As grateful as I am for the mud being back up and running nicely, I also can't help but notice that the ranger upgrades have fallen way short of the mark.
1) Archery: several promised dates have come and gone without any updates from the staff. Whats the holdup?
2) THAC0: this was supposed to be improved for rangers to allow us to pile on the damage gear, this may have been changed, but doesn't seem to have made a huge difference yet.
3) Dual-Proc: weapons still do _not_ proc in the off_hand.
4) FlankBlock: the single tangible melee upgrade for rangers, seems to have been removed without a single post or explanation.
Any staff news would be good,
Thanks,
Belle
Rangers Upgrade Plan (Revisited)
Actually rangers get rescue, so they should be able to tank a little, which is what mounted combat allowed (we were in no ways a main tank, not even close to a warrior/ap/pal of same level). What flankblock did give us was the ability to rescue caster, and not die before the real tank could rescue back 
...
Belle
...Belle
***WARNING: Written while completely ticked off***
Two thumbs down....WAY down.
OMG, why have rangers been raped?
I was under the impression that rangers were supposed to be a fighter sub-class that specialized in nature, archery and sword fighting.
1. Rangers tank, at best, the same as a rogue. Never mind that rangers are a fighter sub-class. Rangers get Both rogues and rangers get dodge. However, rogues get it at 1st lvl while rangers get it at 12th. Rangers get parry at 14th, but I think that's offset by rogues getting escape at 1st lvl. Oh, and rogues trip better than most rangers bash (with the exception of belleshel). Mounted combat, with flank-block allowed us to maintain a semblance to fighter tanking. I thought that rangers would be good with animals. I'm willing to concede rangers being less of a horseman than a paladin (never mind that you're thinking of a bloody cavalier and smelly horses have nothing to do with being a holy warrior), but now they are nothing better than a damn halfling bard riding a horse now, with their pitiful (read maxes out on 20) mounted combat skill without flankblock. They already couldnt do 2h weapon fighting (prolly including bows) and were unable to pick up weapons off the ground without dismounting. For those who thought flankblock was powerful. Yah, it helped, but with the sucky skill lvl of ranger mounted combat, you got dismounted all the time. That is a *major* drawback, especially when you land on your ass while the mob is wailing on you. Warriors and pallys still had the primary tank jobs, easily. Rangers with flank-blocks could at least rescue long enough to allow the warrior or pally to prepare and re-rescue. Also, keep in mind that rangers have to drag their horses with them from hometowns and couldnt just summon them wherever (which means that they dont have them most of the time). Now, they'd get smacked down as quick as a mage. So, now they cant even do solo stuff when theyre considered 'an accessory class' at best to groups.
Was this biffed while changing the flankblock message or is this a real change?
2. Damage. I understand that Miax is busy and that there's other things, both mud and rl, that have postponed arch code. But, without it, rangers are fairly useless to groups. For some reason, rogues went from being totally useless, except in situations where they were called in to pick locks, to being the *masters* of melee damage. That's quite an improvement there! They needed serious upgrades, but c'mon, they're not even a frickin fighter sub-type. It seems rangers last hope is that archery for rangers is actually better. But thats out right now.
3. Thaco. I'm told that rangers dont even measure up to other fighter sub-types here. I hate to drag AD&D into this, but this is all based upon that. They had the same ThacOs there, and rogues had it worse (while both were better than casters).
4. No offhand proc. Was this just overlooked? I was quite disappointed to find this out the other day. Keep in mind that most rangers wouldnt be able to wield most proccers in the offhand (cuz most aren't human). It wasn't gonna be all that great. But its not even there for them.
So now ppl are saying rangers arent supposed to do warrior things like tank and rescue and they have to suck it up and wait for generous lower lvl groups to take us on?
Ugh. This post was written in the heat of anger. I apologize to the staff. You've worked long and hard on the mud and its a great thing. Stuff gets overlooked sometimes, I understand. But understand this. I'm with Rags and other rangers who arent gonna play them anymore until archery comes in or they get flankblock back or something. They're useless and unplayable now. I'm off to play a rogue or invoker. At least groups use those to do dmg. Now I know how conjurers feel, rofl!
Izzy
Two thumbs down....WAY down.
OMG, why have rangers been raped?
I was under the impression that rangers were supposed to be a fighter sub-class that specialized in nature, archery and sword fighting.
