Rangers
Kiryan: Rogues can poison throwing weapons. I know Yaya poisoned a pouch of 150 darts back during open alpha testing for the run against Tia. So yes, I CAN imagine what you described, except for the upwards of 4 arrows a round since the max we can hit is 3.
In any case, if a system of called shots or ranged combat skills is implemented, it should at least try to have some semblence of realism in it. Shooting anything smaller then a giant in the throat is going to do MUCH more then just silence it and anything without its eyes on eyestalks or otherwise not directly socketed in its cranium is going to be missing a good chunk of its brain after the arrow is done penetrating the eye. There are already too many procs, poisons, and other things that just emulate spell based status effects anyway. I'd rather see something new that makes sense for ranged weaponry. Things like a stapling shot which, if successful, pins a target to its surroundings by firing an arrow through its clothing or a relatively thin part of its anatomy and makes it impossible for them to flee, track, or otherwise leave the room until a few rounds are spent removing the arrow. Chance of success would depend partially on the size and type of the creature (a ancient dragon is going to be much harder to stick in place then a troll with long, gangly arms). Or the ability to set an arrow on fire (and only one. Sticking a burning arrow in a quiver or beside your boots is a BAD idea) to try to set an enemy on fire and do some continius damage (like the burn effects on betlyn's, inferno, acid storm, blizzard sphere, etc.) at the cost of automatically destroying the arrow and a chance to hurt yourself by bungling up. Or to provide supression fire, firing a bunch of arrows not meant to really hurt the mob (on top of the normal arrows we fire. Just trying to fan a mob with arrows wouldn't have this effect realistically) but more for keeping it from moving too much, and therefore hurting its ability to switch, and possibly bash. Just some ideas, but in between blindness, sunray, pwb, poison, pris, procs, and glitterdust we already have enough ways to try to blind mobs, have multiple ways of trying to land the 876 or so other status effects we have the game too, and should come up with more logical ways of inhibiting a mob with ranged weaponry. In any case though, ranged combat still has a good amount of tweaking and smoothing out that needs to be done to more basic attributes before new stuff is added in.
Trel, who's been playing too much Fallout and Counterstrike clones.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 01-19-2002).]
In any case, if a system of called shots or ranged combat skills is implemented, it should at least try to have some semblence of realism in it. Shooting anything smaller then a giant in the throat is going to do MUCH more then just silence it and anything without its eyes on eyestalks or otherwise not directly socketed in its cranium is going to be missing a good chunk of its brain after the arrow is done penetrating the eye. There are already too many procs, poisons, and other things that just emulate spell based status effects anyway. I'd rather see something new that makes sense for ranged weaponry. Things like a stapling shot which, if successful, pins a target to its surroundings by firing an arrow through its clothing or a relatively thin part of its anatomy and makes it impossible for them to flee, track, or otherwise leave the room until a few rounds are spent removing the arrow. Chance of success would depend partially on the size and type of the creature (a ancient dragon is going to be much harder to stick in place then a troll with long, gangly arms). Or the ability to set an arrow on fire (and only one. Sticking a burning arrow in a quiver or beside your boots is a BAD idea) to try to set an enemy on fire and do some continius damage (like the burn effects on betlyn's, inferno, acid storm, blizzard sphere, etc.) at the cost of automatically destroying the arrow and a chance to hurt yourself by bungling up. Or to provide supression fire, firing a bunch of arrows not meant to really hurt the mob (on top of the normal arrows we fire. Just trying to fan a mob with arrows wouldn't have this effect realistically) but more for keeping it from moving too much, and therefore hurting its ability to switch, and possibly bash. Just some ideas, but in between blindness, sunray, pwb, poison, pris, procs, and glitterdust we already have enough ways to try to blind mobs, have multiple ways of trying to land the 876 or so other status effects we have the game too, and should come up with more logical ways of inhibiting a mob with ranged weaponry. In any case though, ranged combat still has a good amount of tweaking and smoothing out that needs to be done to more basic attributes before new stuff is added in.
Trel, who's been playing too much Fallout and Counterstrike clones.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 01-19-2002).]
If proccing arrows are in the game then rangers dont need any sort of called shot skill. But it might be more helpful if when using archery that arrows in your inventory got shot before those in the quiver.
Would need to fix the collection bug but,
A) this would make luring easier if you rem your quiver and get 1 arrow from it to fire
B) if you have a blindness arrow you would shoot this first instead of wherever it ends up in your quiver at the end of battle
Also the default quiver needs to be 250, 100 is way too small. maybe 100 for the innate carved quiver.
Pythrrus
(yeah, same thing for thrown weapons)
Would need to fix the collection bug but,
A) this would make luring easier if you rem your quiver and get 1 arrow from it to fire
B) if you have a blindness arrow you would shoot this first instead of wherever it ends up in your quiver at the end of battle
Also the default quiver needs to be 250, 100 is way too small. maybe 100 for the innate carved quiver.
Pythrrus
(yeah, same thing for thrown weapons)
I disagree that 100 is too small for a quiver - the only time I've ran out of arrows is when my quiver isn't full, and I've run some pretty steady zoning.
What I would like to see though, is some kind of a reload command. Where you have a partially depleted quiver worn, and a stocked quiver in your inventory. Type reload to transfer arrows from your inventory quiver into your worn one.
My stand on poisoned/proc arrows is neutral right now until someone finds this mysterious proc bow and we see what it can do.
Sylvos
What I would like to see though, is some kind of a reload command. Where you have a partially depleted quiver worn, and a stocked quiver in your inventory. Type reload to transfer arrows from your inventory quiver into your worn one.
My stand on poisoned/proc arrows is neutral right now until someone finds this mysterious proc bow and we see what it can do.
Sylvos
Sylvos: It does happen. Rarely, but it does. Had a fight against 11 death knights in CC last night that required a midbattle reload 
But in any case, there does need to be more variety in quivers I think. As it is, the only difference is just in ANSI. I know some throwing weapon quivers actually have stats and I don't believe they're all of equal size (ie, dart pouches can hold more darts then a bandolier will knives) so it's obviously not impossible for quivers to be different from each other. Just more food for thought.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
But in any case, there does need to be more variety in quivers I think. As it is, the only difference is just in ANSI. I know some throwing weapon quivers actually have stats and I don't believe they're all of equal size (ie, dart pouches can hold more darts then a bandolier will knives) so it's obviously not impossible for quivers to be different from each other. Just more food for thought.------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
All these ideas are great! I'm not sure if rangers should have a skill proc though (seems a bit over powered). Maybe having arrows that can be bought that have the small chance of doing said ability. Bare with me on this.
During history lots of innovations were made to arrows. Some were design specific for piercing armour, others were designed to leave horrible wounds, some cut limbs, ropes, etc., and some even just to make noise when shot. Im not saying all are going to be ideal but some can be nice to have in your quiver (also the idea of shooting from inventory first... nice!). Just a thought
Turgil Telepelen.
During history lots of innovations were made to arrows. Some were design specific for piercing armour, others were designed to leave horrible wounds, some cut limbs, ropes, etc., and some even just to make noise when shot. Im not saying all are going to be ideal but some can be nice to have in your quiver (also the idea of shooting from inventory first... nice!). Just a thought
Turgil Telepelen.
-
kiryan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
thx for the correction about number of attacks.
I dont think staple shot is a good idea, nor do i think its "realistic" except in fantasy books.
If anything happens, I suggest that it not be a command proc skill to avoid twinkness. Random proc I think is more than sufficient.
On further thought i dont like anything about this idea anymore. bad rp and imo makes them too much like rogues. I think archery should stay as it is, uber dam, no more innate specials, procing weapons only.
I dont think staple shot is a good idea, nor do i think its "realistic" except in fantasy books.
If anything happens, I suggest that it not be a command proc skill to avoid twinkness. Random proc I think is more than sufficient.
On further thought i dont like anything about this idea anymore. bad rp and imo makes them too much like rogues. I think archery should stay as it is, uber dam, no more innate specials, procing weapons only.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kiryan:
<B>
I dont think staple shot is a good idea, nor do i think its "realistic" except in fantasy books.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*peer*
*ponder*
err...?
*peer*
Err... You mean like the Forgotten Realms series of fantasy novels that Sojourn is based on?
Sarvis
<B>
I dont think staple shot is a good idea, nor do i think its "realistic" except in fantasy books.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*peer*
*ponder*
err...?
*peer*
Err... You mean like the Forgotten Realms series of fantasy novels that Sojourn is based on?
Sarvis
All this talk of archery and the question I am dying to ask is:
How many of you have actually handled and shot a bow? Know what makes a recurve, a 'recurve'? Compound? Etc.
I was heavily involved in archery when I was younger and it makes me laugh to think you should be able to shoot 3 arrows/round while your buds are fighting right smack in front of you. I think the smaller the room the more you should balk in your shooting, or yes even hit your tank in the back of the skull and kill him.
You rangers crack me up. You have so much and keep asking for more. Have you no dignity?
How many of you have actually handled and shot a bow? Know what makes a recurve, a 'recurve'? Compound? Etc.
