Brawler Archive

Hello all,

There has been quite a bit of discussion about melee vs ranged combat for perhaps good reason. I wanted to start this post off with a summary of what SOE appears to have intended, and I would argue has failed, to implement regarding melee vs. ranged conflicts;

"The simple fact that you can hit your target from a distance gives ranged combat a significant advantage over melee combat. Also, when fleeing an enemy with a ranged weapon, you can continue to attack. However, those characters using ranged weapons are extremely vulnerable to melee attacks. A character with a vibroaxe will quickly incapacitate a character with a blaster rifle, if he is able to get close. In general, those who use ranged weapons will need to avoid getting too close to enemies wielding melee weapons."
- pg 99, user manual

Looking at it from the summary provided as the obvious intention of SOE regarding melee vs. ranged combatants, a melee combatant should consider themselves doomed UNLESS they are able to come within a reasonable melee range of the enemy. If they can manage to close that range and the enemy continues to use a ranged weapon, the ranged combatant should consider themselves doomed.

Herein lies the problem at the heart of it. A ranged user that has been closed to within melee range can easily escape, in most circumstances, and once again create a no win situation for the melee combatant. As I see it, combat betweenmelee and ranged combatants should have these "guides" for which SOE should implement further methods to uphold these stated guidelines:

1) If a ranged combatant and a melee combatant are outside of melee range, it should be very difficult for the melee combatant to close the range without suffering greivious injury or incapacitation.

2) If a ranged combatant and a melee combatant are inside of melee range, it should be very difficult for the ranged combatant to widen the range without suffering greivious injury or incapacitation.

It's that simple and would resolve much of the dispute that appears to be going on at this point. At range, a melee combatant shouldbe forced toengage with a ranged weapon if they hope to stand a chance. On the reverse side, a ranged combant in melee rangedshould be forced to engage with melee combat (UA or weapon) if they hope to stand a chance. This would lead to the following tactical concerns that SHOULD be considered the standard;

1) A melee combatant could switch to ranged when necessary and, despite suffering the ranged penalties involved with running and standing erect, could more easily move into melee distance than without the use of ranged weapons.

2) A ranged combatant could switch to melee when necessary and would be more capable of moving out of melee range than if they were using a ranged weapon in point blank or melee range.

To effect these, there should be substantial bonuses applied for ranged combatants who are attacking a non-ranged enemy from a non-melee range. This would appropriately reflect the fact that they could fire at the enemy without having to defend themselves from return fire (i.e., ducking, swaggering, etc.) Additionally, it would be more difficult for the non-ranged combatant to move up without suffering for it due to their inability to affect the ranged enemy.

On the reverse, once a melee combatant has moved into melee range of a ranged equipped enemy, the ranged enemy would suffer a substantial penalty to their defense and suffer increased damage from an opponent. This would appropriately reflect the difficulty of using a ranged weapon while being pressed from close quarters by a melee equipped (UA'd or otherwise) opponent. Additionally, if a ranged opponent attempts to move out of melee range from an melee enemy, the melee enemy should recieve a free attack that should result in a stance/posture change. This would appropriately reflect the difficulty of losing a melee attacker who is directly upon the opponent.

=========================

In the end, I think that the modifiers in place for both ranged and melee combat should be increased to substantial effect and be modified based on the range/melee tactic of the opponent. While there are bonuses in effect for being in various stances at either ranged or melee distance, none of these takes into effect the tactic of the opponent (i.e., armed with ranged weapon in close quarters, armed with melee in range, etc). Modifiers should be put into place to effect these tactical considerations or the existing ones should be modified to further reflect these needed changes.

Having said all this, I think that my suggestion is both among the most fair and balanced of suggestions offered (though I can't claim I'm the first to have said as much, perhaps someone else has already said the same). Furthermore, I feel that most would agree that the above suggested guidelines are akin to the intentions of SOE. I will note that while I have provided guidelines that should represent the standard I have tried to refrain from suggesting a specific implementations when possible, as that should be the discretion of SOE to carry out within their best percieved sense as relates to the needed balancing at hand.

In all, the melee vs. ranged issue does need to be addressed and have an implementation that will create an understandable environment for the combatants to operate within. In effect, a combatant who wishes to remain solely melee or solely ranged should, at many points, find themselves at a distinct disadvantage on the battlefield. In other cases, larger conflicts that consist primarily of one sort or the other (i.e., a large scale faction conflict) that is focused, naturally, on ranged combat, should create a significant disadvantage for those who are melee specific.

I will also remark that SOE's intention is made all the clearer in that many of the combat focused professions require, at a minimum, one full tree branch within both the brawler and marksman trees (typically UA if nothing else). This is to further reveal SOE's intention that a marksman only or melee only player is at a disadvantage without some skill in both the brawler and marksman lines. Elite professions beyond these two trees are merely further enhancements of those skills and often require some of both to attain in the first place.

Thanks for your time and attention