Attack Ranges

[Skyve]

Something I've been thinking about for a while, and that I feel is holding the game back balance-wise are attack ranges. Out of 108 heroes, a total of 48 have an attack range of 500 or more (41 of those are 550+). A total of 8 heroes have an attack range between 128 and 500, the other 52 are melee.

The 8 heroes are Corrupted Disciple (475), Blitz, Midas, Myrmidon (450), Andromeda (400), Flux, Thunderbringer and Moon Queen (350).

Now the interesting part here: The most common heroes used in competitive games (for ranged ones) are out of the 41 that have a 550+ attack range. Out of all the lower attack ranges, only Tempest (500) sees regular use in competitive games, and only in a function where his attack range is irrelevant for the majority of time.

I think those statistics alone already tell a tale, and those that want to check if that's even true, look here (http://hondiff.appspot.com/heroes/2.6.11.0/) and sort by attack range.

Having lots of viable heroes with high attack ranges automatically weakens all heroes with lesser ranges, due to the fact that you will expect to go up against someone with a higher range - you are going to expect being at a (more or less) significant disadvantage if you pick up a hero with a lesser range and thus are less likely to pick one of those up when there's a large quantity of heroes with similar assets at higher ranges. Inversely this also means that heroes that RELY on the range advantage to achieve something can't have that advantage, because they are most likely to be "even" in terms of ranges (Arachna).

As a small example for (to me at least) unfitting allocation of attack range:

Artesia has a 525 attack range. I can understand that she didn't need to get 600 range due to the fact that her Arcane Missiles and Bolts give her enough 'reach' for harass and the occasional lasthit.
What I can't understand is why Ellonia, whose Glacial Spike functions much better than Artesia's Missile for harassing and lasthitting (even at the same time, which is very difficult for Artesia), gets to have 600 attack range, with one of the higher projectile speeds to top if off (1500, which is the 5th highest together with Wretched hag, Chipper and Andromeda, and highest for 600 ranged heroes).

Now for what I'd really like to discuss here:

# Are there certain rules to be followed when deciding attack ranges?
-> If yes, are there heroes that violate those potential rules, and do they warrant adjustments?
-> Should heroes with mobility have trade-offs when it comes to their attack ranges?
-> Should heroes with disables have trade-offs when it comes to their attack ranges?
-> Should heroes with abilities that increase their harass potential have trade-offs when it comes to their attack ranges?
-> Should heroes with exceptional range on their skills have trade-offs when it comes to their attack ranges?
# How does the prevalence of high attack ranges affect the game?
# Would adjusting attack ranges on the general hero pool to be more diverse make for a better (more balanced) game?

[Ekamo]

Approved.

I think this can be quite an interesting discussion.

[MikeTAR]

I'm not totally sur what value you hope to get out of this thread.

Heroes have certain attach ranges for a reason. e.g Flux has the benefit of being a str hero with range, so isn't it balanced that his range is lower because of this?

I'm sorry if this is blunt and in no way am i trolling it isn't this thraed sort of pointless, i'm failing to see what sort of value you'll get out of this?

Maybe i'm missing the point, idk.

[Reldnahc]

Attack ranges come more about design choices. Blitz/Myrm are very offensive supports in lane, so they are supposed to go for kills rather than AA harass. Attack ranges are designed with that type of stuff in mind, the issue comes when certain heroes are just given the standard 600 range just because. S2 has had a habit recently of releasing heroes at 600 range, 300 ms, 100/110/120/130 mana scaling with little variance between these 3 things.

I would like to see a wider variance between ranges 625-500 and actively think around the hero's skillset as to what they are supposed to accomplish with their range. But there is the possibility that changing ranges could create an incredibly narrow pool in worst case scenario.

[Skyve]

Heroes have certain attach ranges for a reason. e.g Flux has the benefit of being a str hero with range, so isn't it balanced that his range is lower because of this?

Then what do you have to say about my Artesia/Ellonia example? Ellonia gets 75 more attack range for no apparent reason. I guess another example could be drawn from Slither who gets 500 range because of how well he is able to trade blows, vs Silhouette who has 600 range and has her passive which achieves a goal quite similar to Slithers (at least while laning). And Silhouette is pretty much known to win most 1v1 lanes.

And as I stated above, the majority of viable ranged heroes comes from a pool of 550+ ranged units. That in itself should create a problem. You aren't going to use a support hero with less attack range for instance, just because they are much less likely to be able to accomplish their job in lane when the enemy is almost guaranteed to have a higher attack range.


Attack ranges come more about design choices. Blitz/Myrm are very offensive supports in lane, so they are supposed to go for kills rather than AA harass.

Actually I'd argue that the reason why having a low range is fine for Myrm is because he has great reach with his skills, and the ability to close gaps rather easily.
Thunderbringer for instance would have a low attack range to balance the fact that he harasses well with his Chainlightning, giving him a 600 attack range would make him stomp most enemies in lane. He also overall has quite the long reach with skills.
Moon Queen too has a high reach with skills (700 range on a 0.6 second stun), and with her second skill she also has increased reach on her auto-attacks.

[Brannock]

It's always seemed odd to me that the "default" attack range was 600, which is also the maximum unless you're Flint or Warden. That's like making the default base move speed 320, and we would see a lot of the same issues with a default MS that was also the maximum that we're seeing with having too many ranged heroes with 600 range (which Skyve describes well in his OP).

The default range should be closer to 500 with heroes adjusted upwards or downwards based on design choice, keeping the maximum of 600. (Much like the default MS is 300 with heroes adjusted towards 290/320 based on design.)

[Antimodus]

:silh: being 600 range is the most fitting example of how attack ranges are really being pulled out of a hat rather than being a deliberate design choice. I'm pretty sure she could be balanced quite well as a really strong 400-450 range carry by considerably buffing her other numbers.

you could compare her to pyromancer, he has a strong "on skill use" steroid as well, and 600 range. But here's the biggest difference, pyro has no ability to escape. Neither does flint, vindi, PM, and other strongly scaling autoattackers of Sil's caliber and range.

In general, strong ranged attackers get to have the best positioning constraints of all heroes. The natural counter to them are range closing skills, displacement skills, and PK. But silhouette can't even get jumped on when sufficiently farmed (unless in an alpha strike from full to dead, with perma stunlock, presumably without her team being able to intervene), because of the multiple escape mechs. If she had to get in close while fighting and actually risk getting hit by AoE's maybe it'd be reasonably balanced. Right now it's just a hero that'll stay OP until the numbers are nerfed so greatly that no one will bother with her anymore. In short, uncounterable bullshit that has to be nerfed into the trash, just like sand wraith.

[man_guy]

You need 500+ range to harass more or less because most guaranteed disables are within 500. Any shorter range as a standard would make what we know of supports completely different.

[foxmindedguy]

It's always seemed odd to me that the "default" attack range was 600, which is also the maximum unless you're Flint or Warden

If you mean default range exceeding 600 then remove Flint, he starts with 570.

If you mean range exceeding 600 (after skills) then also add Master of Arms to the list.

Sorry, had to nit-pick, because the rest of your post is perfect, and I would not want people to stop reading your point if they see wrong or confusing information in the start :(

[sharbarachu]

Lower attack range has to just be justified, and where it's not, it shows. Slither, Flux, Demented Shaman, Tempest, Corrupted Disciple, Myrmidon, Andromeda all have a relatively justified smaller attack range due to what they bring to the table. All of these heroes have been seen in comp play, and some have had points where they've been seen a lot. They usually have high early killing power (in lanes), strong jungling, and/or escapes/mobility.

Artesia: This hero probably deserves 600 as it really brings no early killing power/harassing power with its abilities, and is overall a fairly weak hero.

Thunderbringer: TB would certainly go back to being a strong hero with 600 range, it's in a very similar boat as artesia, although I think his skillset is slightly stronger. 500-550 range would make it a much stronger pick for sure.

Midas: I think his attack range was justified with his design, as he had strong nuking power + easy escape mechanism, but the nerfs hit him too much. His range should remain, with one or two nerfs reverted (as recent item nerfs also hit him hard).

Moon Queen: This wasn't really justified, but it might be now with the 1 second stun. Still don't think it's enough justification as this hero has no escape, doesn't have impressive early stats, and is sorta level dependent.

Blitz: Don't really know enough about this hero, but it keeps getting buffs.

Silhouette: Sil has always been just too strong. It's one of the times 600 range really wasn't deserved, and I do think reducing it would permanently fix a lot of its issues. At least with reduced laning potential + less farming potential (recently nerfed), this hero would require some team effort to pump into carry status. This hero is a carry that plays like a semi-carry in how strong it is early game.