1. Rangers tank, at best, the same as a rogue. Never mind that rangers are a fighter sub-class. Rangers get Both rogues and rangers get dodge. However, rogues get it at 1st lvl while rangers get it at 12th. Rangers get parry at 14th, but I think that's offset by rogues getting escape at 1st lvl. Oh, and rogues trip better than most rangers bash (with the exception of belleshel). Mounted combat, with flank-block allowed us to maintain a semblance to fighter tanking. I thought that rangers would be good with animals. I'm willing to concede rangers being less of a horseman than a paladin (never mind that you're thinking of a bloody cavalier and smelly horses have nothing to do with being a holy warrior), but now they are nothing better than a damn halfling bard riding a horse now, with their pitiful (read maxes out on 20) mounted combat skill without flankblock. They already couldnt do 2h weapon fighting (prolly including bows) and were unable to pick up weapons off the ground without dismounting. For those who thought flankblock was powerful. Yah, it helped, but with the sucky skill lvl of ranger mounted combat, you got dismounted all the time. That is a *major* drawback, especially when you land on your ass while the mob is wailing on you. Warriors and pallys still had the primary tank jobs, easily. Rangers with flank-blocks could at least rescue long enough to allow the warrior or pally to prepare and re-rescue. Also, keep in mind that rangers have to drag their horses with them from hometowns and couldnt just summon them wherever (which means that they dont have them most of the time). Now, they'd get smacked down as quick as a mage. So, now they cant even do solo stuff when theyre considered 'an accessory class' at best to groups.
Was this biffed while changing the flankblock message or is this a real change?
2. Damage. I understand that Miax is busy and that there's other things, both mud and rl, that have postponed arch code. But, without it, rangers are fairly useless to groups. For some reason, rogues went from being totally useless, except in situations where they were called in to pick locks, to being the *masters* of melee damage. That's quite an improvement there! They needed serious upgrades, but c'mon, they're not even a frickin fighter sub-type. It seems rangers last hope is that archery for rangers is actually better. But thats out right now.
3. Thaco. I'm told that rangers dont even measure up to other fighter sub-types here. I hate to drag AD&D into this, but this is all based upon that. They had the same ThacOs there, and rogues had it worse (while both were better than casters).
4. No offhand proc. Was this just overlooked? I was quite disappointed to find this out the other day. Keep in mind that most rangers wouldnt be able to wield most proccers in the offhand (cuz most aren't human). It wasn't gonna be all that great. But its not even there for them.
So now ppl are saying rangers arent supposed to do warrior things like tank and rescue and they have to suck it up and wait for generous lower lvl groups to take us on?
Ugh. This post was written in the heat of anger. I apologize to the staff. You've worked long and hard on the mud and its a great thing. Stuff gets overlooked sometimes, I understand. But understand this. I'm with Rags and other rangers who arent gonna play them anymore until archery comes in or they get flankblock back or something. They're useless and unplayable now. I'm off to play a rogue or invoker. At least groups use those to do dmg. Now I know how conjurers feel, rofl!
Izzy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by belleshel:
<B>As grateful as I am for the mud being back up and running nicely, I also can't help but notice that the ranger upgrades have fallen way short of the mark.
1) Archery: several promised dates have come and gone without any updates from the staff. Whats the holdup?
2) THAC0: this was supposed to be improved for rangers to allow us to pile on the damage gear, this may have been changed, but doesn't seem to have made a huge difference yet.
3) Dual-Proc: weapons still do _not_ proc in the off_hand.
4) FlankBlock: the single tangible melee upgrade for rangers, seems to have been removed without a single post or explanation.
Any staff news would be good,
Thanks,
Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On point number 4... did they actually take away the skill? My understanding is the message you receive when you avoid the attack with mounted combat has been changed, due to complaints that the horse should be taking damage (based on the old description).
<B>As grateful as I am for the mud being back up and running nicely, I also can't help but notice that the ranger upgrades have fallen way short of the mark.
1) Archery: several promised dates have come and gone without any updates from the staff. Whats the holdup?
2) THAC0: this was supposed to be improved for rangers to allow us to pile on the damage gear, this may have been changed, but doesn't seem to have made a huge difference yet.
3) Dual-Proc: weapons still do _not_ proc in the off_hand.
4) FlankBlock: the single tangible melee upgrade for rangers, seems to have been removed without a single post or explanation.
Any staff news would be good,
Thanks,
Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On point number 4... did they actually take away the skill? My understanding is the message you receive when you avoid the attack with mounted combat has been changed, due to complaints that the horse should be taking damage (based on the old description).
Unless things have changed from closed alpha, Ranger THAC0 is not significantly lower than Warrior THAC0. The concept of THAC0 no longer exists on Sojourn as it does in D&D, but a Warrior's bonus to hit was only a few percent higher than a Ranger of the same level and skill.
I haven't heard anything about this being changed, so I assume the numbers are the same.
Not that I play much anymore, and when I do I sure as hell don't use melee, so I guess I could be wrong.
- Ragorn
c 'sticks to snakes';flee;rest;mem;med
I haven't heard anything about this being changed, so I assume the numbers are the same.
Not that I play much anymore, and when I do I sure as hell don't use melee, so I guess I could be wrong.
