Please give archer a dagger.

Why is Dungeons & Dragons still the only game (and the first RPG ever made for that matter) to get this right?

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Fi..._Ranged_Attack

Another thread being dragged into the Ranged AA debate. I believe this thread's topic is about what Archer's melee range AA should be: punch, slap, shank, hug, what-have-you. Not whether or not Ranged AA should exist. The OP accepts that there will be a melee AA and no range AA, and is proposing a debate on how it should be.

Wait until you guys play the game after the patch before you go ape shit on something we don't know the full details on yet. If you feel absolutely compelled to debate this already old topic of ranged AA, there's already at least 2 threads for it.

Now as for this thread's topic - I would have preferred the arrow shanking myself :P
Although I must say being that Archer is my secondary after my Pugilist, having Archer punch at close range is not without a sense of irony for me~

Ya know with the way the later bows have all that armor plating and spikes and god knows what else tacked on. It would make more sense for a arc to play a bit of el Kabong with there bow in melee distance.

I can kind of dig why aa is not being expanded to actual ranged attacks. Arrows are a finite consumable resource, Yes i know there easy to come by and the have a massive stack size. Its also the responsibility of the player to make sure they don't derp out onto the battle field with ten arrows. That being said, As a Mrd i have never been reduced to useless status because i have run out of axe to hit things with.

Now if they were to change the finite nature of arrows, which i don't see happening in the near future. let the aa arrow plunk fly, and may it block out the sun.

Here is the dev reply in regards to archer sub weapon in the jp forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mocchi

弓術士の近接攻撃用の専用の武器を追加してほしいという件について、松井に聞いてきました。

気持ちはすごくすごくわかりますが、後衛クラスの弓術士の近接攻撃用の武器を入れてしまうことは、ジョブ／クラスのバランスや、アーマリーシステムとの相性を考えると実装はできないですとのことでした。

---

"We confirmed with Matsui in regards to adding a melee/sub weapon for archer.

While we really understand how you feel, considering the balancing required for class/job system and compatibility issues with the armory system, adding a melee weapon for Archer is not possible."

Being Archer main, i was rather upset that we would be using h2h, while i had a feeling we would not be getting ranged AA, i was hoping for a weapon of some kind like dagger. After having read this post, iv decided to wait and see how close range AA is on archer, since if their not even considering a sub weapon, then they must be really confident that the current option will work and not have a lot of people rage after implementation. Also interested in seeing how the job system will effect archer, since jobs are meant to help define class roles, archer is ranged and in the reply they talk about not wanting to destroy class/job balance by adding a weapon so will be interesting to see how job will effect archer.

In the end, if the system sucks, i'm sure enough people will rage and they will be forced to change since it seems like not a lot of people are fond of the current option in the JP section either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanguard319

you want a good excuse, here is a good excuse:
Archer is the ONLY class that is dependant on a limited amount of ammunition, once it runs out, you are down to a crappy stone throw that will maybe critical for 3 dmg. It is also one of the few classes where your damage and accuracy is affected by positioning. Auto Attack would burn through your ammunition at a fast pace, and would leave you no time to re-position if needed. Also, AA would cancel out the bind status caused by Shadowbind and close shot, meaning that the class would lose it's ability to solo.

There, THREE good reasons why ranged attacks should never be AA, don't like it, stick with your pointy stick thing. As for the unlimited quivers argument, FFXI had the same system, and I have yet to hear people whine about how it was unfair for rng to be one of the best dds and have a dependancy on ammunition to balance out that capability. Again, you don't like it, don't play it.

---

Sorry, but those are awful excuses. If you run out of ammo that's your own faut, and if you don't want remove bind just get out of active mode, not that big of a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanguard319

you want a good excuse, here is a good excuse:
Archer is the ONLY class that is dependant on a limited amount of ammunition, once it runs out, you are down to a crappy stone throw that will maybe critical for 3 dmg.

---

So don't run out of arrows. Derp!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanguard319

It is also one of the few classes where your damage and accuracy is affected by positioning. Auto Attack would burn through your ammunition at a fast pace, and would leave you no time to re-position if needed.

---

Two things here:
1. AA shouldn't burn up your ammo any faster than clicking 111111111 at perfect timing, which is what the hardcore people are going to be doing anyway.
2. It's not like AA is going to lock you to the spot. You can reposition fine. Many of us also want Archer to be able to fire while mobile. After all, mages can cast while mobile, and it does make sense for Archer to be able to do the same, perhaps with an accuracy penalty. You can give Archer the same sort of Steadfast-like accuracy trait and nerf the overall accuracy so that it encourages you to stand still but doesn't force you to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanguard319

Also, AA would cancel out the bind status caused by Shadowbind and close shot, meaning that the class would lose it's ability to solo.

---

I *really*...*really* fail to see how anyone thinks that you won't be able to easily slip in/out of auto-attack.

One would assume that you could just go Passive after binding, and then run where you need to, and resume when cooldowns are up.

what I really don't get is.....

Why are Archers complaining about close range auto attack, when they should not even be in melee range to begin with -.-

If you play it right Archers are the top DD class, but are controlled by no AA and ammunition. I think what WoW did (taking away limited ammunition) was a very stupid idea.

Like others have said, if there was ranged AA, there would be no control when it comes to damage output, or consumption, and that would ruin Archer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kailea_Nagisa

Like others have said, if there was ranged AA, there would be no control when it comes to damage output, or consumption, and that would ruin Archer.

---

...sigh...

Ranged AA will not impact consumption any more than someone spamming Light Shot over and over. In fact, given that the AA videos seem to show AA timing as being slightly slower than normal free-attack-spamming, it would probably go down.

This misconception really needs to die.

Quote:

---

"...considering the balancing required for class/job system and compatibility issues with the armory system, adding a melee weapon for Archer is not possible."

---

That may be the main reason.
And, to be honest, selfish me is convonced.
Though I think letting them attack with their bow at melee range (slap-slap, or trying to strangulate their enemy with the bowstring) sounds more appropriate for me.

Btw: What keeps them from using bow+arrows at close range? Lowered accuracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cutriss

...sigh...

Ranged AA will not impact consumption any more than someone spamming Light Shot over and over. In fact, given that the AA videos seem to show AA timing as being slightly slower than normal free-attack-spamming, it would probably go down.

This misconception really needs to die.

---

And the fact classes are getting adjusted/balance makes a lot of the control points moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamer

I vote no. I personally think that an archer in melee range shouldn't be able to attack, just like a gladiator out of melee range can't attack, but unfortunately they've already decided against that.

---

This is the correct idea. The rest of you are wrong. WRONG!

However, let's think about it further. An archer needs to use both their hands to operate their weapon. Why on earth would an archer punch something and risk injuring that hand? If they're going to do anything, they should be kicking, not punching.

The ideal solution would be a snare ability that can only be used in melee range.

Being Archer main, i have to disagree with people who think archer should not have any close range abilities/weapons in this game. I understand your point and i mostly agree with you, that archer should be mainly ranged but in THIS game, when soloing, you'll end up in close range combat whether you want to or not. You can argue that archers should be moving while attacking but that's not practical, since you stop every time u use a skill and the fact monsters are faster then you when in battle. So while i agree archers should be ranged mostly, the game does NOT allow it atm, so either fix it so archers can do close range or fix it so archers can stay ranged without getting pulled into close range combat.

For those none archers, its easy to simply say just stay ranged but unless you played archer in THIS game, you won't understand how hard it is to do that solo.

To fix the ranged issue u can do a few things.
1. Increase archers movement speed when engaged with a mob
2. Make using skills smoother so your not required to stop every time you use a skill.
3. Add effects to arrows, such as stun, bind, sleep arrows that allow you to keep the mob at a distance

I realize the down side to the ideas i proposed, which is it would be hard for archers to get hurt, but even thats not a problem atm considering all mobs have ranged attacks too.

on another note, in reply to balancing which they claim is the reason why archers can't have a melee weapon. While i understand what they are saying, i think its unfair that every close range combat class gets a ranged weapon but archers are not allowed to get a close ranged one.

Just one ridiculous post after another. Archers shouldn't be able to attack from close range?

Nkka iz you serious?

Every Class in this game has a Ranged attack..

Ranger should melee attack with the arrow they have equipped..

Piercing Damage with Equipped arrow for base stats..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiote

Every Class in this game has a Ranged attack..

Ranger should melee attack with the arrow they have equipped..

Piercing Damage with Equipped arrow for base stats..

---

Base stats? Have someone stab you with an arrow, then have them use a longbow to shoot you with that arrow. Which one hurts more?

So what's an Archer to do in the event that they run out of arrows? I know any Archer worth his salt wouldn't, but whatever shit happens. What if the mob is at 1% and he'd rather just finish it off with a quick weak melee hit instead of wasting an arrow that he spends money on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

So what's an Archer to do in the event that they run out of arrows? I know any Archer worth his salt wouldn't, but whatever shit happens. What if the mob is at 1% and he'd rather just finish it off with a quick weak melee hit instead of wasting an arrow that he spends money on?

---

You make it sound like money is hard to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrderio

Sorry, but those are awful excuses. If you run out of ammo that's your own faut, and if you don't want remove bind just get out of active mode, not that big of a problem.

---

yeah because the games responsiveness is so awesome that your character would never fire off a shot before you could get out of active mode. No ranged AA makes sense, punching in melee range does not. But now it does not matter, SE already stated it isn't possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrderio

You make it sound like money is hard to get.

---

And you're missing my point. You have to consider the possibility that one day this game will actually have an economy.

And I doubt it will be as bad as XI's where money just for ammo is a chore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrderio

And I doubt it will be as bad as XI's where money just for ammo is a chore.

---

You still haven't given me a good reason why Archer shouldn't be able to melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shura

Being Archer main, i was rather upset that we would be using h2h, while i had a feeling we would not be getting ranged AA, i was hoping for a weapon of some kind like dagger.

In the end, if the system sucks, i'm sure enough people will rage and they will be forced to change since it seems like not a lot of people are fond of the current option in the JP section either.

---

Going by most peoples responces to h2h on archer. Even those that are argueing what-ifs about AA on bow, most people seem to agree its a stupid concept, both in lore and visually.

I hope many Archers rage over this poor decision, and ultimatly prove how bad an idea "1 weapon = 1 class" was when designing this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

You still haven't given me a good reason why Archer shouldn't be able to melee.

---

And still no good reason why a RANGED class can't use their RANGED weapon for a RANGED auto attack.

Lawlammo. I mean, it's not like other games have ever used ammo successfully before amirite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capita

And still no good reason why a RANGED class can't use their RANGED weapon for a RANGED auto attack.

Lawlammo. I mean, it's not like other games have ever used ammo successfully before amirite?

---

STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN ME A GOOD REASON WHY ARCHERS SHOULDN'T MELEE WHY DO I EVEN BOTHER POSTING HERE JESUS.

Because outside of solo (Which isn't that difficult in the first place) giving archer a weak melee attack is a joke?

People need to play Eternal Sonata. Have fun with Viola at close and far ranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN ME A GOOD REASON WHY ARCHERS SHOULDN'T MELEE WHY DO I EVEN BOTHER POSTING HERE JESUS.

---

Because we have no use for it in parties and endgame? And we're a RANGED class, not a melee class.

Also, whyumadbro?

Besides, I never said we shouldn't melee. I said melee when it gets to melee range. But we should be able to ranged AA while it's far. Learn2read before you rage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capita

Because we have no use for it in parties and endgame? And we're a RANGED class, not a melee class.

Also, whyumadbro?

---

Pugilist is a melee class and they can throw chakrams, what's your point? Maybe they should just remove chakrams and tomahawks from melee classes right? And i'm not mad bro mr. hurr durr memes, I'm just shocked that people can be this adamant over something so ridiculous. Then again I have to remember where I'm posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corrderio

Because outside of solo (Which isn't that difficult in the first place) giving archer a weak melee attack is a joke?

---

There seems to be different arguments in this thread. But with regards to this one, there's also the NPC mobs to consider, many of them have to take on whole parties, and to be shut down by just rushing them into melee would render them trash mobs even at higher levels. They would have to come up with a new style of fighting to make it somewhat decent, and that development can be better used for the thief class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

Pugilist is a melee class and they can throw chakrams, what's your point? Maybe they should just remove chakrams and tomahawks from melee classes right? And i'm not mad bro mr. hurr durr memes, I'm just shocked that people can be this adamant over something so ridiculous. Then again I have to remember where I'm posting.

---

Read my post again, child. Or go back to playing LoL. Either one works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

Maybe they should just remove chakrams and tomahawks from melee classes right?.

---

Would it make a difference if they did? I don't think I've ever seen anyone throw a tomahawk in this game.

Archers absolutely need to have something to get the benefits of auto-attack. I simply think a punch is inappropriate given the mechanics of their weapon.

FFXI style?... in FFXI u HAVE NOT your bow in your hand all the time... CANT u see it? there u had daggers and only show your bow every time you shoots.

in FFXIV u have your bow in your hand ALL THE TIME (non passive mode) SO HOW u want to use daggers? every auto-attack to hide your bow like FFXI use dagger and come back to your bow? really..

archer = bow if u want more weapons, go another class.

"archers have knives on movies" and gladiators can use all kind of weapons...

If u want an auto-attack with bow go and ask it, but how u plan to move around if u have AA from distance? If u want to change from your position to another, u will be moving and stoping to use AA, moving and stoping.. until u arrive to your position. Melees can have it, coz AA only activate when u are enough close to the mob, but how will u handle it if u can use it on range too? to swap pasive every time u want to move?

I honestly don't think people understand the concept of having both ranged AA and melee AA. Is it really that difficult to imagine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capita

Read my post again, child. Or go back to playing LoL. Either one works.

---

UH OH, big man calling me a child because it gives your argument that extra UMPH and makes you seem oh so mature and superior right? Yeah I'm done with you, kid. Go back to watching anime.

See what I did there? Totally didn't make an ass of myself because this is how adults actually talk to each other. I was never talking about ranged AA to begin with as I don't really give a shit, just against the thought of archers being unable to melee PERIOD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RexSkyborn

When you're a higher level archer you'll understand. Same reason they don't have ranged auto attack in ffxi; their damage and hate is too high. You let an archer spam arrows in a party and they'll pull hate plain and simple. Mix in high damage hate building abilities, you need to be able to control your arrow shots after doing massive damage or you're asking to die. Id rather this then having to disengage every time I wanted to watch my hate.
They'd basically have to rebuild the archer class from the ground up.

no auto attack ranged please.

---

This was already answered, but I want to tag on as well.

It is smarter, from a game design perspective, to re-design or re-balance the class to take advantage of better underlying game mechanics (auto attack), than it is to preserve the way a class currently operates at the cost of making clunkier to play.

I do not know a single 75+ (since a lot of people played for years but quit before cap raises) RNG from FFXI who thought hitting a /ra macro for every arrow was a good idea. They tolerated it because they had to, but that doesn't mean it's good game design, or excuse making the same mistake twice.

There are tons of easy ways of reworking how certain abilities function to accommodate auto attack. For example, there's no reason Heavy Shot (or an equivalent, if SE does what it ought and removes all of the other "basic" attacks learned via the first quest or bought with guild marks) couldn't be used together with Multishot and Trifurcate. Balancing DPS is as easy as adjusting the recasts for each.

Removing limited ammo makes it even easier to balance ARC against other classes. One thing I've heard brought up which I think is actually a great idea is that all the damage should be shifted to the bow, with arrow used to determine attack effects (e.g. elemental damage, status damage, etc., potentially coupled with a negative per-hit damage adjustment if necessary). It almost certainly won't happen because it would mean more changes than they seem willing to make to the armory system (see also: why ARC AA will be a bare-fisted punch).

With such a system, then it's a heck of a lot easier to balance the class than having to account for how one balances a pay-to-play class, or to deal with all the different weapon/ammo combinations.

On that note, pay-to-play classes are stupid in MMOs, because they are impossible to balance properly. They have to be stronger to justify paying for your damage. But they can't be stronger, or they're the ideal choice assuming one can afford to play it. That is the central point of why I think ammo should be removed as a limited resource. In FFXI, for example, when NIN and RNG were the strongest classes but most expensive to play, people complained. Then they were nerfed, and there was little reason to use either because you were spending more money to get average-at-best results (why keep paying out the butt for Demon or Kabura arrows when every other DD class could keep up for free?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanguard319

you want a good excuse, here is a good excuse:
Archer is the ONLY class that is dependant on a limited amount of ammunition, once it runs out, you are down to a crappy stone throw that will maybe critical for 3 dmg. It is also one of the few classes where your damage and accuracy is affected by positioning. Auto Attack would burn through your ammunition at a fast pace, and would leave you no time to re-position if needed. Also, AA would cancel out the bind status caused by Shadowbind and close shot, meaning that the class would lose it's ability to solo.

There, THREE good reasons why ranged attacks should never be AA, don't like it, stick with your pointy stick thing. As for the unlimited quivers argument, FFXI had the same system, and I have yet to hear people whine about how it was unfair for rng to be one of the best dds and have a dependancy on ammunition to balance out that capability. Again, you don't like it, don't play it.

---

What a stupid argument, sorry.

So you want to implement a crappier system for basic attacks to preserve the current class design, despite the fact that the end result, after redesigning the class, could be much better?

Limited ammo is a terrible argument. I just explained why above. It should never, EVER be used to justify poor game design in an MMO, and is an instant rathole that will permanently mar game balance.

I don't depend on Shadowbind to solo (holy recast batman), so I don't see how a ranged AA would ruin things. All it would do is change the tactics people use. Just because what currently semi-works would no longer be viable doesn't mean that another, better tactic may not become available.

RNG was one of the best DDs until about 2004 when they nerfed its pants off. It then spent about the next 5 years slowly creeping back to parity (even in 2009 with all of its reworked buffs and abilities, it was on par, at best, with other DDs). There were some fights where RNG was useful due to its ability to avoid AOE, but it was never head-and-shoulders better than another DD. What you ended up paying for was the ability to be less of an MP sink, not the ability to be a better DD. It would've been a much better class (and much easier to bring into balance with melee DDs) had it not been a pay-to-play class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kailea_Nagisa

what I really don't get is.....

Why are Archers complaining about close range auto attack, when they should not even be in melee range to begin with -.-

If you play it right Archers are the top DD class, but are controlled by no AA and ammunition. I think what WoW did (taking away limited ammunition) was a very stupid idea.

Like others have said, if there was ranged AA, there would be no control when it comes to damage output, or consumption, and that would ruin Archer.

---

Complaining about a close-range AA because a ranged AA would make more sense. Given that other classes' AAs are their basic "light" attack, it would not be a cause for concern for damage output, arrow consumption, and would not ruin ARC.

Of course, the real answer is to do away with limited ammo, because it's a moronic concept in an MMO (there are better ways to get money flowing in the economy), and then all the complaints about ammo management vanish.

The better answer, rather than making ARC a frustratingly spammy class to play, is to rebalance it for a ranged AA and unlimited ammo. As I've said repeatedly, the basic play of a class should not be a cause for frustration. Hitting a button to fire every arrow is frustrating, especially when other classes can perform at least basic attacks without doing so. It was annoying as heck in FFXI, and it's annoying as heck (for all classes) in FFXIV.

Heaven forbid you ever need to communicate important information mid-battle while playing RNG or ARC, since taking the time to type out a reasonable-length chat message has just temporarily dropped your DPS to zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN ME A GOOD REASON WHY ARCHERS SHOULDN'T MELEE WHY DO I EVEN BOTHER POSTING HERE JESUS.

---

Because they shouldn't need to. If they removed limited ammunition and changed AA to be ranged, it would be irrelevant.

Or if they don't remove limited ammunition and ARC runs out, it could also switch to rock throw AA instead of punching. I would not be surprised if an ARC's bare-fisted punch is about as effective as a rock throw in any case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

UH OH, big man calling me a child because it gives your argument that extra UMPH and makes you seem oh so mature and superior right?.

---

Said the one that can post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

And i'm not mad bro mr. hurr durr memes, I'm just shocked that people can be this adamant over something so ridiculous. Then again I have to remember where I'm posting.

---

Also...you should really think about yourself with this line:

Quote:

---

I'm just shocked that people can be this adamant over something so ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

UH OH, big man calling me a child because it gives your argument that extra UMPH and makes you seem oh so mature and superior right? Yeah I'm done with you, kid. Go back to watching anime.

See what I did there? Totally didn't make an ass of myself because this is how adults actually talk to each other.

---

You could, you know, make a decent argument outside of "OMG ammo I'm right you're wrong rage rage rage". Hence the LoL reference, because it's quite obvious to me that you belong there with all the other kiddie ragers.

Now, please, give me a good reason why we shouldn't be able to ranged AA when the mob is at range and melee AA when the mob is in melee.

CC? Please. Many other games with ranged AA dealt with "break on hit" CC all the time. Other classes with AA in this game are no different.

Ammo? Again, other games have dealt with the ammo system just fine. Hell, the early days of WoW had arrows only stacking up to 200. That's not very much for a class whose DPS was a good amount of AA.

Endgame? You're telling me it's a good idea for us, assuming AA DPS is significant enough, to have to go into melee to match melee DPS? As a ranged class? And risk getting hit by an AOE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capita

You could, you know, make a decent argument outside of "OMG ammo I'm right you're wrong rage rage rage". Hence the LoL reference, because it's quite obvious to me that you belong there with all the other kiddie ragers.

Now, please, give me a good reason why we shouldn't be able to ranged AA when the mob is at range and melee AA when the mob is in melee.

CC? Please. Many other games with ranged AA dealt with "break on hit" CC all the time. Other classes with AA in this game are no different.

Ammo? Again, other games have dealt with the ammo system just fine.

Endgame? You're telling me it's a good idea for us, assuming AA DPS is significant enough, to have to go into melee to match melee DPS? As a ranged class? And risk getting hit by an AOE?

---

When did I ever say you shouldn't be able to ranged AA? I'm only saying Archer should have the option to melee regardless of whether it's a ranged class or not.

Do you really think I'm suggesting that Archers should spend their time meleeing for damage?

Who are you arguing with?

But you're right, I should go back to LoL with all the kiddie ragers, because dealing with the scum that makes up the majority of LoL players would probably be better than arguing with a guy who not only misunderstands my view completely but acts like a complete ass in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demacia

When did I ever say you shouldn't be able to ranged AA? I'm only saying Archer should have the option to melee regardless of whether it's a ranged class or not.

Do you really think I'm suggesting that Archers should spend their time meleeing for damage?

Who are you arguing with?

But you're right, I should go back to LoL with all the kiddie ragers, because dealing with the scum that makes up the majority of LoL players would probably be better than arguing with a guy who not only misunderstands my view completely but acts like a complete ass in general.

---

I entered the conversation saying we should have ranged AA and you raged asking why we shouldn't be able to melee. I didn't even mention anything about not being able to melee. You're the one who misunderstood first and raged about it with AMGAH CAPS. I merely followed suit.

Honestly I enjoy reading alot of these threads, even the troll ones are entertaining. And I will admit an Archer using fists for a weapon sounds different. But for petes sake, they just announced this yesterday can we wait to try it out before we tell them to fix what could be better then daggers?

And I'm sure this has already been said but I'll +1 it... Archers will be ranged attacking. And only ranged attacking (I think that was the point of using bare fists as the alternative means of damage dealing). So people wouldn't be shooting arrows from point blank like in 11. Not that people ever did that in this game, but we didn't have auto-attack in this game either. Devs see potential OP class prior to patch, so devs attempt to balance class ahead of time.