[Skyve]

The idea here was not to bring every hero up to 600 attack range sharbarachu. The idea was to take a closer look at existing heroes, and especially at those above 500 attack range (which is the large majority of ranged heroes) and see if they are justified.
Further, the idea was to discuss if the existence of such a large amount of high ranged units creates a problem in the game and if the game would be better off with those ranges changed/realigned.
What most people also seem to be overlooking is how this affects melee heroes. We are only seeing a rather specific set of melee heroes being used as solos, everything else has to be babysat to be viable.

[sharbarachu]

The idea here was not to bring every hero up to 600 attack range sharbarachu. The idea was to take a closer look at existing heroes, and especially at those above 500 attack range (which is the large majority of ranged heroes) and see if they are justified.
Further, the idea was to discuss if the existence of such a large amount of high ranged units creates a problem in the game and if the game would be better off with those ranges changed/realigned.
What most people also seem to be overlooking is how this affects melee heroes. We are only seeing a rather specific set of melee heroes being used as solos, everything else has to be babysat to be viable.

Maybe you should read my post. I simply gave an outlook determining if non-600 were justified with their current range. Most of them were; Artesia being the only real hero where a range increase is legitimate.

Obviously most 550+ heroes are justified, as most of the balance in general has been around a default 600 range. It would be retarded to have mass range-lowerings of 550-600 heroes in HoN.

There are tons of melee heroes that can solo mid 1v1, and there shouldn't be lots of melee solos doing 2v1 suicides, so I don't see the issue.

[Jezu]

I've been saying a few words about these earlier.

I would do the following:
Flux from 350 to 400.
Moon Queen from 350 to 400.
Thunderbringer from 350 to 400.
Midas from 450 to 500.
Myrmidon from 450 to 500.
Blitz from 450 to 500.
Corrupted Disciple from 475 to 500.
Artesia from 525 to 550.
Artillery from 550 to 600, Bunker Down from 100/150/200/250 to 50/100/150/200.
Emerald Warden from 625 to 600. I think he's going to need other changes though.
Flint Beastwood from 570 to 600. Dead Eye from 60/120/180/240 to 40/100/160/220.

Why? Because this would leave the only remaining attack ranges at
128
400
500
550
600
After that, it would be easier to tweak the attack ranges, and it would be consistent and thus easier to remember, and thus better for everybody. I don't think any of those changes would put the hero in the wrong direction as far as his balance goes, aside from Emerald Warden who as I said is going to need lots of other tweaks anyways IMO.

[Bazzoro]

Another interesting fact: There is no item that boosts your attack range. Not completely sure about this but every other aspect of a hero can be improved. Spelldamage, attack speed, stats, movement speed etc.

[Salem1]

I say the same as has been said before: I don't understand why a hero like Silhouette has 600 range. It's as if she was deliberately designed to not have any weakness. Silhouette doesn't just take the cake and eat it, she adds extra cherries to it. I fully believe that there should be consideration given to what attack range a hero should have based on its skill set. Let's do a comparison between EW and Silhouette.

EW
625 range and gets:
+ Good utility such as a multi-use hero radar that damages and slows and 700 range 5 second silence
+ Cheap spells
- No escape
- No great steroid/hardcore carrying
- Lower than average movement speed
- No creep clearing at all

Silhouette
600 range and gets:
+ Two escapes
+ A line aoe stun
+ Strong harass
+ Two strong steroids
+ Workable flash farm
+/- I'm not gonna bother summing up more pluses because it just makes me lose hope in HoN to think about this hero
- Errr...?



Silhouette is so much stronger than EW because she doesn't trade her numerous, powerful pluses for any minuses and has practically the same range. She doesn't just do everything you want a carry to do, she does everything and does it well.

Let's do another comparison:

CD
475 range and gets:
+ Potentially unmatched sustained single target damage that he gets with or without farm
+ Can afford to focus on farming survivability because of not needing to farm damage
+ Two ways of countering juking
- Steroid is innately unreliable, can be purged and doesn't work against magic immune targets
- Skill set that really provides nothing in particular except single target physical damage
- No sort of disabe at all
- No escape


Again contrast that with Silhouette. I could continue with Flint and so on...

[skeloperch]

Another interesting fact: There is no item that boosts your attack range. Not completely sure about this but every other aspect of a hero can be improved. Spelldamage, attack speed, stats, movement speed etc.

Sight Range and Turn Speed cannot be modified, but yes, I do think that an item to increase attack range would be neato. It would be the ranged version of Logger's Hatchet, but with range instead of damage.

Either way, the best way to deal with this is to lower a lot of heroes at 600 down to 500 or so (this includes Valkyrie, Ellonia, and Silly Hat), while also making 600-700 more 'common' (being the 320 base movespeed tier for range). It's not that we need to scale down range only. Sometimes 600+ range is a good design decision.

[Rosgath]

Sight Range and Turn Speed cannot be modified, but yes, I do think that an item to increase attack range would be neato. It would be the ranged version of Logger's Hatchet, but with range instead of damage.

Either way, the best way to deal with this is to lower a lot of heroes at 600 down to 500 or so (this includes Valkyrie, Ellonia, and Silly Hat), while also making 600-700 more 'common' (being the 320 base movespeed tier for range). It's not that we need to scale down range only. Sometimes 600+ range is a good design decision.

Not that I don't agree with you here but, I feel i should put this out there. If you nerf the range on a large portion of ranged heroes then melee carries and gankers get stronger in comparison. Since you have to be closer to the creeps or the enemy hero you are more likely to be in range of spells and melee carries get harder to kite. Silh really does need a range nerf down to either 500 or 475 (match with CD). I would say that valk could take the same hit and still be a viable pick, but then i'd earn the ire of the valk lovers.

PR could actually take a range nerf to 500 as well. It'd probably bring him out of the god tier that he's been in for years.

[Jezu]

How do you propose Flux's E range to scale, still +50 each level? I don't oppose this at all.

For Flint, why not scale it a consistent +55 for each level? So 55 / 110 / 165 / 220?
I think Flux's E would be fine if it remained +50 each level, so yes.

Don't know why didn't I even think of that with Flint, brainlag :D. It would make Flint better at the lower levels of the skill though, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for the hero, so yeah, why not.



EDIT: In my opinion, having heroes with an attack range of more than 600 without a skill increasing it should be avoided at all costs. You don't want to further increase the gap between melee and ranged, as it makes balancing that much harder.

The only issue with Plague Rider is that he removes the shortlane advantage from the opposing team, and that is a broken concept by itself. Reducing his attack range would be a very inelengant way of nerfing the hero, as that isn't the issue with the hero.

[Hsssh]

I've been saying a few words about these earlier.

I would do the following:
Flux from 350 to 400.
Moon Queen from 350 to 400.
Thunderbringer from 350 to 400.
Midas from 450 to 500.
Myrmidon from 450 to 500.
Blitz from 450 to 500.
Corrupted Disciple from 475 to 500.
Artesia from 525 to 550.
Artillery from 550 to 600, Bunker Down from 100/150/200/250 to 50/100/150/200.
Emerald Warden from 625 to 600. I think he's going to need other changes though.
Flint Beastwood from 570 to 600. Dead Eye from 60/120/180/240 to 40/100/160/220.

Why? Because this would leave the only remaining attack ranges at
128
400
500
550
600
After that, it would be easier to tweak the attack ranges, and it would be consistent and thus easier to remember, and thus better for everybody.

What is the actual gain here of making 5 possible attack ranges? I mean asides of gutting hero diversity? We might as well make 5 possible starting stats and gains so hero can get 18/19/20/21/22/23 and gains of 2.5/2.6/2.7/2.8/2.9/3.0. Super easy to tweak and consistent and balanced.

Like your mentioned EW has 625 range, reason is that if he catches ranged hero in traps he can attack him without retaliation. If you "normalize" attack ranges then he needs changes to skill set to function properly. And what do you gain in return? Nice number on ranges.

Flint has lower range at early levels to make him slightly worse solo against other 600 ranged solos, same for Artillery. You are removing their design and balance weakness for nice numbers.

Furthermore having same ranges doesn't solve any underlying issues pointed out in first post or mentioned by other posters, it actually make stuff worse since some heroes would require rebalancing(or even design changes) in other parts for no actual gain.

Problem is not heroes having different ranges, problem is 600 being default range. That was covered by others and i'm not sure what further can we discuss at this point, single out heroes that should have lower range?

[Skyve]

Pointing out heroes that should/could have lower range wouldn't be a bad thing, as would be pointing out heroes that require longer ranges.

[Jezu]

What is the actual gain here of making 5 possible attack ranges? I mean asides of gutting hero diversity? We might as well make 5 possible starting stats and gains so hero can get 18/19/20/21/22/23 and gains of 2.5/2.6/2.7/2.8/2.9/3.0. Super easy to tweak and consistent and balanced.

