Jump to content

- - - - -

“The Need to be in Melee Range”

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#31 Trei


    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2933 posts
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 25 December 2012 - 06:23 PM

If that's a case, then there's a significant problem, because it means the only part of the Guardian that is intended to be effective is going 30 in Valor for either Altruistic Healing bunker, or Meditation bunker. It means we're designed to be fodder for ranged attackers if we do anything but dedicated tank. You can't make the weakness of the most melee-dependent Profession to be the inability to stay in melee range without the consent of your enemy.

I see the design leaning more towards defensive play, but it does not limit guardians to being just a heavy armored white elephant just because they can't stay upfront in melee.

We can safely assume that the profession is more than capable of holding its own in melee combat should it come to that, but could it be that attacking is not what you should be focusing on in the first place?

Despite the fact that most of the profession's attacks are heavily reliant on melee weapons, the guardian's strengths lay not in his melee combat prowess but in his tremendous arsenal of ally support abilities.

If you simply can't catch that pesky ranger that keeps managing to stay out of your melee range, perhaps you could be using all the multitude of boons you got to support your team mates that can.

Your allies are your ranged weapon.

This is not to say guardians should not try to spec in pure offensive melee, but one must understand that such specs likely mean he is specialising out of his profession's intended strengths.
You will have to take into account that the situations (or game settings), which these specs can be effective in, would invariably be more limited due precisely to this shortcoming.

But at the end of the day, this is still just my own inexperienced opinion.
If Anet decides to change things around for the profession regarding this, then I was probably wrong about it all.

Edited by Trei, 25 December 2012 - 06:41 PM.

  • 0

#32 ZCKS


    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1429 posts
  • Location:The ass end of nowhere... AKA Kansas
  • Guild Tag:[TG]
  • Server:Isle of Janthir

Posted 25 December 2012 - 09:41 PM


I fully understand & support the idea that the guardian should not have the same ranged potential of say a ranger or necro etc...

That being said a guardians ranged damage should be limited by how well it scales not by having a ranged attack that moves so damn slow that it misses half- the majority of the time.

That ^ is just bad design.

They should drastically improve the speed of the orb attack & modify the #2 on the scepter so that it is more viable for AOE.
Then they can reduce how well it scales enough to compensate for the fact it will be hitting more often.
  • 0

#33 Buran_Grey


    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:04 PM

I'm not versed in PvP, but in WvW I'm using basically the same set with gs/hammer than in PvE:

# Use greatsword 3 or Intervention to reach dogfight range.
# Swap to hammer which accidentally has sigil of hydromancy -chills or at least forces to spent counter measures-.
# Hit hammer 5, which means that even if the foe did break the chill will only get a knockback trying to run.
# Hit hammer 4 -if the foe is still chilled or down- and then hammer 2. If is unchilled and stand (able to dodge) then I use hammer 2 and then hammer 3-.
# If part 1 of the prior pint was succesful then I use hammer 3. In either circumstances after hammer 3 I use the first hits of the auto attack ant then swap to greatsword to use 2 or 3 + 2.

Works well in part due I don't use a AH build and because I enjoy small sized battles of zerg vs zerg in WvW, in wich the chaos of the front line gives you the chance to engage targets in close combat without much problem.
  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users