How Class Balance Happens

[ZambedosNB]

How do you consider reflects/recoil damage in your damage balancing?

With a lot of classes getting them, they're going to see bumps over classes without them on certain fights.

But including that damage and nerfing a class because of it leaves them underpowered on fights where it can't be used to significant advantage.

This seems to threaten any real balance that works for both PVP and PVE. Your tools make you viable in PVP but then your DPS/HPS is high (or DtPS low) so you get nerfed and your class is now UP for PVE.

Or are people correct in assuming that you only do balancing off dummies and reflects are not considered at all (which, again, isn't true balance. Also it's really important which type of parse you look at, or if you look at parses of all types. Much of the following can be ignored if you answer that question "correctly"). There's just so much that seems to go unconsidered judging by this post. If you balance around single target only, then dot spreaders are going to always outshine others in multi-target situations, while matching them normally. Is this singular *pun intended* focus also the reason why sage healers are getting a nerf? Even though their AOE healing is way weaker than their single target (I think they are the worst AOE, but some say mercs are.)

 

Also, your damage categories are nice and all but for as long as I've been playing this game Arsenal has been just plain average in theoretical dps parses compared to other classes. Maybe a fraction more, maybe a little bit less, but when it came down to it it was just average. I don't see why you need to change that now. When you've failed for 3+ years to achieve one of your apparent goals (assuming this methodology is not new) then maybe you should just scrap it and look at different ways to approach balance. (I know you compare to your value, not other classes, but when we know all the classes and what the general ranking should be, knowing the value isn't important in order to evaluate whether your balancing efforts are working as intended. This changes somewhat if you're going beyond dummy parses, due to what data the playerbase has access to)

 

But really I just want an answer to the reflect/recoil question.

[Yezzan]

How do you consider reflects/recoil damage in your damage balancing?...But really I just want an answer to the reflect/recoil question.

 

I, hardly, think that this is an issue, since, the defected damage should either be avoided, defended against or healed. Which Juggernaut is outperforming a Carnage/Annihilation Marauder in DPS? All Juggernauts have saber reflect, but that won't put them at the top of the DPs chart at the end of a raid. PT tanks have sonic re-bounder, but they are not preferred over Sin tanks, at the moment.

 

Reflecting damage, for a DPS is hardly a DPS game changer, since, bosses will be attacking the tank instead of DPS. Yes, there will be raid wide damage that can be reflected, but reflecting damage is not a thing that set these classes above the rest. Which team running 4 DPs jugg because their reflect makes them more viable than other classes?

 

simple. put a bolster in warzones based on spec. problem solved.

 

I think that's how they should it. In conjunction with separating PvP utilities from PvE ones. There is no way they can "balance" classes based on DPS category, and expect its going to sync with PvP and PvE. It is not possible.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Yezzan

[Kiesu]

DPS balance doesn't care about your inability to dodge fires, sorry. Bioware's DPS targets already take into consideration buffs and debuffs, so don't use that as an excuse. And I assume you don't have DPS data from individual fights because you've never taken a Sorc into a raid.

Wow man you are priceless. You were asking for concrete numbers on a bossfight, I told you why those numbers dont exist. Only Dummy fight dps numbers exist, and singe bossfights have VASTLY different dps uptime and cannot be compared. You, sir, have never raided before.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Kiesu

[TUXs]

Why play PVP? It sucks. Howeve,r feel free, but they can't break PVE just to make PVP happy. Not if they want to keep the larger chunk of players. It's obvious they can't afford to lose any more.

The exact opposite also applies.

 

Why play PvE? it sucks. They can't break PvP just to make PvE happy. Not if they want to keep a large chunk of players. It's obvious they can't afford to lose any more.

 

That's the problem...PvP AND PvE are both an integral part of this game. They can't make changes based on just one or the other. You don't need to like PvP, but you've chosen to play a game that has it as a core activity.

[Icykill_]

Sure, if you wanna take the easy way.

 

There is nothing wrong with easy or fast if it gets the job done.

[Icykill_]

The exact opposite also applies.

 

Why play PvE? it sucks. They can't break PvP just to make PvE happy. Not if they want to keep a large chunk of players. It's obvious they can't afford to lose any more.

 

That's the problem...PvP AND PvE are both an integral part of this game. They can't make changes based on just one or the other. You don't need to like PvP, but you've chosen to play a game that has it as a core activity.

