Sesexe wrote:I willingly admit that I do not currently have a zoning ranger, and have never implied in any of my discussions or suggestions about the class that I do. I haven't ever leveled one up to significant level to date. I haven't rolled one this wipe. But I will take the time to respectfully listen to, and address any ideas/issues I have to those players that have.
last I checked you have only a rudimentary understanding of the game... you will probably never understand anything I say because you don't have enough knowledge of game dynamics or perspective. You could probably contribute a lot in addressing the low end and newbie game.
Sesexe wrote:Kiryan, I’m not entirely sure you are aware of this, but you are constantly coming off like you know what's best for rangers, and arrogantly at that.
its not hard, have you read the drivel posted by most rangers, half dont even understand how archery works let alone how to lure (let alone actually have a bow and arrows when called to zone), half are stuck in the era of 4d5 5/5 gleaming mithrils 70 damrolls and haste items, and the remaining two have valhalla scepters. An even stupider contingent of rangers wants to be transformed into rogues that focus on 1h slashers... Also... very few rangers know anything about zoning because by all reports they never get to zone.
But, you know this argument is classic and has never ceased to amaze me. Your not "qualified" to speak about a class unless you have a level 50 with x playing time, however, rarely are the nuances of a class of debate (from which experience would give a greater understanding) rather the classes role in groups or abilities as compared to other classes. Since no one with perspective is allowed to comment, your stuck with the career class xyz are typically myopic in viewpoint and zero in on a particular change xyz that fucked them over in the past which was a completely different world.
Really, if i wanted to know what would make rangers better I sure as hell wouldnt put much stock in what a ranger has to say, i'd go ask the leaders on the cutting edge. How the fuk would a ranger know why he never gets invites to do anything?
and btw, I'm not claiming to know how to fix rangers. However, I do know that fixing archery will be a huge plus since it is their ONLY UNIQUE SKILL in that it is a unique skill and it has unique properties (melee based damage that ignores hitroll and defensive skills).
Sesexe wrote:I do not understand why you feel you have this qualification that you know so much more about what’s best for Rangers then those who are established rangers. I don’t know who your alts are, and I’m not big on keeping up to speed on what everyone plays, so for all I know, you could have one you’ve been playing for some time. I’d very much like to know if this is true, as then I could see more credibility in what you’re saying, which I’d honestly like to do. (I’m being serious.) Because right now it just looks like you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re snapping at everyone who doesn’t agree with your ideas.
So my question to you is: Do you in particular, and specifically, currently have a high-level Ranger that you've been zoning with for some time on this wipe? What exactly qualifies you to know what’s best and what they need for the class and to talk so pretentiously towards those Rangers that don’t agree with you?
I don't have a ranger period.
Now, as to why I am qualified.
How many times have I made high level rangers look like a fools on for their erroneous understanding of archery? active, playing semi high level (46+) Rangers who dont have more than a basic understanding of their only unique skill. by your logic, since I dont actually have a ranger, I'm not qualified to contradict these fools right? How many rangers know that shooting straight up drastically decreases your range (From gravity I assume).
And, while I may not know everything about rangers, I know a shitload about melee damage. I have been a party to tens of thousands of kills of empirical evidence in reasonably controlled environments about the damage rates between rangers and rogues at varying levels with varying equipment.
but what it comes down to is that I have yet to hear a really good counter suggestion to archery or any kind of argument against archery based on more than "it doesnt work". How can I change my view if no one is able to provide any kind of worthwhile alternative suggestion or expose any fatal flaw? Half the arguments are "its fatally flawed"... like archery is something magical that code or a unlimited supply of 10d10 10/10 arrow cant fix.
I take it back, I have heard exactly one good alternative to ranger archery... remove the ranger class.
Sesexe wrote:Now please stay calm and relax if you’re getting upset. I know I get condescending when talking about Lich’s and Invokers, but that’s because those are my main two classes I’ve worked hard on being good at, and everyone knows I’ve been playing them fro 3-4 years now. Yeah I have a ressing/zoning cleric and a zoning thief, but I still ask for advice on those two classes from others who have focused on them over the years. And I wouldn’t even pretend to tell you what a cleric needs. I know you are well experienced and very good at it with vastly more time put into the class.
I only get upset when i realize how much of my life I waste in a futile effort to explain myself to people who have very little hope of understanding and to others who have no influence.
and since you bring up that retarded experience argument.
Classes have inequity only when compared to other classes or different
environments. Anyone who has broad detailed knowledge of the game is more qualified to comment on rangers than a level 50 ranger, especially since half of them don't even know how their only unique skill works.
and although I strenously argue against de-emphasizing archery, removing it and bringing their melee up to archery damage would be a quick fix to starting to address their damage issue with rogues and invokers. However, you would be making them less unique by a lot, and you'd pretty much have to give them self haste and self globe to be any kind of reliable damage source. I'd rather we just fix archery.
and realize, that even if you bring rangers single target damage output up to invoker level consistently, you will not fix rangers. Invokers will still be much more versatile because of area damage for one, stupid shit like poofing cold shields and retarded mob AI that instantly recasts it makes inferno godly, not to mention utility stuff like gate/relocate, oh and to top it all off you will never require haste or globe to be effective.