- Ragorn
c 'sticks to snakes';flee;rest;mem;med
<<1. Rangers tank, at best, the same as a rogue. Never mind that rangers are a fighter sub-class. Rangers get Both rogues and rangers get dodge. However, rogues get it at 1st lvl while rangers get it at 12th. Rangers get parry at 14th, but I think that's offset by rogues getting escape at 1st lvl. Oh, and rogues trip better than most rangers bash (with the exception of belleshel).>>
Apparely you've never played a rogue. If you did you would know that rogues may get dodge earlier but they certainly dont get parry which allows rangers to avoid more attacks than just dodge,I have no idea how the compairison of parry to escape came up because escape is a skill which allows you to retreat while tanking not one that allows you to avoid hits. Not to mention that rangers have better hitpoints than rogues. Also in addition to this rangers get spells such as barksking that will improve their ability to tank. If you played a rogue you would know that a ranger with a pbone will be a much reliable basher than a rogue tripping at all but the highest levels. Rangers are still far superiour to rogues as far as tanking and as far as hitters they may still be even without archery. With rogues pitiful double attack skill and low thac0 rangers still do almost if not as much damage in melee as rogues.
Apparely you've never played a rogue. If you did you would know that rogues may get dodge earlier but they certainly dont get parry which allows rangers to avoid more attacks than just dodge,I have no idea how the compairison of parry to escape came up because escape is a skill which allows you to retreat while tanking not one that allows you to avoid hits. Not to mention that rangers have better hitpoints than rogues. Also in addition to this rangers get spells such as barksking that will improve their ability to tank. If you played a rogue you would know that a ranger with a pbone will be a much reliable basher than a rogue tripping at all but the highest levels. Rangers are still far superiour to rogues as far as tanking and as far as hitters they may still be even without archery. With rogues pitiful double attack skill and low thac0 rangers still do almost if not as much damage in melee as rogues.
I agree with Tovel on the tanking part- rangers are certainly superior. When it comes to doing damage, rogues are superior indeed. The only reason why is circle. Circle can do great amounts of damage, and when the mob is blinded, it practically doubles a rogue's damage output. Without circle, rangers and rogues do comparable damage. Against paralyzed foes, rogues do comparable damage to invokers.
Yayaril
Yayaril
Sigh. We're missing the point, nit picking about the rogue vs ranger tanking thing. I may well be wrong with the ranger/rogue tanking thing, but all I can say is this: When switched to by a big mob, rangers (w/o mount) barely last longer than casters do. That's without stoning, viting, healing, or shielding oneself. If that happens, then they outlast rangers. So, the point is we're nowhere near the other fighters in tanking ability, especially w/o flankblock. The picture brought to mind then, is a rogue tanking. Warriors got hps and shield block. Pallys have flankblock and claim to be the king of parries. I cant really cast anything to improve survivability. What's left is the equivalent of a rogue, was my point. If you dont like that comparison, I'm sorry, but I'm just stating how it feels from this perspective.
Look, some flank-block skill (since it maxed at 1/5th of what pallys get), was useful because it allowed rangers to take some tanking responsibility in minor situations with significant risk. Also, it allowed us to rescue sometimes and give the true tank enough time to mount or grab a stone and rescue us. Finally, it alowed some minor soloing, when no-one wants to take in an 'accessory' class because they're trying to make their groups compact and efficient. I'm not asking that they be uber tank. I'm just asking for them to be a fighter subclass and be able to tank for a few rounds. It's not like we were off soloing dock masters or pirate ship mobs.
As for rogues having pitiful double attack, I will disagree with you there. I've been watching attack numbers closely using condensed combat mode. Attack numbers seem to be equivalent when hasted and at roughly the same level.
Hey, I'm just fighting for the class I grew to love on my favorite mud. I'm not trying to start a flame war or take anyone down. Just try to see it from my perspective.
Izzy, who hasn't decided yet to go rogue or voker
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-20-2001).]
Look, some flank-block skill (since it maxed at 1/5th of what pallys get), was useful because it allowed rangers to take some tanking responsibility in minor situations with significant risk. Also, it allowed us to rescue sometimes and give the true tank enough time to mount or grab a stone and rescue us. Finally, it alowed some minor soloing, when no-one wants to take in an 'accessory' class because they're trying to make their groups compact and efficient. I'm not asking that they be uber tank. I'm just asking for them to be a fighter subclass and be able to tank for a few rounds. It's not like we were off soloing dock masters or pirate ship mobs.
As for rogues having pitiful double attack, I will disagree with you there. I've been watching attack numbers closely using condensed combat mode. Attack numbers seem to be equivalent when hasted and at roughly the same level.
Hey, I'm just fighting for the class I grew to love on my favorite mud. I'm not trying to start a flame war or take anyone down. Just try to see it from my perspective.
Izzy, who hasn't decided yet to go rogue or voker
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-20-2001).]
-
Grungar
- Sojourner
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Somewhere on the east coast, usually.
