Why are only melee punished by weapon specific skill gems?

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

It is obvious that bows can use most ranged attack skills because it's the only ranged weapon that is designed to be used soley for attack skills.

And therefore the same principle should apply to daggers, since they're a "hybrid" item serving dual purposes, right? Yet the set of melee skills available to claws is the same set as daggers, just as limited. Your balloon is deflating.

Yes it should apply to all weapons. But you are getting it backwards.

If i rephrase what I said above it might be clearer:

It is obvious that bows can use most ranged attack skills because it's the only ranged weapon that is designed to be used soley for attack skills:: It's logical to assume that most the ranged skills that exists have been designed for bows.

What you are seeing as the problem here is simply that the wider range of melee skills have been designed for the wider range melee weapons.


I think it's widely known that claws have too few skills availible to them, but more are comming. It's still beta after all.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

He COULD choose to not use bow. So when he chooses bow he chooses to not be able to use heavy strike and infernal blow just like someone who uses swords chooses to not be able to use ground slam.

When someone chooses sword, he expects to lose access to ranged skills, since a sword is not a melee weapon. I see no reason for him to expect to lose access to a handful of melee skills as well. That's the elephant in the room, by the way.

Arbitrary.
If someone chooses sword, he expects to lose access to BOW skills and skills like glacial hammer and ground slam.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Weapon restrictions are not mean to balance ranged VS melee any more than they are meant to bring on world peace and end hunger.

Then what are they meant for? What purpose do they serve? The cockles of whose hearts are warmed by their existence?

If you ask that question on page 15+ then it's obvious that you are not truly reading what anyone is saying. You have already made up your mind and no matter how many times you are contradicted and no matter what logical reasoning you are presented you still won't change it. You are so convinced that you are right that you become completely ignorant.
Your constant sarcasm and discarding of arguments is quite telling of that aswell.
You have your head too far up your own ass to see what is really going on.

"

Xaxyx написал:

How does Cyclone's enabling of every single melee weapon add a meaningful choice to choosing a melee weapon?

How does lots of skills restricions from many melee weapons not add meaningful choice to choosing a melee weapon?

"

Xaxyx написал:

From the perspective of realism? None whatsoever. Shoot arrows out of your ass if you want to. It's no different than now, where we can shoot Fireballs while wielding two-handed swords. Realism, shmealism.

When you get your first bow, Captain Realism, and pull the string, what happens? An arrow comes flying out! Where did the arrow come from? One can only imagine. Your quiver, you say? But you don't have a quiver. And just how many imaginary arrows does this imaginary quiver contain, anyway, that it never seems to run out? For a game about a guy who gets washed up on a beach, he sure is resourceful.

So according to your so called logic, then why should not every single skill be usable with every weapon?

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Why do you want to streamline everything?

I don't. I want the overall streamlining level to be even-keeled. Magic casters are streamlined. Bow users have it pretty easy. Melee gets the shaft a third of the time. This is the disparity that I challenge. You can fix it by streamlining melee, or by similarly screwing over archers and casters. Take your pick.

You can't fix it because nothing is broken. You say that melee gets shafted, but in the real world most melee weapons have access to more skills than bows.

Just try to view bows as just another weapon and you might just get your head around our point of view.

"

ZshadeZ написал:

"

Sickness написал:

So according to your so called logic...

Condescending, superior attitude so strong it shines in writing. You lose.

POT, KETTLE, BLACK

"

tramshed написал:

Thats a mace sir.

Not according to the manufacturer. But hey, what do they know?

They evidently dont know what a mace is! Regardless of that, some melee skills just dont make sense with some weapons. For example, using glacial hammer with a dagger. By your reasoning we should also be able to use bow skills with melee weapons. Keep in mind they dont have all the skills in game yet. Eventually each weapon type will have a nice loadout of various skills for it.

"

Sickness написал:

Yes it should apply to all weapons. But you are getting it backwards.

Can it be, the fabled middle ground? Let's find out!

"

It is obvious that bows can use most ranged attack skills because it's the only ranged weapon that is designed to be used soley for attack skills:

That does not seem obvious to me. If it were obvious, you'd be able to point out the key, driving principle that connects these two concepts. I see no such correlation. As far as I can discern, the number of skills available for use on a particular weapon was determined by the dartboard next to the men's room at GGG headquarters.

"

It's logical to assume that most the ranged skills that exists have been designed for bows.

That is logical, since bows can use most ranged skills, and wands can't use most ranged skills. Slowly I turn, inch by inch...

"

What you are seeing as the problem here is simply that the wider range of melee skills have been designed for the wider range melee weapons.

Except for claws, which, while being a "purely" melee weapon, are just as restricted as daggers, a "hybrid" weapon. Or scepters and maces. Or staff, which has *less* melee weapon restrictions than claws.

"

I think it's widely known that claws have too few skills availible to them, but more are comming. It's still beta after all.

I don't think anything's "widely known" about the current system, nor about the devs' future plans. Please feel free prove me wrong by citing specific references from the Developer's Diary, or any other direct dev source. None come to mind offhand, admittedly.

"

Xaxyx написал:

Arbitrary.
If someone chooses sword, he expects to lose access to BOW skills and skills like glacial hammer and ground slam.

Actually, I now believe that we're both wrong. A player who picks up a sword shouldn't "expect" a bloody thing. He has no place drawing such an expectation. This game was based on the devs' vision, which may or may not be based on reality, practicality, fantasy, random chaos, or what they had for breakfast the morning they drew up the sword skill list.

Now, given this, I'd still assert that a sword user might be *surprised* to discover that he's been forbidden from using certain melee skills. And that he might next try to discern the pattern, the reason, for being allowed some skills and denied others. It is only then, after discovering that there's *no meaningful pattern whatsoever*, that he might start to suspect that something's rotten in Denmark.

"

Xaxyx написал:

If you ask that question on page 15+ then it's obvious that you are not truly reading what anyone is saying.

Or it could be that I've been encountering, considering, and ultimately rejecting arguments put forth left and right, still utterly unconvinced of their merits. I am, however, somewhat impressed by your steadfastness. Somewhat.

"

You have already made up your mind and no matter how many times you are contradicted and no matter what logical reasoning you are presented you still won't change it. You are so convinced that you are right that you become completely ignorant.

Your heartfelt appeal has won me over. You've shown me the light. How can I ever thank you?

"

Your constant sarcasm and discarding of arguments is quite telling of that aswell.

I tried inconsistent sarcasm once, but it just didn't seem to have the same punch.

"

You have your head too far up your own ass to see what is really going on.

Wait -- is this all just a setup? Am I on TV? Where's the camera?!

"

"

Xaxyx написал:

How does Cyclone's enabling of every single melee weapon add a meaningful choice to choosing a melee weapon?

How does lots of skills restricions from many melee weapons not add meaningful choice to choosing a melee weapon?

How does ignoring my question provide "logical reasoning"? How does CYCLONE'S enabling of EVERY SINGLE MELEE WEAPON add a MEANINGFUL CHOICE to choosing a melee weapon?

If i pick sword, I get a bunch of skill options -- AND Cyclone. If I pick club, I get a bunch of skill options -- AND Cyclone. How does Cyclone being available to EVERY weapon enhance the "meaningful choice" schema you seem to stalwartly defend? How does CYCLONE'S enabling of EVERY SINGLE MELEE WEAPON add a MEANINGFUL CHOICE to choosing a melee weapon?

If I had, out of lucky coincidence or happenstance, picked Ground Slam as my main attack throughout my character's career, I MUST continue to use blunt weapons. If I want to use some nifty new sword I found -- I can't. Conversely, if by fate I had picked Cyclone as my main attack throughout my character's career, and I find that same sword, I can slap it on, instantly and immediately, without any issues whatsoever. How does CYCLONE'S enabling of EVERY SINGLE MELEE WEAPON add a MEANINGFUL CHOICE to choosing a melee weapon?