I was heavily involved in archery when I was younger and it makes me laugh to think you should be able to shoot 3 arrows/round while your buds are fighting right smack in front of you. I think the smaller the room the more you should balk in your shooting, or yes even hit your tank in the back of the skull and kill him.
You rangers crack me up. You have so much and keep asking for more. Have you no dignity?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Koldaz:
<B>All this talk of archery and the question I am dying to ask is:
How many of you have actually handled and shot a bow? Know what makes a recurve, a 'recurve'? Compound? Etc.
I was heavily involved in archery when I was younger and it makes me laugh to think you should be able to shoot 3 arrows/round while your buds are fighting right smack in front of you. I think the smaller the room the more you should balk in your shooting, or yes even hit your tank in the back of the skull and kill him.
You rangers crack me up. You have so much and keep asking for more. Have you no dignity?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the idea of 12 people crowding around one person and swinging weapons at them, while others shoot lightning bolts at them(basically through the melee types) doesn't make you laugh? Sure it's a bit unrealistic, but so is the entire concept of a tank being the only one to be attacked, or the idea of hitting a mob with a meteorswarm while missing the guy standing toe to toe with him. So let's put in a % chance every round for everyone except the tank to accidently hit the tank instead, and kill them. And we'll make it so area spells will hit everything in the room, instead of just mobs while we're at it.
<B>All this talk of archery and the question I am dying to ask is:
How many of you have actually handled and shot a bow? Know what makes a recurve, a 'recurve'? Compound? Etc.
I was heavily involved in archery when I was younger and it makes me laugh to think you should be able to shoot 3 arrows/round while your buds are fighting right smack in front of you. I think the smaller the room the more you should balk in your shooting, or yes even hit your tank in the back of the skull and kill him.
You rangers crack me up. You have so much and keep asking for more. Have you no dignity?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the idea of 12 people crowding around one person and swinging weapons at them, while others shoot lightning bolts at them(basically through the melee types) doesn't make you laugh? Sure it's a bit unrealistic, but so is the entire concept of a tank being the only one to be attacked, or the idea of hitting a mob with a meteorswarm while missing the guy standing toe to toe with him. So let's put in a % chance every round for everyone except the tank to accidently hit the tank instead, and kill them. And we'll make it so area spells will hit everything in the room, instead of just mobs while we're at it.
Two things
1) This thread started as a request to allow rangers to choose specializations - melee or archery. NOT a damn give rangers proc/poison ability. You wanna discuss/flame that, this ain't the place.
2) Every once in awhile, someone feels the need to label all rangers as twinks. I really don't get this. Given the recent twink thread, we have the following definitions to use for twink.
a) Someone who is using their skills in an attempt to 'break' or exploit the game. Given that this is all happening OOC away from the game, I really don't see how the term twink can be applied to ANYONE based on their posts on the bbs.
b) Someone who has no knowledge of the game, how it is played or other aspects of it. Numerous people posting can qualify for this - and I'm f***ing tired of being lumped in with them because of the class I play. Yes I play a ranger. I've played a ranger since 1995. Does this give me any extra leveredge? No, there are some people who have been here longer than I. But it sure as hell disqualifies me, and a large number of this board's posters, from the second classification of twink.
Feels like I've gotten off base, but I had to get that out because I'm fed up with the general reasonableness of posts, and then suddenly out of nowhere someone calls rangers twinks, or powergamers, or crackheads, whatever. Get over it - if you don't like rangers for whatever reason, don't say anything to or about them. It's freaking lame.
Sylvos the disgruntled.
1) This thread started as a request to allow rangers to choose specializations - melee or archery. NOT a damn give rangers proc/poison ability. You wanna discuss/flame that, this ain't the place.
2) Every once in awhile, someone feels the need to label all rangers as twinks. I really don't get this. Given the recent twink thread, we have the following definitions to use for twink.
a) Someone who is using their skills in an attempt to 'break' or exploit the game. Given that this is all happening OOC away from the game, I really don't see how the term twink can be applied to ANYONE based on their posts on the bbs.
b) Someone who has no knowledge of the game, how it is played or other aspects of it. Numerous people posting can qualify for this - and I'm f***ing tired of being lumped in with them because of the class I play. Yes I play a ranger. I've played a ranger since 1995. Does this give me any extra leveredge? No, there are some people who have been here longer than I. But it sure as hell disqualifies me, and a large number of this board's posters, from the second classification of twink.
Feels like I've gotten off base, but I had to get that out because I'm fed up with the general reasonableness of posts, and then suddenly out of nowhere someone calls rangers twinks, or powergamers, or crackheads, whatever. Get over it - if you don't like rangers for whatever reason, don't say anything to or about them. It's freaking lame.
Sylvos the disgruntled.
Heartfelt agreement here, Sylvos. I'd go into it farther, but I'm sure I'd end up insulting someone. It's one reason I rarely use the BBS.
I don't see where a called shot skill with a # of uses per/day based on level would be unbalancing. No more than the ability to instantly kill something =)
We just want to be more desirable to take to zones. Thats all!
Lost
I don't see where a called shot skill with a # of uses per/day based on level would be unbalancing. No more than the ability to instantly kill something =)
We just want to be more desirable to take to zones. Thats all!
Lost
-
kiryan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
clairification why i think staple shot is unrealistic
1. if im fighting you, im prolly not standing next to a tree, fence post, barn, door, or whatever else you could possibly "staple" me too.
2. hitting a hand or arm while im swinging a weapon (or wearing a shield) would be ultra hard id wager even if i was standing next to something you could "staple" me too.
this idea is far fetched even for fantasy realms.
1. if im fighting you, im prolly not standing next to a tree, fence post, barn, door, or whatever else you could possibly "staple" me too.
2. hitting a hand or arm while im swinging a weapon (or wearing a shield) would be ultra hard id wager even if i was standing next to something you could "staple" me too.
this idea is far fetched even for fantasy realms.
Koldaz, they are merely asking to be uber.
I was thinking about this too when archery was first imped; I was like, 'how the hell would someone shoot 5 arrows in one exchange round?' If you wanted to make it realistic, you could have 3 arrows/round (for a good archer, that's possible, especially given that melee types are getting what, 6 attacks in the meantime?) but re-institute that crit does damage*100 (hit him in the throat or eye, it's going to be painful) and lower the crit rate. An archery crit *should* kill, if you want straight-up realism. It means mob got shot in some place where it really couldn't afford to be hit.
Against say, a faerie mob, perhaps it isn't so realistic that you target so accurately, shooting him through melee, but most archery situations are like the scene in LOTR where legolas shoots the kraken - BIG monster, small tank, leaving lots of room to move around and shoot around your friends.
PS - does size give a bonus to hitting mobs with archery?
I was thinking about this too when archery was first imped; I was like, 'how the hell would someone shoot 5 arrows in one exchange round?' If you wanted to make it realistic, you could have 3 arrows/round (for a good archer, that's possible, especially given that melee types are getting what, 6 attacks in the meantime?) but re-institute that crit does damage*100 (hit him in the throat or eye, it's going to be painful) and lower the crit rate. An archery crit *should* kill, if you want straight-up realism. It means mob got shot in some place where it really couldn't afford to be hit.
Against say, a faerie mob, perhaps it isn't so realistic that you target so accurately, shooting him through melee, but most archery situations are like the scene in LOTR where legolas shoots the kraken - BIG monster, small tank, leaving lots of room to move around and shoot around your friends.
PS - does size give a bonus to hitting mobs with archery?
Kiryan: I don't necessarily think a staple shot is a good idea either. Just wanted to point out how ludicrous it was to say that it isn't appropriate because it only happens in fantasy novels.
Moritheil: Heh. I'd never put my back against a wall. Neither would most martial artists. The only way you can win a fight against so many people is to keep moving around and not let them surround you and take your options away.
Koldaz: We all took archery classes in high school. Well, I did at least. You're right... it _is_ hard to get off shots fast with any accuracy. However we really have no idea how long a "round" on soj3 takes. But I would assume that for 15 people to close in on one enemy and attack several times would take quite a bit of time.
As for the whole toe-to-toe thing, refer to my statement above. Everyone is moving around a lot, not just standing still whacking at each other. (The quickest possible way to lose a fight irl.)
Sarvis
Moritheil: Heh. I'd never put my back against a wall. Neither would most martial artists. The only way you can win a fight against so many people is to keep moving around and not let them surround you and take your options away.
Koldaz: We all took archery classes in high school. Well, I did at least. You're right... it _is_ hard to get off shots fast with any accuracy. However we really have no idea how long a "round" on soj3 takes. But I would assume that for 15 people to close in on one enemy and attack several times would take quite a bit of time.
As for the whole toe-to-toe thing, refer to my statement above. Everyone is moving around a lot, not just standing still whacking at each other. (The quickest possible way to lose a fight irl.)
Sarvis
First off, who said anything about only trying to target your arm? Hitting an arm of something wielding a weapon that uses multiple angles of attack with a ranged weapon is extremely difficult. Hitting a LEG isn't going to be quite as difficult if you're patient and wait for the target to slow down to turn or hold a position. Unless you're in a !ground room, you're leg's gonna be touching the floor (I'm ignoring fly since the mud does too for combat purposes. We seem to touch down first before engaging anything). That's my reasoning for why it might work outdoors where there isn't as much in terms of convenient objects to staple something against (though dragons always seem to find a convenient barrier to buffet us against). Indoors, there's gonna be more crap around the room to make up for a harder floor surface. Oh, and since I'm guessing you were making a reference to a troll's arms earlier, I was talking about the average troll which uses no weapons and their habit of running with arms dangling at their sides (something from their description in one of the various monstrous manuals for D&D). Something I should clarify is that these abilities don't need to have a high chance of success. Balancing the success rate of any archery skill coupled with the fact that it's extremely difficult to hit a mob once they're missile aware should eleminate much of the twinking ability since if you mess up once, you won't even be able to hit it unless you're in the same room and exposed to danger. For that matter, I'd imagine that many of these skills wouldn't be as effective if you tried to use them from too far away either so making most of them in room only is something I favor. Ranged from another room is really only good for luring or lazy align work.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
All I have to say on this subject is that in my mind, it would be much easier to instantly kill/cripple/etc something by swinging a sword at it. So if this ability were given to arrows, then it would be something more that makes the ranger class more unrealistic. Warriors cannot instantly kill something by hacking at it, so the ability should not be given to arrows.
And as for the number or arrows shot in a round, I don't think it should be a fixed number of attacks each round. When my warrior dual wields, sometimes he gets only 1 attack a round, and other times he will get 3 attacks (dual wield skill and double attack both kick in.) I think archery should operate on the same principle. Have a set number of attacks as the max, and each round the number of shots they can vary from one, up to the max. Just my thoughts.
Lyt
And as for the number or arrows shot in a round, I don't think it should be a fixed number of attacks each round. When my warrior dual wields, sometimes he gets only 1 attack a round, and other times he will get 3 attacks (dual wield skill and double attack both kick in.) I think archery should operate on the same principle. Have a set number of attacks as the max, and each round the number of shots they can vary from one, up to the max. Just my thoughts.
Lyt
-
Eilorn
- Sojourner
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Salt Lake City,UT,USA 84116
- Contact:
Shoot the mob in the foot, that'll 'staple' him in place. And, if it doesn't it's certainly going to slow him down or distract him some.
Also, I know some of my ranger's fights have stuck upwards of 20 arrows in a mob, and in this thread people have talked about 100 arrows not being enough for a fight... shouldn't the pincushion of arrows stuck in the mob offer some protection from everyone whaling away on it?
Eilorn.
Also, I know some of my ranger's fights have stuck upwards of 20 arrows in a mob, and in this thread people have talked about 100 arrows not being enough for a fight... shouldn't the pincushion of arrows stuck in the mob offer some protection from everyone whaling away on it?
Eilorn.
I've been playing since 1993 or 1994, honestly forgot. Human ranger. I've always loved the class, but felt they needed some distinction. I'm more into the role-playing part of it, meaning getting some type of little animal follower or something. Doesn't have to really be of any benefit in combat, just something to make us rangers.
After alot of fun taunts with the gods forage finally went in towards the end of Sojourn, if I'm not mistaken. What else would I like to see? Having us pray for spells instead of mem them. Granted, this is difficult due to the way of the code.
Also, please don't whine. You guys all play half-breed or elven rangers and get infra and all the non-human weapons, which are the best for rangers now. I don't. It really tells me alot when I type who and I'm the only human ranger. Talk about roleplaying.
I agree with Sylvos, just dont whine or flame, it makes you look bad. Let us play our rangers for whatever reasons we play them. Let's try to come up with some real things to make them be 'rangers', not some twinkie ranger we'd find in an anime with three weapons with multiple blades and a dragon pet.
Summary:
1. Praying for spells.
2. Summon follower. (Bear, eagle, etc.) something silly and small but with great roleplay value and class distinction.
3. A composite long bow (HUMAN ONLY) quest item.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Warder of the Realms
After alot of fun taunts with the gods forage finally went in towards the end of Sojourn, if I'm not mistaken. What else would I like to see? Having us pray for spells instead of mem them. Granted, this is difficult due to the way of the code.
Also, please don't whine. You guys all play half-breed or elven rangers and get infra and all the non-human weapons, which are the best for rangers now. I don't. It really tells me alot when I type who and I'm the only human ranger. Talk about roleplaying.
I agree with Sylvos, just dont whine or flame, it makes you look bad. Let us play our rangers for whatever reasons we play them. Let's try to come up with some real things to make them be 'rangers', not some twinkie ranger we'd find in an anime with three weapons with multiple blades and a dragon pet.
Summary:
1. Praying for spells.
2. Summon follower. (Bear, eagle, etc.) something silly and small but with great roleplay value and class distinction.
3. A composite long bow (HUMAN ONLY) quest item.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Warder of the Realms
*peer Adriorn*
Not _all_ of us play ahfl-elf/elf rangers. I'm definately a human...
I believe Miax said they would consider changing rangers to pray after they got some of the more important things done. ie. elementalists. Hrm... those are done now aren't they? So maybe we'll be seeing it soon? *beg forgers*
I don't really like the idea of rangers becoming a "pet" class though.
Composit longbow... human only... I LIKE IT!!!!
Not _all_ of us play ahfl-elf/elf rangers. I'm definately a human...
I believe Miax said they would consider changing rangers to pray after they got some of the more important things done. ie. elementalists. Hrm... those are done now aren't they? So maybe we'll be seeing it soon? *beg forgers*
I don't really like the idea of rangers becoming a "pet" class though.
Composit longbow... human only... I LIKE IT!!!!
Well I've posted quite a few times about possible ranger upgrades, but I've always stated that I believe some other classes need tweaks before us.
When gods are ready to mess with rangers, let me know please. I've got quite a few ideas...
-Ladorn
PS Regardless if changes come or not, I'll always be a ranger!
When gods are ready to mess with rangers, let me know please. I've got quite a few ideas...
-Ladorn
PS Regardless if changes come or not, I'll always be a ranger!
Lyt: On the first subject, I'm going to say that any sort of penetration into the center mass of a creature will have a high chance of being lethal. Just cause getting a lung, heart, kidney, internal vein, etc. punctured isn't quite as visually impressive as a slashing wound doesn't make it any less lethal. Internal bleeding may take a little while to kick in compared to external bleeding, but a lot of people don't realize how easy it really is to be killed with a small piercing weapon. A number of people I know who study martial arts styles involving knives favor targeting veins most people don't realize they even have but would result in death if not treated quickly. It's not really relevant to anything I'm suggesting since I don't want an instant kill ability, but I think you underestimate the nasty things people have learned to do each other using small, piercing weapons and projectiles (and I could go further on by talking about things like hollow point ammunition, but that's not really relevant.)
On the second, the rate of fire isn't fixed. It does depend on the archery/thrown weapons and range specialist skills. The only difference from melee combat is that instead of having a weapon skill then two others that affect rate of attack (ie, dual and double attack), there's only two skills involved with ranged. What exactly they do, we don't know but if you ever observe a low level ranger using a bow, their rate of fire per round tends to jump around a lot. It's only at higher levels do you consistently see 3 a round and even then you sometimes only get 2 or 1.
Adriorn: The idea of summoning a small follower for RP purposes has been proposed a few times, but, well, we know what REALLY happens to pets in zones. Seeing as how pets tend to wind up being sent to scout for nasty aggros, I'm not sure it would really fit the feel of the class. And I'm also going to add the standard disclaimer that mosts of the posts on ranger suggestions tend to be just brainstorming. The bigger class overhauls take precedence and tweaks to the basic systems/skills over adding new stuff. Then again, some of the posts here have been about minor tweaks and not new stuff . . .
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
On the second, the rate of fire isn't fixed. It does depend on the archery/thrown weapons and range specialist skills. The only difference from melee combat is that instead of having a weapon skill then two others that affect rate of attack (ie, dual and double attack), there's only two skills involved with ranged. What exactly they do, we don't know but if you ever observe a low level ranger using a bow, their rate of fire per round tends to jump around a lot. It's only at higher levels do you consistently see 3 a round and even then you sometimes only get 2 or 1.
Adriorn: The idea of summoning a small follower for RP purposes has been proposed a few times, but, well, we know what REALLY happens to pets in zones. Seeing as how pets tend to wind up being sent to scout for nasty aggros, I'm not sure it would really fit the feel of the class. And I'm also going to add the standard disclaimer that mosts of the posts on ranger suggestions tend to be just brainstorming. The bigger class overhauls take precedence and tweaks to the basic systems/skills over adding new stuff. Then again, some of the posts here have been about minor tweaks and not new stuff . . .
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
Well, I wasn't talking about a 1k hit point pet, just a nice little squirrel or something for rp purposes. Possibly limiting it to once a day, etc. It might even be like shamans so they rangers can get only one pet each, but they differ between rangers. Like I said, it's just a suggestion.
However, something that's much more important: I've missed some stuff, so obviously I'm by no way considering myself the "source" for what's right and wrong. I've HEARD tell how rogues out-damage us in every possible way (please confirm/correct this if not). Before, monks were the "hitters". In my "opinion" (I put it in quotes because it's really something more than opinion, it's based on other facts), the ranger is the "hitting" class, whether it be ranged or melee. We cannot tank to save our lives or those of others, AT ALL. That is how it "should" be. The amount of skills a rogue has should be enough to set them in a high place among any group, specially with assassinate. However, by no means should a rogue be able to dish out more damage than a ranger in melee/range, period. Even after counting in circle, poison and whatnot, a ranger should out damage a rogue (without backstab, for that is the rogue's "specialty" and it should be). It's just part of the definition of each respective class. If placed in an arena, if a rogue misses their backstab against a ranger, that's it folks, that rogue should be dead. I've been TOLD this isn't the case now however. I think this should be looked into.
All I ask is to please think about your reply to this, meaning, take into account the fact that I have not played in awhile, so I'm not sure that what I'm saying is 100% reliable. However, also take into account the fact that I had at one point a level 40+ character in every class in sojourn, with the exception of a conjurer and a necromancer. I knew my stuff pretty well. This new rogue isn't what a rogue should be. If you differ in opinion, consider if it is a biased opinion and/or one with a basis on the "fantasy-AD&Dish" genre. Do not under any circumstance use R.A. Salvatore's characters as proof, for they are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many chatrooms/newsgroups (and Mystra), not AD&D-based characters, and poor literature.
Oh well.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Warder of the Realms
However, something that's much more important: I've missed some stuff, so obviously I'm by no way considering myself the "source" for what's right and wrong. I've HEARD tell how rogues out-damage us in every possible way (please confirm/correct this if not). Before, monks were the "hitters". In my "opinion" (I put it in quotes because it's really something more than opinion, it's based on other facts), the ranger is the "hitting" class, whether it be ranged or melee. We cannot tank to save our lives or those of others, AT ALL. That is how it "should" be. The amount of skills a rogue has should be enough to set them in a high place among any group, specially with assassinate. However, by no means should a rogue be able to dish out more damage than a ranger in melee/range, period. Even after counting in circle, poison and whatnot, a ranger should out damage a rogue (without backstab, for that is the rogue's "specialty" and it should be). It's just part of the definition of each respective class. If placed in an arena, if a rogue misses their backstab against a ranger, that's it folks, that rogue should be dead. I've been TOLD this isn't the case now however. I think this should be looked into.
All I ask is to please think about your reply to this, meaning, take into account the fact that I have not played in awhile, so I'm not sure that what I'm saying is 100% reliable. However, also take into account the fact that I had at one point a level 40+ character in every class in sojourn, with the exception of a conjurer and a necromancer. I knew my stuff pretty well. This new rogue isn't what a rogue should be. If you differ in opinion, consider if it is a biased opinion and/or one with a basis on the "fantasy-AD&Dish" genre. Do not under any circumstance use R.A. Salvatore's characters as proof, for they are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many chatrooms/newsgroups (and Mystra), not AD&D-based characters, and poor literature.
Oh well.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Warder of the Realms
How about innate charm animal, make it small, kinda like the yuan-ti reptile charm
Tilez enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
Tilez whips out his George Foreman Lean Mean Grilling Machine.
Tilez says 'Barbeque anyone?'
Tilez enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
A cute little squirrel enters from the east.
Tilez whips out his George Foreman Lean Mean Grilling Machine.
Tilez says 'Barbeque anyone?'
I'm going to recite something that has been said regularly, and if I'm wrong then by all means correct me.
Ranger Archery Damage > Rogue Damage(factoring in circle, trip, poisons, backstab) > Ranger Melee Damage
Now without actual numbers to compare against, it's hard for us, the players, to be able to see the quantitative difference. Arena damage isn't a good comparison, and group damage isn't either as zone groups have more damage than just these two classes.
The vision of the MUD's rangers is that we are archers - excelling in the art of the sticking as many arrows into a single target as possible. The vision of the MUD's rogues is the masters of melee, fully excelling in the art of hand to hand, toe to toe/back style of fighting.
My own visions of rangers is pretty much identical to Adriorn's, except that I prefer the elven/half-elven ranger to his human I would like <-- note personal preference and not a 'the mud must do this' statement, to see rangers be equally valuable to a group when engaging in melee combat.
In accordance with that desire, I would like to see Gormal's suggestion, the one that sparked this now 80 post thread asking to let us specialize in range or melee, take some form of implementation. If I want to be a melee focused 'damage class' I'd like to not lose any appeal as a companion for zoning.
This is fairly minor granted, and I'd much rather see other more important stuff finished first, but I really wish it could be a consideration for rangers to specialize. Much like casters of old were give the choice to specialize in whatever spellcast school they wanted, that small degree of customization would be very cool.
Sylvos
Ranger Archery Damage > Rogue Damage(factoring in circle, trip, poisons, backstab) > Ranger Melee Damage
Now without actual numbers to compare against, it's hard for us, the players, to be able to see the quantitative difference. Arena damage isn't a good comparison, and group damage isn't either as zone groups have more damage than just these two classes.
The vision of the MUD's rangers is that we are archers - excelling in the art of the sticking as many arrows into a single target as possible. The vision of the MUD's rogues is the masters of melee, fully excelling in the art of hand to hand, toe to toe/back style of fighting.
My own visions of rangers is pretty much identical to Adriorn's, except that I prefer the elven/half-elven ranger to his human
I would like <-- note personal preference and not a 'the mud must do this' statement, to see rangers be equally valuable to a group when engaging in melee combat.In accordance with that desire, I would like to see Gormal's suggestion, the one that sparked this now 80 post thread asking to let us specialize in range or melee, take some form of implementation. If I want to be a melee focused 'damage class' I'd like to not lose any appeal as a companion for zoning.
This is fairly minor granted, and I'd much rather see other more important stuff finished first, but I really wish it could be a consideration for rangers to specialize. Much like casters of old were give the choice to specialize in whatever spellcast school they wanted, that small degree of customization would be very cool.
Sylvos
Adriorn: I know what you have in mind. A small pet that would only have like 20 hps max if that. Illusionist shades are like that. We lose a lot of shades in zones Knowing that they would still wind up as kamikaze scouts with a vit and stones tossed on them even with low natural hps just strikes me as very wrong somehow
Anyway, as for the ranger and rogue damage comparison, it's a little bit more complicated then what Sylvos has told you. First off, a rogue like it really should be in fantasy mythos, someone that has a large variety of noncombat skills, can still fight decently, but is mainly there for noncombat roles isn't feasible on a hack and slash mud like Sojourn. So the class is now much more combat oriented then either the thief or assassin class used to be on their own. In terms of damage break down, archery is balanced against rogue melee using circle. So it should go something like this:
Archery roughly = rogue melee with the use of circle > rogue ranged (whenever it goes in) > ranger melee > rogue melee without the use of circle.
Whether or not this is currently true I can't really say. No one's found the one proc bow supposedly in the game or proc arrows so we're mainly still using midbie and store bought equipment. And since haste doesn't currently work with ranged (haste only affects the melee engine while ranged is totally seperate), I've heard rumors that our damage is higher then it would really be to compensate for that in the meantime. Additionally, I'm not sure how dopplegangers factor into this since they can circle along with a rogue but don't do anything for ranged combat (though dopplegangers are useless against shielded mobs). The key ingredient to rogue melee damage is the circle skill. Being able to attempt a backstab like attack every other round if not tanking (or using trip) is what makes rogue melee more powerful then ranger melee and compensates for needing more hitroll then a ranger in straight melee. While a melee specialization would be nice, to make it worthwhile would require a BIG boost to be able to compete with circle damage. On top of this, most of the damage done is now done by area spells possessed by invokers, necros/liches, druids, illusionists, elementalists, and shaman, all of which have utility uses on top of whatever damage they do (an invoker's gate and relo is utility, though that's really all the utility they have to a group.) Likewise, a rogue's poisons, stealth, and other utility skills do give them much more capability then just having melee skills would give them (though not enough that groups would still have a lot of use for them if they didn't have circle or double attack). So personally, I think the ranger class would be most benefited by having skills that don't just try to advance us in the damage race since it's not really one we can win IMO and would prefer abilities that indirectly enhance combat capabilities or the class's capabilities in general.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
Knowing that they would still wind up as kamikaze scouts with a vit and stones tossed on them even with low natural hps just strikes me as very wrong somehow Anyway, as for the ranger and rogue damage comparison, it's a little bit more complicated then what Sylvos has told you. First off, a rogue like it really should be in fantasy mythos, someone that has a large variety of noncombat skills, can still fight decently, but is mainly there for noncombat roles isn't feasible on a hack and slash mud like Sojourn. So the class is now much more combat oriented then either the thief or assassin class used to be on their own. In terms of damage break down, archery is balanced against rogue melee using circle. So it should go something like this:
Archery roughly = rogue melee with the use of circle > rogue ranged (whenever it goes in) > ranger melee > rogue melee without the use of circle.
Whether or not this is currently true I can't really say. No one's found the one proc bow supposedly in the game or proc arrows so we're mainly still using midbie and store bought equipment. And since haste doesn't currently work with ranged (haste only affects the melee engine while ranged is totally seperate), I've heard rumors that our damage is higher then it would really be to compensate for that in the meantime. Additionally, I'm not sure how dopplegangers factor into this since they can circle along with a rogue but don't do anything for ranged combat (though dopplegangers are useless against shielded mobs). The key ingredient to rogue melee damage is the circle skill. Being able to attempt a backstab like attack every other round if not tanking (or using trip) is what makes rogue melee more powerful then ranger melee and compensates for needing more hitroll then a ranger in straight melee. While a melee specialization would be nice, to make it worthwhile would require a BIG boost to be able to compete with circle damage. On top of this, most of the damage done is now done by area spells possessed by invokers, necros/liches, druids, illusionists, elementalists, and shaman, all of which have utility uses on top of whatever damage they do (an invoker's gate and relo is utility, though that's really all the utility they have to a group.) Likewise, a rogue's poisons, stealth, and other utility skills do give them much more capability then just having melee skills would give them (though not enough that groups would still have a lot of use for them if they didn't have circle or double attack). So personally, I think the ranger class would be most benefited by having skills that don't just try to advance us in the damage race since it's not really one we can win IMO and would prefer abilities that indirectly enhance combat capabilities or the class's capabilities in general.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
Rangers can already get pets =) In fact, I have about 10 1K hps pets that can and will tank for me if I so desire. I don't, cuz this is cheez. Perhaps, if people want to expand their range, make tame do more than just mounts. Do anything that would be affected by the protection from animals spell. . . but with a limitation of lvl 5 or lower.
Frankly, you can keep the pets if it means getting something truely usefull in zones.
Rogue damage so far outclasses ranger damage of any sort it is quite sad.
This happens for several reasons.
NOTE: I DO NOT WANT ROGUES DOWNGRADED>
ok? good. Moving on. . .
I've tested all this junk ad nausium, I'm not going to get into all the tests I've done. A few of you rogues who've helped and whom I've observed, will probably agree that their melee damage, all told, is far greater than even archery damage.
The task, as soon as it is warranted, for the staff is to decide what nice rangers are supposed to fill.
Personally, I feel rangers should be the direct non spell damage sources in the game, exceeding current rogue damage. Why ? Because rogues are usefull in many other ways that make them desired for grouping. Disarm, pick, trip, paralyze, blind, slow, instant kill, SUPER hide/sneak CR and scouting capability.
Ranger spells are not usefull to groups for 2 main reasons: casting time is abysmally slow for all of our spells. . .and Mem times are shit too. Forget being able to mem back more than 1 or 2 spells at a time.
That, with the limited range of use of Pass without trace and transport via plants. . really makes the ranger's spell compliment minimally usefull for zoning. Sure, if I wan't to explore uh, . . . Oakvale (oops wait, thats all anti magic!) Jot . . . Oh no, can't get there . . . .trolls. . .SF. . . nothing there. . .hrmm ok, so the exploration spells are very limited too.
I love DI. I love sense. I love DM. I love bark.
Pass is awesome, in the woods (how many zones are outside?).
Trans is cool, but impossible to use.
Call is fun, but has 5* casting time.
Anyway, I'll play the ranger no matter what. *shrug* and I'll do a damn good job. I just wonder how much better we'd all be with what I would consider equal footing with our sister class (the Rogue).
Anyway, DONT DOWNGRADE ROGUE.
Upgrade Rangers! But after Bards, mkay =)
Every other class, I think, is well balanced (really). . . all we need is bards and rangers and we're set! hehehe
anyway.
later.
Lost
Frankly, you can keep the pets if it means getting something truely usefull in zones.
Rogue damage so far outclasses ranger damage of any sort it is quite sad.
This happens for several reasons.
NOTE: I DO NOT WANT ROGUES DOWNGRADED>
ok? good. Moving on. . .
I've tested all this junk ad nausium, I'm not going to get into all the tests I've done. A few of you rogues who've helped and whom I've observed, will probably agree that their melee damage, all told, is far greater than even archery damage.
The task, as soon as it is warranted, for the staff is to decide what nice rangers are supposed to fill.
Personally, I feel rangers should be the direct non spell damage sources in the game, exceeding current rogue damage. Why ? Because rogues are usefull in many other ways that make them desired for grouping. Disarm, pick, trip, paralyze, blind, slow, instant kill, SUPER hide/sneak CR and scouting capability.
Ranger spells are not usefull to groups for 2 main reasons: casting time is abysmally slow for all of our spells. . .and Mem times are shit too. Forget being able to mem back more than 1 or 2 spells at a time.
That, with the limited range of use of Pass without trace and transport via plants. . really makes the ranger's spell compliment minimally usefull for zoning. Sure, if I wan't to explore uh, . . . Oakvale (oops wait, thats all anti magic!) Jot . . . Oh no, can't get there . . . .trolls. . .SF. . . nothing there. . .hrmm ok, so the exploration spells are very limited too.
I love DI. I love sense. I love DM. I love bark.
Pass is awesome, in the woods (how many zones are outside?).
Trans is cool, but impossible to use.
Call is fun, but has 5* casting time.
Anyway, I'll play the ranger no matter what. *shrug* and I'll do a damn good job. I just wonder how much better we'd all be with what I would consider equal footing with our sister class (the Rogue).
Anyway, DONT DOWNGRADE ROGUE.
Upgrade Rangers! But after Bards, mkay =)
Every other class, I think, is well balanced (really). . . all we need is bards and rangers and we're set! hehehe
anyway.
later.
Lost
I still find it amazing that after all the changes, upgrades and boosts to rangers, most of you are still asking for more. It just blows my mind! Range does unbelievable damage now, you have some nifty new spells and skills to add to that.
Not all elves are Legolas, and not all rangers are Drizzt, nor should they even come close to these fictional book characters.
Not all elves are Legolas, and not all rangers are Drizzt, nor should they even come close to these fictional book characters.
"I still find it amazing that after all the changes, upgrades and boosts to rangers, most of you are still asking for more. It just blows my mind! Range does unbelievable damage now, you have some nifty new spells and skills to add to that."
And I still find it amazing that after all the concise posts, people who appear to be illiterate still are generalizing us as whiners without actually reading what's been written.
Yes, range does good damage. It apparently does not do roughly the damage of rogue melee like it is supposed to. Haste does not still work with ranged combat like it is supposed to. Missile shield has not been recoded as a chippable defensive spell like it is supposed to. Proc arrows are still not in but some of them are supposed to be in. Quite simply, the supposed primary feature of the class is still in alpha/beta form and many features are still missing. Likewise, some tweaks, such as a reloading command to quickly refill quivers, are not gameplay affecting and could be coded by anyone who's passed a 100 level computer science course in there sleep (specifically by finding the value of max capacity - current capacity, popping that many arrows from the stack representing the quiver being reloaded from, and then pushing them onto the stack of the quiver being reloaded). Try actually reading what's posted Lyt. Then make an ass of yourself if you still feel so inclined.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
And I still find it amazing that after all the concise posts, people who appear to be illiterate still are generalizing us as whiners without actually reading what's been written.
Yes, range does good damage. It apparently does not do roughly the damage of rogue melee like it is supposed to. Haste does not still work with ranged combat like it is supposed to. Missile shield has not been recoded as a chippable defensive spell like it is supposed to. Proc arrows are still not in but some of them are supposed to be in. Quite simply, the supposed primary feature of the class is still in alpha/beta form and many features are still missing. Likewise, some tweaks, such as a reloading command to quickly refill quivers, are not gameplay affecting and could be coded by anyone who's passed a 100 level computer science course in there sleep (specifically by finding the value of max capacity - current capacity, popping that many arrows from the stack representing the quiver being reloaded from, and then pushing them onto the stack of the quiver being reloaded). Try actually reading what's posted Lyt. Then make an ass of yourself if you still feel so inclined.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
-
kiryan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
disclaimer
the following does not apply to those of you who are not whiny twinks. you prolly dont want to read the following if your not a whiny twink because youll prolly think of something stupid to say and end up looking like a whiny twink.
i read the posts, and im going to generalize by saying that rangers on sojourn and other muds that ive played tend to whine unless they own all other melee (this behavior is typically exhibited by monks too). yes there were a lot of constructive posts and a lot that werent whines for upgrades but i definitely agree with lyt's sentiment.
on sojourn specifically you got archery and it still isnt good enough. you want > rogue damage now. you need status effects now and blade specialization (you've already got one of the two most broken weapons in the game (windsong, gythka would be the other imo). Not only that, where is the downside to archery? as far as ive heard and seen archery is win win. shit loads of ranger droppings on smoke where a stray arrow could agro one of the the two regals, but i suppose you scout around first to make sure you wont hit one right? jot isnt free of ranger litter either. archery has no negatives cept filling your quivers. there was a suggestion for status effects. even though i dont think its necessary i suggest random status effects, but those aren't good enough you want command proc status effects and crazy shit like staple shot. you want pets you can rp with (yea right you mean use to scout for you).
on top of all this crap we have rangers running around grouping with evil folks and undead slaying forest critters and even elven inhabitants of em.
flame at will
the following does not apply to those of you who are not whiny twinks. you prolly dont want to read the following if your not a whiny twink because youll prolly think of something stupid to say and end up looking like a whiny twink.
i read the posts, and im going to generalize by saying that rangers on sojourn and other muds that ive played tend to whine unless they own all other melee (this behavior is typically exhibited by monks too). yes there were a lot of constructive posts and a lot that werent whines for upgrades but i definitely agree with lyt's sentiment.
on sojourn specifically you got archery and it still isnt good enough. you want > rogue damage now. you need status effects now and blade specialization (you've already got one of the two most broken weapons in the game (windsong, gythka would be the other imo). Not only that, where is the downside to archery? as far as ive heard and seen archery is win win. shit loads of ranger droppings on smoke where a stray arrow could agro one of the the two regals, but i suppose you scout around first to make sure you wont hit one right? jot isnt free of ranger litter either. archery has no negatives cept filling your quivers. there was a suggestion for status effects. even though i dont think its necessary i suggest random status effects, but those aren't good enough you want command proc status effects and crazy shit like staple shot. you want pets you can rp with (yea right you mean use to scout for you).
on top of all this crap we have rangers running around grouping with evil folks and undead slaying forest critters and even elven inhabitants of em.
flame at will
Kiryan: Will address some of what you said, not from an offended point of view.
Windsong: Me, and many other rangers have said that the quest for this needs to be hard. And yes, I was saying it before I got one.
Archery Downsides: Very little, except that any mage mob > level 11 is immune to our attack. I haven't played with thunderlance yet, so maybe that'll let us shoot these mobs but right now, we have to drop back on melee if the mob has any mage abilities at all.
Blade specialization: Asking for it as an alternative to range specialization, not an addendum.
Pets: C'mon, why would I use a little squirrel to scout with when I can pick up something from BG and have a scout that mobs won't attack? Give some folks the benefit of the doubt - if Adri says he wants a lil follower for RP reasons then that's why he wants it. Granted others will use it for scouting true.
Damage: Don't know what exactly to say here. We've said what we'd like - damage to make us more appealing to zones as rogues not only have the damage, but can do that damage while bashing(trip), silencing somewhat(garotte) and all the other nifty utilities. But I'm not sure that an actual, upgrade ranger damage request has been made in this thread. If so, then I'll say while I wouldn't mind, I'd rather get some cool utility skill that makes up for the lower damage. If not... well I ranger onwards anyways.
Sylvos
Windsong: Me, and many other rangers have said that the quest for this needs to be hard. And yes, I was saying it before I got one.
Archery Downsides: Very little, except that any mage mob > level 11 is immune to our attack. I haven't played with thunderlance yet, so maybe that'll let us shoot these mobs but right now, we have to drop back on melee if the mob has any mage abilities at all.
Blade specialization: Asking for it as an alternative to range specialization, not an addendum.
Pets: C'mon, why would I use a little squirrel to scout with when I can pick up something from BG and have a scout that mobs won't attack? Give some folks the benefit of the doubt - if Adri says he wants a lil follower for RP reasons then that's why he wants it. Granted others will use it for scouting true.
Damage: Don't know what exactly to say here. We've said what we'd like - damage to make us more appealing to zones as rogues not only have the damage, but can do that damage while bashing(trip), silencing somewhat(garotte) and all the other nifty utilities. But I'm not sure that an actual, upgrade ranger damage request has been made in this thread. If so, then I'll say while I wouldn't mind, I'd rather get some cool utility skill that makes up for the lower damage. If not... well I ranger onwards anyways.
Sylvos
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kiryan:
<B>
...tend to whine unless they own all other melee (this behavior is typically exhibited by monks too).</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*smack*
Monks never bitched about their damage...we knew we owned all...I think the most we ever bitched about towards the end of Toril was springleap sucking. :P
This thread is getting a little bit redundant. You people are talking aesthetics of physiques of monsters you don't even know about. How is your character even going to know where the kidneys are on a great braxat in order to make that "critical deathblow"?
It's a little ridiculous...Miax busted his balls to get archery in, tweaked, and kicking ass and you guys still aren't pleased. I'm not directing this towards those who are making constructive criticism, so don't take this as another "all rangers are twinky" post.
Be grateful that you are wanted in groups. Be grateful you can group with anti's, necros, liches, rogues.
The only thing I could *ever* see rangers needing is a small boost to their offensive damage. Not archery, I'm talking about straight-up weapons.
No PC can ever truly test any theory of theirs out without the numbers...so your "tests" are merely hypotheses unless you have the numbers to prove it from an immortal. (Have an imm monitor damage on a mob that you both can solo.)
Rangers and rogues both rule...I don't feel why each feels they have to be better than the other. We're trying to achieve balance here, not madness.
I think the biggest thing here is that rogues *finally* got their years-coming upgrade, and now they hit a lil bit better (and finally wanted for groups!), so some of you are a little bit jealous.
Be grateful your class didn't get taken out of the mud...and this is coming from someone who had 41/41 hit/dam perm haste and 7d5 barehand (7 attacks/round) once a long time ago.
All in all though some of the ideas are pretty cool, even if they are a little outrageous...the imagination of us mudders is boundless! *cackle*
Deathmagnet - lobbying to quest a human warrior to monk status!
<B>
...tend to whine unless they own all other melee (this behavior is typically exhibited by monks too).</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*smack*
Monks never bitched about their damage...we knew we owned all...I think the most we ever bitched about towards the end of Toril was springleap sucking. :P
This thread is getting a little bit redundant. You people are talking aesthetics of physiques of monsters you don't even know about. How is your character even going to know where the kidneys are on a great braxat in order to make that "critical deathblow"?
It's a little ridiculous...Miax busted his balls to get archery in, tweaked, and kicking ass and you guys still aren't pleased. I'm not directing this towards those who are making constructive criticism, so don't take this as another "all rangers are twinky" post.
Be grateful that you are wanted in groups. Be grateful you can group with anti's, necros, liches, rogues.
The only thing I could *ever* see rangers needing is a small boost to their offensive damage. Not archery, I'm talking about straight-up weapons.
No PC can ever truly test any theory of theirs out without the numbers...so your "tests" are merely hypotheses unless you have the numbers to prove it from an immortal.
(Have an imm monitor damage on a mob that you both can solo.)Rangers and rogues both rule...I don't feel why each feels they have to be better than the other. We're trying to achieve balance here, not madness.
I think the biggest thing here is that rogues *finally* got their years-coming upgrade, and now they hit a lil bit better (and finally wanted for groups!), so some of you are a little bit jealous.
Be grateful your class didn't get taken out of the mud...and this is coming from someone who had 41/41 hit/dam perm haste and 7d5 barehand (7 attacks/round) once a long time ago.
All in all though some of the ideas are pretty cool, even if they are a little outrageous...the imagination of us mudders is boundless! *cackle*
Deathmagnet - lobbying to quest a human warrior to monk status!
Lyt - You amaze me that you still insist on flaming people and posting on a topic that you have absolutely no clue about. Then again, what should we expect from the only person to complain that elementalists are a poor class because they don't have prismatic spray. *laugh* I would suggest you play a ranger and do some actual testing yourself, but since you can't gauge the changes to a class you've played for _years_ with an open mind, I'd just say skip it. (And no, I haven't played a Conjurer or an Elementalist. . . I just thought I'd try the whole 'I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but I'll spout anyway' tactic you use. Fun, I admit.
All -
Sorry for the personal flame, but, I'm quite sick of this uninformed babble =)
In all seriousness, I really hate to go off like this but unless you've played a ranger, where do you come off with these wild ideas that 'Rangers got so much' ? How do any of you have any clue how much damage archery does ? You don't. In fact, most of you don't have clue one about the class.
I love to see people's thoughts and ideas as to how to balance the class, no matter what your experience is, what class you play primary, whatever. . . but to make blanket statements that 'Rangers are whiners' and 'they have enough' isn't what this thread is about. Nor is it about attacking players or the people that play certain classes or whatever.
Just try and be constructive ? Please ? If you think say, Rangers are great and balanced because X, Y or Z. . . back it up ! If you think rangers are weak in an area that you'd like to see strengthened. . . say so, but again back it up! (yes, I have shared logs and data with Imms regarding all of this, done testing, etc extensively so I do practice what I'm preaching).
And again, for the record:
If removing windsong from the game means getting rangers balanced. . .then take mine first. Please.
Lost
All -
Sorry for the personal flame, but, I'm quite sick of this uninformed babble =)
In all seriousness, I really hate to go off like this but unless you've played a ranger, where do you come off with these wild ideas that 'Rangers got so much' ? How do any of you have any clue how much damage archery does ? You don't. In fact, most of you don't have clue one about the class.
I love to see people's thoughts and ideas as to how to balance the class, no matter what your experience is, what class you play primary, whatever. . . but to make blanket statements that 'Rangers are whiners' and 'they have enough' isn't what this thread is about. Nor is it about attacking players or the people that play certain classes or whatever.
Just try and be constructive ? Please ? If you think say, Rangers are great and balanced because X, Y or Z. . . back it up ! If you think rangers are weak in an area that you'd like to see strengthened. . . say so, but again back it up! (yes, I have shared logs and data with Imms regarding all of this, done testing, etc extensively so I do practice what I'm preaching).
And again, for the record:
If removing windsong from the game means getting rangers balanced. . .then take mine first. Please.
Lost
From a lower level stand point, I agree with Sylvos on the mage mobs and missile shield. Also, look at the rogue mobs with missile snare. I was fighting a rogue out on BGR the other day, and he snared quite a few of my arrows. It didn't hinder me in killing the mob, but it does slow down and reduce the damage by archery. During the previous wipe, I saw larger rogue mobs take down 2 of 3, even 3 of 3 arrows nearly every single round. That renders archery nearly useless compared to melee.
Offtopic, but on the subject of missile snare, do any mobs fire arrows? I've LOVE to be able to notch that skill but it currently seems impossible and I can't stand seeing a low skill in my skill list!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Galkar:
From a lower level stand point, I agree with Sylvos on the mage mobs and missile shield. Also, look at the rogue mobs with missile snare. I was fighting a rogue out on BGR the other day, and he snared quite a few of my arrows. It didn't hinder me in killing the mob, but it does slow down and reduce the damage by archery. During the previous wipe, I saw larger rogue mobs take down 2 of 3, even 3 of 3 arrows nearly every single round. That renders archery nearly useless compared to melee. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Galkar:
From a lower level stand point, I agree with Sylvos on the mage mobs and missile shield. Also, look at the rogue mobs with missile snare. I was fighting a rogue out on BGR the other day, and he snared quite a few of my arrows. It didn't hinder me in killing the mob, but it does slow down and reduce the damage by archery. During the previous wipe, I saw larger rogue mobs take down 2 of 3, even 3 of 3 arrows nearly every single round. That renders archery nearly useless compared to melee. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Waelos:
Lyt - You amaze me that you still insist on flaming people and posting on a topic that you have absolutely no clue about. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where was my big flame? I am just commenting on things I have seen. I was playing my warrior, and grouped with a ranger the exact same level as me. Now I would guess that rangers and warriors have similar, if not exactly the same experience charts that warriors have. And you know what I saw? The ranger was getting almost double the amount of experience I was getting. I grouped with this ranger I think 4 days in a row, and the ranger was just running circles around me as far as experience went. And I would venture to say that almost all of the difference in experience was from damage experience due to ranged combat. That is a heck of a lot of damage being dealt.
No longer do a vast number of arrows fly into adjacent rooms and aggro mobs. Things seem really nice now. What kind of balancing do you still see as necessary? Hasted rangers get 5 attacks a round, way more than the other comparable warriors and paladins. Rangers are a sub-set of the warrior class ('sub' means less than by the way.) You will probably never tank as good as a paladins, or have as many hit points as a warrior because rangers are a derivative of the warrior class. Then a lot of rangers keep comparing everything a ranger can do to rogues and their damage they can do using circle and backstab. But you know what? Rogues are a completely different class. Why does every aspect of your damage have to be more than they can deal out? It sounds like a case of penis envy to me.
I am not completely clueless as to the ranger class. You do not have to play a class to high level just to learn about what they can do. Give me a break. The majority of the hitters in most of the zoning I get to do are all rangers. I have never played a paladin, but I don't need to to realize that they tank way better than any other class. Simple observation takes care of that.
The fact that there has never ever been a lack of rangers on this mud tells me that the class isn't nearly as bad as some of you would have everyone believe. I am just adding my input as to what I see on this mud. If you don't like my opinion, then fine you can say as much. The name calling isn't necessary, and goes to weaken your case. Don't like my posts on rangers? Then fine don't read them.
Oh and as far as conjurers/elementalists go, find me any post of mine where I was demanding to constantly get more things added to me class. I played the class because I liked it. They could have never put in elementalist changes, and I would still play my conjurer as my primary character because that is what I enjoyed. I didn't go around constantly comparing my class to the amount of damage that invokers do, or the protection areas that enchanters were good at. They have their strengths and weakness, as do rangers. You guys do the most ranged weapon damage, and pretty much own in straight melee damage. That is your strength. You are not super casters or magic users. You are not super tanks. That is your classes weakness. You can do these things in moderation, but not as good as some other class might be able to. What is wrong with that? I am merely stating my opinion on here. I am not telling the gods what to do with rangers, so don't freak out all the time by what I have to say.
Lyt
Lyt - You amaze me that you still insist on flaming people and posting on a topic that you have absolutely no clue about. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where was my big flame? I am just commenting on things I have seen. I was playing my warrior, and grouped with a ranger the exact same level as me. Now I would guess that rangers and warriors have similar, if not exactly the same experience charts that warriors have. And you know what I saw? The ranger was getting almost double the amount of experience I was getting. I grouped with this ranger I think 4 days in a row, and the ranger was just running circles around me as far as experience went. And I would venture to say that almost all of the difference in experience was from damage experience due to ranged combat. That is a heck of a lot of damage being dealt.
No longer do a vast number of arrows fly into adjacent rooms and aggro mobs. Things seem really nice now. What kind of balancing do you still see as necessary? Hasted rangers get 5 attacks a round, way more than the other comparable warriors and paladins. Rangers are a sub-set of the warrior class ('sub' means less than by the way.) You will probably never tank as good as a paladins, or have as many hit points as a warrior because rangers are a derivative of the warrior class. Then a lot of rangers keep comparing everything a ranger can do to rogues and their damage they can do using circle and backstab. But you know what? Rogues are a completely different class. Why does every aspect of your damage have to be more than they can deal out? It sounds like a case of penis envy to me.
I am not completely clueless as to the ranger class. You do not have to play a class to high level just to learn about what they can do. Give me a break. The majority of the hitters in most of the zoning I get to do are all rangers. I have never played a paladin, but I don't need to to realize that they tank way better than any other class. Simple observation takes care of that.
The fact that there has never ever been a lack of rangers on this mud tells me that the class isn't nearly as bad as some of you would have everyone believe. I am just adding my input as to what I see on this mud. If you don't like my opinion, then fine you can say as much. The name calling isn't necessary, and goes to weaken your case. Don't like my posts on rangers? Then fine don't read them.
Oh and as far as conjurers/elementalists go, find me any post of mine where I was demanding to constantly get more things added to me class. I played the class because I liked it. They could have never put in elementalist changes, and I would still play my conjurer as my primary character because that is what I enjoyed. I didn't go around constantly comparing my class to the amount of damage that invokers do, or the protection areas that enchanters were good at. They have their strengths and weakness, as do rangers. You guys do the most ranged weapon damage, and pretty much own in straight melee damage. That is your strength. You are not super casters or magic users. You are not super tanks. That is your classes weakness. You can do these things in moderation, but not as good as some other class might be able to. What is wrong with that? I am merely stating my opinion on here. I am not telling the gods what to do with rangers, so don't freak out all the time by what I have to say.
Lyt
"Rangers are a sub-set of the warrior class ('sub' means less than by the way.) "
Sure, and shamans are a sub-set of the cleric class
(following defintions from dictionary.com)
sub·class
n.
1. A subdivision of a set or class.
2. Biology. A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking between a class and an order.
sub·di·vi·sion (sbd-vzhn, sbd-vzhn)
n.
1. The act or process of subdividing.
2. A subdivided part.
3. An area of real estate composed of subdivided lots.
sub·di·vide
v.
1. To divide a part or parts of into smaller parts.
2. To divide into a number of parts, especially to divide (land) into lots.
Oh, and
subset n : a set whose members are members of another set; a set contained within another set
Note the distinct lack of anything about any mention of inferiority of a subclass/set to the class/set it is a member of.
If you're going to try to argue with semantics, at least make sure you're using the right term, the right definition for it, and don't mangle the meaning of the a prefix that has lost some of its meaning in the translation from its original language . . .
Treladian, loather of semantic arguments
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 01-29-2002).]
Sure, and shamans are a sub-set of the cleric class
(following defintions from dictionary.com)
sub·class
n.
1. A subdivision of a set or class.
2. Biology. A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking between a class and an order.
sub·di·vi·sion (sbd-vzhn, sbd-vzhn)
n.
1. The act or process of subdividing.
2. A subdivided part.
3. An area of real estate composed of subdivided lots.
sub·di·vide
v.
1. To divide a part or parts of into smaller parts.
2. To divide into a number of parts, especially to divide (land) into lots.
Oh, and
subset n : a set whose members are members of another set; a set contained within another set
Note the distinct lack of anything about any mention of inferiority of a subclass/set to the class/set it is a member of.
If you're going to try to argue with semantics, at least make sure you're using the right term, the right definition for it, and don't mangle the meaning of the a prefix that has lost some of its meaning in the translation from its original language . . .
Treladian, loather of semantic arguments
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
[This message has been edited by Treladian (edited 01-29-2002).]
-
Magruk Eat Elf
- Sojourner
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: USA
Watch out here comes my $.10
Sub does mean less then,but it also means derivitive of, in the reference of ranger being sub-class of warrior geez.
And in respect to hasting archery. Yeah hasting would essentially let you draw, notch fire faster, *BUT* you still have to take the time to aim. So wouldn't you in essence also miss a helluva lot more if you are gonna just launch arrows like hell? In comparison to melee you are just standing their, (altho melee is more complex lets use a generalization) swinging your weapon back and forth as quickly as poss. So you would hit more and your looking more to making contact then aiming. Seriously, now if you were fencing haste wouldn't affect you because you are taking your time to aim, albeit a small amount of time, but enuf to negate haste as per aiming a bow.
Sub does mean less then,but it also means derivitive of, in the reference of ranger being sub-class of warrior geez.
And in respect to hasting archery. Yeah hasting would essentially let you draw, notch fire faster, *BUT* you still have to take the time to aim. So wouldn't you in essence also miss a helluva lot more if you are gonna just launch arrows like hell? In comparison to melee you are just standing their, (altho melee is more complex lets use a generalization) swinging your weapon back and forth as quickly as poss. So you would hit more and your looking more to making contact then aiming. Seriously, now if you were fencing haste wouldn't affect you because you are taking your time to aim, albeit a small amount of time, but enuf to negate haste as per aiming a bow.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lyt:
<B> You will probably never tank as good as a paladins, or have as many hit points as a warrior because rangers are a derivative of the warrior class. Then a lot of rangers keep comparing everything a ranger can do to rogues and their damage they can do using circle and backstab. But you know what? Rogues are a completely different class. Why does every aspect of your damage have to be more than they can deal out? It sounds like a case of penis envy to me.
Oh and as far as conjurers/elementalists go, find me any post of mine where I was demanding to constantly get more things added to me class. I played the class because I liked it. They could have never put in elementalist changes, and I would still play my conjurer as my primary character because that is what I enjoyed. I didn't go around constantly comparing my class to the amount of damage that invokers do, or the protection areas that enchanters were good at. They have their strengths and weakness, as do rangers. You guys do the most ranged weapon damage, and pretty much own in straight melee damage. That is your strength. You are not super casters or magic users. You are not super tanks. That is your classes weakness. You can do these things in moderation, but not as good as some other class might be able to. What is wrong with that? I am merely stating my opinion on here. I am not telling the gods what to do with rangers, so don't freak out all the time by what I have to say.
Lyt</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't wanna tank like a paladin, don't wanna tank like a warrior, don't wanna do any of those tank-like things as well as... a tank.
Why compare to rogues? Yes rogues are a different class, but are we to compare only within our class? I'm confused, but that's usual. We compare to rogues because both classes, ranger and rogue, operate under the same niche within a group. We deal focused damage to mobs. We just hit them(sword or bow), rogues hit/circle/trip/poison them. So hence the requests about rangers - the simple human reaction of "they get to do cool stuff, why can't we?". The best utility rangers bring is cannon fodder... er luring with ranged. Luring aint' that hard to do, so it's not that great of a utility.
And why wasn't Lyt comparing Enchanter damage to invokers? Well because they the two classes don't/didn't fill the same niche in a group. And probably cuz Lyt didn't wanna, but I don't know about that.
Anyways, back to this thread.
Give rangers the option to specialize.
Range Specialist: modifier to range damage. MAYBE <-- possible suggestion, not a demand/order or anything of the sort...
Maybe Range Specialist opens up a lvl40? reflexive skill like what Kiryan suggested some 50ish posts ago.
Melee Specialist: some increase to parry/riposte skill, quantity debatable.
MAYBE melee specialist would open up an invoked skill working on the same basis of assassinate at level40? - only name I can think of for it would be like chant speed - the ability possibly 1x / day affect self with haste due to whatever, internal focus, concentration, bladesong, whatever.
Sylvos, trying to stay on the topic-train that wasn't derailed.
<B> You will probably never tank as good as a paladins, or have as many hit points as a warrior because rangers are a derivative of the warrior class. Then a lot of rangers keep comparing everything a ranger can do to rogues and their damage they can do using circle and backstab. But you know what? Rogues are a completely different class. Why does every aspect of your damage have to be more than they can deal out? It sounds like a case of penis envy to me.
Oh and as far as conjurers/elementalists go, find me any post of mine where I was demanding to constantly get more things added to me class. I played the class because I liked it. They could have never put in elementalist changes, and I would still play my conjurer as my primary character because that is what I enjoyed. I didn't go around constantly comparing my class to the amount of damage that invokers do, or the protection areas that enchanters were good at. They have their strengths and weakness, as do rangers. You guys do the most ranged weapon damage, and pretty much own in straight melee damage. That is your strength. You are not super casters or magic users. You are not super tanks. That is your classes weakness. You can do these things in moderation, but not as good as some other class might be able to. What is wrong with that? I am merely stating my opinion on here. I am not telling the gods what to do with rangers, so don't freak out all the time by what I have to say.
Lyt</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't wanna tank like a paladin, don't wanna tank like a warrior, don't wanna do any of those tank-like things as well as... a tank.
Why compare to rogues? Yes rogues are a different class, but are we to compare only within our class? I'm confused, but that's usual. We compare to rogues because both classes, ranger and rogue, operate under the same niche within a group. We deal focused damage to mobs. We just hit them(sword or bow), rogues hit/circle/trip/poison them. So hence the requests about rangers - the simple human reaction of "they get to do cool stuff, why can't we?". The best utility rangers bring is cannon fodder... er luring with ranged. Luring aint' that hard to do, so it's not that great of a utility.
And why wasn't Lyt comparing Enchanter damage to invokers? Well because they the two classes don't/didn't fill the same niche in a group. And probably cuz Lyt didn't wanna, but I don't know about that.
Anyways, back to this thread.
Give rangers the option to specialize.
Range Specialist: modifier to range damage. MAYBE <-- possible suggestion, not a demand/order or anything of the sort...
Maybe Range Specialist opens up a lvl40? reflexive skill like what Kiryan suggested some 50ish posts ago.
Melee Specialist: some increase to parry/riposte skill, quantity debatable.
MAYBE melee specialist would open up an invoked skill working on the same basis of assassinate at level40? - only name I can think of for it would be like chant speed - the ability possibly 1x / day affect self with haste due to whatever, internal focus, concentration, bladesong, whatever.
Sylvos, trying to stay on the topic-train that wasn't derailed.
Magruk: From help classes
Fighter Priest Rogue
------- ------ -----
Warrior Cleric Rogue Ranger Druid Bard Paladin Shaman Anti-Paladin
Not gonna post the column for mages since I'm sure you get the idea, that warriors are not the class rangers, paladins, antis, etc. are derived from despite what things like using the word "warrior" to denote their item restrictions, something that's a legacy of the mud's Diku origins.
As far as haste, do keep in mind that swinging a weapon as fast as possible isn't going to do much good if you don't have your ability to coordinate things at that enhanced speed as well. Anyone can pick up two weapons and swing them, but without training it's extremely tough to coordinate your mental processes to actually use them to any meaningful effect. The same thing would apply if it was only your body that was sped up by the haste spell. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the relevant mental processes and ability to perceive openings to strike at are enhanced by haste also. Based on that, being able ready a shot and aim faster with a bow doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
Fighter Priest Rogue
------- ------ -----
Warrior Cleric Rogue Ranger Druid Bard Paladin Shaman Anti-Paladin
Not gonna post the column for mages since I'm sure you get the idea, that warriors are not the class rangers, paladins, antis, etc. are derived from despite what things like using the word "warrior" to denote their item restrictions, something that's a legacy of the mud's Diku origins.
As far as haste, do keep in mind that swinging a weapon as fast as possible isn't going to do much good if you don't have your ability to coordinate things at that enhanced speed as well. Anyone can pick up two weapons and swing them, but without training it's extremely tough to coordinate your mental processes to actually use them to any meaningful effect. The same thing would apply if it was only your body that was sped up by the haste spell. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the relevant mental processes and ability to perceive openings to strike at are enhanced by haste also. Based on that, being able ready a shot and aim faster with a bow doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
------------------
"Maybe I should stop and ask for directions . . ."
-
Galok Icewolf
- Sojourner
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
I've just finished reading this entire post again. There is a couple issuses I'd like to point out.
1. Rangers tank much better then rogues.
2. Rangers get a shitload of utility spells.
3. Ranger archery damage IS more then rogue melee damage if you were both using newbie weapons.
4. Rangers can easily lure mobs.
I have noticed that there are ALOT more rangers on the goodie side then rogues. I belive this is because rangers might do a little less damage but have a significant more to offer a group with versatility. Rangers do alot of melee damage. Rogues do alot of melee damage. Why do rangers feel they should leave all the other classes in the dust?
1. Rangers tank much better then rogues.
2. Rangers get a shitload of utility spells.
3. Ranger archery damage IS more then rogue melee damage if you were both using newbie weapons.
4. Rangers can easily lure mobs.
I have noticed that there are ALOT more rangers on the goodie side then rogues. I belive this is because rangers might do a little less damage but have a significant more to offer a group with versatility. Rangers do alot of melee damage. Rogues do alot of melee damage. Why do rangers feel they should leave all the other classes in the dust?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests