Is melee growing squishier than ranged?

Arenas
Not sure if it's just me, but I'm noticing that thus far melee DPSes are exceptionally squishy on comparison to other DPSes. Thus far the only melee that's not squishy are warriors, although with the nerfs to defensive stance, and the rework of their rage management, that may not last for long. Otherwise, Paladins, Death Knights, Rogues, Monks and Enhencement Shamans seem to die relatively quickly. The only melee DPSes that can hold their own, aside from warriors in 5.1, seem to be Feral Druids. But now with the comming nerfs to 5.2, both warriors and feral druids will be easier to kill.

On the other hand, Casters and ranged DPSes have much more viable in terms of self-sustainment.

Is ranged really growing at advantage in terms of survivability compared to melee? Or has it always been that way?
The biggest problem is most of them barely cast anymore, and when they do they can do it while moving. There's nearly no advantage to being a melee dps anymore. Back in the day we had the armor, plate had more hp compared to cloth and casters had to actually stop and hard cast spells to deal damage.
At least this tweet gives the game some hope.
https://twitter.com/Ghostcrawler/status/300329009902940160
If only he could just patch that in tomorrow.
Rbgs speak wonders about the current state of the game. If you're not a tank the only melee they even consider is a frost dk with the 3 grips.
Squishy is a difficult term... In short, no, you're pretty wrong. Melee will always be able to absorb more hits than a ranged, other than warlock, for good reason [No real way to kite melee, fear is pretty lousy for 1v1 situations]. Therefore, ranged is substantially more squishy. The way we survive are our CDs and kiting capabilities. Think about how many time a mage has to hit anyone outside of a shatter to do damage, and then think about a melee class. You make it sound like if a ranged didn't kite / use defensive CDs they would still be more tanky than melee, which is obviously untrue because mages and hunters die in two and a half hits from warriors / ret pally wings / shadowdance & shadowblades rogues.

If what you're asking is 'Do ranged have more survivability than melee?' then yes. But in what war did foot soldiers outlive archers?
O.O ele shamans are definately squishier than paladins, rogues, monks (which are incredibly tanky if played right.) and wars. They are about even with dks maybe a little bit less.
Did you really just use ranged vs melee IRL to justify ranged having better survivability in a video game?
My brain, it hurts.
02/09/2013 06:57 PMPosted by Yohso
But in what war did foot soldiers outlive archers?


Troy, I believe.
02/09/2013 07:26 PMPosted by Karlenna
But in what war did foot soldiers outlive archers?


Troy, I believe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FA7ogKm3Py8#t=43s

Sweet, by this logic i should be able to block all ranged abilities by whippin my shield out. Make it happen blizz.
02/09/2013 07:26 PMPosted by Karlenna
But in what war did foot soldiers outlive archers?


Troy, I believe.


Bahah. Okay, well.........

That's one battle... Still. You get the point.
No.
Did you really just use ranged vs melee IRL to justify ranged having better survivability in a video game?
My brain, it hurts.


Explain how the concept is different. Archers keep distance from combat. Archers = Casters and Hunters. Soldiers are the front-line to protect the Archers. Soldiers = Melee DPS. It's their collective job to get to the castle behind the opposing forces. Let's call this castle 'the healer'. It's generally best to either destroy or slip past both the 'soldiers' and the 'archers' to get 'the healer'. I think its safe to say if you had some giant brute of a warrior with a two handed sword with malicious intent walking toward 'your castle', you'd probably want to go ahead and try to stop it.

Now of course, this isn't all real life, and 'your castle' CAN easily fall while you still have soldiers and archers, and yes, the archers CAN still attack 'your castle' and cause significant damage, but hey. What's an easier target, a warrior hitting on your priest behind your lines or a destruction warlock behind their 9 other players? For ranged there's little difference, but melee are always going to go after what they can hit. [BG perspective]
Squishy is a difficult term... In short, no, you're pretty wrong. Melee will always be able to absorb more hits than a ranged, other than warlock, for good reason [No real way to kite melee, fear is pretty lousy for 1v1 situations]. Therefore, ranged is substantially more squishy. The way we survive are our CDs and kiting capabilities. Think about how many time a mage has to hit anyone outside of a shatter to do damage, and then think about a melee class. You make it sound like if a ranged didn't kite / use defensive CDs they would still be more tanky than melee, which is obviously untrue because mages and hunters die in two and a half hits from warriors / ret pally wings / shadowdance & shadowblades rogues.

If what you're asking is 'Do ranged have more survivability than melee?' then yes. But in what war did foot soldiers outlive archers?


Ghostcrawler?
Melee seems squishier because melee vs melee uptime is basicaly 100%.

Ranged vs melee means there wil be kiting involved, meaning there is a percentage of time that melee is not hiting the ranged class, yet the ranged class is still dealing damage because of instant casts.

If melee had complete uptime on ranged, guarantee you ranged would feel 10000% more squishier.
All the plate wearing melee will be some of the best train targets in 5.2. This game is a mess.

Ghostcrawler?

No :[

Ghostcrawler?

No :[


The concept is different because its a damn video game. The infantry and the archers weren't paying the damn king 15 gold coins a month for some hope of class balance.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum