is close combat not intended?

i know there will be changes regarding the duelists starting area and regarding the damage output of skills (so likely meleeskills getting more damage).

the latter thing will only very slightly change the problem, that its almost impossible to play a true close-combat character in cruel Act 3 and merciless act2/act3 and beyond.
because its mainly (not only) a problem of getting killed in less than a second if attack range and positioning is like "whohoo im a strong warrior a can beat you face to face"

the duelists change wont change it enough also i think, because there are not melee witches or melee rangers nor there are close combat marauders (take aside distance-groundslam/lightningstrike-castin), which means the melee dilemma is not a problem of any starting area in the tree.

one could think that the marauder has a good starting area for playing melee.
good HP nodes, good damage nodes/mace-nodes (hello distanceslam again) the macenodes are by far best compared to sword/axe (positioned near RT and with good value (not tons of useless accuracy (you cant allow to gamble to much with lifeleech or stunlock as melee) like axes - btw i thought sword is the "accuracy thing"?!)
but in fact even if you play public groups (where normally the "obvious" playstyles (like marauder=barblike-melee) occur) 2/3 marauders are Fpulse, bow (mostly LA), or some "creative" casting thing like GMPfireball or LMP icespear.

and about swords, espacially 2H, ... the bonus feels/is useless if you have low accuracy, because its -% based, and its useless if you have high accuracy because of the strong dimishing return.

i know this is a softrelease, and probably it will always stay in that state, but that doesnt mean i cant talk about this inherent problem the game has with close combat.


maybe its simply unintended to play close combat. than thats the wrong game for me, and probably for a large amount of players, that prefer to play "warrior"-style characters in this kind of games. but i think thats not the case, since it was somehow really a lot better in CB.


1)
one source of the problem is the shared passive tree.
to a certain degree all "buffs" or "nerfs" in the tree regarding for example melee-designed class affect other classes.
the shared passive tree is some kind of a core future of the game. so abandon it is not a solution.
i dont know how to change this inherent problem effectively.
all passive nodes are available for everyone in theory.
so ok, you an say its all about positioning good "melee-heavy" nodes at the right places.
but the more you push an area by increascing the values here and there, the more it get attractive to any other kind of playstyle.

the only solution i see here - and i dont like it myself that much because i dont think it would help enough- is to introdcue strong mixed nodes, that couple offense and defense ability for close combat chars. they need to be slightly weaker than pure defense nodes to prevent abuse by "offscreen chars" and making them even more imbalanced.



2)
besides HP/ES there is no generel way to build up your char to be possible to facetank normal situations (in the sense of not-extraordinary-crazy) in act3cruel act2/3 merciless.
and even if you focus on HP its not really possible too.
koams heart should not be the pivotal element of balancing close combat.
you cant rely on armor, since its nearly 100% worthless against hard hitters - and there are a lot of hard hitters in this game. i have no problem with "counter"-design (things like physical immune, or elemental immune, ... apropos where is the "reduce armor" curse/gem?)
but if i have to skip complete areas like barracks because the standard monsters there hit so hard that the best desicion as melee is decoy totem and firetrapping combined with cool headless-chicken-circles... well thats not fun in any sense.
and you cant rely on evasion since... uhm ok sorry i dont start talking about it, i play hardcore, and as long as i dont see me entropy counter i will die sooner or later of gambling with getting hit or not, so i just skipped the idea of playing russian roulette.




3) the best defense in this game is attackrange
attackrange costs zero passive points, and works against almost every kind of damage. (besides arc or flicker to a certain degree).
i think its obvious that this halves the fun of the game ... there are plenty of people that love to play face to face chars.
the drawback for fighting offscreen or at save range is... well i dont know? who can tell me that? is there a drawback? shall there be a drawback?


