid shooting is required.

Mongolian soldiers of the 11th century, where required to carry two separate bows, one for short range and one for long range. They also carried two quivers with a total of sixty arrows. The first quiver was full of regular arrows while the second consisted of utility arrows(armor penetrating, incendiary arrows,and whistling arrows for signaling).

Kharmin

Academy Page

Join Date: Jul 2009

Far Shiverpeaks

Clan Quarren [QRRN]

R/

08 Aug 2009 at 13:19 - 37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coney

At least traps and nature rituals are now killer!!! <ducks>

Thanks. Made me spew my corn flakes all over the keyboard this morning.

Curseman

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2007

09 Aug 2009 at 04:10 - 38

I just wish that archery was a viable source of pressure damage.

Sarevok Thordin

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

Scotland

W/N

09 Aug 2009 at 06:07 - 39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curseman

I just wish that archery was a viable source of pressure damage.

If debilitating and interrupts don't put pressure on someone I dunno what does :/

wilebill

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Dec 2005

Mt Vernon, Ohio

Band of the Hawk

W/Mo

10 Aug 2009 at 21:15 - 40

Yes, the ranger combat is very well done in GW. /sign

Except I wish it had automatic switch to melee weapon when combat becomes point blank like my Hunter in WoW.

Other than that, which one I think is more fun is clear, because I am over here most of the time.