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?
02/09/2013 07:26 PMPosted by KarlennaBut in what war did foot soldiers outlive archers?
Troy, I believe.
Did you really just use ranged vs melee IRL to justify ranged having better survivability in a video game?
My brain, it hurts.
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?
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.