4) and the second best defense in this game is a large amount of meatshields, ... sorry i mean party members
which results directly that the best way to play a close combat char is that you simply start leeching of your group.
maybe in 50 or 40 or 60 percent of the situation you stay (no better start running cirlces thats safer) and wait for a good moment to attack because behind the door is a spark-inferno going on or something else happens that makes it not a good idea to run right into the mob and play like a frenzy barb in d2 or like a dualwielder in titanquest (meeehh, i think that is SO much fun for a lot players (yea not only me) ... you have to stop treating this playsstyle as a niche)




and i have to say that endurance charges (besides that the balance vs armor is weird, since its the only flat amount of physical damage reduction available) are a good concept, at least in principle.
its not passive, and its somewhat coupled to playing close combat (at least via enduring cry)
this idea should be improved, and maybe it should be easier available.
i personally would remove the cast time but not the cooldown (enduring cry) and longer the duration or de-couple the flat %-reduction from charges and make them coupled to the use of close-combat attacks like heavy strike or dual strike etc...




all in all its a good game, and if i sound a little mad you should take it as a compliment because i care about the game. you made a good indygame here.

i just hope to see more hack and slash and less pewpew
this would probably also reduce global warming via GraphicCards!!11

sorry if its a little exhausting to read, because im no native speaker and i just wrote down how it occured to me.

Didn't read the whole post but I can already see your point after couple of sentences.
Yes you are right.
Yes they say they are "fixing" it.
Do they succeed ? Proly no. The fact that "range" chars do more dmg and that they can crit you much better is already broken.
Even if they "fix" it, the end-game is still boring as f***. No achievements system, no rewards, etc. There are only "maps" which for do not offer anything newer or better then normal grinding.

"

Demoniq a écrit :

Didn't read the whole post but I can already see your point after couple of sentences.
Yes you are right.
Yes they say they are "fixing" it.

well my point is, they dont fix it.
the think they fix something, but as seen in the announcement-thread, they heading for more Damage output and more AE.
but due to the nature melee, that is you are in close combat, you can not attack all monsters on the screen at once - if so you are not melee, call it philosphy or whatever. people that want to play melee normally want to smash someone in the face and not want to bank on tricky tricks and distance / positioning. this thought results in, that all this is no issue of damage-output by the player nor it can be a question of AE, as long as you dont want to create another caster-with-melee-weapon-3.0

"

Demoniq a écrit :

Do they succeed ? Proly no. The fact that "range" chars do more dmg and that they can crit you much better is already broken.
Even if they "fix" it, the end-game is still boring as f***. No achievements system, no rewards, etc. There are only "maps" which for do not offer anything newer or better then normal grinding.

well thats a whole other topic again, that could fill pages too.

to interpose a positive feedback to this :
big Chests.
they are rewarding. its luck to find one, but you normally know where to look for. they always give more XP due to the elites and so on. thats a good thing all in all

but i agree that the endgame must consists of more than maps. i would like to see bossfights in the normal world that give equivalent reward like endgame maps and need proper investment

from the (not final) patch notes

"

The Might notable passive has been changed to Master of the Arena (+20 strength, +2 melee range, +8% melee damage).

so i think my question is obviously answered. its not intendend to go closecombat. "melee range" word of the year.


the good thing in duelists tree is now, that you can take a passive-route that starts with life and dont waste points in inc.phys.dmg or attack speed, and therefore you can now buil Duelist-Pulsars or Duelist Casters in general and such things without wasting the startpoints for meleeDamage.

also LArrow with duelist will be more popular due to the attackspeed buffs.

all in all good changes for Duelist, but not for CloseCombat chars that aim to play HC maps-


but I really think now, that close combat is simply not part of the Game-Design.
Calling it melee and giving it "+Range" speaks a plain language.

im sick of groundslam and circlerunning-for-applyng-long-range-cleave and all this pseudeo melee shit GGG!

The very core of the game is to allow Maximized builds that takes the least risk.

Melee plays like weak ranged due to this.
Melee has to pick every defence known to them to survive.
Melee has to have godly gear to survive.
Melee takes the *shotgun* effect of spells/Projectiles to the face (GMP/LMP enemies hits with all projectiles).
Melee has to face tank with spamming enduring cry to get enough charges as armour is as good as useless without 9 endurance charges and enfeeble curse on enemies.

Why play melee then if it gets so many downsides and ranged get all the upsides.
Melee needs well working and functional changes to make it *viable*.
And not any *pseudo-melee* things like lighningstrike or groundslam or such non-melee *fixes*.

"

Khastro a écrit :

...the best defense in this game is attack range
attack range costs zero passive points, and works against almost every kind of damage. I think its obvious that this halves the fun of the game... there are plenty of people that love to play face to face chars.
The drawback for fighting offscreen or at safe range is... well I dont know? Is there a drawback? Shall there be a drawback?

No, there's no drawback at the moment to attacking at range, and that's the core reason for the imbalance between melee and ranged fighters. However, PoE already has a built-in solution that I think could be fine-tuned to restore the balance:

Impose Point Blank permanently on all ranged damage sources.

The Point Blank keystone boosts close-range projectile damage by 50%, and proportionally reduces the damage of long-range attacks. If all ranged damage worked this way, ranged fighters would face a tactical choice between safety and firepower. In solo boss fights, they'd have to move in closer to boost their DPS, and subject themselves to more of the hazards that melee fighters face.

To achieve even closer parity, I think a heavy-duty class of armor should be introduced that provides massive damage reduction with the drawback of seriously reduced attack and movement speed. This would impose minimal detriment on melee tanks, while crippling the mobility and attack-speed DPS potential of ranged fighters. Such heavy duty armor would be avoided by ranged players who like to dart in and out of battles, and that would limit their ability to survive at melee range. This would give tanks a more vital role in parties without restricting anyone's options in building their character.

If like 10% of elites and 100% of boss's adds have projectile dodging/reflecting aura the game would suddenly become fair for both ranged and melee. As in, all playing styles are fucked equally. Much easier to make then keep buffing melee.

"

RogueMage a écrit :

No, there's no drawback at the moment to attacking at range, and that's the core reason for the imbalance between melee and ranged fighters. However, PoE already has a built-in solution that I think could be fine-tuned to restore the balance:

Impose Point Blank permanently on all ranged damage sources.

The Point Blank keystone boosts close-range projectile damage by 50%, and proportionally reduces the damage of long-range attacks. If all ranged damage worked this way, ranged fighters would face a tactical choice between safety and firepower. In solo boss fights, they'd have to move in closer to boost their DPS, and subject themselves to more of the hazards that melee fighters face.

Point Blank is a play-style design, not so much a build design. Both builds would be generally the same, the PB one would just focus on getting closer to do more damage. That kinda defeats the point of ranged entirely but the point is that right now, it's optional to allow for different playstyles.

"

RogueMage a écrit :

To achieve even closer parity, I think a heavy-duty class of armor should be introduced that provides massive damage reduction with the drawback of seriously reduced attack and movement speed. This would impose minimal detriment on melee tanks, while crippling the mobility and attack-speed DPS potential of ranged fighters. Such heavy duty armor would be avoided by ranged players who like to dart in and out of battles, and that would limit their ability to survive at melee range. This would give tanks a more vital role in parties without restricting anyone's options in building their character.

Ugh...not really.
The point of armor/evasion is to add a bit of mitigation to the damage you do take, however, avoiding damage should always be your first priority since armor has diminishing returns and evasion is never a sure-fire method of avoiding damage.

I think the big problem is the semantics of "melee." I realize a lot of people who want to play melee don't use skills like Ground Slam or Lightning Strike because they both have ranged components, yet are displayed as melee. Simple fact of the matter is that complete "true melee" builds don't work in the game for several reasons. Any buffs to a play-style such as this would have greater effects elsewhere.

You're either nerfing ranged or making other ambiguous melee even stronger while, at the same time, making this play-style somewhat viable. Is that really worth it?

"

casval776 a écrit :

The point of armor/evasion is to add a bit of mitigation to the damage you do take, however, avoiding damage should always be your first priority since armor has diminishing returns and evasion is never a sure-fire method of avoiding damage.

Oh god, not casva and his shit again. Yes we already understand what you really want to say: "Melee characters should stay out of trouble just like ranged characters do". Stop plastering it on every god damned thread.

You just have to assume that melee is not intended in this game until maybe one day the devs say otherwise. In the meantime "+2 melee range" is pretty clearly showing they don't give a shit about melee from a design standpoint, see my signature..