- Contact:
*agree tovel, yayaril*
My tanking is a pretty damn sad sight to behold. I'd lobby for parry for rogues, but the idea is that we're not gonna be up in front that long, so dodge and escape will suffice. Rangers get bash at level 1, right? We now get trip at 25. Not to say that they're supposed to be the same, no. Rangers really weren't built for bashing, more for turning people into pincushions with their bows, or making them look like they've just gone through a paper shredder.
I can sympathize with the waiting for changes bit. I'm waiting to see what exactly elementals are afore I decide to pick one up. I love the conjurer class of old, and concur that like rangers and rogues, it too needed some serious overhauling. Conjurers, as they are now, just aren't worth it, imho. Plus I'm having a blast stabbing people in the back and trying to keep my horse out of jail.
Stiff upper lip, wot wot.
Go to bed, Grungar. Yes masta.
- Grungar "Sleep Good, Calculus Bad" Forgefire
My tanking is a pretty damn sad sight to behold. I'd lobby for parry for rogues, but the idea is that we're not gonna be up in front that long, so dodge and escape will suffice. Rangers get bash at level 1, right? We now get trip at 25. Not to say that they're supposed to be the same, no. Rangers really weren't built for bashing, more for turning people into pincushions with their bows, or making them look like they've just gone through a paper shredder.
I can sympathize with the waiting for changes bit. I'm waiting to see what exactly elementals are afore I decide to pick one up. I love the conjurer class of old, and concur that like rangers and rogues, it too needed some serious overhauling. Conjurers, as they are now, just aren't worth it, imho. Plus I'm having a blast stabbing people in the back and trying to keep my horse out of jail.
Stiff upper lip, wot wot.
Go to bed, Grungar. Yes masta.
- Grungar "Sleep Good, Calculus Bad" Forgefire
Sigh. Alright. I need an approx lvl 40 rogue. Actually, a fighter and paladin voulunteer would be good too. We'll get -100 AC with bark and armor and agree on a mob to tank. Warriors get their shields and pallys get their horses. Then we'll count how many rounds each lasts. No fleeing until say phurt. Maybe even try it a few times and see if they're statistically different. Any takers?
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-20-2001).]
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-20-2001).]
Nokie Quickfingers, level 38 halfling rogue with 100 dex. I'll gladly volunteer to do your experiment. I think if you're out to proove that rogues are even cloe to the same tanking ability as rangers, you will be sorely dissapointed.
Remember, rogues don't get shieldblock or parry or ripost. The only defensive skill they get is dodge.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by izarek:
[B]Sigh. Alright. I need an approx lvl 40 rogue. Actually, a fighter and paladin voulunteer would be good too. We'll get -100 AC with bark and armor and agree on a mob to tank. Warriors get their shields and pallys get their horses. Then we'll count how many rounds each lasts. No fleeing until say phurt. Maybe even try it a few times and see if they're statistically different. Any takers?
B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[This message has been edited by Nokie (edited 06-20-2001).]
Remember, rogues don't get shieldblock or parry or ripost. The only defensive skill they get is dodge.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by izarek:
[B]Sigh. Alright. I need an approx lvl 40 rogue. Actually, a fighter and paladin voulunteer would be good too. We'll get -100 AC with bark and armor and agree on a mob to tank. Warriors get their shields and pallys get their horses. Then we'll count how many rounds each lasts. No fleeing until say phurt. Maybe even try it a few times and see if they're statistically different. Any takers?
B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[This message has been edited by Nokie (edited 06-20-2001).]
Heyas Nokie. I'm glad you're willing to help and I sincerely hope youre correct. If I'm misinformed or am seeing things wrong, I want to find out. Besides, you're fun to RP with! The gods only know we stand around the fountain enough :P I hope I'm not pissin ya rogues off. That's not my intention. I've got several that I consider comerades. I just want my character to be useful and contribute something to the group. I can prolly convince Hyldryn to be the pally. He's not much higher in lvl. We'll find a warrior too.
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-20-2001).]
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-20-2001).]
I can speak for rogues as far as knowing whats up or down for them. Rogues tanking ability is seriously nothing short of pathetic. With 400 hps and a dodge skill at good, I still get jacked up with stone/blur/vit/armor/bark (etc.)
As for rangers-
Rangers thac0 requirement is not nearly as bad as it was last wipe. I know this because I was around to test it. Rogues got a slight bonus to hit too.
In alpha1 testing, rogues and rangers did THE SAME damage as each other in straight melee. When you added special combat skills into the picture (like circle) rogues out-did rangers by a bit more than an average of 5%. (keep in mind that this is all BEFORE the upgrade to rangers)When comparing archery vs. throwing, archery did (on the low end) of 20% more damage than rogues. This was tested over and over and over. If you want more imput from a rangers perspective, ask Waelos. He and I did literally HOURS of testing -rogue vs. ranger- to see who came out on top.
the winner?
rangers by a total of 17% (combined archery and melee)
Nitania
As for rangers-
Rangers thac0 requirement is not nearly as bad as it was last wipe. I know this because I was around to test it. Rogues got a slight bonus to hit too.
In alpha1 testing, rogues and rangers did THE SAME damage as each other in straight melee. When you added special combat skills into the picture (like circle) rogues out-did rangers by a bit more than an average of 5%. (keep in mind that this is all BEFORE the upgrade to rangers)When comparing archery vs. throwing, archery did (on the low end) of 20% more damage than rogues. This was tested over and over and over. If you want more imput from a rangers perspective, ask Waelos. He and I did literally HOURS of testing -rogue vs. ranger- to see who came out on top.
the winner?
rangers by a total of 17% (combined archery and melee)
Nitania
Okay this has gone in the exact opposite direction I wanted it to go. Basically I just wanted some immortal input on when we might see the changes promised to rangers, and to give us a _good_ reason why flankblock was removed. I really didn't want to see this as a class comparison....
We tank better than rogues, we are supposed to we are in the warrior sub-class. The point is if we have rescue, it kind of makes sense that we could last more than 1-2 rounds tanking, which flankblock allowed us, now more often then not I have to flee the round after I rescue, putting casters back in danger...with flankblock our tanks had the time to rescue back.
Belle
We tank better than rogues, we are supposed to we are in the warrior sub-class. The point is if we have rescue, it kind of makes sense that we could last more than 1-2 rounds tanking, which flankblock allowed us, now more often then not I have to flee the round after I rescue, putting casters back in danger...with flankblock our tanks had the time to rescue back.
Belle
-
Salenthelor
- Sojourner
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 5:01 am
Why is it that whenever a ranger asks for something they get accused of wanting to have their cake and eat it too? First of all, there's no point in having cake if you can't eat it!!!
So, if we can't last more than one round as tanks take out our rescue skill, and our parry and dodge skills. Then give us third attack in replacement. That way we can do the damage we are supposed to, and there's no danger of us ever being useful enough to rescue a mage who got switched to while the bashed warriors wait to get on their feet.
Sarvis
PS. Personally, I prefer to just stand behind the warriors and do my damage, much less risk that way. But there's countless times where I have to step in and rescue Vigis just for the last 4 or 5 rounds of a fight.
So, if we can't last more than one round as tanks take out our rescue skill, and our parry and dodge skills. Then give us third attack in replacement. That way we can do the damage we are supposed to, and there's no danger of us ever being useful enough to rescue a mage who got switched to while the bashed warriors wait to get on their feet.
Sarvis
PS. Personally, I prefer to just stand behind the warriors and do my damage, much less risk that way. But there's countless times where I have to step in and rescue Vigis just for the last 4 or 5 rounds of a fight.
Personally I think with ranger's mounted combat capped at 20 (totally resonable as far as I'm concerned) they should have flankblock. I've grouped with Bell quite a bit, and I easily see the differance now.
With FB, Bell was able to rescue a mage (or usually me :P ) and be able to tank a few rounds until the primary tank could rescue/get healed etc. Now however, Bell gets slapped silly even with protection spells, where basically if I don't start casting a heal immediately when she is tank, she'll get wacked before getting rescued.
I don't think FB was making rangers overpowered.. they were still relatively poor tanks from the low mounted skill cap, but at least it made their rescue skill usfull. Now its rescue and die within 2 rounds.
I'm not getting on the whole rogue topic since thats not what the initial port was about :P
With FB, Bell was able to rescue a mage (or usually me :P ) and be able to tank a few rounds until the primary tank could rescue/get healed etc. Now however, Bell gets slapped silly even with protection spells, where basically if I don't start casting a heal immediately when she is tank, she'll get wacked before getting rescued.
I don't think FB was making rangers overpowered.. they were still relatively poor tanks from the low mounted skill cap, but at least it made their rescue skill usfull. Now its rescue and die within 2 rounds.
I'm not getting on the whole rogue topic since thats not what the initial port was about :P
LoL hyldryn. That is a problem, but you've got to admit it doesn't happen often, as rangers cannot summon their mounts. We've got to drag them from a city. I'm sure you usually deal with another paladin's mount. However, you do have a valid point. Question: is it possible to type 'mount follower' and mount your horse? If not, maybe that should be put in???
Izzy
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-21-2001).]
Izzy
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-21-2001).]
1) Archery: Miax is doing his best to get it done, and it is nearly there. He is a VERY busy man right now, what with work and family. It'll be in just as soon as it is finished.
2) THACO: I'm really not sure about this one, so I will refrain from commenting.
3) Dual-Proc: Actually, some weapons do. We are still in the process of fixing all those that should proc offhand. Sorry for the delay, but there are a LOT of proc weapons, and a LOT of things that are more pressing to get done. :|
4) Flankblock: This was removed because rangers weren't really supposed to have it. Rangers were given mounted combat to pave the way for mounted archery, not to improve their tanking skills. Sorry for the confusion, I honestly forgot to post this in the news when it was removed.
