Why do ranged light/heavy attacks do less damage than melee in this game?

kalunte · January 2023

This is a true question.

Considering the entire game combat design, synergies, buffs, stacks and so on, if you put aside the first trials that are jokes now but wasnt in the early days very few will remember (because... you know, those who know grew old..). those trials would justify that statement but where cleaned using stack-strats anyway.
needless to talk about pvp where being able to range fight efficiently is simply impossible because of flags, unlimited gapclosers and cc immunity.

writing this is just recalled where i was and how things have been done since one tamriel. forgive me for wasting your time hoping some would turn their brains on considering an entire combat design instead of infinite tweaks.

Tannus15 · January 2023

i too like asking a "true question" and ending with "sorry i forgot you're all idiots".

Vevvev · January 2023

Because ranged has less risk and can engage first while melee has more risk due to proximity to their targets but rewarded for that risk with more damage.

Risk vs Reward, and hitting someone with a melee weapon typically deals more damage to a foe than a projectile in a fantasy/medieval setting when we're talking about man portable weapons. Siege break the mold obviously.

AdamLAD · January 2023

Laughes at stealth and ranged snipers that hit ridiculously hard. Yeah..... It's definitely high risk there

Vevvev · January 2023

AdamLAD wrote: »

Laughes at stealth and ranged snipers that hit ridiculously hard. Yeah..... It's definitely high risk there

Re-read my post lol. I said that was very low risk, and the ranged ganking options have gotten heavily nerfed over the years. Also they're more easily dodged once you see them coming.

kalunte · February 2023

didnt know snipe was a light attack -_-

and again, go to any vtrial and go at range, and then tell me where the risk is.

you'll be surprise.

as for pvp, yeah, flags, LoS, it's well know that melee is so risky that all ballgroups are full of ranged light attackers and that's why they are so efficient xD

AndreNoir · February 2023

Vevvev wrote: »

Because ranged has less risk

If only less risk to survive or kill anyone. Because all melee weapons comes with some sort of gapclosers and executes while ranged can be considered only as bow since destro suck in every way. Also from the game history we know that there is the only class that able to fight ranged succesefuly - it's a sorc with overloaded escape

Sahidom · February 2023

This probably made sense in 2014 where melee weapons had higher stat values than ranged weapons. However, now the risk v. reward to continue separating the two weapon values this late in the game development is pitifully reasoning. And, with the stat benefiting caps on LA/HA attack damage should encourage ESO to reconsider and align both weapon types to be equals.

Sealish · February 2023

Because a "Ranged Damage Tax" has been an MMO (and probably other game types too) combat design philosophy staple for pretty much as long as the genera has existed.

It makes sense from a broad overview perspective:

Melee characters need to stay in melee to deal damage while ranged characters can always do damage therefore ranged characters have a higher overall damage uptime.
Melee characters are at more risk since most basic attacks from enemies are melee ranged.
A melee character who needs to disengage to avoid a damaging mechanic will loose damage while a ranged character generally will not or will loose less.
If ranged and melee characters are both as effective at doing damage as eachother, no one will play melee characters since ranged characters have better mobility, more uptime, and are in less danger. Melee would just be worse.

Of course this completely ignores a lot of other mitigating factors:

Melee characters generally have more HP and higher Armor values so they take less damage when hit.
Enemy hitboxes may be large enough to still hit them with melee attacks while avoiding mechanics.
Melee characters usually have abilities that let the engage very quickly so they don't loose damage.
Other game/build/encounter specific mechanics...

So even though from a quick glance, it seems like Melee characters should do more damage to balance out the advantages of ranged... that isn't always the case since a lot of the time those advantages are mitigated or made up for in other ways. But some game designers still insist on implementing a "Ranged Damage Tax" because of those broad overall preconceptions.

So there you go. That's why ranged light/heavy attacks do less in this game. Because someone decided that ranged needed to pay a damage tax to make up for their perceived benefits in other areas.

Turtle_Bot · February 2023

Sealish wrote: »

Because a "Ranged Damage Tax" has been an MMO (and probably other game types too) combat design philosophy staple for pretty much as long as the genera has existed.

It makes sense from a broad overview perspective:
Melee characters need to stay in melee to deal damage while ranged characters can always do damage therefore ranged characters have a higher overall damage uptime.

Melee characters are at more risk since most basic attacks from enemies are melee ranged.

A melee character who needs to disengage to avoid a damaging mechanic will loose damage while a ranged character generally will not or will loose less.

If ranged and melee characters are both as effective at doing damage as eachother, no one will play melee characters since ranged characters have better mobility, more uptime, and are in less danger. Melee would just be worse.

Of course this completely ignores a lot of other mitigating factors:
Melee characters generally have more HP and higher Armor values so they take less damage when hit.

Enemy hitboxes may be large enough to still hit them with melee attacks while avoiding mechanics.

Melee characters usually have abilities that let the engage very quickly so they don't loose damage.

Other game/build/encounter specific mechanics...

So even though from a quick glance, it seems like Melee characters should do more damage to balance out the advantages of ranged... that isn't always the case since a lot of the time those advantages are mitigated or made up for in other ways. But some game designers still insist on implementing a "Ranged Damage Tax" because of those broad overall preconceptions.

So there you go. That's why ranged light/heavy attacks do less in this game. Because someone decided that ranged needed to pay a damage tax to make up for their perceived benefits in other areas.

Insightful (and agree with you).

To expand on your "Other" section
Something that's more eso specific, is the ability to nullify ranged damage via dodge rolls. It works against 99% of ranged damage because that damage is all projectiles and not instant like melee damage is so the damage often acts like a pve boss mechanic where it winds up and you get a long period to respond/react to it.
Going invisible also nullifies ranged damage, even damage that has already been cast and is travelling towards you as well.
Specific mechanics that mitigate/absorb it (ball of lightning and the new mist form which is the old pre-nerfed ball of lightning but stronger and with better passives/effects)
There's also plenty of damage reflect options against ranged damage, but very little that reflects melee damage.

I get that the advantage of range is strong, but when the game implements so many functional counters to range, the need for an additional nerf to damage on top is less necessary. Especially when you have invisibility mechanics that allow melee to instantly appear from nowhere right on top of you and still get their bonus melee damage with far less counterplay than any range build has.

selig_fay · February 2023

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

Sealish wrote: »

Because a "Ranged Damage Tax" has been an MMO (and probably other game types too) combat design philosophy staple for pretty much as long as the genera has existed.

It makes sense from a broad overview perspective:
Melee characters need to stay in melee to deal damage while ranged characters can always do damage therefore ranged characters have a higher overall damage uptime.

Melee characters are at more risk since most basic attacks from enemies are melee ranged.

A melee character who needs to disengage to avoid a damaging mechanic will loose damage while a ranged character generally will not or will loose less.

If ranged and melee characters are both as effective at doing damage as eachother, no one will play melee characters since ranged characters have better mobility, more uptime, and are in less danger. Melee would just be worse.

Of course this completely ignores a lot of other mitigating factors:
Melee characters generally have more HP and higher Armor values so they take less damage when hit.

Enemy hitboxes may be large enough to still hit them with melee attacks while avoiding mechanics.

Melee characters usually have abilities that let the engage very quickly so they don't loose damage.

Other game/build/encounter specific mechanics...

So even though from a quick glance, it seems like Melee characters should do more damage to balance out the advantages of ranged... that isn't always the case since a lot of the time those advantages are mitigated or made up for in other ways. But some game designers still insist on implementing a "Ranged Damage Tax" because of those broad overall preconceptions.

So there you go. That's why ranged light/heavy attacks do less in this game. Because someone decided that ranged needed to pay a damage tax to make up for their perceived benefits in other areas.

Insightful (and agree with you).

To expand on your "Other" section
Something that's more eso specific, is the ability to nullify ranged damage via dodge rolls. It works against 99% of ranged damage because that damage is all projectiles and not instant like melee damage is so the damage often acts like a pve boss mechanic where it winds up and you get a long period to respond/react to it.
Going invisible also nullifies ranged damage, even damage that has already been cast and is travelling towards you as well.
Specific mechanics that mitigate/absorb it (ball of lightning and the new mist form which is the old pre-nerfed ball of lightning but stronger and with better passives/effects)
There's also plenty of damage reflect options against ranged damage, but very little that reflects melee damage.

I get that the advantage of range is strong, but when the game implements so many functional counters to range, the need for an additional nerf to damage on top is less necessary. Especially when you have invisibility mechanics that allow melee to instantly appear from nowhere right on top of you and still get their bonus melee damage with far less counterplay than any range build has.

Don't forget dash. A mechanic that allows you to ignore slowdowns and immobilizations, while moving you into close combat with the enemy. It doesn't matter how far away from the fight you are, because the fight can come to you within 1 second.
Oh, and let's not forget the crossbow, which allows you to pull the enemy.

kalunte · February 2023

Sealish wrote: »

Because a "Ranged Damage Tax" has been an MMO (and probably other game types too) combat design philosophy staple for pretty much as long as the genera has existed.

It makes sense from a broad overview perspective:
Melee characters need to stay in melee to deal damage while ranged characters can always do damage therefore ranged characters have a higher overall damage uptime.

Melee characters are at more risk since most basic attacks from enemies are melee ranged.

A melee character who needs to disengage to avoid a damaging mechanic will loose damage while a ranged character generally will not or will loose less.

If ranged and melee characters are both as effective at doing damage as eachother, no one will play melee characters since ranged characters have better mobility, more uptime, and are in less danger. Melee would just be worse.

Of course this completely ignores a lot of other mitigating factors:
Melee characters generally have more HP and higher Armor values so they take less damage when hit.

Enemy hitboxes may be large enough to still hit them with melee attacks while avoiding mechanics.

Melee characters usually have abilities that let the engage very quickly so they don't loose damage.

Other game/build/encounter specific mechanics...

So even though from a quick glance, it seems like Melee characters should do more damage to balance out the advantages of ranged... that isn't always the case since a lot of the time those advantages are mitigated or made up for in other ways. But some game designers still insist on implementing a "Ranged Damage Tax" because of those broad overall preconceptions.

So there you go. That's why ranged light/heavy attacks do less in this game. Because someone decided that ranged needed to pay a damage tax to make up for their perceived benefits in other areas.

i can't agree with you on most because those situations are not accurate in this specific game.

i agree on damage uptime, but that's all. and since both DW and 2H give more WD/SP than bow/staves, the loss is lighter because of dots doing more dmg during hide phases.

the incoming dmg from bosses are all aoes except la/ha and cleave that is left for tanks. both melees and ranges needs to flank for bonuses.
hp/armor are the same
engage/disengage is the same as staying in melee or not.
and even when ranged are better than melees at doing dmg this game will still be played melee because of synergies and buffs/heal like combat prayer that needs to hit ranged+melee+tankattheoppositeoftheboss which reduces by a lot the healer's max range, self based auras based on tanks, procs like major berserk to the nearest ally and so on, all of them require ppl to stay both stacked + melee (because of tanks).

in this game, really, there's a max of 10% situations where melee's are less efficient than ranged by a bit and 90% of the time they are on top by a bit if not 20%.
remember magicka users with dw that dont use any dw skill and so on...