Like your mentioned EW has 625 range, reason is that if he catches ranged hero in traps he can attack him without retaliation. If you "normalize" attack ranges then he needs changes to skill set to function properly. And what do you gain in return? Nice number on ranges.

Flint has lower range at early levels to make him slightly worse solo against other 600 ranged solos, same for Artillery. You are removing their design and balance weakness for nice numbers.

Furthermore having same ranges doesn't solve any underlying issues pointed out in first post or mentioned by other posters, it actually make stuff worse since some heroes would require rebalancing(or even design changes) in other parts for no actual gain.

Problem is not heroes having different ranges, problem is 600 being default range. That was covered by others and i'm not sure what further can we discuss at this point, single out heroes that should have lower range?
None of the heroes mentioned are picked (aside from the very occasional corrupted and artesia picks) - And that is partly due to their attack ranges being so low. As for flint and artillery, there is no reason for them to have lower starting ranges than other "ranged solo heroes" as they have nothing to compensate for that.
And as for Emerald Warden, the hero is full of flaws at the moment, and she's going to need massive changes regardless.

And normalizing stats to an extent wouldn't be a bad thing either, but it would require massive other changes, unlike this one, so it's not really worth it.

[Martym]

Pointing out heroes that should/could have lower range wouldn't be a bad thing, as would be pointing out heroes that require longer ranges.
No hero deserve 350 range. That's closer to a melee range than to the "normal" 600 range.
Tb can use a higher range.
Elonia should have a lower range.
Sil has to get a lower range.
VJ should be 550, he already got nice starting dmg and can easily get kills/assists early.

[Skyve]

VJ should be 550, he already got nice starting dmg and can easily get kills/assists early.

He also has nothing besides auto-attacks to really harass with, no mobility and no real quick stun with burstdamage.


No hero deserve 350 range. That's closer to a melee range than to the "normal" 600 range.

It's also further away from being melee than being melee.

[`11411181]

Not to be rude, unconstructive or negative but I've read this thread about 4 times over before attempting to comment on it, and it's garbage. It may have been started with the Best Of Intentions™, but realistically all this is going to devolve into is people screaming "WELL I DONT SEE THE REASON WHY X IS Y, WHY NOT MAKE IT Z BECAUSE OF <INSERT ARBITRARY COMPARISON HERE>"
Or even worse, the mind-numbingly stupid posts (Jezu) that state that everything should be normalized because of a twisted form of "if everything isn't the same, then there are advantages and disadvantages and thus there is RNG and imbalance and blah blah blah", as though the entire game doesn't exist around playing to your strengths and mitigating your weaknesses to the nth degree already.
As for the questions in the OP:

# Are there certain rules to be followed when deciding attack ranges? - The only people who can realistically answer that is s2. Everything else is just pissfarting around with their opinions unless someone can bring up some proper cause-and-effect relationships (and there are only 2 people on this forum who possibly could)

# How does the prevalence of high attack ranges affect the game? - It doesn't. We see melee heroes all the goddamn time.

# Would adjusting attack ranges on the general hero pool to be more diverse make for a better (more balanced) game? - Short answer, no. Long answer, LOLNO.

[Jezu]

everything should be normalized because of a twisted form of "if everything isn't the same, then there are advantages and disadvantages and thus there is RNG and imbalance and blah blah blah"
When did I say this?

[`11411181]

After that, it would be easier to tweak the attack ranges, and it would be consistent and thus easier to remember, and thus better for everybody.

Consistency for the sake of consistency itself (note that you've stated no other reasons as to why) does nothing but undermine established relative balance for the sake of pretty numbers. Or do I need to dig out and quote the normalization threads currently sitting in the suggestions box in SBT?

[Jezu]

Consistency for the sake of consistency itself does nothing but undermine established relative balance for the sake of pretty numbers.
The changes would have a positive effect on the balance (with the exception of Warden's, who is going to need massive changes regardless, and arguably Moon Queen, who might not need a buff after the latest change to her), so how does it "undermine established relative balance"?

Consistency is a good thing for nearly everything, and if you can achieve it with such little effort while positively affecting the balance, why would you NOT do it?

And last time I checked, the forums are private for multiple reasons, and one of them is to allow privacy for the posters and you're not allowed to spread the threads and posts for people who do not have access to the private forums.

[Cyber_Kun]

The changes would have a positive effect on the balance (with the exception of Warden's, who is going to need massive changes regardless, and arguably Moon Queen, who might not need a buff after the latest change to her), so how does it "undermine established relative balance"?

The question is, does CD need buffs? Answer is No. Second question is, why would changing a perfectly fine hero positively effect the balance? Answer is lol, it looks nice. If people just balanced on what looked nice, we get the last patch. Mind, I do agree that constancy is good when it only causes confusing or it is too obtuse such as the night vision or .05 stat growth, but attack range does not fall into that in any manner.

[Dominare]

You can't just say:


Not to be rude, unconstructive or negative but...

and then proceed to write a 100% negative and nonconstructive post. If you've got nothing worthwhile to offer the discussion, find another thread, don't come in here telling everyone they're incapable of producing anything useful. Thanks.

--

I agree with the OP that some (not all) of the 600 range heroes seem to enjoy that benefit arbitrarily. If we look at the lower ranged heroes like Myrm, TB, Midas etc and we say, okay well they have reduced attack range because their zone of control is very very good (which it is) then we need to look at some of the other heroes that have similar reach with their skills and ask why they also have 550-600 range.

Once you actually take a moment to look at it, you quickly realize that a great many of the '600 club' have as-good or better reach with spells. To name a few randomly selected examples: Valkyrie, Kinesis, Torturer, Defiler, Aluna, Puppet Master, and of course Silhouette. This makes it difficult to defend the choice to penalize the first group with poor attack range solely for that reason.

Finally, I think people need to be careful when making statements like 'well they're still better than melee' (or indeed 'we see melee heroes all the goddam time') because that ignores the long list of benefits melee heroes enjoy to compensate for their lack of range, such as no uphill miss, full benefit from block sources, better base health regen, etcetera.

[`11411181]

You can't just say:
and then proceed to write a 100% negative and nonconstructive post. If you've got nothing worthwhile to offer the discussion, find another thread, don't come in here telling everyone they're incapable of producing anything useful. Thanks.


I offered plenty worthwhile to the discussion, including the assertion of several points that you can quite easily formulate an argument to (attempt to) disagree with. Hell, you even mentioned one of the reasons why attack ranges are mostly inferior to skillset, further validating my underlying point.


you quickly realize that a great many of the '600 club' have as-good or better reach with spells.

Pull your hate-blinders off for once, I dare you.


The changes would have a positive effect on the balance, so how does it "undermine established relative balance"?
Says who?


Consistency is a good thing for nearly everything, and if you can achieve it with such little effort while positively affecting the balance, why would you NOT do it?
Says who? Burden of proof.


And last time I checked, the forums are private for multiple reasons, and one of them is to allow privacy for the posters and you're not allowed to spread the threads and posts for people who do not have access to the private forums.
Actually, the forums are private because it contains sensitive product information that people can comment on and reference when posting. Truthfully, the fact that you're so defensive about it implies that you don't even believe it would stand up to public scrutiny without being laughed at.

[GregerMoek]

EDIT: In my opinion, having heroes with an attack range of more than 600 without a skill increasing it should be avoided at all costs. You don't want to further increase the gap between melee and ranged, as it makes balancing that much harder.



No it further increases the gap between the hero with more than 600 range and the melee hero rather than melee and range in general. Sure, if you buff one of 10000000 ranged heroes, the average range of all the 10000000 heroes will be higher, thus somewhat impacting the "Range vs melee" but that's kind of a stat that doesn't matter to balance.

Every hero is balanced individualy and the balance between melee and range in general is more or less restricted to items (hotbl, Bruta, FWS comes to mind).

[Jezu]

No it further increases the gap between the hero with more than 600 range and the melee hero rather than melee and range in general. Sure, if you buff one of 10000000 ranged heroes, the average range of all the 10000000 heroes will be higher, thus somewhat impacting the "Range vs melee" but that's kind of a stat that doesn't matter to balance.

Every hero is balanced individualy and the balance between melee and range in general is more or less restricted to items (hotbl, Bruta, FWS comes to mind).
If you give one hero more than 600 range, soon you will give that to another, then another - And then a large amount of range heroes have a range of for example 700. At that point we kinda come back to the "range vs melee" aspect, as it isn't just about a few selected heroes, but the majority.

I understand your point, and with a single hero having higher range it doesn't really impact the range vs melee, but it's like the person who decided not to drink any alcohol for a year, then drinks once, then another time, until he's drinking it every single day although he first decided not to, but then let it slip. (I know, the illustration was lame, but you get the point)

That's why it's so important to keep some things consistent, and if you really have to make exceptions, do them with VERY good reasons - And don't throw them in all the time. Preferably don't make exceptions though, as it will easily result in the above.

[Zilrax]

If you give one hero more than 600 range, soon you will give that to another, then another - And then a large amount of range heroes have a range of for example 700. At that point we kinda come back to the "range vs melee" aspect, as it isn't just about a few selected heroes, but the majority.

I understand your point, and with a single hero having higher range it doesn't really impact the range vs melee, but it's like the person who decided not to drink any alcohol for a year, then drinks once, then another time, until he's drinking it every single day although he first decided not to, but then let it slip. (I know, the illustration was lame, but you get the point)

That's why it's so important to keep some things consistent, and if you really have to make exceptions, do them with VERY good reasons - And don't throw them in all the time. Preferably don't make exceptions though, as it will easily result in the above.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Might want to read up on this here.

[Jezu]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Might want to read up on this here.
I'm not claiming it WILL happen, but it MIGHT happen, and taking the risk is not necessary IMO. (At least that was my intention, if you however understood it the other way, my wording might've been off).

[GregerMoek]

Once upon a time IceFrog created Invoker, but never again did he create another hero with initially almost 30 abilities, never again did that happen.

I firmly believe that people can do one thing once and then let that feature be special about a hero, at least matter to its playstyle. While Invoker is vastly different to anything ever in any game except perhaps Magicka, which is of an off genre, and the comparison might seem unfair when we're talking about attack ranges, it is sort of a proof that one hero can have several special features and those features won't be seen again.

Yeah, every hero has an attack range while Invoker has a wicked spell-kit together with a "standard" attack range. If another hero would get 625 range (if they for some reason wanted to standardize Lina and Pyromancer's starting stats), I don't think it'll be just to churn out more heroes with massive range, thus kicking melee heroes in the ass.

I also believe that going off from standardized stats can be a good thing for balance in the long run, as well as give heroes different feeling when playing them even if you're not using any abilities. I don't see why it's a must to standardize starting stats of any hero, if we go that far, shouldn't every hero have standard starting armour? Standard str/agi/int gains, standard base damage and base damage ranges?

Attack range is just another starting stat.

[Dominare]

I offered plenty worthwhile to the discussion

Sure you did. Let's look at a couple of your 'valuable contributions':


# How does the prevalence of high attack ranges affect the game? - It doesn't.


# Would adjusting attack ranges on the general hero pool to be more diverse make for a better (more balanced) game? - Short answer, no. Long answer, LOLNO.

Then you have the audacity to quote someone else making identical unqualified assertions with the reply 'says who?'. Well, I put the same question to you - says who? If you don't think diversity in attack ranges would improve the game, tell us why. I can't formulate any argument against your point if I have no idea what logic you're using to arrive at them, can I?

Look, I don't want this to devolve into a pissing contest or a flamewar. Yes, I concede that its unlikely this thread will produce some incredible epiphany that changes MOBAs forever, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing. Now, would you like to try again?

[MikeTAR]

Not to be rude, unconstructive or negative but I've read this thread about 4 times over before attempting to comment on it, and it's garbage. It may have been started with the Best Of Intentions™, but realistically all this is going to devolve into is people screaming "WELL I DONT SEE THE REASON WHY X IS Y, WHY NOT MAKE IT Z BECAUSE OF <INSERT ARBITRARY COMPARISON HERE>"
Or even worse, the mind-numbingly stupid posts (Jezu) that state that everything should be normalized because of a twisted form of "if everything isn't the same, then there are advantages and disadvantages and thus there is RNG and imbalance and blah blah blah", as though the entire game doesn't exist around playing to your strengths and mitigating your weaknesses to the nth degree already.
As for the questions in the OP:

# Are there certain rules to be followed when deciding attack ranges? - The only people who can realistically answer that is s2. Everything else is just pissfarting around with their opinions unless someone can bring up some proper cause-and-effect relationships (and there are only 2 people on this forum who possibly could)

# How does the prevalence of high attack ranges affect the game? - It doesn't. We see melee heroes all the goddamn time.

# Would adjusting attack ranges on the general hero pool to be more diverse make for a better (more balanced) game? - Short answer, no. Long answer, LOLNO.


I pretty much agree with this.

The only proper way to discuss this would be to target the attack ranges of certain things, such as towers or a particular hero.

[`11411181]

Then you have the audacity to quote someone else making identical unqualified assertions with the reply 'says who?'. Well, I put the same question to you - says who? If you don't think diversity in attack ranges would improve the game, tell us why. I can't formulate any argument against your point if I have no idea what logic you're using to arrive at them, can I?

You do understand what burden of proof is, yes?

[MikeTAR]

Then what do you have to say about my Artesia/Ellonia example? Ellonia gets 75 more attack range for no apparent reason.
.

Then what do you have to say about my Artesia/Ellonia example? Ellonia gets 75 more attack range for no apparent reason.

I can’t answer that question as I didn’t design Ellonia or Artesia.

But ask yourself this

Is there an attack range balance issue with a hero who purely relies on her skill set to harass, farm and fight?

Can’t say I’ve ever got out-played by an auto-attacking Ellonia…

[Dominare]

You do understand what burden of proof is, yes?

Yes yes, you're very clever and everyone's super impressed. Now answer the question.

[`11411181]

So you don't, and have no idea why I continually reference it. No worries, I'll make a point of avoiding conversation with you.

[Hsssh]

Yes yes, you're very clever and everyone's super impressed. Now answer the question.

Not sure why i'm bothering but default position is and should always be "change nothing". If you want to change something then you should explain why doing it will improve the game. Others don't have to(and shouldn't) explain why doing it will be a bad thing if you can't even explain why you think it'll be a good thing.

Such arbitrary statements like "will improve balance", "will be consistent", "will look nice" are completely irrelevant to balance changes.

[Dominare]

I'll make a point of avoiding conversation with you.

Ah, the last refuge of the defeated:

http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/lalala_cant_hear_cat.jpg?w=720

I'll note that you -still- didn't answer my question either :) Anyway, your insightful and constructive contributions to this discussion will be sorely missed by us all, I assure you.

--

Back on topic - the Artesia / Ellonia example is a simple one since they can both project magic damage - albeit slowly - at long range, and no I have no idea why one has 525 range and the other 600. But what about someone like Aluna, who can also nuke you (quickly) from a safe distance, has a stun, and *also* has 600 range. The question being asked ITT is, what effect would lowering the range of these heroes have on the game? Not easy to say, but in laning at least, it would mean players of those heroes would have to make slightly tougher decisions about when to stay back in (relative) safety and when to close in for AA harass and lasthit/deny attempts. With many of the 600 range heroes also having abilities with roughly the same cast range (Aluna's emerald lightning in this example, which has 625) it means that there's a very definite 'sweet spot' for those heroes, and once they're settled in that position there's not much reason for them to adjust it.

I suppose when you get right down to it, the question has to be "Is 600 to be considered the default for a ranged hero?". If it is, then we look at the ones who had that taken from them and decide if their skillset is really so powerful that this was a required feature of the hero; then we look at the hugely popular in competitive play Silhouette types and ask if their attack range is something that could be looked at - as it was with demented shaman way back when. A slight tweak to dsham, putting him at 550 instead of 600, made playing footsie with opposing ranged heroes just that much trickier for him, and I would argue achieved its goal of nerfing the hero in lane without affecting his later game too much.

[Jezu]

Once upon a time IceFrog created Invoker, but never again did he create another hero with initially almost 30 abilities, never again did that happen.

I firmly believe that people can do one thing once and then let that feature be special about a hero, at least matter to its playstyle. While Invoker is vastly different to anything ever in any game except perhaps Magicka, which is of an off genre, and the comparison might seem unfair when we're talking about attack ranges, it is sort of a proof that one hero can have several special features and those features won't be seen again.
Good point,

Yeah, every hero has an attack range while Invoker has a wicked spell-kit together with a "standard" attack range. If another hero would get 625 range (if they for some reason wanted to standardize Lina and Pyromancer's starting stats), I don't think it'll be just to churn out more heroes with massive range, thus kicking melee heroes in the ass.
but I'm still afraid that making a few heroes with an attack range of more than 600 would eventually result in the 'normal' attack range shifting to a greater amount. It may or may not, can't know at this point.


I also believe that going off from standardized stats can be a good thing for balance in the long run, as well as give heroes different feeling when playing them even if you're not using any abilities. I don't see why it's a must to standardize starting stats of any hero, if we go that far, shouldn't every hero have standard starting armour? Standard str/agi/int gains, standard base damage and base damage ranges?

Attack range is just another starting stat.
Armor, str/agi/int, damage, attack speed and such attributes are all affected by levels and items, and they change up a lot. Attack Range however, largely affects the hero for the whole game, and isn't affected by items or levels.


I'm quite sure most of the players wouldn't even notice a real difference if a hero had his attack range increased by 25. I think it would be similiar to the 0.05 stat gains in that sense.
Flux, Moon Queen, Thunderbringer, Midas, Myrmidon and Blitz aren't really being picked that often, mainly because it's hard to lane them due to their low attack range. Andromeda is fine, because she can roam very well and her low attack range doesn't affect that too much, but the above heroes can't really do so.
None of those heroes have anything 'special' to offer that would compensate for their lower range, aside from MAYBE Flux. Even so, a 50 range increase would still have a positive effect on Flux IMO.




EDIT: And if we come back to the 'original question', The ones I see problematic at the moment are Aluna, Ellonia, Silhouette and to an extent Glacius or Torturer.
I think reducing Aluna's attack range to 550 is a self-explanatory, obvious and necessary change to the best secondary support in the game

As for Ellonia, her skills are unreliable from a longer range, as well as his stun having a range of 500. If we combine her with Artesia, she has a more reliable way of hitting her long-range nuke, as well as her ultimate giving her GLOBAL range to her spells. If we were to go something with Ellonia and Artesia, I think setting their attack ranges at 550, and increasing Ellonia's stun's range from 500 to 550 or 600 would be the only way to go at it. Ellonia still has to be quite close to properly hit her skills, as well as throw in her stun, so having a longer, but unreliable are of reach with her skills combined with her 600 attack range is in my opinion justified.

Do I even have to start about Silhouette? It has been mentioned so many times that her having 600 range is completely unjustified that I'm not going to bother explaining that again.

Glacius on the other hand has a slow movement speed, and a range of 500 in his immobilize, which in my opinion compensate for his 600 range and long range reach with his slow.

Torturer has a quite long reach with his stun, and a long reach with his E - his W and R however tear through people who dare to come close. This combined with his 600 attack range makes him an almost unbeatable 1v1 hero, and makes him a strong laner. His harass is too strong in my opinion - But then again, he's a squishy int hero with no escape mechanism, so perhaps he's fine.. Not sure.

[Gorb]

Range isn't what breaks Silhouette, in my humble opinion. Perhaps if that hero is so obviously broken, a Balance thread is required on the subject?


Ah, the last refuge of the defeated:

image removed for obvious reasons

I'll note that you -still- didn't answer my question either :) Anyway, your insightful and constructive contributions to this discussion will be sorely missed by us all, I assure you.You should note that Hsssh kindly answered your question in the post directly above yours. You would do well to read it instead of antagonising forum members.

This is the last warning for all people in this thread - play nice or posts will be deleted and people will be infracted.


Back on topic - the Artesia / Ellonia example is a simple one since they can both project magic damage - albeit slowly - at long range, and no I have no idea why one has 525 range and the other 600. But what about someone like Aluna, who can also nuke you (quickly) from a safe distance, has a stun, and *also* has 600 range. The question being asked ITT is, what effect would lowering the range of these heroes have on the game? Not easy to say, but in laning at least, it would mean players of those heroes would have to make slightly tougher decisions about when to stay back in (relative) safety and when to close in for AA harass and lasthit/deny attempts. With many of the 600 range heroes also having abilities with roughly the same cast range (Aluna's emerald lightning in this example, which has 625) it means that there's a very definite 'sweet spot' for those heroes, and once they're settled in that position there's not much reason for them to adjust it.Ellonia's range is in general further than that of Artesia's. Artesia deals more damage when being closer to you (something I think her curving ball of slow should reflect) simply because you have an increased change of getting hit by everything she generates when spinning/when sitting next to her ult.

Ergo, Artesia's reduced range promotes staying within range of enemy heroes for maximum damage output from the magic missiles (I think the curveballs have too much range, really, but I don't have a lot of experience with her).

Ellonia has a default 600 range because her abilities have synergy and that's about it. She doesn't benefit from being closer to the enemy at all. If anything, her design is weaker than Artesia's as a consequence.

[Dominare]

You should note that Hsssh kindly answered your question in the post directly above yours.

Ah yes. Looking at the timestamps, we must've been writing those at about the same time, and I didn't go back and look after hitting submit on mine. As for the warning, fair enough. I think our little dispute has run its course anyway. Tally ho, then:


default position is and should always be "change nothing". If you want to change something then you should explain why doing it will improve the game. Others don't have to(and shouldn't) explain why doing it will be a bad thing if you can't even explain why you think it'll be a good thing.

Absolutely. The problem is, when it comes to attack ranges, its quite clear from all the comments in this thread so far that nobody is really sure whether changes are necessary or not. That's kind of why Skyve posted in the first place - it quite clearly says in the OP that the idea behind this thread is to discuss a few key questions about the logic behind giving hero X an attack range of Y. While there are (as always in this subforum) a couple of people jumping in with bold claims like "oh yes, this particular hero needs a range buff!", you will not find any such assertions in any of my previous posts. The burden of proof is indeed on such people, but since I'm not one of them, both you and the my-name-is-all-numbers guy are going after the wrong person with that one.


Such arbitrary statements like "will improve balance", "will be consistent", "will look nice" are completely irrelevant to balance changes.

I couldn't agree more, which is largely why I never said any of those things!

Anyway, now that's out of the way...

As a couple of others have already said, changes to a hero's starting stats, gains, armor etc - while impactful - are all mitigated by item purchases. A hero's range is set for life, it is what it is, and no amount of CS can ever change it. While you can attempt to hurt a hero's earlygame (lets say) by reducing their starting stats or armor, they can compensate to an extent by patching holes with early gear. Poor armor? Ring of the Teacher is an amazing item for the cost. Low starting str? A crushing claw and 3 totems and you're at +6, upwards of a 25% bonus on certain squishies. You get the idea.

Attack range, I would argue, has a bigger impact at the start of the game than it does later since the ease or difficulty of laning a given hero has a direct impact on how often you'll see teams pick them up. Torturer was uber popular for a long time because he can basically do anything, lane anywhere - he could mid, he could support, he could 1v2 even - and what happened? Tort got a series of nerfs, then buffs, then more nerfs, reverts of changes, all sorts of things. What doesn't seem to have happened though is anyone suggesting that maybe giving tort 550 range and trying that out in the beta client (or however its done) instead of a cameo in every changelog for 2 straight months would be worth a shot. OP seemed to me to be basically wondering aloud why attack range seems to be a little sacrosanct when other things are fiddled with all the time, and I think that's a fair question.

[Antimodus]

Range isn't what breaks Silhouette, in my humble opinion.

That is like if Scout was given 600 range, and you would say range isn't what breaks scout, it's his Vanish skill.

The 600 range kinda works like a force multiplier over sil's skill set.

[GregerMoek]

I agree with Silhouette range being big part of what makes her broken, simply because she barely needs to take any risks (cause long range abilities and attack range) and on top of that she has two brilliant escape moves to compliment how impossible it is to kill her.

[zstarkey42]

Silhouete having the luxury of 600 range is beyond stupid, especially considering she already has one of the strongest harassing passives in the game. I was under the impression heros like Slither and Soulstealer had lower ranges (500-550) to balance their strong lane/mid presence/harass, and heros like Arachna have the advantage of 600 range and sick harass orb at the cost of having zero farming ability, no escapes and very limited lategame scaling. For some random maths, Silhouete combines strong farming ability, 2 powerful steroids (and debatable if too powerful for a full 600-ranged carry), considerable burst damage, a semi-reliable stun/ gap-closer and 2 good escapes to add. This is the best example of a hero that has no need for this kind of range at all.

[Gorb]

That is like if Scout was given 600 range, and you would say range isn't what breaks scout, it's his Vanish skill.

The 600 range kinda works like a force multiplier over sil's skill set.
That's like saying "insert random analogy here".

Except that it isn't.

Giving Scout 600 range is silly because Scout is designed for melee. That would be as stupid as giving Silhouette melee range without tweaking her (entire) design to suit.

Would nerfing Sil's range weaken her? Definitely. Would I be opposed to it? Not much I can say really, I'm just one guy. All it was was my opinion that Sil's problems do not come from her range.

They come from (unintended?) hero synergy combined with the items commonly available to ranged gankers (and carries). Her range exacerbates this problem, but it is not the core of the problem - in my opinion of course.

[Bazzoro]

All complaints about Silhouette go to her topic. Sigh.

As stated multiple times, an attack range is set for each hero (except for those with a skill to enhance it). All other stats can be patched early on to cancel out weaknesses. Why can't the same be done for attack range? Some cheap patch which gives that little edge for laning.

[Antimodus]

That's like saying "insert random analogy here".

Except that it isn't.

Giving Scout 600 range is silly because Scout is designed for melee. That would be as stupid as giving Silhouette melee range without tweaking her (entire) design to suit.

Giving Sil 600 range is silly because she's designed for 400 range. huehuehue.

It seemed like you didn't understand what I meant to say at all. I'll do it a little slower this time. Try to imagine a situation where Scout had 600 range all this time (since he was created until now). All right? and let's imagine we were discussing why Scout is broken on the balance forum, now you could make the same stupid argument "range isn't what breaks scout, it's his skillset" where obviously the problem would be the combination of range and skillset exactly the same way it is with silhouette right now.

Scout also wasn't a "random" analogy by any means. Sil's passive procs for half a vanish on each of her other skills.

[Gorb]

I can't imagine a situation where a passive disarm (or even a critical, but items emulate that in the current game) on a ranged (hard) carry would be good design, nor can I imagine a situation where such a design would reach retail.

Your analogy is flawed.

Also, Scout and Sil are both completely different heroes, and as such what is "broken" for one will not be "broken" for the other. Please do not make the mistake of attempting a shoehorn an obviously-flawed example to fit your argument.

As I said, if Sil is so obviously broken, make a Balance thread. Your opinion is your own, try not to force it onto me.

[Reldnahc]

I can't imagine a situation where a passive disarm (or even a critical, but items emulate that in the current game) on a ranged (hard) carry would be good design, nor can I imagine a situation where such a design would reach retail.

Your analogy is flawed.

Also, Scout and Sil are both completely different heroes, and as such what is "broken" for one will not be "broken" for the other. Please do not make the mistake of attempting a shoehorn an obviously-flawed example to fit your argument.

As I said, if Sil is so obviously broken, make a Balance thread. Your opinion is your own, try not to force it onto me.

But isn't that what they did with Silhouette? I'm sure many said they could never imagine Ursa's passive being put on a 600 range hero, let alone one with the utility Silhouette is provided. But I do not wish to derail this thread though with Silh talk, even if she is the poster child for the issue.

I think it would be really interesting to see a defensively oriented sub 500 range hero because all of them in the 300-450 range are offensively oriented save for perhaps Flux.

[herro`kiti]

OP are we really going to call Flux 350 range when he can choose to level it up to 550? One rank in Polarity Swap is generally taken pretty early anyway and that's 400 right there...


If you mean default range exceeding 600 then remove Flint, he starts with 570.
If you mean range exceeding 600 (after skills) then also add Master of Arms to the list.


That reminds me, doesn't maxed Bunker Down give Artillery over 600 range? (at the cost of staying in the circle, of course)



The disparity between :slit: and :silh: has always bugged the crap out of me. :silh: has entirely too much harass potential early on over :slit: who's DESIGNED to be more potent early on in the lane. I think specifically that :slit: should have the slow returned to his orb. Maybe instead of being a static 10% across all ranks though it could be like, 3/4/5/6% stacking up to three times.

What if Toxicity was a castable one to avoid creep aggro like Vindi and Arachna? (besides likely making him TOO good)

[N0srac]

OP are we really going to call Flux 350 range when he can choose to level it up to 550? One rank in Polarity Swap is generally taken pretty early anyway and that's 400 right there...



That reminds me, doesn't maxed Bunker Down give Artillery over 600 range? (at the cost of staying in the circle, of course)


It gives him 800 attack range, which is far superior to any other hero, but he cant chase down heroes with it due to the fact its only in that small area. Its great for attacking towers though!

[Gorb]

But isn't that what they did with Silhouette? I'm sure many said they could never imagine Ursa's passive being put on a 600 range hero, let alone one with the utility Silhouette is provided. But I do not wish to derail this thread though with Silh talk, even if she is the poster child for the issue.

I think it would be really interesting to see a defensively oriented sub 500 range hero because all of them in the 300-450 range are offensively oriented save for perhaps Flux.
An inbuilt disarm/critical is nothing like stacking damage, in my opinion.

Of course, I don't think that the stacking damage is necessarily okay on a hero with such range, but the issue for me lies with her skillset and not her range (which exacerbates the issues introduced by her skillset. Range by itself, in the absence of any skills, cannot cause issues (up to 600 range, naturally)).

[kippetje]

Looking at OP's post, he seems to bring up a lot of good points. BUT I personally feel that the numbers you bring up aren't really the right way in terms of common heroes in comp. play.
The reason for this is that the heroes being played constantly change for other reasons than the range. When you take a wider range of time you will run into a lot of other numbers (for instance heroes like hellbringer, soulstealer or thunderbringer). I have done checked this in my own biased mind and this was the result:

heroes: 108
ranged: 56
melee: 52

ranged 600+: 29
regular in comp. (or have been): ~15

ranged 550-600: 12
regular in comp. (or have been): ~10

ranged 450-550: 8
regular in comp. (or have been): ~6

ranged 128-450: 4
regular in comp. (or have been): ~2

Looking at those numbers it doesn't really seem as that much of a problem. I do not think we need a big amount of changes when it comes to ranged heroes.

One specific example does jump out, and has been discussed here. The silhouette vs slither problem. Personally I think silhoeutte's range should be nerfed to 550, no less than that. Changing attack ranges should be done very carefully, I have seen suggestions here that would go for like a 150 increase and that would pretty much change the entire hero and how it would be played, so please think a bit more about the consequences of changes that you suggest.

In my opinion, attack ranges do not have to be discussed broadly but compared when trying to change specific heroes (such as silhouette or ellonia). You can see that in the long term, the current system has seemed to work out and there is no reason to change the system when it has a malfunctioning part :)

[Farosarg]

An inbuilt disarm/critical is nothing like stacking damage, in my opinion.

Of course, I don't think that the stacking damage is necessarily okay on a hero with such range, but the issue for me lies with her skillset and not her range (which exacerbates the issues introduced by her skillset. Range by itself, in the absence of any skills, cannot cause issues (up to 600 range, naturally)).

Or you could look it the other way and consider that perhaps by reducing her range would give her a disadvantage to use against her, and thus allow her to keep some of the power she gets from her skills. Specialization versus generalization and Silhuette is just a prime example of situations in which balance tweak via attack-range should be considered as an option.

I suppose all I can personally get out of this thread is that for balance purposes there should perhaps be more attention given to different attack ranges. And that Silhuette needs a thread.

[Gorb]

It could be considered as an option, but given that you agree with me in that I think a thread is needed on the subject, I think there is a lot more there than can be discussed here :)

[`Krigsbest]

Honestly not only because I love :moon: but I think she needs a little better range on atk for the reason of not having any escape mech.
It doesn't only hurt her in the early but also mid game.

[Antimodus]

:moon: is a DPS powerhouse, making her have too much range (besides the glaive bounces) will make her hella broken. She's one of those carries that is only balanced by lack of escapes and the requirement for SH usage to DPS in a teamfight. Too much range and she could do her broken DPS output from safe positions even without SH. 400 might be still be a sane range for her, but even that is dangerously close to the breaking point. Do not want another broken ranged carry, we have enough of those already.

I'd rather see TB get attack range buff before MQ is considered, because at least his autoattack doesn't scale in any significant way, so it's strictly an early-game buff.

[Tomate]

I would love the moderator to clarify what he expected us to discuss on this...

Mentioning only attack range in a balance discussion would be like saying that a certain skill is OP, without considering the rest of the hero.

I would not even care seeing a hero with 9999 range... if he hits for 1 damage and has a 10% damage gain from items and stats instead of 100%. (don't flame, this is using an extreme case to make a point).

I feel like this discussion is focusing on 1 side of the balance aspect, skipping everything else is just skipping on a lot of the balance issues.

Would I want to see a 400 range Arachna? A 600 range MadMan? NO, unless you rebalance their skills...

[Ekamo]

Deleted a couple of posts due to being off-topic. This thread is not about the relative power between carries, semi-carries and supports. If you for some reason want to make the case that range is a core aspect of how those sub-groups interact you have to make that argument, and not just assert that it is so and then let everybody else infer that such is the case.


I would love the moderator to clarify what he expected us to discuss on this...
I think it has been a pretty constructive discussion so far, don't you think? :)


Would I want to see a 400 range Arachna? A 600 range MadMan? NO, unless you rebalance their skills...
OR, instead of going through the hassle of re-balancing their whole skill-sets to fit their new range, you could just make the range fit the skill-set, no?

[Synchronize]

wardens range should be decreased to 550
also its quite interesting almost all s2 range heroes based on a template of 600 range.

[mazoomy]

I feel like 600 range is far too common now. It used to be a luxury and is now almost the norm, which is pretty much a form of power creep as many heroes with 450-500 range will need 550-600 range to compete with similar, at least laning wise, 600 range heroes (examples: slither vs sil, elonia vs artesia). I think a big "range realignment" patch would be a good idea at this point as it seems ranges not just on attacks but abilities as well could use a thorough balancing.

[Antimodus]

wardens range should be decreased to 550

The idea with warden's range is that it allows you to catch someone in a trap and then fire on them from 625 range and they can't retaliate even with a range 600 attack.

[herro`kiti]

wardens range should be decreased to 550
also its quite interesting almost all s2 range heroes based on a template of 600 range.

Valk is 600, why should Warden have any less when he fills a similar role (crap scaling carry compensated by decent early/midgame)

Also, :flux::myrm::mida::mast::blit::engi::arte:...

And okay :gunb: 600 but well, the way his steroid works...

[Paulie88]

What do you think about this:
Normal range will be 500 and:

Lesser range will have heroes with/who are -
good escaping abilities (valkyrie)
lots of hp (flux)
high range skills (moon queen, ew)
stunners and aggresive heroes (myrm)
high starting movement speed (moon queen)
passive harassing abilities (slither, silhouete)
high start damage

Higher range than 500 will have heroes who dont fit these.. For every one the heroe is fitting he will lose lets say 25 of range...
This would mean for example pyro would stay about those 600, but silh would go down. Ew outranging would still work, because most range heroes who rely on the atack would go down (valk, silh, gb, pm, etc) because they usually have passive for harass (pm) or escapes... Casters could still atack ew, but their damage is nothing dangerous, and ew has 5sec silence so...

Sorry for my english, hope you understand...

[Rosgath]

What do you think about this:
Normal range will be 500 and:

Lesser range will have heroes with/who are -
good escaping abilities (valkyrie)
lots of hp (flux)
high range skills (moon queen, ew)
stunners and aggresive heroes (myrm)
high starting movement speed (moon queen)
passive harassing abilities (slither, silhouete)
high start damage

Higher range than 500 will have heroes who dont fit these.. For every one the heroe is fitting he will lose lets say 25 of range...
This would mean for example pyro would stay about those 600, but silh would go down. Ew outranging would still work, because most range heroes who rely on the atack would go down (valk, silh, gb, pm, etc) because they usually have passive for harass (pm) or escapes... Casters could still atack ew, but their damage is nothing dangerous, and ew has 5sec silence so...

Sorry for my english, hope you understand...

I stated this on the first page but you obviously haven't read the thread so I'll post it again. Widespread nerfs to long range heroes will make melee heroes and gankers that much stronger in comparison. Each change to each hero needs to be thought out with consideration to their skill set. There are a lot of long range heroes that are very strong, but that does not mean that EVERY 600 range hero needs to have it removed (would you say :deme: needs a nerf? most people consider him very well balanced).

I'll be honest, I've only seen 2 widespread changes that I would consider universally good. The HP regen to melee heroes buff (which was later nerfed) and the removal of the 0 minute rune.

[SmurfinBird]

I stated this on the first page but you obviously haven't read the thread so I'll post it again. Widespread nerfs to long range heroes will make melee heroes and gankers that much stronger in comparison. Each change to each hero needs to be thought out with consideration to their skill set. There are a lot of long range heroes that are very strong, but that does not mean that EVERY 600 range hero needs to have it removed (would you say :deme: needs a nerf? most people consider him very well balanced).

I'll be honest, I've only seen 2 widespread changes that I would consider universally good. The HP regen to melee heroes buff (which was later nerfed) and the removal of the 0 minute rune.

The issue with doing this to "some" 600 range heroes would be that demented, for example, would feel a buff in the laning phase - he is very well balanced considering others can equal his range however if you remove say, Glacius' range, Demented would be stronger in comparison. This would mean Glacius' skills need a buff and... yeah. That gets complicated. (This is assuming Glacius needs no balance changes.)

I'm all for using the range on heroes as a balancing point a lot more often (as it seems to not be commonly considered) however it will make those that are not nerfed in this way see some apparent strength.

[zstarkey42]

I've seen this thread popping up several times over the last months and everytime I read it it makes my head hurt. Do people really think there's a magic formula that takes a hero's skills and numbers as variables and then outputs their desired and strictly balanced attack range? No. Attack ranged are nothing but a design choice, and they are completly isolated from other heros. Do you really think when S2 creates a new hero they start an extensive cross-reference research, analyzing how much stronger they need to be compared to hero X or weaker than hero Y in all regards? The suggestion for normalizing attack ranged also makes zero sense and I can't quite understand why you want to potentially break certain heros because they don't have pretty numbers?

Attack ranges are a deliberated design choice for each hero, taking into account their intended laning strenght, and their intended carry potential or potential safety you want them to have in engagements or teamfights. The choices are abritraty, and not standartized in any way. People cannot understand why Artesia has less range than Ellonia, really? Maybe because Artesia has the ability to harass from longer range with much more damage comes to mind - are there really a lot of heros out there that can harass for about 200+ damage at level 2 with 100 mana? Or the fact that autoattacks are very much irrelevant for a hero who'se 4 skills encoure her to constantly spam spells and thus never have time to autoattack at all? Or maybe because they're not supposed to have the same laning strenght by intented purposes? Questioning attack ranges is like questioning hero's starting damage or movement speed. They are just variables to allow a hero to be stronger or weaker in certain things, nothing more nothing less. I don't see a reason why they need to be normalized, and I also don't see a reason why it needs to be questioned for every hero as well, especially when completly out of context when comparing heros that have very different roles, purposes and intended strenghts in different stages of the game. (well, Silhouete's case is probably the exception, and it's mostly tied to the rest of her skill set interacting in a very unhealthy way with a 600 range hero).


I see absolutely no purpose in this thread at all. People are doing nothing but guesswork on things they have no real knowledge about. Also, what kind of conclusions or practical insight are we taking from all this dribbling? I also see close to no valid reasoning on suggesting widespread changes that would most likely impact the game in many ways.

Don't fix what's not broken. If you want to fix something explain first why it's so broken first. Because right now I don't honestly see a reason for widespread hero changes in terms of ranges. If there's a particular hero or heros that could use changes in this regard they should be dealt with individually witouth bringing a bunch of references to the rest of the hero pool. In the end, they are irrelevant and only bring up pointless and neverending discussion.

Heros are balanced as a whole, not on strict numerical comparisons between certain properties. Should we create a movement speed thread now as well?

[NotARecluse]

I've seen this thread popping up several times over the last months and everytime I read it it makes my head hurt. Do people really think there's a magic formula that takes a hero's skills and numbers as variables and then outputs their desired and strictly balanced attack range? No. Attack ranged are nothing but a design choice, and they are completly isolated from other heros. Do you really think when S2 creates a new hero they start an extensive cross-reference research, analyzing how much stronger they need to be compared to hero X or weaker than hero Y in all regards? The suggestion for normalizing attack ranged also makes zero sense and I can't quite understand why you want to potentially break certain heros because they don't have pretty numbers?

Attack ranges are a deliberated design choice for each hero, taking into account their intended laning strenght, and their intended carry potential or potential safety you want them to have in engagements or teamfights. The choices are abritraty, and not standartized in any way. People cannot understand why Artesia has less range than Ellonia, really? Maybe because Artesia has the ability to harass from longer range with much more damage comes to mind - are there really a lot of heros out there that can harass for about 200+ damage at level 2 with 100 mana? Or the fact that autoattacks are very much irrelevant for a hero who'se 4 skills encoure her to constantly spam spells and thus never have time to autoattack at all? Or maybe because they're not supposed to have the same laning strenght by intented purposes? Questioning attack ranges is like questioning hero's starting damage or movement speed. They are just variables to allow a hero to be stronger or weaker in certain things, nothing more nothing less. I don't see a reason why they need to be normalized, and I also don't see a reason why it needs to be questioned for every hero as well, especially when completly out of context when comparing heros that have very different roles, purposes and intended strenghts in different stages of the game. (well, Silhouete's case is probably the exception, and it's mostly tied to the rest of her skill set interacting in a very unhealthy way with a 600 range hero).


I see absolutely no purpose in this thread at all. People are doing nothing but guesswork on things they have no real knowledge about. Also, what kind of conclusions or practical insight are we taking from all this dribbling? I also see close to no valid reasoning on suggesting widespread changes that would most likely impact the game in many ways.

Don't fix what's not broken. If you want to fix something explain first why it's so broken first. Because right now I don't honestly see a reason for widespread hero changes in terms of ranges. If there's a particular hero or heros that could use changes in this regard they should be dealt with individually witouth bringing a bunch of references to the rest of the hero pool. In the end, they are irrelevant and only bring up pointless and neverending discussion.

Heros are balanced as a whole, not on strict numerical comparisons between certain properties. Should we create a movement speed thread now as well?

while you gave a good example with ellonia and artesia, I feel there IS an argument to be made about heroes like silh or draco that have such high range and out-harass supports in the laning phase... why even bother having a support hero when u can replace it with a silh for superior results all game

I feel there definitely is an issue there, and you maybe feel there isnt? I guess thats the purpose of this thread, to argue both sides of the coin

and honestly, i feel it IS a pretty big issue that in most cases, i feel if you take a balanced team with say a support glacious and replace that glacious with a draco, the team will likely perform much greater in all situations

[man_guy]

How is a Dragon going to set up kills or roam without farm or levels? At best, he'd get lucky with a haste / invis rune to push someone back for allies to help, but otherwise, he's going to be an awful support hero--especially when compared to using him as a replacement to Glacius. I can't disagree entirely that S2 ranged carries are better at harass, they just don't bring the CC a typical support needs to and the strategy will fall apart if roaming is desired or you cannot achieve victory before lanes break down.

[SealHunt]

You know, you're onto something here. I think you should show those stuck up *******s how real men do it and make a team where you replace a support with a carry and tell us how your matches go.

On a slightly serious note I'd like you to answer this simple question: Which of these heroes will perform better with little experience and very little gold?

- Draconis
- Puppet Master
- Voodoo Jester
- Glacius


There is ONE semi carry with a 600 range that has been used in a support role instead of a regular support, and that is Master of Arms. Not silhouette, not draco. And that is because his skillset is actually good for a straight support role (and decent for a carry IMO).

One thing I do have to agree with you is that it's silly how strong Silhouette and Draco (and FA to an extent) are on lane.

[zstarkey42]

aluna says hi?

[Ekamo]

You know, you're onto something here. I think you should show those stuck up *******s how real men do it and make a team where you replace a support with a carry and tell us how your matches go.

On a slightly serious note I'd like you to answer this simple question: Which of these heroes will perform better with little experience and very little gold?

- Draconis
- Puppet Master
- Voodoo Jester
- Glacius


There is ONE semi carry with a 600 range that has been used in a support role instead of a regular support, and that is Master of Arms. Not silhouette, not draco. And that is because his skillset is actually good for a straight support role (and decent for a carry IMO).

One thing I do have to agree with you is that it's silly how strong Silhouette and Draco (and FA to an extent) are on lane.
Puppet has in the past, and still can, most definitely be used as a support, people just tend to favor the carry aspect of him.
It's like a reverse Aluna. She has the potential to be used as a pretty effective carry, but currently people tend to favor the support aspect of her.

One role might be more viable than the other, but ignoring the viability of the other might cost you a game where you assumed they were going to have a specific lane set-up and countered that, but instead they swapped around to counter you. Versatility is always beneficial for a hero, and the purpose of this thread is to discuss on who and why we want this versatility that is given with range. As zstarkey42 pointed out, range is a design choice. In what direction should this design choice be emphasized though?

I don't think this discussion is redundant, I actually regularly reference this thread when discussing range as a parameter of balance. This is just my subjective opinion though, and if the majority really feels that this thread is completely unnecessary, closing it might be the right thing to do.

[Tomate]

I actually played a game with Moraxus + DS in long lane against a Magebane and Draconis... and we sadly got raped by that Draconis support...

Draconis was able to out harass DS straight from level 1, Moraxus started to lose mana to MB from level 2+ every time MB would drop a single hit on him, at level 3+, Moraxus had issues keeping any mana and Draconis was pushing DS out of the lane with superior harass, leaving magebane free farming.

But what's funny is that a 0 farm Draconis for the most part of the early game actually stacked the jungle and farmed a null stone in the mid game quite fast... Coming at the 25/30 minutes mark level 12 or so and dealing a surprisingly high amount of damage for a supposedly support...

Trust me, Draconis can function as a support, the question is, why would you sacrifice such a great potential carry in a support role when you can put him in the carry role and use a different hero to actually support.

[NotARecluse]

You know, you're onto something here. I think you should show those stuck up *******s how real men do it and make a team where you replace a support with a carry and tell us how your matches go.


On a slightly serious note I'd like you to answer this simple question: Which of these heroes will perform better with little experience and very little gold?

- Draconis
- Puppet Master
- Voodoo Jester
- Glacius


There is ONE semi carry with a 600 range that has been used in a support role instead of a regular support, and that is Master of Arms. Not silhouette, not draco. And that is because his skillset is actually good for a straight support role (and decent for a carry IMO).

One thing I do have to agree with you is that it's silly how strong Silhouette and Draco (and FA to an extent) are on lane.

a single lane provides about 440gpm from the first minute (considering each minute 8 creeps are spawned which all give 40 gold, 320 there, and then each hero is 60 gpm so thats 320+120=440)

i highly disagree with the notion that farm is more powerful on 1 individual 100% of the time. sure, x amount of farm is stronger on 1 carry than spread between the 5 heroes on your team, which creates the notion of all farm going to the carry as being better overall, but in a 2v2 lane scenario which is what the game comes down to in real actual gameplay if farm is spread between both heroes it will be stronger than having it all given to 1 hero . so lets say both draco and TDL get 220 gpm, that will be much more powerful against an opposing say magebane and jester and the magebane gets 380gpm and the jester gets 60gpm


so no, im not saying draco is as powerful as jester with no items, im saying if you have a "support draco" on your team, he doesnt need to give all the farm to the carry. they can just split the farm together in lane and the resulting combination will likely be much more powerful than having the support. but this is more a problem with draco as if you replace him with flint it probably isnt as strong.

[SealHunt]

I was going to take the bait, but then I realised that I would be moving far away from the actual topic.


Does anyone else find lack of recent >600 range heroes rather disappointing? Fx. Pearl would be an excellent candidate to have lesser range because of the way her skills work (would encourage her to be in thick of the battle where her skills are most useful).

[`11411181]

That's a straight case of outplayed, not any indication of whether Draconis works as a support :/

[NotARecluse]

That's a straight case of outplayed, not any indication of whether Draconis works as a support :/

i feel the support concept is extremely outdated. in dota 2 pro games nowadays the teams are almost like 5 carries now, with one being ganker-semi-carry and one being like a support-semi-carry like thunderbringer. i swear every game i see now in dota 2 contains 3carries per team and the othe 2 heroes are semi-carryish


the point about a "support" draconis is that he doesnt need to "support" he can just outharass and pwn the enemy support then him and the carry both farm high gpm and when the teamfight happens you have some useless glacious vs a farmed draco and some other carry and they pwn your carry in seconds

[Antimodus]

If a two carry lane can shitslam the hell out of a carry/support lane and then freefarm it and beat them later game too, that sounds more like a balance problem (or a skill disparity problem...) than something that should be legit better strategically. The concept of a support isn't outdated. Lanes produce a capped amount of income, it's simply not enough to allow two carries come out of the early game on good farm reliably.

[GregerMoek]

Yeah it depends on how you define support. Support is more or less about who gets farm and who don't. In other cases one might suggest that support heroes should have supportive abilities(like Jeraziah or Demented Shaman). You'll have to be clear on what kind of definition you're using for support before you use the word.

[changlingbob]

i feel the support concept is extremely outdated. in dota 2 pro games nowadays the teams are almost like 5 carries now, with one being ganker-semi-carry and one being like a support-semi-carry like thunderbringer. i swear every game i see now in dota 2 contains 3carries per team and the othe 2 heroes are semi-carryish
You've obviously been watching very different dota from me.

[`11411181]

^ that.

dafuq kind of games are you watching? or more to the point, are you one of those people that thinks heroes like VS are carries because they're agi?

[Farosarg]

Or maybe he's just smoking something really strong. But there have been a few 3-carry line-ups with Clinkz, TA and agressive tri-lane carry as carries. The way it works is that the agressive trilane either gets kills and levels and completely shuts down opponent trilane or gets free farm while TA is already difficult enough to shut down with just one hero. And when you can't deal 5v4 against those guys, Clinkz/Sylla or whoever is their safelane solo carry gets free farm. Generally though that tri-lane carry does not get that strong farm and will have to stay active the whole game.

There have been some what you'd call "carry" used as supports (Magnus, Dirge, Naga) but they generally do stick with that role unless they get remarkable early game advantage.

Oops. I posted somewhere that isn't BD... Um. Carry on...

[Ekamo]

More variance in attack ranges is desired. Maybe the new hero will remedy that somewhat?

Thread closed.