Combat triangle? Fair or Unfair?

[darkforaster]

If this belongs in rants then move it, not lock it.

 

 

 

Well after reading rant after rant of it, i have decided to finally make a sensible discussion. on the topic. If you don't know what i am talking about it is the combat triangle. The combat triangle shows us the advantages of fighting against each type of fighter- melee, range and mage. Melee is good against range, Range is good against mage and mage is good against melee.

 

 

 

Now lets look at the pros and cons of each, but first I must say that all should post WELL THOUGHT OUT comments with OPINIONS AND REASONS.

 

 

 

----

 

 

 

Melee:

 

 

 

Pros:

 

Unlimited strikes, high range of weaponry, strong weaponry, fast weaponry, lots of specials, good against range.

 

 

 

Cons: some slow weaponry, short distance fighting, strong weaponry hard to obtain (barrows and dragon), can only fight with it, weak against mage.

 

 

 

Mage:

 

 

 

Pros: Strong attacks early on, able to teleport enchant etc with it, runes are not that expensive and easy to make, extra effects to some spells (ancients), long range attacks, strong against melee.

 

 

 

Cons: Spells are not that fast, need staff to auto cast, spells can be expensive (ancients mainly), limited attacks (usable runes), weak against range

 

 

 

Range:

 

 

 

Pros: Long-range attacks, variety of weaponry, pick up used ammo, arrows are not expensive, bow and arrows are easy to make, straong against mage.

 

 

 

Cons: not all ammo picked up, people can steal arrows, very little specials, weak against melee.

 

 

 

----

 

 

 

So with this infomation i can say that the combat triangle is fairly balanced. But there are many who disagree. What do you think?

[Gin_and_Tonic]

When you say the triangle, are you meaning the items avaliable for each type of player?

 

 

 

Your title implies that the triangle itselfs is unfair; Eg, Mages have more advantages over killing Melee, then Range do to kill Mages.

 

 

 

It seems you talk the pros and cons to USING each type... But now of one type attacking another.

[123Yourgone]

There's no triangle.

 

It goes melee>mage>range.

 

Ranges max hit with best pk gear possible is 26, shark heals 20.

 

If the person you are fighting uses prayer you max hit is 7 less then a shark heals.

 

Range gets 1 special, that is nearly impossible to ko a real pker with.

 

melee gets 4, that are more powerful and faster.

 

Mage can freeze you and run, hit constant 30s and teleblock you so you cant leave.

 

Range cant do any of those things.

 

 

 

The triangle was fair when range had 2 specs, but people cried couse their meleer was dieing to a range pure with 90+ range when they had 40 def or so.

 

Jagex listened to the whiners and nerfed an entire skill.

 

So no the triangle isnt fair, take it from a guy with a 113 combat main, a 74 pure with 92 range and a 76 pure with 85 mage.

[darkforaster]

When you say the triangle, are you meaning the items avaliable for each type of player?

 

 

 

Your title implies that the triangle itselfs is unfair; Eg, Mages have more advantages over killing Melee, then Range do to kill Mages.

 

 

 

It seems you talk the pros and cons to USING each type... But not of one type attacking another.

 

 

 

I put that in, remeber the Range V mage etc near the beginning? I explained what the triangle was in that section- let me edit it.

 

 

 

PLus, combat? fair or unfair? says the triangle might be unfair, but all it is is a question which needs to be answered.

[nicrune007]

There's no triangle.

 

It goes melee>mage>range.

 

Ranges max hit with best pk gear possible is 26, shark heals 20.

 

If the person you are fighting uses prayer you max hit is 7 less then a shark heals.

 

Range gets 1 special, that is nearly impossible to ko a real pker with.

 

melee gets 4, that are more powerful and faster.

 

Mage can freeze you and run, hit constant 30s and teleblock you so you cant leave.

 

Range cant do any of those things.

 

 

 

The triangle was fair when range had 2 specs, but people cried couse their meleer was dieing to a range pure with 90+ range when they had 40 def or so.

 

Jagex listened to the whiners and nerfed an entire skill.

 

So no the triangle isnt fair, take it from a guy with a 113 combat main, a 74 pure with 92 range and a 76 pure with 85 mage.

 

 

 

 

 

chain a few lucky 20 + and the person is as good as dead

 

the fastest rate of wad u can eat is the rate of the ranged speed

[trunksrs]

One thing that i have noticed myself since the release of RS2 as unfair is melee armors. Range and Magic combat gets most of its power from the armor, so you have to wear correct armor to be effective. However, melee gets all of its power from the weapons, with the exception of a few small strength bonuses, so meleers can use any armor they want to modify their defensive power without hurting their offensive power, allowing them to fight effectively against both mages and rangers.

[ianer101]

 

The triangle was fair when range had 2 specs, but people cried couse their meleer was dieing to a range pure with 90+ range when they had 40 def or so.

 

Jagex listened to the whiners and nerfed an entire skill.

 

So no the triangle isnt fair, take it from a guy with a 113 combat main, a 74 pure with 92 range and a 76 pure with 85 mage.

 

Yeah, I totally agree with all of this.

[darmdraaier]

If this belongs in rants then move it, not lock it.

 

 

 

Well after reading rant after rant of it, i have decided to finally make a sensible discussion. on the topic. If you don't know what i am talking about it is the combat triangle. The combat triangle shows us the advantages of fighting against each type of fighter- melee, range and mage. Melee is good against range, Range is good against mage and mage is good against melee.

 

 

 

Now lets look at the pros and cons of each, but first I must say that all should post WELL THOUGHT OUT comments with OPINIONS AND REASONS.

 

 

 

----

 

 

 

Melee:

 

 

 

Pros:

 

Unlimited strikes, high range of weaponry, strong weaponry, fast weaponry, lots of specials, good against range.