 

Tux is right...

And the game is now more dependent than ever on a symbiosis of pve (OPs), pve (story) and pvp because we have such a low population.

Which ever part people play and like or hate is just as important as the other parts. I think once people get that through their heads they may realise there is more to keeping this game a float than just their self interested part of the game.

It's why server merges, server population density and activity are such a hot topic and why there is no consensus on why it's actually an issue for certain parts of the player base.

People are so focused on their part of the game that they forget that other people don't all play the same part as them. EVERY part of this game is just as important as another, we may not play it, we may not understand the attraction to it and we may hate it, but just losing one section of the community will sink this game. We are already running on fumes and we cannot afford to hold to our own petty differences anymore.

We are all entitled to our opinions and healthy discussions to promote our part of the game, but we should not be telling others that our part of the game is more self entitled than the next.

Changes to the game should take into account all aspects of the player base. I think most rational people here understand that and want what's best for the game. Occasionally some very small changes affect others unintentionally, that cannot not always be helped, but at least Bio seem to be trying to minimise those,

Class balance is one of those things that is going to affect some people more than others. What I think lots of us are trying to do is point out why we think there are some flaws in the process to actually minimise those disruptions. I think that is something people are forgetting.

[TUXs]

Tux is right...

And the game is now more dependent than ever on a symbiosis of pve (OPs), pve (story) and pvp because we have such a low population.

Which ever part people play and like or hate is just as important as the other parts. I think once people get that through their heads they may realise there is more to keeping this game a float than just their self interested part of the game.

It's why server merges, server population density and activity are such a hot topic and why there is no consensus on why it's actually an issue for certain parts of the player base.

People are so focused on their part of the game that they forget that other people don't all play the same part as them. EVERY part of this game is just as important as another, we may not play it, we may not understand the attraction to it and we may hate it, but just losing one section of the community will sink this game. We are already running on fumes and we cannot afford to hold to our own petty differences anymore.

We are all entitled to our opinions and healthy discussions to promote our part of the game, but we should not be telling others that our part of the game is more self entitled than the next.

Changes to the game should take into account all aspects of the player base. I think most rational people here understand that and want what's best for the game. Occasionally some very small changes affect others unintentionally, that cannot not always be helped, but at least Bio seem to be trying to minimise those,

Class balance is one of those things that is going to affect some people more than others. What I think lots of us are trying to do is point out why we think there are some flaws in the process to actually minimise those disruptions. I think that is something people are forgetting.

Very well said! I hope people begin to understand this.

[mike_carton]

Tux is right...

And the game is now more dependent than ever on a symbiosis of pve (OPs), pve (story) and pvp because we have such a low population.

Which ever part people play and like or hate is just as important as the other parts. I think once people get that through their heads they may realise there is more to keeping this game a float than just their self interested part of the game.

It's why server merges, server population density and activity are such a hot topic and why there is no consensus on why it's actually an issue for certain parts of the player base.

People are so focused on their part of the game that they forget that other people don't all play the same part as them. EVERY part of this game is just as important as another, we may not play it, we may not understand the attraction to it and we may hate it, but just losing one section of the community will sink this game. We are already running on fumes and we cannot afford to hold to our own petty differences anymore.

We are all entitled to our opinions and healthy discussions to promote our part of the game, but we should not be telling others that our part of the game is more self entitled than the next.

Changes to the game should take into account all aspects of the player base. I think most rational people here understand that and want what's best for the game. Occasionally some very small changes affect others unintentionally, that cannot not always be helped, but at least Bio seem to be trying to minimise those,

Class balance is one of those things that is going to affect some people more than others. What I think lots of us are trying to do is point out why we think there are some flaws in the process to actually minimise those disruptions. I think that is something people are forgetting.

 

That needed to be said.

 

IMO (as always): We're all in this together and arguing against each other's interests will not help us overall. Engaging (on an extended basis) with trolls or those playing "BW's Voice" is also a counter-productive distractiion.

[BigDumbViking]

So, some question on your DPS benchmarks.

 

Do you include the tanks specs of classes as well?

 

Do you compare AOE versus single target damages?

 

Because you still have issues in PVP with hybrid builds, where players are running Tank specs (Guardian/Juggernaut) with the tank armorings and DPS mods, enhancements, relics, implants, and earpieces. Tanks guardians are running around doing 20k+ guardian slashes and hits 8 targets. I'm regularly seeing tank spec guardians pull over 4k dps in WZ's and out dps most pure DPS classes. Given it's survivability, don't you think this should be given some attention?

 

There are also a lot of tank specced with DPS gear shadows/assassins running around, but their dps output pales in comparison.

[Rob_Knight]

So, some question on your DPS benchmarks.

 

Do you include the tanks specs of classes as well?

 

Do you compare AOE versus single target damages?

 

Because you still have issues in PVP with hybrid builds, where players are running Tank specs (Guardian/Juggernaut) with the tank armorings and DPS mods, enhancements, relics, implants, and earpieces. Tanks guardians are running around doing 20k+ guardian slashes and hits 8 targets. I'm regularly seeing tank spec guardians pull over 4k dps in WZ's and out dps most pure DPS classes. Given it's survivability, don't you think this should be given some attention?

 

There are also a lot of tank specced with DPS gear shadows/assassins running around, but their dps output pales in comparison.

 

They dont. its clear that they are not smart enough to consider more than one line of thought when it comes to anything at a time, thing and they have proven that sooo many times. Without the ability to limit "tank" gear and "dps" gear to the appropriate spec and restricted only to its appropriate spec (ie tank/tank gear) this will never be resolved. Also without a valid reason or necessity for at "tank" in the majority of war-zones (outside of ranked 4/4 if chosen) , same, not be resolved. another reason why PVP must be different from PVE.

[KendraP]

So, some question on your DPS benchmarks.

 

Do you include the tanks specs of classes as well?

 

Do you compare AOE versus single target damages?

 

Because you still have issues in PVP with hybrid builds, where players are running Tank specs (Guardian/Juggernaut) with the tank armorings and DPS mods, enhancements, relics, implants, and earpieces. Tanks guardians are running around doing 20k+ guardian slashes and hits 8 targets. I'm regularly seeing tank spec guardians pull over 4k dps in WZ's and out dps most pure DPS classes. Given it's survivability, don't you think this should be given some attention?

 

There are also a lot of tank specced with DPS gear shadows/assassins running around, but their dps output pales in comparison.

 

As a guardian player who runs with a healer that has practically begged me to swap to skank in in pvp (and has consistently refused because of personal objections), there are two very simple ways of encouraging people to not skank.

 

1. Buff guardian survivability in dps spec. As a vigi guardian who runs with a healer, I'm still very often focused--> dead. My primary means of resisting this are reflect and self heals. Which people just ignore. Too bad my reflect doesn't have a heal like mercs to force target swapping. Ohh wait my bitterness came through a bit sorry. At any rate, I do more dps as vigi than I do as a tank IF I can survive long enough to get damage off.

 

2. Make tank gear actually do something. The other main reason for skanking is that tank gear helps your survival very little (if at all) so the best way to survive is to kill an enemy. If tank gear resisted more attacks done by players, more people would run tank gear. Ergo no more complaints.

 

I could also say "return guard to tank specs" here but that doesn't actually affect the issue at hand since skanks generally are tank spec. This is however why I went to dps.

 

To people who say to nerf damage in tank spec I would say you would ruin my threat generation in pve. I do about 3k damage as a tank geared, tank spec character. Dps do what like 6-7k now on average? Holding threat is the primary job of a tank after all.

Edited June 22, 2017 by KendraP

[stoopicus]

Honestly the idea that skank tanks are a problem is laughable at best, even if you took mercs and snipers out of the picture. I see any discussion of skanking as a problem to be simply distraction from the facts of classes that actually need balancing down. Edited June 22, 2017 by stoopicus

[KendraP]

Honestly the idea that skank tanks are a problem is laughable at best, even if you took mercs and snipers out of the picture. I see any discussion of skanking as a problem to be simply distraction from the facts of classes that actually need balancing down.

 

There is a reason nothing I recommended was a nerf to guardians lol. A lot of the issue does stem from trying to fight snipers amd mercs on a gusrdian.

[stoopicus]

There is a reason nothing I recommended was a nerf to guardians lol. A lot of the issue does stem from trying to fight snipers amd mercs on a gusrdian.

 

Yeah, sorry if it seemed I was replying to you - I was more commenting on the larger than average volume of silly "BUT THE SKANK TANKS!!!1!" posts since the merc nerf announcement. Clear deflection attempts.

 

I mean, I don't blame them for not wanting to be nerfed, especially since they are going to get a bigger beatdown later when utilities are balanced, but complaining about skank tanks is just silly. It's simply not an issue, especially compared to how mercs and engi are breaking the warzones.

Edited June 22, 2017 by stoopicus

[Aetideus]

Once we are happy with the damage output, we can start adjusting utilities to give those that need it a boost and others that are too powerful a reduction.

 

So for 5 moths QQ in the forums for merc survivability, plus who knows how long studied before 5.0, the only thing you managed are those groupings.

And when the illumination reaches your intellect - who knows when - you ll end to the QQ demands.

So, a year ahead of merc rerolling for pvp .

 

Is it really so difficult to nerf 1 of the main Merc dcds? Even if you are wrong Merc would still have 2 lives.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Aetideus

[Yezzan]

So, some question on your DPS benchmarks.

 

Do you include the tanks specs of classes as well?

 

Do you compare AOE versus single target damages?

 

Because you still have issues in PVP with hybrid builds, where players are running Tank specs (Guardian/Juggernaut) with the tank armorings and DPS mods, enhancements, relics, implants, and earpieces. Tanks guardians are running around doing 20k+ guardian slashes and hits 8 targets. I'm regularly seeing tank spec guardians pull over 4k dps in WZ's and out dps most pure DPS classes. Given it's survivability, don't you think this should be given some attention?

 

There are also a lot of tank specced with DPS gear shadows/assassins running around, but their dps output pales in comparison.

 

This is a non-issue. A vigilance guardian running a shield generator would be sturdier than a Vigilance guardian running a focus off-hand, and would survive longer and put out more DPS.

 

Skank-Tanking is not an issue since there is no real need for a tank in Warzones, which is where this type of "hybrid" tank can survive. No one is going to recommend you go in to ranked as a skank tank and no one is going to take skank tank into a Master Mode Ops. So, asking them to balance something that is just used to troll the lesser competitive aspects of the game is not the best use of the Dev's time or resources.

 

You cannot skank tank a NiM ops ( unless there is no need for a tank swap, and you are not the main tank).

You will be tunneled and killed , first, in ranked if you are skanking. Plain and simple. And Sins have better survivability than jugs.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Yezzan

[Equeliber]

May be this question was already raised, too many pages to read.

 

Why is Rage Juggernaut considered pure burst but Fury marauder - quasi-burst, closer to sustain? in general these 2 specs are almost the same in terms of rotation/damage spread between abilities.

 

If anything, Rage jugg is the one with more sustain because of chilling scream's DoT. Fury marauder is more about the burst. Would love to hear combat team's thoughts on that.

[Icykill_]

May be this question was already raised, too many pages to read.

 

Why is Rage Juggernaut considered pure burst but Fury marauder - quasi-burst, closer to sustain? in general these 2 specs are almost the same in terms of rotation/damage spread between abilities.

 

If anything, Rage jugg is the one with more sustain because of chilling scream's DoT. Fury marauder is more about the burst. Would love to hear combat team's thoughts on that.

 

I agree

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

May be this question was already raised, too many pages to read.

 

Why is Rage Juggernaut considered pure burst but Fury marauder - quasi-burst, closer to sustain? in general these 2 specs are almost the same in terms of rotation/damage spread between abilities.

 

If anything, Rage jugg is the one with more sustain because of chilling scream's DoT. Fury marauder is more about the burst. Would love to hear combat team's thoughts on that.

 

Yeah it's all messed these new subset DPS cateogory.

 

I would think Fury would be considered pure burst becauses its front loaded and it's burst is pretty much unconditional and thus harder to stop than say Carnage for example. Carnage strikes me more as quasi-burst because it's burst isn't frontloaded and it's very conditional and is much more suseptable to being shut down, plus carnage has pretty strong sustained damage whereas Fury's is notably lower in comparison. Using burst outside of the ferocity window greatly diminshes it's damage whereas Fury, at worst will only lose about 5% of it's burst damage if it misses out on the boost from Cascading Power. It's very hard to stop Fury's burst due to it's passive anti-cc abilities and extra leap.

 

Quasi-burst doesn't really make much sense considering how reliable it's burst is and that it really doesn't need a set rotation to get it's burst out and it's burst damage values are quite consistent. And it's signature attack is after all called "Raging Burst " heh

 

They're as burst as burst gets.

Edited June 25, 2017 by WayOfTheWarriorx

[Zakittor]

Hello,

 

I hope it's not too late to argue about this post.

As English is not my native language, I hope I didn't misunderstand what you wrote.

 

My point is:

I don't understand why melee should output more damages than ranged.

You said:

Melee damage is disadvantaged because it must stay close to its target (often within four meters) in order to maximize damage output

This is of course true, but this is rebalanced by the fact that melee dps only have instant skills.

And ranged have many skills that need to be casted or channeled.

 

In PVE:

In operations, during a fight, a lot of events will force ranged players to stop their channel or cut their cast.

These can be boss skills that interrupt you, or to be forced to move because of, for example, an aoe that pops under your feet.

 

In PVP:

Ranged players can be interrupted while you can't interrupt a melee player.

Melee players have many skills to slow other players and then have no problem being close.

 

I hope you're not creating these "damage groupings" by only considering parses on dummies.

Also hoping that it's not too late to have an answer.

Sorry for bad english !

[TUXs]

This is of course true, but this is rebalanced by the fact that melee dps only have instant skills.

And ranged have many skills that need to be casted or channeled.

 

In PVE:

In operations, during a fight, a lot of events will force ranged players to stop their channel or cut their cast.

These can be boss skills that interrupt you, or to be forced to move because of, for example, an aoe that pops under your feet.

 

In PVP:

Ranged players can be interrupted while you can't interrupt a melee player.

Melee players have many skills to slow other players and then have no problem being close.

 

I hope you're not creating these "damage groupings" by only considering parses on dummies.

Also hoping that it's not too late to have an answer.

Sorry for bad english !

That is a brilliant point!!! Great observation!!!

 

I really like how you point out that dummies don't do ANY of that. That's a very important factor, and one I believe they are overlooking.

Edited June 26, 2017 by TUXs

[Icykill_]

Hello,

 

I hope it's not too late to argue about this post.

As English is not my native language, I hope I didn't misunderstand what you wrote.

 

My point is:

I don't understand why melee should output more damages than ranged.

You said:

 

This is of course true, but this is rebalanced by the fact that melee dps only have instant skills.

And ranged have many skills that need to be casted or channeled.

 

In PVE:

In operations, during a fight, a lot of events will force ranged players to stop their channel or cut their cast.

These can be boss skills that interrupt you, or to be forced to move because of, for example, an aoe that pops under your feet.

 

In PVP:

Ranged players can be interrupted while you can't interrupt a melee player.

Melee players have many skills to slow other players and then have no problem being close.

 

I hope you're not creating these "damage groupings" by only considering parses on dummies.

Also hoping that it's not too late to have an answer.

Sorry for bad english !

 

Great points and well written, I couldn't tell English isn't your first language 😊

[Icykill_]

That is a brilliant point!!! Great observation!!!

 

I really like how you point out that dummies don't do ANY of that. That's a very important factor, and one I believe they are overlooking.

 

They are great points, especially the parsing dummies.

 

I actually feel like this thread is one big parsing dummy because all our feedback we are giving is similar to each other and it feels like it's hitting a brick wall and not being listened to.

[TUXs]

They are great points, especially the parsing dummies.

 

I actually feel like this thread is one big parsing dummy because all our feedback we are giving is similar to each other and it feels like it's hitting a brick wall and not being listened to.

Yeah, until Zakittor mentioned it, I had forgotten that 5.0 removed cast times from melee - instant attacks vs channeled attacks are a HUGE factor...and I don't believe it's being weighed properly in Bioware's testing. In fights with lots of movement, damage drops off tremendously in PvE.

Edited June 26, 2017 by TUXs

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

Hello,

 

I hope it's not too late to argue about this post.

As English is not my native language, I hope I didn't misunderstand what you wrote.

 

My point is:

I don't understand why melee should output more damages than ranged.

You said:

 

This is of course true, but this is rebalanced by the fact that melee dps only have instant skills.

And ranged have many skills that need to be casted or channeled.

 

In PVE:

In operations, during a fight, a lot of events will force ranged players to stop their channel or cut their cast.

These can be boss skills that interrupt you, or to be forced to move because of, for example, an aoe that pops under your feet.

 

In PVP:

Ranged players can be interrupted while you can't interrupt a melee player.

Melee players have many skills to slow other players and then have no problem being close.

 

I hope you're not creating these "damage groupings" by only considering parses on dummies.

Also hoping that it's not too late to have an answer.

Sorry for bad english !

 

Melee are much more effected by Bosses than ranged ever are. There are cleaves and AOE attacks that will not effect ranged in the slightest and will not cause them to move. Being as though melee have to be close to the boss they are much more likely to sustain damage than ranged are.

"Melee players have many skills to slow other players and then have no problem being close."

 

You have that exactly backwards. Ranged tend to have more slows than melee do. Mercs and snipers have rotational slows, and slows used on Melee from ranged make it alot harder for a melee to get at them because ranged can be attacking melee alot sooner than melee can attack them. They have over a 20' range advantage on melee. If a melee gets rooted by a sniper who is 20' away, that sniper can unload his full rotation on them and the melee cannot attack them back. Mercs also do this often. Melee can't kite ranged. Ranged can kite the F out of melee if they know what they are doing. It's night and day in a WZ.

 

Snipers as a class have obsence amounts of control over melee. Their advantage is disgusting.

 

There a ton of Operation fights where melee suffer from more force downtime than ranged do, and there are many mechanics that effect melee that do not effect ranged in the slightest or to a lesser a degree.

 

I'm not going to bother to list all the fights in TOS and Ravagers, these two Ops are notoriously melee unfriendly.

 

Some examples -

 

Sparky jumping out of melee ranged at frequent intervals that do not effect ranged in the least by stop melee from attacking.

 

Bulo is insanely melee unfriend, and while the mechanics will force ranged to move those movements will not prevent them from putting out DPS on the boss and can cause melee signifcantly more variable downtime.

 

Torque, ranged can just stand in the back of the room, while melee is constantly being forced to move, many times out of attack range, and ranged wont miss a beat.

 

Ruugar, that's blantantly obviuos as favoring Ranged.

 

Other fights that cause greater downtime to melee than ranged -

 

Gharj, Many fights in TFB have travel time issues for melee that ranged dont [End fight tunnels to get to tenticles and anomolies, etc] Ranged can just stand on one Landing and just pew pew away the whole time.

 

Operator IX has similar travel time issues going from one side of the run to the other.

 

Ciphas, Heirad, and Kel'sara forces melee to spend half the fight chasing after Bosses while having to at the same time avoid stupid circles, ranged just pew pews.

 

Thrasher in TFB, try DPSing as a melee when you have a firebug and you have to hug the walls as you run around the walls of the arena. This is a tremendoud DPS loss.

 

Malaphar - Ranged barely has to move that entire fight, and they don't ever have to step one foot into the circle if they don't want to so they are never forced to leave it like melee do when they get too many stacks.

 

Sword Squadron

 

Underlurker massively favors ranged - Trying DPSing from behind stones as a melee. Ranged can pew pew away at the Lurkerlings and in HM the slow they cause has no effect on ranged DPS.

 

Revan HM. Quite possibly the worst fight in the entire game for melee, with insane downtimes on the 1st floor.

 

I could go on and on.

 

There is a reason why Mercs and Snipers are so OP presently, and it has absolutely nothing to do with their DPS persay, When you can attack people who cannot attack you back without a delay, if at all, that is a massive advantage.

 

It's not just this game. In Most mmos, melee needs more DPS to offset the greater downtime they face than ranged to say nothing of the fact that Melee are more often in greater danger than ranged are.

 

There's a reason why most assassinations IRL are done with a rifle or other firearm as opposed to a bladed weapon. They don't even know it;s coming, and even if they did, if they don't know where the shooter is, it's hard to figure out where you should try to break LOS.

 

Bears, Wolves, Big Cats, Elephants, Stags, they aren't immune to bladed weapons. If you put a sword thru a bears heart it will die just as quickly as if they were shot thru the heart.

 

So how come hunters always use rifles?

 

Because it's a whole lot safer to be able to try and kill something that would try and kill you back if it could, but can't because the hunter is 500 yards away.

 

How long could a bear's outstretched paw possibly reach?

 

If hunters used knives and swords to take down bears there'd be a lot less hunters in the world.

 

If you bring a gun to a knife fight, you're [p]wussy.

Edited June 26, 2017 by WayOfTheWarriorx