I am under no burden of proof here. You are the one advocating for change (and drastic one at that), so it lies with you to prove that something is a certain way. You don’t like “the ranged meta”. Fair enough. But don’t try to sell your opinion as fact by pointing at a single value and saying it is objective proof.
But I play: How exactly does pointing out to comparing light attack damage prove or disprove anything? Again, by the same logic, one handed sword is inherently worse than 2h axe because light attack damage is lower.
This is an argument about something we both have little control over you are just attacking my argument with nothing of substance while I attacked yours:
With a considerable amount and gave you easy access to it to respond with something meaningful.
As the whole thing here has the main purpose to be seen and read by Fatshark.
Well noone really is but you claimed something in the op of this topic.
I do not sell my opinion as fact that’s why I show the whole thing. Sure I gave it quite the touch while responding to you. 
I did not point to a single value that’s an average (combining everything) to give you a rough idea and because I’m lazy I did not do it with everything. You can do that by your self by looking at the sheet.
Wow what comparison of a whooping 1 weapons to 1 weapons instead of all melee to all ammo based ranged.
(yes the balance of melee to melee and ranged to ranged is important as well)
2 Likes
Your argument lacks basic inherent logic and is therefore easy to attack. You still need to explain how comparing these two values proves or disproves anything. Again, by the same logic, Footknight is the best because he has highest health and dual daggers are horrible weapons because their light attack damage is low. Isolating values and comparing them in the clinical confines of a table accomplishes nothing and says very little about how certain weapons and playstyles actually have an impact on how the game is played.
I claimed that this is my impression, yes. And also, I was under the impression we were not arguing about ranged carreers using ranged weapons as their main staple. I was under the impression you agreed on that and we only argued about what that constitutes.
Other than that, I think my claim is quite reasonable, considering ranged carreers have low health, no real defensive options and most have only very littlte ability to boost their melee. It is only fair to assume that anything that cuts into their greatest strengths will severely hamper their usage. Of course, that’s just a prognosis. But it is something that anyone can get a very simple impression on by disabling ammo regen abilities on ranged carreers and playing a couple of rounds with that setup.
I think the problem is, more or less, not capable of being solved in a way that resolves in “the ranged meta” being “balanced”. The way they settled for everything, it is kinda like the discussion about temp health. I think too many changes would have to be made in order to achieve very little improvement.
You don’t seem to be able to read statistics or understand the reasoning behind other peoples conclusions from them. There is nothing I could explain to you here in time as this would need lecturing and I don’t think I would be the person you would listen to.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter what value you are pointing at, comparing average light attack damages between ranged and melee still doesn’t say anything about how effective ranged or melee is. You are saying that average melee light attack damage being lower than average ranged light attack damage proves that ranged is inherently better. But you yet have to explain how that is so. It wasn’t me that declared light attack damage as the indicator for weapon quality. If it is, then it is fair to assume that any weapon having low light attack damage is inherently worse than one with high light attack damage. If you say that this is so on average, then any comparison between two weapons that constitute the average should be held to that test successfully. Otherwise, the statistic is completely meaningless for any individual evalutation.
You are still dodging the question: How does average light attack damage indicate melee weapons being worse than ranged? It’s easy to claim that I simply don’t understand statistics or people’s reasoning if you don’t let me in on your reasoning. Explain it, please.
In this particular aspect that I followed with:
Leaving you to see the rest yourself
So if:
They can bodyshot all trash more effectively than melee and from range can they not? Sure a handgun won’t be that good at it but still it’s completely safe you can always take out your melee if you need to.
Now we could argue that melee careers have an edge over ranged careers in melee but I am in the opinion that the ranged careers with defacto unlimited ammo have a far greater edge over melee careers in ranged than the other way around.
If you compare melee and ranged directly, ranged wins by a large margin.
This is not pulled out of my ass it’s supported by the sheet. The sheet is steadfast evidence as it is not subjective.
2 Likes
So you are still not letting me in on your reasoning and simply say “see for yourself”. Fair enough, I guess. I am not a mind reader, though, so I can’t know what you mean with “leaving me to see the rest for myself”. The rest of what?
Again putting your subjective view as fact.
You compared light attack damage. That is what you picked out as your argument. Again, I am not a mind reader and cannot know what else you want to take into consideration.
The sheet provides numbers. It says nothing about how viable a weapon is and how effectively it can distribute its damage or its dps. Your evidence does not support your claims as it is simply just confined to a sheet and numbers. For example, look at how many weapons are capable of dealing with super armour effectively. The sheet doesn’t put things into perspective and crunching numbers is kinda pointless.
That depends on the specific weapon, which was my point to begin with and a counter to your argument that pointed at average damage. You can’t compare dual daggers to a handgun or a handgun to a bow. Besides, look at the amount of ranged weapons that can deal body shot damage to super armour. Suddenly the list gets shorter, doesn’t it?
Your evidence is simply none. You are trying to sell your subjective views as fact by blindly pointing at numbers that are hardly comparable. You gotta make up your mind if the average is an indicator towards your argument or if it is not. Now you are reverting yourself towards taking individual weapons, which again, proves my point.
See, now we are getting somewhere. That’s your opinion. My opinion is that the “ranged meta” is grossly overexaggerated, as I am constantly outperforming any ranged carreer with my melee setups. I do not share your sentiments. But I am not trying to sell that as undisputable fact by pointing at a sheet and numbers.
Or, to be a bit more specific:
These numbers are also steadfast evidence, I suppose?
You simply don’t want to listen. It’s in your hands alone.
It actually provides much more and numbers are really good to compare things unlike good, bad, I feel like, etc.
You might be joking here but given that you think that numbers are worthless and subjective seems to be your way, it’s unlikely.
Yes these numbers are most certainly steadfast evidence (given the institute that acquired them is trustworthy, something the dmg sheet does not have to prove as you can simply test it) and a correlation exists but they are not dependent on each other. The correlation is with the improvement of “living standards”/prosperity for both of them (usually) that is a result of etc. … I’m not going to explain how to healthy country.
During this whole conversation with you I only answered your questions and corrected misrepresentations of me. Unfortunately I was not confronted with anything major I didn’t already consider myself in the first conclusion nor was anything else brought up supported by anything of substance.
What has been asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
2 Likes
Then you know the reason why your assertments are worthless. The rest is in your hands alone. Seems like you really don’t want to listen.
If we are done throwing around meaningless blabber, you are shifting goalposts and dodging giving definitive answers yet again. The one thing you pointed out, being light attack damage, says nothing. With the rest, it’s “you gotta see for yourself”. Fair enough, again, but that’s not the way to have a productive discussion. Either you fill me in on what you are getting at and we can have some kind of productive discussion, or your keep pointing at elusive numbers that might or might not reflect something. Both is fine, but again, don’t try and lecture me on something you strictly refuse to give me insight on.
Which is objectively not true. You keep and keep dodging ungraspable bromide like the stuff I quoted you on. That’s not an answer, that’s evasion. At the end, you already admitted that it’s just your and my opinion we are arguing about. But again, it’s pointless to say “look at those numbers” and then when I ask what part I am supposed to look at, I get “you don’t want to listen, it’s on your hands, see for youself”. I have to put stress on the fact that I am not a mind reader.
You think these numbers reflect an objectively graspable superiority of ranged weapons. I don’t think that they do because they ignore alot of meta-aspects as well as completely ignoring that certain indicators carry different weight in said meta, e.g. the ability to deal with armour and especially super-armour, how wieldy a weapon is, how easy it is to reach breakpoints, how well they interact with ranged weapons and how their attack chains perform. One of the reasons dual daggers are so incredibly powerful is the fact that their heavy attacks strike at very advantageous angles to hit the head reliably. Same holds true for dual axes. Likewise, one-handed swords is a swift weapon with good dodging, stamina and satisfactory damage, but suffers from a very quirky attack chain that makes it rahter peculiar to use against anything that isn’t infantry. Therefor, I entertain that just crunching numbers accomplishes nothing but creating a warped and twisted image of how the game is actually played or layed out.
To clarify: I am the one that meme’d about this being a melee-focused game for months when nothing could be further from the truth. We are getting there, but there are so many things in this game being deliberately designed to just be managable with ranged weapons that it is more than questionable that this is a melee focused game. I am aware of the issues with that. But trying to completely gut ranged carreers with a hatchet is something I am against for a multitude of reasons I have already explained. I do think there are more sensible solutions than that to find reasonable middle ground. However, I don’t think that this can be accomplished by just looking at the raw numbers, but rather a more individual look at certain aspects, how certain mechanics interact, how certain melee weapons and carreers perform, etc.
P.S.:
On the contrary. You very much ARE, both as creator of this thread and arguing side.
You purposefully misread every post, or claim the correlation isn’t there.
He just showed you massive evidence of his claim.
If you choose to omit or simply ignore spreadsheets and statistics what’s your idea of evidence then?
Obviously you can. In terms of efficiency at their designated function.
2 Likes
What statistics?
It won’t become true no matter how often one were to repeat it. My initial post containts suggestions. Those need no proof as they are entirely subjective. My point that scrounger working (ignoring the repeater pistol) working as intended is the state of the game as it is. I don’t want to change that. If someone wants to change that, they need to prove that this would be an improvement and why that would be. You fail to grasp that simple logic. I am not the one trying to advocate massive changes because of a supposed “ranged meta”. Thus, I am under no obligation do provide any argument towards things staying as they are.
Simply not true and entirely argumentative. No point in raising this issue other than personal attack.
Don’t really know what you are getting at with that. Care to elaborate?
Again, it won’t become massive evidence just because someone claims it to be. The argument was, by and large: “Compare average light attack damage to see that ranged is superior.” I questioned that this was a valid comparison to make as simply comparing numbers ignores very important factors of certain weapons, which I have elaborated on. My whole argument is that there is simply no hard evidence beyond personal preferance and anecdotes. If you have any kind of objective proof, please provide it! I am more than happy to change my mind based on solid facts. But pointing at numbers and then not even telling me what I am supposed to do with that and hiding behind empty bromide statements won’t get us anywhere, and this applies to you too.
You can, obviously. You can make a comparison and find that one is a ranged weapon and one is a melee weapon. That one has a very slow rate of fire and one is very fast. That one deals high damage to (more or less) single targets and one deals either very little damage with very swift attacks or potentially very high damage with attacks that are a bit slower.
But okay, I play: Please do elaborate about dual daggers and handgun and their efficiency at their designated function and how that comparison has any say in… well, anything, really.
I kinda get the vibe that you started beating this dead horse (since the argument was kinda over, at least it was for me. We all made our points clear, it didn’t seem like we can come to an agreement, we have to agree to disagree, end of story) solely because you foster some kind of animosity towards me (not the first time I get that impression). Fine by me, we don’t have to be bffs, but I see little point in just jumping into a long over discussion just to take sides and not add anything of value other than “He is right, you are not!” without even giving any kind of sensible input (and, apparently, without even reading what I wrote). Doesn’t seem like the most productive things to do.
Or you could just make it a flat two ammo on crit, not taking into account any pierce.
I’d take this as a first step before trying to tailor it to every weapon/subclass.
Was this a change? I thought the volleys on both BH and Shade rolled for the crit of all three shots on fire.
1 Like
Just tested it again in the keep, with Shade’s volley xbow, it is not the whole volley that crits. Most of the time all bolts crit, but this is probably due to the fact that the game seems to operate with crits in a window and the xbow firing so fast it puts all three bolts into that window. So most of the time they all crit, but sometimes only the 2nd and 3rd or only the 3rd crit.
1 Like
Ahh, gotcha. Then, in practice, usually every shot in the volley crits. I imagine they almost always all crit with BH volley since they fire at exactly the same time.
I’ve always used single shots with volley weapons into hordes to fish for crits because of this – more ammo efficient.
I think Salty’s volley xbow is an “all or nothing” affair since it fires all bolts at the same time as a single action.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.