I hope that helps.
------------------
<B>Shevarash -- Code Forger of Sojourn3
</B>
2) THACO: I'm really not sure about this one, so I will refrain from commenting.
3) Dual-Proc: Actually, some weapons do. We are still in the process of fixing all those that should proc offhand. Sorry for the delay, but there are a LOT of proc weapons, and a LOT of things that are more pressing to get done. :|
4) Flankblock: This was removed because rangers weren't really supposed to have it. Rangers were given mounted combat to pave the way for mounted archery, not to improve their tanking skills. Sorry for the confusion, I honestly forgot to post this in the news when it was removed.
I hope that helps.
------------------
<B>Shevarash -- Code Forger of Sojourn3
</B>
There are only 3 things that can possibly come to mind on how mounted archery is different then regular archery.
1. you do more damage. Dont ask me how but thats whats in the mounted combat description so this is probably the most obvious.
2. You miss less frequently. Again I wouldnt know why, seems that you would actually miss more but hey its only a game right?
3. Your horse gets attacked instead of you. This would probably be the most useful of the 3 options but its also the most unlikely because mounted combat just doent work that way as it is now. It would be nice to be able to do damage without a group though.
1. you do more damage. Dont ask me how but thats whats in the mounted combat description so this is probably the most obvious.
2. You miss less frequently. Again I wouldnt know why, seems that you would actually miss more but hey its only a game right?
3. Your horse gets attacked instead of you. This would probably be the most useful of the 3 options but its also the most unlikely because mounted combat just doent work that way as it is now. It would be nice to be able to do damage without a group though.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rylan:
<B>Personally I think with ranger's mounted combat capped at 20 (totally resonable as far as I'm concerned) they should have flankblock. I've grouped with Bell quite a bit, and I easily see the differance now.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should they have flank block? That seems like it would be an advanced skill associated with the whole mounted combat thing. So if they are capped at 20 for skill level, why should they get the advanced bonuses associated with it? have you seen a warrior with a 20 skill level in bash try to bash? They hit like 1 out of 10 times if they are lucky. As it was, rangers were tanking way beyond their skill and level abilities when they had flank block from mounted combat. They were tanking better than warriors more than 10 levels higher than them. That is just wrong. As it was always supposed to be, it was just an extra toy given to rangers, and was only supposed to be good for palis and antis.
<B>Personally I think with ranger's mounted combat capped at 20 (totally resonable as far as I'm concerned) they should have flankblock. I've grouped with Bell quite a bit, and I easily see the differance now.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should they have flank block? That seems like it would be an advanced skill associated with the whole mounted combat thing. So if they are capped at 20 for skill level, why should they get the advanced bonuses associated with it? have you seen a warrior with a 20 skill level in bash try to bash? They hit like 1 out of 10 times if they are lucky. As it was, rangers were tanking way beyond their skill and level abilities when they had flank block from mounted combat. They were tanking better than warriors more than 10 levels higher than them. That is just wrong. As it was always supposed to be, it was just an extra toy given to rangers, and was only supposed to be good for palis and antis.
Well, I'm glad to have some confirmation of mounted combat still having some use for us after getting it up the behind for about 40 minutes against a luck and eq mob before the mud crashed again and I decided to find something better to do. The info definately helps Shev. Progress reports are always nice to have even if the features are still being hammered out.
Touk: Part of the issue here is that while rangers have supposedly been damage specialists, the shift in damage has obviously gone over to casters. This meant that in zone situations rangers often had to rescue casters and act as tanks if the warriors were too busy shieldpunching or bashing. At least for about 2 rounds before we went splat cause frequently we're ignored in the stoneskin process. So we've had to act in a role that we're very ill-suited to do since we can't do the primary thing we've done well anymore. We're supposed to be a warrior subclass, but sometimes it seems like the only tangible effect of it is the fact that we like swords
Touk: Part of the issue here is that while rangers have supposedly been damage specialists, the shift in damage has obviously gone over to casters. This meant that in zone situations rangers often had to rescue casters and act as tanks if the warriors were too busy shieldpunching or bashing. At least for about 2 rounds before we went splat cause frequently we're ignored in the stoneskin process. So we've had to act in a role that we're very ill-suited to do since we can't do the primary thing we've done well anymore. We're supposed to be a warrior subclass, but sometimes it seems like the only tangible effect of it is the fact that we like swords
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lyt:
Why should they have flank block? That seems like it would be an advanced skill associated with the whole mounted combat thing. So if they are capped at 20 for skill level, why should they get the advanced bonuses associated with it? have you seen a warrior with a 20 skill level in bash try to bash? They hit like 1 out of 10 times if they are lucky. As it was, rangers were tanking way beyond their skill and level abilities when they had flank block from mounted combat. They were tanking better than warriors more than 10 levels higher than them. That is just wrong. As it was always supposed to be, it was just an extra toy given to rangers, and was only supposed to be good for palis and antis.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I needed a good laugh, its been removed so it doesn't really matter at this point, but you got your facts way wrong, we tanked maybe as good as a warrior 10 levels _below_ us, we couldn't compare to warriors of the same level.
Belle
Why should they have flank block? That seems like it would be an advanced skill associated with the whole mounted combat thing. So if they are capped at 20 for skill level, why should they get the advanced bonuses associated with it? have you seen a warrior with a 20 skill level in bash try to bash? They hit like 1 out of 10 times if they are lucky. As it was, rangers were tanking way beyond their skill and level abilities when they had flank block from mounted combat. They were tanking better than warriors more than 10 levels higher than them. That is just wrong. As it was always supposed to be, it was just an extra toy given to rangers, and was only supposed to be good for palis and antis.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I needed a good laugh
, its been removed so it doesn't really matter at this point, but you got your facts way wrong, we tanked maybe as good as a warrior 10 levels _below_ us, we couldn't compare to warriors of the same level.Belle
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Treladian:
<B>
Touk: Part of the issue here is that while rangers have supposedly been damage specialists, the shift in damage has obviously gone over to casters. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever since monks were taken out the bulk of the damage has always been with the casters, and it will always be that way. No where was it ever said that rangers were going to be doing the major damage. People on the BBS before the mud came up were erroneously thinking that rangers were supposed to be on par with invokers for damage. All that was said that of the warrior classes, rangers will be doing the most damage. And with the upgrades to range weapons, they would be doing slightly more damage than rogues do when you factor in circle and other skills.
<B>
Touk: Part of the issue here is that while rangers have supposedly been damage specialists, the shift in damage has obviously gone over to casters. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever since monks were taken out the bulk of the damage has always been with the casters, and it will always be that way. No where was it ever said that rangers were going to be doing the major damage. People on the BBS before the mud came up were erroneously thinking that rangers were supposed to be on par with invokers for damage. All that was said that of the warrior classes, rangers will be doing the most damage. And with the upgrades to range weapons, they would be doing slightly more damage than rogues do when you factor in circle and other skills.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by belleshel:
<B> I needed a good laugh, its been removed so it doesn't really matter at this point, but you got your facts way wrong, we tanked maybe as good as a warrior 10 levels _below_ us, we couldn't compare to warriors of the same level.
Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well all I know is I saw a 20ish level ranger soloing cat burglars with mounted combat. Find me a comparably equipped warrior at that level who could do the same thing at this point in the mud. I don't think you can find any.
<B> I needed a good laugh
, its been removed so it doesn't really matter at this point, but you got your facts way wrong, we tanked maybe as good as a warrior 10 levels _below_ us, we couldn't compare to warriors of the same level.Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well all I know is I saw a 20ish level ranger soloing cat burglars with mounted combat. Find me a comparably equipped warrior at that level who could do the same thing at this point in the mud. I don't think you can find any.
-
Galok Icewolf
- Sojourner
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Quite yer whinning. All ive seen are rangers casting stick to snakes and doing way too much damage, fleeing and healing themselves. You yourself belleshel solo'd on BGR a TON. oh no.. you can't melee quite as good as warriors.. wah wah! but you have spells that make you way out-class them. Healing, (cure serious is better then sleeping for 5 minutes) stick to snakes, barkskin. Geez.. Gimmie gimmie gimmie..
Chuckle.. kinda funny to see lots of people get bent out of shape because 'xxx class can do this beter than me' :P
Anyway, with the brief explanation of the intended usage of mounted combat for rangers, I'm think I understand them removing flankblock. I'm not exactly sure how the mounted code works anyway.. I thought that at low skill levels fb didn't work much already.
But mounted archery sounds cool. My opinion is not to make it much more powerful that normal archery.. maybe just give the mounted ranger a bonus to hit since they have a better line of sight to the target.
Anyway, with the brief explanation of the intended usage of mounted combat for rangers, I'm think I understand them removing flankblock. I'm not exactly sure how the mounted code works anyway.. I thought that at low skill levels fb didn't work much already.
But mounted archery sounds cool. My opinion is not to make it much more powerful that normal archery.. maybe just give the mounted ranger a bonus to hit since they have a better line of sight to the target.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lyt:
<B> Well all I know is I saw a 20ish level ranger soloing cat burglars with mounted combat. Find me a comparably equipped warrior at that level who could do the same thing at this point in the mud. I don't think you can find any.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This has a lot more to do with being able to cast offense, run, heal, then tanking ability, druids can solo cats easy, without any tanking skills.
Galok I wasn't 'whinning', I asked for an explaintion, shevy gave one, I've been silent. All those 'awesome' spells you mentioned are nice for exping till level 35, after that they are pretty much worthless (must group to exp), and this game is really begins 35+. I love how some folks think they know more of a classes abilities then the folks that have played them to high level.
It's a game folks, if your not having fun, do something else,
Belle
<B> Well all I know is I saw a 20ish level ranger soloing cat burglars with mounted combat. Find me a comparably equipped warrior at that level who could do the same thing at this point in the mud. I don't think you can find any.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This has a lot more to do with being able to cast offense, run, heal, then tanking ability, druids can solo cats easy, without any tanking skills.
Galok I wasn't 'whinning', I asked for an explaintion, shevy gave one, I've been silent. All those 'awesome' spells you mentioned are nice for exping till level 35, after that they are pretty much worthless (must group to exp), and this game is really begins 35+. I love how some folks think they know more of a classes abilities then the folks that have played them to high level
.It's a game folks, if your not having fun, do something else,
Belle
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by belleshel:
<B> I love how some folks think they know more of a classes abilities then the folks that have played them to high level.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know rangers like the back of my horse.
It's cause I mount and ride them so much.
east
'You're Belleshel is too exhausted to follow'
growl
wield whip
grin
<B> I love how some folks think they know more of a classes abilities then the folks that have played them to high level
.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know rangers like the back of my horse.
It's cause I mount and ride them so much
.east
'You're Belleshel is too exhausted to follow'
growl
wield whip
grin
Join the club Belleshel. Rogues have it even worse than rangers if they want to exp solo. And we can't cast healing spells on ourselves either
But I am not complaining about that. I don't want rogues to tank. I just don't see why it's so important that Rangers be able to tank things (for solo exp I presume) and still do the most melee damage and still cast spells. You can't have everything!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by belleshel:
<B> This has a lot more to do with being able to cast offense, run, heal, then tanking ability, druids can solo cats easy, without any tanking skills.
Galok I wasn't 'whinning', I asked for an explaintion, shevy gave one, I've been silent. All those 'awesome' spells you mentioned are nice for exping till level 35, after that they are pretty much worthless (must group to exp), and this game is really begins 35+. I love how some folks think they know more of a classes abilities then the folks that have played them to high level.
It's a game folks, if your not having fun, do something else,
Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But I am not complaining about that. I don't want rogues to tank. I just don't see why it's so important that Rangers be able to tank things (for solo exp I presume) and still do the most melee damage and still cast spells. You can't have everything!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by belleshel:
<B> This has a lot more to do with being able to cast offense, run, heal, then tanking ability, druids can solo cats easy, without any tanking skills.
Galok I wasn't 'whinning', I asked for an explaintion, shevy gave one, I've been silent. All those 'awesome' spells you mentioned are nice for exping till level 35, after that they are pretty much worthless (must group to exp), and this game is really begins 35+. I love how some folks think they know more of a classes abilities then the folks that have played them to high level
.It's a game folks, if your not having fun, do something else,
Belle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually until level 35 druids/shamans/rangers can solo xp very well I never asked to tank, it would be nice to be able to rescue rogues/casters and live a 1-2 rounds so warriors/paladins could re-rescue. But the gods have spoken, it wasn't intended for rangers so its been removed, fair enough, lets let fb for rangers die quitely .
Waiting patiently for Archery,
Belle
I never asked to tank, it would be nice to be able to rescue rogues/casters and live a 1-2 rounds so warriors/paladins could re-rescue. But the gods have spoken, it wasn't intended for rangers so its been removed, fair enough, lets let fb for rangers die quitely . Waiting patiently for Archery,
Belle
-
Tzat
- Sojourner
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Yayaril:
<B>I don't know if this is a bug or what, but get this: clerics can heal better than rogues! Where's the balance?!
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've also been doing some calculations...and it seems that rogues do slightly more melee damage than clerics? Is this how it is supposed to be!?
<B>I don't know if this is a bug or what, but get this: clerics can heal better than rogues! Where's the balance?!
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've also been doing some calculations...and it seems that rogues do slightly more melee damage than clerics? Is this how it is supposed to be!?
Alright, I've had my fill of this board. This is my last post under the feedback or mud ideas forum. My opinions on the ranger class were ment for the staff to consider, not for some childish class-war. I contributed to it more than anyone and blame only myself. However, it detracted from the point of this thread and I apologize to belleshel. I've spent alot of time throwing my opinions out there on how to improve this mud. Obviously, there's no need for me to contribute feedback or ideas for the mud. It's fine as is, even if it has degenerated into a state of insular cliques, senseless quibbling, obselete classes, and flame-wars.
Ciao,
Izzy
P.S. Nitania, I'd never hate you because you're a rogue. I do know several rangers, however, who've been hated because only they're rangers. That's sad.
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-23-2001).]
Ciao,
Izzy
P.S. Nitania, I'd never hate you because you're a rogue. I do know several rangers, however, who've been hated because only they're rangers. That's sad.
[This message has been edited by izarek (edited 06-23-2001).]
Return to “S3 Gameplay Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests