Take a gander at Relic's SM. Though it had problems, it was solidly 50/50 melee vs ranged, which as far as I have read no one has mentioned in this thread even though the devs have said that's the ultimate goal. Now obviously SM.had issues on both ends and so does EC, but again and again I say that the sign of a healthy 50/50 balance for melee vs ranged is the willingness for the Tactical unit to DO BOTH. They are perfectly capable, across the races to get into melee and totally kick a dedicated melee classes ass - even in sucicidal situations like meleeing a Thunder Hammer. In EC, this just doesn't feel right, and at this point doable. Case in point; The devs chose instead of encouraging the tactical into melee, to split it into two classes: the almost strictly ranged version and the Ground Assault - half of which can cap points. So instead of getting that 50/50 balance, you get a mixed bag between people who choose melee willingly, and those who will try to avoid it at all costs. To explain just how terrible that is, look at the Orks, specifically: The Ork Shootas can grab virtually everything the Slugga can with the exception of some survivability gear, melee utility, and the melee weapons. The Slugga can grab everything but ammo and primary weapons. But that's ok, the Orks are blessed with pistols that are practically assault rifles, so markedly they are the most blended of the races on a tactical level because their ranged options ((the one's that actually work) are actually pretty good. Yet the blending doesn't go the other way, Shootas still.have virtually no incentive to get into melee even though their race archetype is about mobbing. Essentially this continues for the other races as well, but the Orks showcase it the easiest and thus if you want 50/50 melee vs ranged balance, figure it out with the Orks and then reform the other races.
How 'bout dis den? Big Shoota + Burny Choppa + Dakka Slugga Iron Gob 1 Stikkbomb Trinkets for Armour + Health 'Eavy Armour WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!
Melee is just not needed in EC (I mean the melee classes). With the boltgun, you brings more benefit to the team. Antheus is a really good melee fighter, but when he collides with the amazing range-players, he will fall like a sack with shit (i saw such matches with him). Current melee - for fun, not victory. It`s not fine. Even on JPA you can`t make 95 kills and no git gud here will help you. Why suffer from a melee if you can shoot all? Or to shoot in abandoned grenade?
Not true, there are some situations a JPA will resolve much more efficiently - as said, speak to @Fiendly - dude is the best JPA player in the game by far. Of course, you could argue that it could also have been resolved by just bolter classes, but that's debatable since those classes have predictable movement while classes like the JPA are unpredictable and draw a lot of attention very quickly. Melee does not work solo, you need a group to assist you - essentially, you are the 'flashbang' class, you distract everyone long enough for ranged classes to rush in and clear the area. Without you, things like autocannons and heavy bolters have the potential to light up the entire squad. Because, as said, melee is not a main-line combatant. They are a distraction class that allows you to rush into a heavily entrenched position with a few seconds of relative safety as the enemy tries to deal with the JPA or rotates back from dealing with the JPA to try and engage you, allowing the JPA to cut up the enemy.
I'm not crying or over reacting. I made a post asking why people feel melee is so awful, because I've done decent with it when I've decided to stick with a melee class all game. And all I got back from the first few posts was, essentially; "put your lame stealth melee class and shitty banshee sword class down and play a real melee class like a traitor" or "no one gets more than 20 kills in melee in a match consistently." To me, that sounds awfully confrontational over nothing. Thankfully it's went past that right away to what the purpose of the post was for; generating a discussion, not trolling people. I understand that's gonna happen to a degree, but it certainly doesn't help right off the bat. I'm not a pro melee player really. I think eldar definitely have an advantage in the sense that they are more agile and fast, and with a good stamina build they are hard to catch. The only think that makes me decent at melee is that I typically stay with a group. Otherwise you get targeted down in seconds. Something to bear in mind is that getting tons of melee kills in s guild match usually doesn't happen either. Most players are competent, so the kills are usually spread out much more, with everyone getting around 20ish each, instead of vs pugs where one play can get 40 and others get 10-15. I'd wager vs guilds I'd struggle to get 20 kills in a match. I don't even know how to record a video actually. I wouldn't mind doing so. Personally I agree that the melee system is a mess, in the sense that the counter attacks and fast attack/heavy is hard to read, clunky Etc. That's why I don't really play by it...I spend more of my time dodging and rolling behind people so they leave themselves exposed. I also find perfect dodgin and rolling is what leaves them open for that. If I can find away to record is love to post some stuff.
It's funny you mention space marine, cause last night I installed it for the first time in awhile and thought to myself "this is what EC should strive to be like". It really was a good balance of both. Ranged was great for softening up guys, but it always came down to melee in the end for many encounters, and you had to really get used to dodging, camera angles (which were crap at times) and multiple enemies.
Space Marine is the de-facto best 40k game for capturing the environment and assets of 40k. Sure there's some balance & peer 2 peer issues with it, but I've never felt as powerful in a multiplayer game while still being balanced as I did playing Relic's SM. It's a damn shame they never made Space Marine 2.
