Rifleman Archive
Thread: Melee defense after Patch 7
Hey Klaw, I noticed this since patch 7 and wanted your thoughts on it.
Patch 7 fixed the chance to hit bug so we are easier to hit by melee while holding a rifle. I've noticed that high end monsters don't miss me anymore while holding a rifle, which I think is good. My question is do we still need the +50 to melee defense? I don't think we would notice a diference if it was gone.
Since melee has an increased chance to hit us +50 melee isn't going to help at all, and most creatures will hit us all the time unless we counterattack or dodge. The only people this seems to help are defense stacking templates. I just don't think it is right to have a rifleman mod that helps every profession except riflemen. If you were looking for things to "give" in the give and take relationship you are trying to establish with the devs, I personaly think melee should be the first to go. What do you think?
No to what? I asked more than one question. Did you mean no we don't need the melee defense or no we can't afford to lose it?
Geddeo wrote:
Hey Klaw, I noticed this since patch 7 and wanted your thoughts on it.
Patch 7 fixed the chance to hit bug so we are easier to hit by melee while holding a rifle. I've noticed that high end monsters don't miss me anymore while holding a rifle, which I think is good. My question is do we still need the +50 to melee defense? I don't think we would notice a diference if it was gone.
Since melee has an increased chance to hit us +50 melee isn't going to help at all, and most creatures will hit us all the time unless we counterattack or dodge. The only people this seems to help are defense stacking templates. I just don't think it is right to have a rifleman mod that helps every profession except riflemen. If you were looking for things to "give" in the give and take relationship you are trying to establish with the devs, I personaly think melee should be the first to go. What do you think?
First, we do not get +50 melee, it is +40, butI mention this just for sake of accuracy, not a criticism.
But regarless of that, here is something I think you are missing. + to Melee or + to Ranged defenses are balances to + to accuracy and + to hit bonuses against you. Those things add together to determine whether or not you are hit. So the question you have to ask is, should someone with Rifles 1 in Marksman or even a Novice Rifleman be just as easy to hit by melee as a Master Rifleman? The answer should be, no; a Master Rifleman should fare better against melee than a Novice Rifleman and even better than a Marksman with Rifles 1. Thus, it is completely appropriate that we get a melee defense to somewhat mitigate, but not negate, the To-Hit bonus against us.
Also, every combat profession has a+ to Ranged and + to Melee defenses. For instance, as a Master Swordsman/Master Brawler, I get +20 to ranged defenses. That stacks with my Rifleman defenses. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for my Rifle melee defense to stack with my Swordsman melee defenses. In fact, it would be unfair for a Pistoleer/Fencer to be able to stack their melee and ranged defenses if my Rifleman/Swordsman/Brawler melee and ranged defenses did not stack.
the new "to hit bonus" of melee vs a rifle HOLDER far negates the + melee defense mod we get.
therefore, the only people our +40 melee defense is helping is the Master Rifle who Uses Another Profession.
i think his point is this-- remove or reduce the melee defense we get, and you won't notice a big effect if you use a rifle primarily-- because a) high level creatures hit us all the time anyway with the new bonus and b.) low level creatures get blown away before they do any damage. and, we can use the removal/reduction as a bargaining chip to avoid a more damaging nerf.
that's how i read his argument, and i happen to agree with him.
).. but yeah you have an excellent point. Riflemen get creamed at melee range anyways, so there's no harm in giving it up. It'd be the perfect sacrificial virgin to offerthe next time the nerf dragon comes along..I prefer removing it, since rifles have the best melee defence already-Our optimum range is 50m-65m away from our target
We really don't need the melee defence modifyer.
So I'm for A) Removing it, or B) Making it the lowest melee defence modifyer of the 3 elite professions.
BlasterForHire wrote:
fundamentally, however his point is dead on target.
the new "to hit bonus" of melee vs a rifle HOLDER far negates the + melee defense mod we get.
therefore, the only people our +40 melee defense is helping is the Master Rifle who Uses Another Profession.
i think his point is this-- remove or reduce the melee defense we get, and you won't notice a big effect if you use a rifle primarily-- because a) high level creatures hit us all the time anyway with the new bonus and b.) low level creatures get blown away before they do any damage. and, we can use the removal/reduction as a bargaining chip to avoid a more damaging nerf.
that's how i read his argument, and i happen to agree with him.
I fully understand his argument, I just cannot disagree more. It wouldnot accomplish anything,and it would,in the end, be devistating andunfair.
The argument sounds good on the surface as a painless way to stop the nerf cries, but it is highly inconsistent. The bottom line is that the nerf cries will not stop unless people can kill us more often and/orwe can kill them less often. And the basis of this argument is that neither would happen. We would just give up a useless stat. But the truth is, we could have completely blank stats, and if we are killing them, they are going to call for nerfs. So, if giving up that stat does nothing to hurt us as that argument says, giving it up will do nothing to help us either. Heck, if we are going to give up useless stats, then let's push for the removal of the +80 to Cover 
. But the truth is, unless we get killed more or we kill them less, the vast herds of nerf will continue to wander our lands.
PyscoJuggalo wrote:
I prefer removing it, since rifles have the best melee defence already-Our optimum range is 50m-65m away from our target
We really don't need the melee defence modifyer.
So I'm for A) Removing it, or B) Making it the lowest melee defence modifyer of the 3 elite professions.
One last thing as well. People are suggesting that we should not get any benefit from having a +40 melee defense when using other weapons. Every other profession build gets that benefit. Why shouldn't we?
Look, where can we go as Riflemen to improve our Rifle skills? We can take Master Marksman, and that is it. And the sad thing is that there is little I can get for Riflesfrom Master Marksman (other than /Aim, /SuppresionFire, etc.) that I cannot from Skill Tapes. ButPistoleers and Carbineers can improve their skills by also getting Master Marksman and/or by going up the appropriate BH trees or going Smuggler in the case of Pistols.
That leavesuslittle combat related choices as a Master Rifleman except to pursue unrelated professions to makeus more effective. So I chose to go Master Brawler/Master Swordsman to make up for my melee weaknesses. Even so, doing so takes me from +40 melee defense (virtually negated by the To-Hit bonus against meif I am using my Rifle), +72 ranged defense, and +80 Block as a Master Rifleman alonetoonly+67 melee (all usable when using 2H Weapons), +96 to ranged defense, and +80 block (only for Rifle or Polearms) and +110 to Counterattack (only useful with 2H Weapons).
Yet a Master Pistoleer can go from +50 melee defense (higher than ours even without the To-Hit bonus against us), +7 ranged defense, and +105 Dodge to a Master Pistoleer/Master Fencer/Master Brawler with +131 melee defense (capped at +125), +81 Ranged Defense (higher than Master Rifleman alone), and +210 to Dodge (capped at +125).
That means that build gets a capped Dodge that is higher than my CounterAttack or Block (nearly twice my highest if it was not capped) and almost as high a ranged defense. But even worse, even capped, it has nearly twice my build's melee defense, and taking away what I get from Rifleman would make it more than 4.6 times my melee defense, even when it is capped.
No, there is no justification for removing this defensive modifier. It completely nerfs us if we try to balance out our weaknesses, and gimps us terribly against builds that do not have the To-Hit Bonus against them.
Believe me, I realize that the melee defense does come in handy. I'm a TKM as well as a Master Rifleman and the +40 melee helps out a lot when I'm unarmed. While I like the extra D I get, I still don't think it is right. Can you honestly say as a master swordsman that you think a rifleman should have as much if not more Melee defense than you? (I've never checked out swordsman mods, but from your math it looks like the master swordsman gets 27 melee)? I think we as riflemen and women stack too well with the melee professions at the moment.
The way I see it should be is that if a rifleman wants to negate some of his or her melee vulnerabilities we can take a melee profession, but in taking and mastering that profession we should not be on the same level as a melee build.
The other problem is that I see us as damage dealers. With that should come some major defensive holes, and the devs are trying to give us those holes with the chance to hit mod in the last patch. It seems their goal is to make us weak against melee. With the +40 melee defense it is far too easy to plug that hole by simply switching to a sword or knuckles when the enemy gets close. Without the +40 to melee we would still be able to pick up melee profession and do the same thing, but we would be at a disadvantage to a straight melee or pistol melee build.
As for the pistols getting more defense mods, I think the pistols should have higher defenses as they give up some of the damage dealing ability. I know all of this is going to be fixed in the combat balance, but I don't know how far along they are with that balance. The devs won't read this but our corespondent might, and he has more influence over the dev team than we do. I just want to get him as much info from the rifleman community as possible on what we need and don't need so we don't get gimped in the combat balance. I have one view, Sotaudi has another and I'm sure there are other out there. Its up to Klaw to decide what is best for riflemen and what to fight for and what to consider acceptable casualties.
Message Edited by Geddeo on 04-06-2004 10:32 AM
Sotaudi wrote:
One last thing as well. People are suggesting that we should not get any benefit from having a +40 melee defense when using other weapons. Every other profession build gets that benefit. Why shouldn't we?
Look, where can we go as Riflemen to improve our Rifle skills? We can take Master Marksman, and that is it. And the sad thing is that there is little I can get for Riflesfrom Master Marksman (other than /Aim, /SuppresionFire, etc.) that I cannot from Skill Tapes. ButPistoleers and Carbineers can improve their skills by also getting Master Marksman and/or by going up the appropriate BH trees or going Smuggler in the case of Pistols.
That leavesuslittle combat related choices as a Master Rifleman except to pursue unrelated professions to makeus more effective. So I chose to go Master Brawler/Master Swordsman to make up for my melee weaknesses. Even so, doing so takes me from +40 melee defense (virtually negated by the To-Hit bonus against meif I am using my Rifle), +72 ranged defense, and +80 Block as a Master Rifleman alonetoonly+67 melee (all usable when using 2H Weapons), +96 to ranged defense, and +80 block (only for Rifle or Polearms) and +110 to Counterattack (only useful with 2H Weapons).
Yet a Master Pistoleer can go from +50 melee defense (higher than ours even without the To-Hit bonus against us), +7 ranged defense, and +105 Dodge to a Master Pistoleer/Master Fencer/Master Brawler with +131 melee defense (capped at +125), +81 Ranged Defense (higher than Master Rifleman alone), and +210 to Dodge (capped at +125).
That means that build gets a capped Dodge that is higher than my CounterAttack or Block (nearly twice my highest if it was not capped) and almost as high a ranged defense. But even worse, even capped, it has nearly twice my build's melee defense, and taking away what I get from Rifleman would make it more than 4.6 times my melee defense, even when it is capped.
No, there is no justification for removing this defensive modifier. It completely nerfs us if we try to balance out our weaknesses, and gimps us terribly against builds that do not have the To-Hit Bonus against them.
The problem as I see it Sotaudi, is the +40 melee defense does no good to a rifleman. If you are holding a rifle, you will be hit by melee, regardless of your melee defense. Even if you have the cap of +125 I found that it makes very little difference. So the only time that this +40 to melee defense comes into any use is if you are using a weapon other than a rifle. So what is the point of putting it in the rifleman tree if it is of no use to a rifleman?
I understand that yes, pistol and carbine can stack their defenses and offenses, but for them, since they don't get the to-hit modifier, they can actually use these defenses while holding a pistol/carbine, so it makes sense for them. It also makes sense for a pistol user to have melee defense, they are "supposed" to be fighting up close. A rifleman should not be fighting up close.
I disagree that removing this defense would nerf rifleman, a rifleman holding a rifle will not notice any difference of whether they have +40 or +5 melee defense. The only thing it would nerf is someone using rifleman's defenses in another profession.