 

 

 

Cons: some slow weaponry, short distance fighting, strong weaponry hard to obtain (barrows and dragon), can only fight with it, weak against mage.

 

 

 

Mage:

 

 

 

Pros: Strong attacks early on, able to teleport enchant etc with it, runes are not that expensive and easy to make, extra effects to some spells (ancients), long range attacks, strong against melee.

 

 

 

Cons: Spells are not that fast, need staff to auto cast, spells can be expensive (ancients mainly), limited attacks (usable runes), weak against range

 

 

 

Range:

 

 

 

Pros: Long-range attacks, variety of weaponry, pick up used ammo, arrows are not expensive, bow and arrows are easy to make, straong against mage.

 

 

 

Cons: not all ammo picked up, people can steal arrows, very little specials, not quick, weak against melee.

 

 

 

----

 

 

 

So with this infomation i can say that the combat triangle is fairly balanced. But there are many who disagree. What do you think?

 

 

 

well another con of magic is that no staff has a special attack

 

and you said range wasn't quick o.0 oh boy are you wrong. go to the duel arena and fun some guy with a dd while youre use an msb on rapid and see who is faster

[darkforaster]

 

well another con of magic is that no staff has a special attack

 

and you said range wasn't quick o.0 oh boy are you wrong. go to the duel arena and fun some guy with a dd while youre use an msb on rapid and see who is faster

 

 

 

the staff has no special attack, but some of the spells do. So i don't believe it belongs.

 

 

 

As for the ranged comment, i'll take that part out. But I was thinking of crossbows in mind. remember this is ALL of range, not just bow and arrows.

 

 

 

Plus, you never mentioned whether you think the combat triangle is fair or not. Which is the whole point of this topic. :-k :roll:

[sorvereign]

well another con of magic is that no staff has a special attack

 

and you said range wasn't quick o.0 oh boy are you wrong. go to the duel arena and fun some guy with a dd while youre use an msb on rapid and see who is faster

 

 

 

Dds special has TWO hits and FOUR uses. Short has TWO hits and ONE use. Even with the short bow's added speed, dds has EIGHT hits in the span it take s for short to fire maybe 6 or 7 hits including the special. Considering the ceiling for dds damage is much higher than range, range is still weaker than melee with armor or without. The discrepancy is even larger at higher levels.

 

 

 

For mage, if you can keep the meleer away from you, ie either keep on entangling hits or not missing ice barrage the meleer can be killed easily, but if you miss and he gets loose to dds you, most of the time you're done for.

 

 

 

Also, who said rangers killed mages? If it's ancients and you keep the ranger at short distance, you can kill them without taking any damage since the shortbow does not have as much range as magic. Also you do not need to autocast, it takes time to set magic somtimes if you switch between styles so sometimes it is best to just use the spell book and cast from there. No speed difference, just less magic bonus (which mostly comes from your armor anyways)

 

 

 

So I agree with 123Yourgone, in p2p. (My opinions above is based on non-pure + members + high combats, it is drastically different for lower combats, f2p, and pures)

[One Too Far]

if you use mage you can absolutly kil mellee, they can either kil them with freezing ancient style or teleblocking and snaring.

 

 

 

melee has strong attacks, when they are close.

 

 

 

range is pretty fast, pretty accurate, but lower max hit.

 

 

 

seems pretty balenced to me.

 

 

 

only problem is there are far more melleers and mellee monster wich makes it harder for rangers.

[Sly_Wizard]

For the combat triangle to be considered unfair it would have to exist first :wall:

[highlanders]

Well I didn't spend hours introspection and analysing some arguments to back up anything like the "Omg the triangle is fine" people would like us all to do. But ranged does feel weaker compared to the others.

[Owned_Nex]

The triangle is half fair for Mains. Ddses, own all. For pures, there is no trianlge. Range owns melee jsut as easy as it owns melee. The usualy 1 def pures are immune to the trianlgle.

[King_Peter18]

I think the combat triangle as a whole is messed up. The problem is, with every update Jagex releases, they fail to see what else that update has an affect on. Take the wilderness ditch, new weapons, and the new teleports. The air balloons are now not even needed. So, why did they make them? Might as well make a button that gives you everything, lol.

 

 

 

If they would just think about how their updates affect everything else, maybe we wouldn't be in this position today.

[doomtom99]

i find that the mages are the best

 

then warriors and then range but...it'is just my opinion

[vilageidiotx]

I feel the triangle works. I was discussing it with a ranger friend, who complained about how unfair it was for them to let whips in castle wars. I told him that i, being melee, felt that the whips were fine but ancients had got to go. He proceeded to tell me im nuts because the ancients are easy. I guess his secret to taking out ancients is using seercull bows special, because he stops alot of people from using ice spells that way.

[Freesia]

The main flaw of the combat triangle seems to lie in the skill "defence" and "magic". Like pantim have said, in a battle between pures, ranged will own the whole triangle if it was a fight where everyone has 1 defence, so it means the most offensive and fastest wins, which either melee in high damage or range in speed as in the rate you eat your food if food was allowed in the battle.

 

 

 

However, in a battle between mains, every player is basically a hybrid. They have acquired some lvls in range, mage, def etc and Melee has the strongest armor in the game with as high as -6 magic defence penalties. In fact i feel the chances of successfully blocking a magic attack is more dependent on your magic lvl, not based on your armor weakness. In defence, the lvl and your armor matters almost equally. Hence in a battle between melee and mage, if melee has higher magic lvl than the mage, he has a very high percentage of winning simply because he is considered a hybrid using his high magic lvl as a defensive bonus. The mage gets owned by melee because even with a high defence, his armor is not as superior as the melee types. In this situation, the fight is unfair.