Welcome to Gaia! ::

-writes notes-

Alright.
Hmm...

Then perhaps a very limited ranged character, who also has a decent standing in melee combat.

Bah, I don't know.

-throws notes into the air and storms off-

I'm really not that concerned about an audience but more about the opponents I may or may not face. Because not only are they reading the fight as it progresses, but they're also involved in it and having to deal with the stress of my character.

And the character I'm thinking of for this situation is a new one that I'm developing, so I'm asking in order to receive some insight, because I want to make the character focus on ranged fighting to begin with, then move into close-range towards the middle of the fight, or once he gets the edge, even though he won't be as strong in close-range.

At least, that's my idea so far. And I'm pitching the concept here in order to get a preview of how people may or may not view the strategy/fighting/concept of such a character.

It still depends on audience, but in that context you have a much smaller audience to try to please.

Some people would say go ahead and not actually play to your character's strength for the sake of it being interesting, simply because a lot of characters don't have very effective means of dealing with ranged attacks. Does it make for a more entertaining fight for them? Probably, they're not spending most of the time dodging s**t trying to get in.

Will it be more interesting for you? Possibly since you're handicapping yourself at that point and you might like a challenge.

It still kind of follows the same lines. Some people like to just do s**t, and keep on having their characters do s**t. Others probably would like the opportunity to try and work their way into close quarters because it's like a chess match.

Some you just can't win against and they'll complain you're OP. sweatdrop

In general, primarily ranged characters aren't liked nearly as much. In some cases you can be penalized for spamming abilities/spells. So while they do have a tactical advantage in the actual fight, people will be a lot quicker to say something you did was unfair.

Your best bet if your primary goal is to have your opponent enjoy it? Ask them before hand because tastes vary waaaay too much to make a generalization.

Well, that's very good and sound advice. I appreciate it Lolli.

That actually gives me a lot to think about, because it seems in this general kind of environment, the only acceptable projectile weapon is some kind of bow or javelin. Perhaps an old-style sling, too.

Regardless of the weapon, ranged attacks as such can become easy to spam, and I appreciate you reminding me of that.

Then again, there's a lot that spamming could be used for, too, and that's part of the ranged concept, especially if the character functions like mine in which he's actually trying to direct the opponent into a trap, rather than deal substantial damage with the projectiles he's firing.

So, I'm gonna work with it, and try to tweak it a bit and see what I can come up with. Thank you for your input.

Evil, I'm currently working on a pure black mage character if you'd like to talk about using ranged characters. Can hit me up on MSN or something and maybe share some ideas.

And I think it was like, the HoH before the last where I think I remember some guy complaining because he got a lower score for spamming abilities instead of just fighting melee style. I'm not entirely sure of the circumstances, but I've always got the feeling that fully ranged fighters or just using ranged abilities when you have them were at a disadvantage when it came to community perception.

It's like people saying Ryu who spams hadouken is cheating. If they're doing it within the accepted limits of their character, how can it not be a viable strategy besides "it doesn't look cool"? But then you get into that whole debate about "playing to win, you should just be trying to have fun" and you can't win that argument if you're one the justifying that playing to win is having fun.

Unless they're like a very realistic archer with no super abilities besides like super sight and they could be rushed down pretty easily on a field with no obstacles, you're guaranteed somebody will b***h.

Jumping into this topic here -
The biggest problem that people fail to realize is that ranged characters can't do much damage in the beginning. If they're charging spells or such, most of the attacks are going to be weak or limited unless they spend more time charging it up - hence the amount of posts involved to increase the ferocity or effect of said spell/abilities. Apparently in the general fight community here, people have this over-exaggerated idea that each spell/ability thrown in range is a guaranteed K.O. action. Now, unless one decides to Fist of the North Star someone with DragonBall Z spams, I can probably understand where that's coming from but...

Truth be told, ranged fighters have a large disadvantage compared to close-range fighters. Not including the biased perspective against ranged fighters, some opponents tend to downplay your ability, weaken it, or find some lousy excuse in discrediting your attack through popular vote.

Let's not add the fact that once they bash into close range - they're going to capitalize each and every post in making your life miserable before you can pull away from them.

That's why you play the mind-games with them, and let them think they're winning, and then you drop a major trump card on their face once they get in close range.

Well, maybe not a trump card, but at least have a surprise waiting for them. I'm sorry, but I've never seen a medieval archer depicted and not have him/her have some sort of close range weapon on his/her hip, or even a shield on their back over their quiver.

Even Robin Hood, the grandest archer of lore, is frequently depicted wielding a long-sword, as well as his beloved bow and arrows.