Constructive thoughts for upgrading rangers..

Feedback, bugs, and general gameplay related discussion.
Malia
Sojourner
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 11:04 pm
Location: Eastern Washington State
Contact:

Constructive thoughts for upgrading rangers..

Postby Malia » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:23 pm

ok, first, Gormal, Weylarii, Dartan, and I just sat for like an hour and brainstormed ideas.. here is what we came up with.

Maybe add Vital shot, it would work like vital strike..

The Arch Magi doubles over in pain as your arrow pierces his stomach.
The Arch magi stops casting.

To this also add, a % chance to insta kill (like the rarity in garrote)

Your arrow burries itself in the Dockmasters eye piercing his brain. The dockmaster falls to the ground dead.

We also thought that maybe adding a skill called Aim, to rangers archery

Aim leg (% to knock a mob to the ground, harder to hit, and does less damage)
aim body (more damge, more % to hit, % to stun)
aim head (less % to hit even then leggs, but higher % to insta kil and more damage when it hitsl)

remove missile shield totaly from the game.. it makes archery at high lvls pointless and archery was created to give rangers a niche that others dont

well that was just some of the ideas, if this is kept constructive the gods might be able to sort through some of the ideas and use some.
Dugmaren mutters in a surly voice 'Got any new strategy or going to continue with the "throw bodies at them til they get bored"? '

Dranth group-says 'i started drinkin when i found out galzar would be here'

Nerox says 'careful she goes from 0 to bitch in .00000001 seconds'

Mugo ASSOC:: 'ah got it on my gaytimer now :P'
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:30 pm

we're thinking that aim is a skill that you set while fighting, so you are choosing to aim for the legs or the body, not a one shot per command skill.

we were also thinking that they could use some sort of skill like trip or improved springleap for action during melee.

By improved springleap i mean like where springleap could be altered to have a chance to stun or bash. Something different from trip/garrote but serves a similar purpose.
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Re: Constructive thoughts for upgrading rangers..

Postby Tasan » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:40 pm

Malia wrote:remove missile shield totaly from the game.. it makes archery at high lvls pointless and archery was created to give rangers a niche that others dont


Again: If you remove the extreme loss of arrows, this wouldn't even be a problem. There are plenty of arrows in the game that can break missile shield.

Carry on...

T
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'

Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'

Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:45 pm

Instakill is bad, in any form. How about just massive damage?

I still think rangers should have trip. Maybe a hitall type skill, but instead of a single attack against all targets, a full round of attacks against each target?

How about a skill to do some serious damage to wraithform mobs?
How about a damage combat skill that actually does damage(unlike kick)?
How about a skill that lets them stand faster when bashed/quaked/dragon buffetted?
How about turning archery into a skill that can be used on top of normal melee damage, rather than instead of it?
How about tripling their damage output?

None of those things will make a ranger useful, though.
Last edited by thanuk on Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:46 pm

Well, for the ideas to work at a base, archery would need to not suck, and as Twyl said, arrow loss. There's a reason I haven't gone around and quested any arrows. It's pointless cause all we use archery for is melee. I _still_ want to see some sort of choice, for either spec melee with upgrades for it, and a choice to spec arch with upgrades for it as well.
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:58 pm

- Increase dice damage on all arrows dramatically to allow rangers/dires to shovel out damage by the truck load on unshielded mobs.

- Keep missile shield. Give any class that has archery Dispel Magic spell if they don't. Make them work for their new found damage.
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Tue Dec 30, 2003 8:22 pm

Here's something that is pretty out there:

Make rogue sneak/hide indoor only

Give Ranger Sneak/hide outdoor only

Remove all other sneak/hide from the game

This would at least have Rangers replacing rogues in outdoor zones.

In exchange it would eliminate other classes using sneak and hide so now rogues have a use (To all elves I offer my condolences for this suggestion (especially Lilithelle)).

Bring in traps. Rogues indoors. Rangers outdoors. Now lure has some additional use. Let zone makers use traps in their zones. Detect trap goes to Rangers as well.

Let Rangers have an area archery skill (strafe?). Multiple targets (3?). More chance mob will switch/bash them when used.

Now, with all these new skills you might actually bring a Ranger.

Of course now Rogues are at a disadvantage as damage dealers and are going to be left out completely in some zones.

Ideally, there can be skills thought of that would actually have you bring *gasp* Both a ranger and a Rogue *gasp*. Just don't know what they are.
Osil
Sojourner
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 6:01 am
Location: Honolulu, HI 96813

Postby Osil » Tue Dec 30, 2003 8:33 pm

Here are some suggestions I have for improving rangers:

1. Make archery their niche. Get rid of the arrows accidentily flying out of the room and aggroing mobs nearby. Keep the arrows hitting PC/mobs in the room as a balancing factor. Allow the arrows to slowly wear down missile shield or create some magic arrows that allow them to ignore missile shield. You could also let high level rangers make magic arrows similar to an Arcane Archer in D&D3E. Finally, allow the ranger to fire arrows at as many as 3 targets at once.

2. Called shots would be cool also. Make a called shot to the eyes have the potential to blind the mob. A called shot to throat have the potential to silence the mob etc. You may need to make the duration fairly short though. Also make special arrows that allow an automatic called shot but they will break and be useless. Perhaps you could make different bows allow for different called shots as a balancing factor.

3. Make more fights lureable. Allow rangers to fire into a room one room away and aggro a mob to draw it out. You may need to make the luring shot do no damage (thus no called shot) to prevent rangers from twinking stuff from one room away.

4. Create ranger favored enemy. Make the favored enemy take a noticable amount of extra damage. Perhaps allow a *small* chance of instantly killing a favored enemy. Also called shots would easier to do on a favored enemy.

Not sure how balanced these suggestions would be though. But as an enchanter I would love this stuff because I wouldn't have to worry about globing/hasting the ranger anymore.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Tue Dec 30, 2003 8:38 pm

I can't believe I'm saying this. But thanuk has the best ideas by far. Doing something to archery isn't the fix rangers need. (getting arrows back would be nice, but I use it so rarely not a big issue).

1) Trip would be nice, and in theme.

2) Combat Roll - reduces lagtime from a bash/buffet (see above)

3) Hitllall - I've never figured out why rangers don't have this. They shouldn't get multiple hits on multiple mobs, real area damage shouldn't be in the rangers domain.

4) Surprise - Nature only, can't be in combat, does backstab like damage
"Ranger leaps from the bushes and burries his/her 'weapon' into 'mob'"

5) Flurry - You double/triple your attacks for the round, but this 'exhausts' you so you temporary lose 5-10 str each time you use it, wears off after a few minutes. The drain stack, so you could do this multiple times in a fight that was going bad, but would require a long time to recover.
"Ranger's weapons become a blur as he/she savagely attacks 'mob'

6) Woodland Knowledge - An AC bonus to a ranger while in nature. i.e. know's how to fight in the woods and uses the brush/trees/hills to his/her advantage.

7) Strike/Cleave- Replaces kick, this is just an extra attack that is slightly more powerful than normal. Optionally could be a pommel strike that has a chance to stun, but there is far to much stun in game currently. Okay so I ran outta steam.

I had some others can't remember them now.
Downgrade rangers,
Belle
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Re: Constructive thoughts for upgrading rangers..

Postby belleshel » Tue Dec 30, 2003 8:39 pm

Malia wrote:ok, first, Gormal, Weylarii, Dartan, and I just sat for like an hour and brainstormed ideas.. here is what we came up with.

Maybe add Vital shot, it would work like vital strike..

The Arch Magi doubles over in pain as your arrow pierces his stomach.
The Arch magi stops casting.



An hour and this is what you all came up with?...must been afk for the hour;)
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Tue Dec 30, 2003 8:58 pm

Perhaps we should consider that if melee as a whole were upgraded, how beyond that could Rangers be improved or given a nitch?
Last edited by Sesexe on Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Malia
Sojourner
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 11:04 pm
Location: Eastern Washington State
Contact:

Re: Constructive thoughts for upgrading rangers..

Postby Malia » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:14 pm

ya know.. im trying to come up with ideas to help a class, and get flamed for it. it would be nice to just keep a thread constructive so gods can look through it withought pages of crap to look through. The biggest problem is with threads like this is smart ass pricks have to come and try to be funny.. whole thing gets into a complete joke.. take it elsewhere and keep this constructive

At least im out there trying.. instead of taking a thread and just bashing on it.

Ok so problem with archery is arrow loss, any suggestions to the fixing of this? I think some really cool skills could be added to archery if we could make it a usable skill.

Strafe would rawk, multiple targets and multiple arrows but lag from it would have to be like 3 rounds.

Combat roll would be cool, make surviabilty alot better and make it more to theme of a ranger.

Hitall should just be same as warriors but id rather see just warriors keep this skill, more like a berzerk then a calculated attack.

Suprise would be cool, but must be piercing weapons.. but would be a cool ability

I like the Idea of flury the best.. and -5 or -10 str would be appropriate too

Woodland knowledge.. kinda pointless since your already at -100 most of the time and if your not, bark puts you at -100.. good idea dont see much use for it though

Strike/Cleave would be similar to Circle and maybe warriors could get this ability too, cuz kick does jack crap

Biggest problem over all is people dont look to add melee to groups. You bring tanks not for melee but to tank and rescue, You dont take rouges to melee but to do the luring or cr. In 95% of the game you dont intentionaly bring melee. So either we need to add some skill to rangers to make them usefull beyond melee or downgrade magic damage to the point that its on par with melee.
Dugmaren mutters in a surly voice 'Got any new strategy or going to continue with the "throw bodies at them til they get bored"? '



Dranth group-says 'i started drinkin when i found out galzar would be here'



Nerox says 'careful she goes from 0 to bitch in .00000001 seconds'



Mugo ASSOC:: 'ah got it on my gaytimer now :P'
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:16 pm

If arrow lose is one of the biggest issues why don't we move the hit dam to the bows and let the arrows be relatively similar in design. maybe have different arrows have different dice but make them all relatively easy to get and wieghtless.

Make missle shield look to the Bow for being taken out.

Make the better bows proc the arrows.

Make quivers that are like bags of holding and can carry LOTS.

Or put some of the hit/dam or procs be on the quivers so that there is a reason to switch them.

Or, change whittle (or whatever it is called) to increase the types of arrows that are carved with the increase in skill. Make the time sink the use of the skill. Make the % chance to carve a really good +hit + dam arrow change as skills increase.

Make arrows transient so that you don't need to collect them. And so you dont care if they are lost in a crash.

Make whittle faster. So that you can carve some arrows during a mem.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Re: Constructive thoughts for upgrading rangers..

Postby belleshel » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:28 pm

Malia wrote:ya know.. im trying to come up with ideas to help a class, and get flamed for it. it would be nice to just keep a thread constructive so gods can look through it withought pages of crap to look through. The biggest problem is with threads like this is smart ass pricks have to come and try to be funny.. whole thing gets into a complete joke.. take it elsewhere and keep this constructive

At least im out there trying.. instead of taking a thread and just bashing on it.

Ok so problem with archery is arrow loss, any suggestions to the fixing of this? I think some really cool skills could be added to archery if we could make it a usable skill.

Strafe would rawk, multiple targets and multiple arrows but lag from it would have to be like 3 rounds.

Combat roll would be cool, make surviabilty alot better and make it more to theme of a ranger.

Hitall should just be same as warriors but id rather see just warriors keep this skill, more like a berzerk then a calculated attack.

Suprise would be cool, but must be piercing weapons.. but would be a cool ability

I like the Idea of flury the best.. and -5 or -10 str would be appropriate too

Woodland knowledge.. kinda pointless since your already at -100 most of the time and if your not, bark puts you at -100.. good idea dont see much use for it though



Relax. I just find it hard to believe that with a group of fairly elite player, and 1 hour, thats what you came up with. Especially since Weylarii hates archery as much as I do;)

Back to the issues:

Depok actually the biggest issue is that some folks think archery should be a rangers 'niche' while most of the older rangers don't see it (including me). Arrows are fairly easy to come by, outside of exping you rarely have more than 20 of them outside of your quiver (since area's have removed the mobs by then).

Malia:

AC past -100 helps, there isn't a cap on it, or at least that's what has been said from the immortal staff for awhile, it even has some damage reducing qualities last I knew.

Hitall should stay with warriors, no reason ranger's shouldn't get this as well.

Not sure why surprise would have to be piercing weapons. If I jump out of a bush and surprise you with a sword, I could do more damage than I could with any knives;)
Adana
Sojourner
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Contact:

Postby Adana » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:49 pm

How about disarm for rangers, never understood why they wouldn't be able to get this skill considering their skill with weapons. Wouldn't think it to be too overpowering.

Quested 9th circle spell, Enchanted Quiver. Enchants arrows to penetrate missile shield for a very limited amount of game time. Maybe 5 minutes rl? Just a suggestion.
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:50 pm

So back to specialize melee vs specialize archery.

The issue is going to be though, how do you differentiate Rangers that choose melee from rogues.

Which gets us back to the melee vs caster issue because you don't need both a ranger or a rogue for zones no matter how you make them different.

As an example, Seelie groups almost never have a rogue in them because you don't need them. The mobs search hidden things and bash so rogues are not needed to do anything so that slot goes to a caster who can do more damage.

Well, right back to where we started. All good ideas but not so useful without balancing Melee and Casters.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:00 pm

If you make melee a much more important part of the game, there is plenty of reasons to bring both;). Rogue can scout, lure, garrote, assasinate, pick locks, trip, do damage, poison. But no matter how the ranger changes it will never be a 'needed' class. It shouldn't be a needed class, its an auxillary class, always should be. They would be much more usefull if melee was balanced thou.
Gormal
Sojourner
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: A Whale's Vagina
Contact:

Postby Gormal » Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:39 pm

last i heard was that shev said that ac past -100 means nothing including armor/bark.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:49 pm

So its changed back now? Could be wrong but I swear they posted that ac past -100 now means something.

How about:

Woodland knowldge: You could change it to add 10-15 AC to everyone grouped with a ranger while in nature. (i.e. the ranger points out the best places to fight while in the woods). And/or melee damage of the group is increased 10% while in a ranger is grouped and you are in nature.
mynazzaraxxsyn
Sojourner
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:00 pm
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby mynazzaraxxsyn » Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:01 am

Nope, shev posted that anything over (or below how ever you look at it) -100ac means diddly.
Lilithelle stops using a softly throbbing piece of flesh.
Gura group-says 'ill go solo the biznatch, just don't tell Stamm'
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'is it bad that the two words i think of when i see yer title are hottub and cthulhu? :('
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:06 am

Is this a serious thread, or 163.upgraderangerthread? Ok, assume it's serious, and rangers are coming under the knife yet again.

The class needs an overhaul. Not an upgrade, not a rebalancing, it needs to be COMPLETELY REDONE. Half of their skills are mutually exclusive... you can't bash while arching, so if Rangers are supposed to use bows, why do they have bash? And so on. So what needs to be done is a revamping of ALL the Ranger combat commands, making them archery-friendly. A fairly generic Aim command can be easily implemented, designed to take an argument specifying target. So instead of making it a skill you "set" in combat, let the Ranger "aim leg" for an attempt to bash, "aim throat" for an attempt to silence combat, "aim arm" for a disarm attempt, or "aim head" for a kick-like damage boost. Have it fire an extra arrow, lag two rounds like the normal commands, and spawn effects if successful. Easy. If you want to be slick, have bow weight influence success.

Trip and springleap don't really make sense, because those skills STILL encourage rangers to use swords. As long as rangers use swords for their primary weapons, they are simply weaker rogue clones.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:07 am

I love alot of these ideas. A whole lot. most of them depend on melee getting fixed of course, but I think we can work towards skill balance and group balance while melee is being fixed.

I think that we should try and keep the ranger multi dimensional (with archery and melee). Rogues and rangers can/should have nearly the same damage output (with different factors) and different utility.

Of the ideas presented I would add the following changes to the ranger class:
-----------------
Remove the bash skill. Rangers dual wield/wield 2h bow. Bashing with a shield is not within the theme of the class.
------
Add trip. This keeps the functionality of bash but stays 'in theme'.
------
Add that Combat roll/reduced bash/stun/ontheground skill. Make it a skill that rangers get at 35th level. Have it reduce on the ground time, and with mastery and a good roll have an instant stand from bash. This will allow rangers to be far better at emergency tanking (one of their roles).
------
Surprise / Ambush - I posted a similar idea in another thread ages ago. Make it just like backstab, but takes time to set up and can only happen in nature/partial nature rooms. Syntax.
------
Ambush
You start searching for a viable ambush spot.
You fail to find an appropirate location to launch your ambush.
or
You find a good spot for an ambush! Now for a target. . .

at this point you're ready to attack....can't mem, or whatever. . .or it will break the ambush.

attack syntax:
surprise (or ambush) X

failure: An orc is not at all surprised by your silly tricks and sidesteps your feeble lunge as you fall flat on your face.

success: As you spring from your hiding spot you take an orc utterly by surprise!

effect: backstab type damage. . .or perhaps landing 5-10 attacks in the first round. Perhaps the mob could be stunned too.
------

I like the idea of giving a group benefit having a ranger in the group. Not sure what that should be or if that steps on the toes of bards (another underpowered class).

--------------------

I'd add the flurry. I love the idea.

------------------
I'd skip the strike/cleave. .. seems to beadding a bit too much. we would have flurry as a cool incombat thing to do)
-----------------

I would also add the aim idea for archery that Malia posted. I would not allow it to instant kill like garrote. Just give it a chance to blind/stun/cripple mobs (increasing for however hurt they are).
-----------


Thats about all for now. My head hurts =(

Lost
Waelos
Sojourner
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Waelos » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:17 am

I disagree with Ragorn. I don't really feel (or want) rangers to have to rely on archery for their 'niche'. rangers have always had that duality and to remove that would be an affront to the class. =)

Lost
Treladian
Sojourner
Posts: 1163
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Treladian » Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:58 am

Lots of these ideas sound interesting and if properly done could do wonders for the class, whether they expand on the current abilities of the class or totally overhaul it as Ragorn suggests (and at the very least, ranged needs an overhaul to make it not a liability).

Only thing I'll add is that I still think we should have some skill that lets us see more than one room away. Rangers are supposed to be good scouts and I'm pretty sure I'm using my eyes and not my nose or the Force when I shoot at a mob more than one room away.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:21 am

thanuk wrote:Instakill is bad, in any form. How about just massive damage?

I still think rangers should have trip.


Massive dmg through many attacks (poss double digits by 50)

SPRINGLEAP over trip o god.
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:31 am

#sub {ranger} {monk}
?
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
Areandon
Sojourner
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:34 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Postby Areandon » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:14 pm

I have a more radical idea to fix rangers and maybe melee in general. As it is now, melee characters are mostly useless because invokers do way more damage. What about upping magic resistance on some mobs. So you have to bring some melee people because invokers can hardly hit them?

For example change MR so that instead it blocks a few of the spells it blocks like 5-100% of the damage, depending on how high the resistance is? Put a mob with 100% resistance in every zone and you suddenly have the need to bring rangers and rogues everywhere.

Just and idea.

Naled
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:32 pm

Zones shouldn't require rangers imho, they should just be a nice addition. I have always been an advocate of having MR work like you said thou. MR90 - 90% damage reduction.
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:40 pm

Ok, first off, this is no flame. Just an opinion

Ranger pros/cons:
Pros:
1)More melee attacks than a anti/paladin and a warrior, bout the same as a rogue, but with bigger, and heavier weapons (should be more dmg on swords than daggers, sillyness).
2)Unique skill of archery for luring/damage (needs some tweaks tho)
3)Utility spells including armor increase and whatnot.
4)Natures blessing (you take areas better than most but rogues or those with insane savespell and if you have insane savespell, you take even less.)

Cons:
1)Less hp than most warriors, tho this could be fixed by removing most warriorable +hp gear, and the need for it.
2)Less tanking ability than many warrior type classes, but still better than rogues or mages!
3)Usually elf means less str means less dmg (but on the bright side, an extra attack here and there!)
4) need for insane hitroll compared to other classes. dunno if this was fixed with rogue change, but if it wasn't it needs to be =P
5) yah, there are more, but i'm tired.

A) the idea above about the increased magic resistance? there are already some mobs that just plain WONT eat spells. good for melee already, no need to mess that up.

B) The ideas in posts above, especially those that involve a ranger overhaul would make rangers BY FAR the best melee class in the game even if half of them were introduced. The solution for rangers is MUCH more complicated than that =P

SOLUTION: FIX MELEE so it's worth a goddamn

SECOND: decrease damage on daggers so they reflect the fact they are much lighter and smaller weapons than longswords. or, if it's your flavor, make larger weapons dice higher. although it's all relative, so might as well make them something easy to calculate. (for all you rogues just waiting to whine about this, the edge of a blade is only one aspect of it's power. how it is used, and the weight and or strength behind it DO add a significant amount of power to the entire equasion(ex hatchet vs maul))
The differences in damage/etc can be made up invisibly with weapon skills. bleh.

THIRD: make 2h weapons more comparable to what they were in terms of dice. it's rediculous that there are 1h weapons that DWARF 2h weapons. this should be nye impossible.

FOURTH: tweak rangers with trip, etc and make arrow breakage less. as stated above, bash is just rightout, and there are a LOT of arrows that will go through shield. add disarm, silly that rangers don't have this, and add hitall, same as warrior hitall.

FIFTH: If this all doesn't fix them, and they are still weak, give them haste at 10th circle at the OLD duration, not the new one, make it self only, and make it affect archery # of attacks.

I think the idea that is missed is that invokers do their damage over large areas. melee should do more damage, but focused on one target. That is the niche of the melee fighter.

*THANK YOU PLEASE DRIVE THROUGH!*
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:42 pm

A few other silly ideas that I gotta get outta my head before the serious drinking begins.

Other ranger sillyness.

1) Ensnare/Entrap - While wielding a net a ranger can attempt to throw a net over a foe. At which point he/she loses the net. This has 2 effects. 1 it renders the mob immoblie while in effect. Also it reduces AC/combat effectiveness (parry, dodge, offense)by a decent amount (15%?). This helps the groups melee folks do more damage, and also helps reduce mob melee. You could only net something up to a certain size (large ogre), and the duration would be based on mobs STR/size and quality of the net (different costs/quest). An ogre warrior would quickly tear a net apart, while a gnome mage might be stuck in one for a long time.

2) Impale - I actually think this works better for a paladin/anti-paladin.
"You drive your spear thru Rylan pinning him in place." Basically has the same effects as above, but requires the use of a spear/lance.

3) Wilderness Lore - This skill allows you to find the best paths, you use far less moves then a normal class in wilderness areas. This bonus applies to grouped/following the ranger. Not real useful with the amount of fly, but nice for younger rangers/groups.

4) Herb Lore - This would take some work, but I think might be intresting. Have a few mobs around the world let you know how to make certain potions/poultices. In ranger guild you could (for some cash) collect the required components and make various potions. Names need work, this is just for the mechanics aspect. Gathering componets from all around the mud to create things like (no-stacking):

vial of the bear/wolf/wolverine/squirrel - temp 10 max_str/agi/con/dex increase

poultice of the woods - self only, 1 use hide, nature only, most anything breaks this.

other junk - small heals, cure poison, few other minimal junk.

5) Revamp kick. Make this a reflex skill, that is automatically used (no lag) in combat. Every few rounds (ranger has no control on this), you get an extra attack as a 'kick'.

I'm sure I'll remember some other stuff I posted on the Soj3 board way back,
Belle
mynazzaraxxsyn
Sojourner
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:00 pm
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby mynazzaraxxsyn » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:44 pm

belleshel wrote:2) Impale - I actually think this works better for a paladin/anti-paladin.
"You drive your spear thru Rylan pinning him in place." Basically has the same effects as above, but requires the use of a spear/lance.


One of the gods already shot this one down due to the fact that it is already a cool social.
Lilithelle stops using a softly throbbing piece of flesh.
Gura group-says 'ill go solo the biznatch, just don't tell Stamm'
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'is it bad that the two words i think of when i see yer title are hottub and cthulhu? :('
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:49 pm

mynazzaraxxsyn wrote:
belleshel wrote:2) Impale - I actually think this works better for a paladin/anti-paladin.
"You drive your spear thru Rylan pinning him in place." Basically has the same effects as above, but requires the use of a spear/lance.


One of the gods already shot this one down due to the fact that it is already a cool social.


Fine, new name 'Skewer';)
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:05 pm

old depok wrote:Here's something that is pretty out there:
Make rogue sneak/hide indoor only
Give Ranger Sneak/hide outdoor only
Remove all other sneak/hide from the game
This would at least have Rangers replacing rogues in outdoor zones.

Many interesting specific ideas, but I like this general idea the best. Except I'd suggest it more strongly, and this way:

Keep rogues as they are for rooms that are not "in nature". Rogues are assassins, thieves, they live in the dark corners of cities, villages, and "civilization" in general.

Give rangers abilities equivalent to rogues for rooms that are "in nature". So they get the sneak/hide in the woods, etc.

But "in nature", rogues are no better than any city dweller. And in the city, rangers are country bumpkins.

Do the same for their damage. Rogues can hide in rooms, in buildings, beside roads, etc. and ambush you, doing great damage. Rangers have the same kinda damage in the woods. But a ranger in the city is crowded -- swords are too long, there are too many walls, medieval roads aren't straight so archery sucks, etc. A rogue in the woods -- well, a dagger just isn't long enough for a more open fighting style.

Same with traps. A rogue can pick a lock, open a door. A ranger can detect a deadfall or pit.

Since many zones are a combination of "in nature" and "not in nature" rooms, a good group would frequently want both a rogue and a ranger. Since some zones are mostly "in nature", this would mean a decrease in the need for rogues. Since there are so many rogue alts, I don't see this as a bad thing.
Nokie
Sojourner
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Contact:

Postby Nokie » Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:07 pm

Gurns wrote:this would mean a decrease in the need for rogues. Since there are so many rogue alts, I don't see this as a bad thing.


Unless of course you play a rogue as a primary because you like the class and not because it's a novelty or another alt to hoard eq for....
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:04 pm

Nokie wrote:
Gurns wrote:this would mean a decrease in the need for rogues. Since there are so many rogue alts, I don't see this as a bad thing.


Unless of course you play a rogue as a primary because you like the class and not because it's a novelty or another alt to hoard eq for....


See me standing over Nokie's shoulder nogging vehemently? I'm there. Some of us aren't rogues because we want one of each class to twink each area as much as possible, we're rogues because this is what suits us the most.

Although you could give rangers more use if you want, because I know I'll still have a place with my guild because they lub me.
Nokie
Sojourner
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Contact:

Postby Nokie » Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:32 am

Rangers are fine and I have proof!


Corth ASSOC:: 'up to you.. need a ranger,
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jan 03, 2004 2:56 pm

Ashiwi wrote:we're rogues because this is what suits us the most.



Which is pretty much the only reason anyone actually plays ranger.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:26 pm

Ashiwi wrote:
Nokie wrote:
Gurns wrote:this would mean a decrease in the need for rogues. Since there are so many rogue alts, I don't see this as a bad thing.

Unless of course you play a rogue as a primary because you like the class and not because it's a novelty or another alt to hoard eq for....

See me standing over Nokie's shoulder nogging vehemently? ... Although you could give rangers more use if you want, because I know I'll still have a place with my guild because they lub me.


Erk, my apologies, no offense intended for the real rogues. And if you have a rogue, and are offended by my use of the term "real rogue", then, yes, I may well have meant it as an insult for you. Yes, I do know folks with a number of alts and one is a rogue, and that char is still a real rogue: my definition of "real" tends to be about skill with the class, and style, and focus.

I think my proposed changes would decrease but not eliminate the need for rogues. I think, and I think many folks agree, that rogues are overpowered. Sneak/hide as it is, is just too successful. Imagine this mud with an "invis" where almost no mob sees "invis". Craziness.

In other skills: Rogue melee is relatively overpowered compared to other melee, but not compared to spell dam, assassinate is cool and has sufficient limits on it, certain poisons might be a bit much but most are OK. It's only the sneak/hide the takes rogues out of whack. I see it as an "artifact", a godly power. And yes, I've benefited from it greatly, including a recent gift from Ashiwi -- I am personally grateful, but I do see it as a serious imbalance in the mud.

By taking it away from rogues on half of the mud (or whatever proportion of rooms that would be), it becomes a Needed and Very Useful Skill, but not godly. And an appropriate skill, for rogues to be undetectable in the city.

By giving half of this godly skill to rangers, all of a sudden they become much more balanced. I still think they'd be weaker than they should be, but then that becomes a question of balancing melee better. Without giving rangers something large, I don't see them as being balanceable. And to try to give rangers something large in terms of melee, without also giving it to rogues and warriors, would screw up melee more than it is now.

And of course, it's an appropriate skill for rangers to be undetectable in nature.

So I think by doing this, rogues would be balanced, and rangers would be closer to being balanced.

Would some rogue chars stop playing? Sure. I think that's a good thing. Would zones be harder? Sure. I think that's a good thing, too. Would rangers get invited to do things? Sure, and I think that'd be a great thing.

Would real rogues ever have a problem finding a group, and being useful, and being loved? No, never. This wouldn't be a return to the old "well the thief in to pick the lock, and then well him out again" days. Rogues are too useful in too many ways, and still would be, even if you did need to bring a ranger to do it in the woods.

I'd always be happy to have Nokie and Ashiwi in a group, even if they had no useful skills, because they're fun, they've got great style, etc. But yes, I am thinking of rogues that no one likes, like Cirath :p, and leaving plenty for him to do, so he'd still be included in a group.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:58 pm

We lub you too Gurns!
Lorsalian
Sojourner
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Lorsalian » Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:46 am

Some very interesting ideas. As a change to the 'aim' I would instead

togged skill:

Default: 0
Valid: 0- 2 (or one less than the number of archery attacks/round)

Would trade a number of attacks for a corresponding bonus to hitroll, as the archer would be taking his/her time. While not as spectacular as the previous suggestion, I think it would be easier to balance (and thus more likely to be implemented).


Lorsalian fires 3 arrows at a dragon, but misses them all!

Lorsalian takes careful aim, fires 1 arrow at a dragon, doing moderate damage.


*shrug*
Thanuk OOC: 'thats 6 years of hard work, come to fruitition in 1 single statement'
Was Felton Orm the "Wizard of Auz" ?

Lorsalian Silvermist -- Seeker of the Complete MUD Cookkit
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4905
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Constructive thoughts for upgrading rangers..

Postby Dalar » Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:45 am

Malia wrote:ok, first, Gormal, Weylarii, Dartan, and I just sat for like an hour and brainstormed ideas.. here is what we came up with.


lies, i never talk about rangers
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
GM_Rules
Sojourner
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:40 am

Postby GM_Rules » Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:46 am

Why it is that nobody like this rangers? I just start and I happy the torilmud is available from Mexico!
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:09 pm

Rangers are like our redheaded stepchild... although we love them dearly, don't we Belly?
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:23 pm

If you really loved me you'd find and annoy shevy until he gave in and upgraded ranger dodge.;(
old depok
Sojourner
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Philadelphia PA USA

Postby old depok » Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:31 pm

Gurns -

Only issue with the Rogue city Ranger country thing is that I can see zone creators using this against both by making everyother room nature. That would make sneak and hide not work at all.

the other issue would be knowing which rooms were which so that you didn't try to sneak through the agro nature room and get yourself dead without some warning.

I think sneak and Hide is ok because it helps in many situations. It also helps speed up some zones to make them doable in a decent amount of time.

As for all those other skills, just look at how many rogues go to seelie to get an idea of how useful people thinkk those skills are versus other classes available skills.

Now keep in mind there are useful rogues out there and then there are rogues like Kifle *ruffle* and Pibel. We all know they are really shaman in disguise.
Hyldryn
Sojourner
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Maryland

Postby Hyldryn » Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:58 pm

It may be possible shev already has an idea for rangers and giving them dodge is not part of the plan.
belleshel
Sojourner
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Northeast

Postby belleshel » Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:25 pm

It may be possible that our planet is invaded by apes. In the realm of skills currently implemented, it just makes sense that the ranger is pretty good at dodging things: leadership, blame, gormal, and an angry mob here and there.

Return to “T2 Gameplay Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest