Ranged Weapon in Melee - do we care here in CB2? (in General)

Todd March 14 2005 1:13 PM EST

I admit, I am trying the archer strategy. I'm trying to kill 3 minions in ranged. And I have acheived that with a few of my oponents, but I still lose because I have nothing to follow up in melee.

Back in CB1, the elbow was way overpowered. Jon put the penalty there to stop people from using only an elbow and decimating everyone. Ranged weapons only hit every other round in ranged, and if I am not sporting a melee weapon, my dex and str are severly reduced.

Q: Do we need this penalty here in CB2?

Points to consider:
1. Ranged damage formula changed in CB2
2. "5th" minions
3. CB2 Elbows not as powerful at the same NW as CB1 elbows(I'm guessing at this one)

QBJohnnywas March 14 2005 1:34 PM EST

The penalty is severe considering the CB1 ranged power and the CB2 equivalent. But how long before people have 'century' weapons (x100 for those who don't know what I'm talking about). Will they be reaching CB1 sort of levels? I've seen quite low level Elbows hitting for 50k+ per hit here. Admittedly not as high as some of the higher level CoC for instance but still high enough already. Pump some more money into the bow and what sort of damage are you talking about? I'm not sure if the penalty should be taken away.
What could be changed, given the 5 minion set ups is the chance to hit more in melee maybe as you do in ranged?

GnuUzir March 14 2005 1:37 PM EST

Here, Here

I agree, with range being what it is in CB2 such a massive reduction seems a little too much, I am not hoping for a "no penalty" situation, just maybe less of one =)

QBJohnnywas March 14 2005 1:42 PM EST

Alternatively Todd, you could train CoC on your archer. Give it a little time and that will be far more useful than a melee weapon!

LumpBot March 14 2005 1:43 PM EST

Those bows hitting for so much have more NW in them than almost any other weapon in CB2. That is the only reason they are dealing so much damage. I think that Ranged has been changed enough in CB2 so I favor Todd here.

[EG] Almuric March 14 2005 1:50 PM EST

I understand that total realism is unachievable, but you said it yourself during the opposite argument on CB1, Todd: If I'm in melee with someone with a bow, first thing I cut is the string on his bow, second I cut his head off. (Not an exact quote, but close, I think.)

Back when you had plenty of money, having two weapons didn't bother you. Now that the cost is somewhat prohibitive, you'd like to have it back the old way. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

NotSuitablForChildren [Yeeeaahh.................] March 14 2005 1:56 PM EST

The difference now Almuric is that Todd is talking about balance, and in CB1 that quote did balance things. In CB2 even a x100 weapon will not deal as much damage as some of the better DD spells. DD spells don't cost anything and x100 ELB's well ... you get my point. In all fairness of balance, I agree that some more power should be given to weapons of all types.

Todd March 14 2005 2:04 PM EST

Almuric: I am simply suggesting that the playing fields are no longer the same. Do we need this penalty? Taking into to account the points to consider, I'm suggesting we don't need it anymore. So what if I kill 3 minions in ranged (the best I could hope for).. I still have 2 more to contend with.

Also, the most important point: CB1 elbows > CB2 elbows

Arorrr March 14 2005 2:27 PM EST

Well, then why do we even bother with BL or a melee weapon at all? If one can kill 3 minion in ranges and march into melee shooting the same range weapons? Why can't you turn it into a 25 range round battle and not bother with melee? There must be a distinction between range and melee. Range weapons are superior in range and let the poor melee be superior in melee.

QBRanger March 14 2005 2:37 PM EST

something else to think about---COBF's. If you don't have one, not equipping a melee weapon is the only chance you have.

BrandonLP March 14 2005 2:47 PM EST

Why don't you just get a decent melee weapon? I think destroying 3 mins in ranged is a bit extreme.

NotSuitablForChildren [Yeeeaahh.................] March 14 2005 4:01 PM EST

If you add a melee weapon into the equation, then you have to spend twice as much as you would with just decent ranged. Let me remind you all that DD is free! Weapons should be favorable to magic since you had to spend all that money on them. Where is the incentive?

Becoming March 14 2005 4:08 PM EST

The incentive is that all DD's in the game can be neutered with one spell: AMF. Give me "Anti-Weapon Field" and then you'll have a solid point, NSFC. :)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 14 2005 7:28 PM EST

I think now melee physical damage is more like a trinity.

CBF>Melee (CBFs still do massive damage for low cost)
Melee>Ranged (Dex penalty and attack round penalty to ranged)
Ranged>CBF (Nuff said.)

Ranged may be now under powered to melee, but if you over balance that there really (baring VA, wihich if not got from two weapons can be easily countered by DM) is no reason to use Melee attacks.

If there is no penalty to ranged attacks during melee, where's the incentive to use a melee weapon when you get abused by CBFs...

The question should really be is the ranged penalty too much?

AdminShade March 14 2005 7:30 PM EST

also consider the idea of 25 rounds of which 'only' 3 ranged.

with a ranged weapon in melee and shooting every round you would still not need a melee weapon if the DX and + would be good enough to counter any penalties.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001FBJ">Ranged Weapon in Melee - do we care here in CB2?</a>