"

Xaxyx написал:

So according to your so called logic, then why should not every single skill be usable with every weapon?

You mean like magic casters have it now? Yes, that would be a viable model, insofar as that by corollary, all of the ridiculous cross-melee restrictions would dissolve. I feel it would be sufficient, however, to allow melee -- and ranged, while we're at it -- one huge step closer to how magic casters have it, by allowing all melee skills for all melee weapons, and all ranged skills for all ranged weapons.

The more I think about it, the more I approve of this message. I see nothing inherently horrifying in letting wand slingers spit out poison projectiles. I have no qualms, as is well established, in letting sword wielders Ground Slam. Rename the skills if it's gnawing away at your sense of realism or whatever you'd like to call it.

Interesting. It seems my opinion on this topic is evolving after all.

"

Xaxyx написал:

You can't fix it because nothing is broken. You say that melee gets shafted, but in the real world most melee weapons have access to more skills than bows.

Again with this mythical "real world" place? I don't believe it exists.

"

Just try to view bows as just another weapon and you might just get your head around our point of view.

Okay. Bows are just another weapon:

Bow: 1 ranged skill disallowed
Sword: 3 melee skills disallowed
Mace: 5 melee skills disallowed
Scepter: 5 melee skills disallowed
Dagger: 7 melee skills disallowed
Claw: 7 melee skills disallowed
Wand: 7 ranged skills disallowed

Nope, head still on straight. What else ya got?

"

tramshed написал:

They evidently dont know what a mace is!

Those poor confused manufacturers. And they even made sure to put "club" on the handle!

"

Regardless of that, some melee skills just dont make sense with some weapons. For example, using glacial hammer with a dagger.

Really? The "doesn't make sense" train again? Are tickets on discount this week or something?

"

By your reasoning we should also be able to use bow skills with melee weapons.

I'm not petitioning we go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to it, either. We can already cast Fireballs while wielding two-handed swords. Is global genericism really so much further down the rabbit hole?

"

Keep in mind they dont have all the skills in game yet. Eventually each weapon type will have a nice loadout of various skills for it.

Great, even more arbitrary melee weapon restrictions. I'm all aflutter with anticipation.

Its unfortunate you feel that way, but to put a cap on this thread, its incredibly unlikely the devs will go that way you are advising.
As for it being arbitrary, yes it is, and it is supposed to be. Your choice of weapon most certainly should be an important factor in your playstyle. If it wasnt, then everyone would eventually settle on whatever weapon gets the best dps on it.

"

tramshed написал:

Its unfortunate you feel that way, but to put a cap on this thread, its incredibly unlikely the devs will go that way you are advising.

I've played long odds before. Without showing my hand, let's just say that I'm VERY excitedly anticipating this next patch.

"

As for it being arbitrary, yes it is, and it is supposed to be. Your choice of weapon most certainly should be an important factor in your playstyle. If it wasnt, then everyone would eventually settle on whatever weapon gets the best dps on it.

That would be fine and all, if it were a consistent principle. My objection largely revolves around the fact that it is not consistent, not even remotely. Here, let me present what I believe to be the argument being largely put forth by others in defense of the status quo, and illustrate the point at which it dives off the cliff.

They defend the status quo first by observing -- correctly, I've no qualms in asserting -- that different weapons are suited for different purposes, and are thusly unsuited for other purposes. Caster weapons come with intrinsic and/or magical properties that enhance casting skills; and no other weapons do so. Thus, it's neither prudent nor necessary to bother to restrict these gems by disallowing other weapons, since no benefit will be gleaned from doing so anyway.

Ranged weapons come with no intrinsic properties that assist ranged attacks, but can -- and in the case of bows, will -- possess magical characteristics that assist ranged attacks. While noting this, we simultaneously observe that ranged attack gems largely restrict their allowable weapons to -- wait for it -- ranged weapons. And then we still yet further observe that of the two ranged weapons, one, the bow, is purely a ranged attack weapon; whereas the other, the wand, is a hybrid weapon. Consequently, we might presume that of the ranged attacks, most if not all should be allowable to the bow; and far fewer should be allowable to the wand, thus establishing a pattern -- a pattern of proportional viability, where each individual weapon type has a comparable -- not equal necessarily, but at least comparable -- pool of available options.

Similarly: straight melee weapons come with intrinsic and/or magical properties that assist with melee attacks. Hybrid melee weapons can come with either melee-favoring attributes or caster. Under these auspices, one might purport that hybrid melee weapons, much like wands, are inherently more versatile, insofar as that they provide utility toward both melee skills and caster skills. As a result, it would seem plausible to restrict hybrid melee weapons from using many melee skills, since they already have so many skill options available to them. Conversely, we would seek to broaden the horizons of straight melee gems. In this manner, we would achieve fair and balanced distribution of skill options among all weapon types, within all weapon classes. It needn't be perfect, of course; perfection is a silly aim. But so far as that principle -- the principle of proportionality -- is maintained, all is well in the world.

But it's not. Not even close. As we observe:

- The wand has all of two ranged attack skills available to it. As proportional viability goes, that's crap, particularly when compared to daggers, another hybrid weapon. Okay, fine; they may add more. But they haven't yet, and I take nothing for granted. Perhaps we could even chalk this all up to my own intransigence. Okay. I'll bite. Let's *drop* this point.

- Daggers and claws have the *exact same available skill list*. One is a hybrid weapon. The other is a pure melee weapon. Proportional viability fails.

- Scepters and one-handed hammers have the *exact same available skill list*. One is a hybrid weapon. The other is a pure melee weapon. Proportional viability fails.

- One-handed swords are forbidden from using three melee skills. One-handed axes are forbidden from using six melee skills -- three of which are the exact same ones as swords. No benefit, none whatsoever, is enjoyed by one-handed axes over one-handed swords; hell, axes don't even have an intrinsic attribute, as was kindly pointed out to me recently. This can hardly be defended within a schema of even distribution, fairness, or proportionality. Yes, I know, I know; new skills are coming out any day now. Yet here I sit, holding my breath.

And so forth. Thus I maintain that, rather than a careful, calculated process of dissemination of skills among weapons, instead I see a pattern of thoughtless, almost random incorporation of skills and their associated weapons into the game. If there were such a pattern, believe me you, I'd acknowledge it, illustrate it -- perhaps even critique it, as a whole focus unto itself. But try as I might to observe such a pattern, it continues to elude me.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

It is obvious that bows can use most ranged attack skills because it's the only ranged weapon that is designed to be used soley for attack skills:

That does not seem obvious to me. If it were obvious, you'd be able to point out the key, driving principle that connects these two concepts. I see no such correlation. As far as I can discern, the number of skills available for use on a particular weapon was determined by the dartboard next to the men's room at GGG headquarters.

It's not obvious to you since you are trying your damndest to defend your stance.

If you have two weapons, one that is desgned to be used only with weapon skills and one that is the spell casters primary weapon. GGG has limited dev time, so which of the two weapons do you think will have the most skills designed for it? It's obviously the first.
If you do not get this then you are being deliberately obtuse because you have no other way of defending your point.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

It's logical to assume that most the ranged skills that exists have been designed for bows.

That is logical, since bows can use most ranged skills, and wands can't use most ranged skills. Slowly I turn, inch by inch...

Bows can use most ranged skills just as a consequence of being the only ranged weapon that is fully focused on attack skills: The ranged skills that exists was designed for bows.

"

Xaxyx написал:

If you ask that question on page 15+ then it's obvious that you are not truly reading what anyone is saying.

"

Or it could be that I've been encountering, considering, and ultimately rejecting arguments put forth left and right, still utterly unconvinced of their merits. I am, however, somewhat impressed by your steadfastness. Somewhat.

Nope, not that. You don't answer questions, you twist answers and when you are shown wrong you give a snide remkark at best. What you are doing is pretty much trolling at this point, but you can't see it because in your eyes you are gods gift to mankind and can't be wrong about anything.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

"

Xaxyx написал:

How does Cyclone's enabling of every single melee weapon add a meaningful choice to choosing a melee weapon?

How does lots of skills restricions from many melee weapons not add meaningful choice to choosing a melee weapon?

How does ignoring my question provide "logical reasoning"? How does CYCLONE'S enabling of EVERY SINGLE MELEE WEAPON add a MEANINGFUL CHOICE to choosing a melee weapon?

Because it's a pointless question.
Here is the answer: It doesn't and it doesn't have to. It mixes things up when some skills function differently than others.

This game is all about setting it self apart from D3. Asking them to streamline one of the things that really do set them apart from D3 doesn't seem like the best idea.

In D3 the weapon type choice matters extremely little. It's not even a choice, only a calculation. If you were here a year ago you would know that people around here really hate that.

I ask again:
How does lots of skills restricions from many melee weapons not add meaningful choice to choosing a melee weapon?

"

Xaxyx написал:

If I had, out of lucky coincidence or happenstance, picked Ground Slam as my main attack throughout my character's career, I MUST continue to use blunt weapons. If I want to use some nifty new sword I found -- I can't.

If I had, out of lucky coincidence or happenstance, picked Ice Shot as my main attack throughout my character's career, I MUST continue to use bows. If I want to use some nifty new sword I found -- I can't.

"

Xaxyx написал:

Conversely, if by fate I had picked Cyclone as my main attack throughout my character's career, and I find that same sword, I can slap it on, instantly and immediately, without any issues whatsoever.

Ah, variety. It's lovely isn't it?

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

So according to your so called logic, then why should not every single skill be usable with every weapon?

You mean like magic casters have it now? Yes, that would be a viable model, insofar as that by corollary, all of the ridiculous cross-melee restrictions would dissolve. I feel it would be sufficient, however, to allow melee -- and ranged, while we're at it -- one huge step closer to how magic casters have it, by allowing all melee skills for all melee weapons, and all ranged skills for all ranged weapons.

Removing choice just to make it more fair for non casters seems stupid. There are a billion other ways of balancing it.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

You can't fix it because nothing is broken. You say that melee gets shafted, but in the real world most melee weapons have access to more skills than bows.

Again with this mythical "real world" place? I don't believe it exists.

The number of skills the different weapons can use (just straight from the wiki, so the melee numbers numbers might be slightly lower than they should be because of old info):
1h Axe: 12
2h axe: 13
1h Sword: 14
2h swords: 12
1h maces: 12
2h maces: 11
Staff: 12
Daggers: 12
Claws:12
Bow: 10


Yeah, poor melee! So restricted.

"

Xaxyx написал:

"

Just try to view bows as just another weapon and you might just get your head around our point of view.

Okay. Bows are just another weapon:

Bow: 1 ranged skill disallowed
Sword: 3 melee skills disallowed
Mace: 5 melee skills disallowed
Scepter: 5 melee skills disallowed
Dagger: 7 melee skills disallowed
Claw: 7 melee skills disallowed
Wand: 7 ranged skills disallowed

Nope, head still on straight. What else ya got?

There is your arbitrary categorization again. How many ranged skills that are disallowed is not a fundamental issue.
Objectively skills are skills. You can choose to categorize them like that to make it look a certain way, but at the end of the day all melee weapons can use more skills than bows, and THAT is what actually matters.
I have explained over and over again that the reason why so few ranged skills are disallowed for bows is because it's the only weapon that is both ranged and is intended to be strictly used with attack skills.

If your list looked any other way that would be weird because then the melee weapons would have access to far more skills than bows, how is that more fair?