ranger complaint thread

We should go to another thread - but how is that different from DKs facing off against a staff? Its actually worse for a DK due to pugil.

Rangers should be more like DKs ie hybrids and less like pure melee's. They have camo, heal, pets, spells etc. IMHO there are zero reasons they should have the melee capability close to a warrior a lot of the time...

L-A

They have 1 spell, that is rarely useable. how is their heal that much better than the heal blademasters get? the only things i think that make them rogue like is camo. i don't understand what kind of melee capability you want them to have... their 99% melee oriented.

paladins have awesome heals, can blind entire groups ( a blind that cant be taken off) sanctuary, special mounts, amazing charge, huge buffs, pretty solid melee, healing equal to that of a cleric and can cure every malidiction.

dk's have malform weapon VERY powerful skill, has pets, can make it so you cant see out of your rooom, malidictions, area attack spells, silence.. cleave. DK'S have some of the most rediculous melee damage output possible, exceeding most warriors unless the warrior is much better dressed than the dk. BASH...

rangers have herb, pets, camo and melee. thats about it. taking away their melee cababilities would require an ENTIRE class revamp. they cannot survive without it at all.

OK - lets start again: I'm not TOTALLY against rangers atm. They aren't that far off what they are meant to be - but they have it good on all fonts:

1. Offense - all but two weapons, blind fighting (IMPORTANT - just look what Auzzie had to say).

2. Defense - same as a warrior bar riposte.

3. Survivablility - butcher, herb for healing and CAMOFLAGE.

I'm not going into detail on the paths - most of us know what they do. Suffice to say in certain situations each path adds to the rangers capabilities.

Now, they should be a strong class like this, however, I think they have it too easy when it comes to the melee component. DKs are strong in melee - but I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would say that a DK is on par with rangers melee. Now, this isn't really to do with malforms - which is a lot of a DKs power. Blow for blow a ranger lands more in any given situation.

Rangers destory berserkers in melee too. Paladin's too. Warrior even have a hard time as the warrior won't have access to a lot of the options the ranger does. They certainly cannot camoflage. I have first hand experience on this - and I can tell you that I have several different races of rangers and they are all strong.

This has a lot to do with blind fighting. A LOT. Considering rangers have the ability to camo to get away as well as heal I don't think they need that skill. They are NOT a 'pure' melee class IMHO.

DKs have a lot of offense but so do rangers. DKs are balanced in that they don't have a lot of defense (or you have to sacrifice offense via a polear/shield to get it). They still get badly beat up when blinded against a staff - this is part of the classes weakness. A ranger does't have this issue though. Multiple charmies, healing and camoflage.

I don't think rangers are horribley overpowered - nor are they insurmountable in PK. I think that overall as a package they have too much. The removal of blind fighting I think would balance them out nicely as a class with a lot of offense, camo, heal and butcher for survival and a decent amount of defense.

L-A

OK - lets start again: I'm not TOTALLY against rangers atm. They aren't that far off what they are meant to be - but they have it good on all fonts:

1. Offense - all but two weapons, blind fighting (IMPORTANT - just look what Auzzie had to say).

2. Defense - same as a warrior bar riposte.

3. Survivablility - butcher, herb for healing and CAMOFLAGE.

I'm not going into detail on the paths - most of us know what they do. Suffice to say in certain situations each path adds to the rangers capabilities.

Now, they should be a strong class like this, however, I think they have it too easy when it comes to the melee component. DKs are strong in melee - but I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would say that a DK is on par with rangers melee. Now, this isn't really to do with malforms - which is a lot of a DKs power. Blow for blow a ranger lands more in any given situation.

Rangers destory berserkers in melee too. Paladin's too. Warrior even have a hard time as the warrior won't have access to a lot of the options the ranger does. They certainly cannot camoflage. I have first hand experience on this - and I can tell you that I have several different races of rangers and they are all strong.

This has a lot to do with blind fighting. A LOT. Considering rangers have the ability to camo to get away as well as heal I don't think they need that skill. They are NOT a 'pure' melee class IMHO.

DKs have a lot of offense but so do rangers. DKs are balanced in that they don't have a lot of defense (or you have to sacrifice offense via a polear/shield to get it). They still get badly beat up when blinded against a staff - this is part of the classes weakness. A ranger does't have this issue though. Multiple charmies, healing and camoflage.

I don't think rangers are horribley overpowered - nor are they insurmountable in PK. I think that overall as a package they have too much. The removal of blind fighting I think would balance them out nicely as a class with a lot of offense, camo, heal and butcher for survival and a decent amount of defense.

L-A

i cant really argue for or against blind fighting but i have to say blademasters and paladins have it alot better overall. It's hard for me to agree and say yes, nerf rangers when there are blademasters running around, which make warriors look like chumps. and don't forget dk's have a lag skill, a skill that can put people to sleep and a skill that can stop people from casting spells. DK's can shut down mages pretty well, they shouldn't be as good in melee as a ranger who cannot shut down or lag anything... and you forgot that rangers cannot counter like warriors, which should count as a defense as well.

butcher doesnt affect pk so i wouldn't even consider it as part of a balance mechanic.

I think rangers have it easy in PVE but in PVP i honestly dont think they really have a distinct edge on anyone that several other classes don't have as well. no class should be condemed for being easy to play. Rangers are tooled pretty hard by smart paladins, shamans, battlemages, smart blademasters....

as far as paths go we took A TON away from rangers. we took away throw, fletchery, archery, double sheath and rapid fire from rangers which they used to have, we got rid of the rediculous regenration after triathix....

honestly dont allow giant sized rangers and you have your balance right there. no ogres, no stone giants. they are easier to lag, thus less survivable and no more dual wielding two handers. personally i think we are destroying one of the most enjoyable and noob firendly classes with all of this speculation but thats just me.

I'm tired of pure melee's that have to have 10k consumables and a thief steals ur bag.. thats why i dont play warriors. i hate having to have 13 different weapons because its my only way to survive. rangers are the middle ground between survivability and the enjoyment of a melee style of play. we keep taking stuff away and they are going to be pretty gimp.

First off, it is worth noting that paladins, blademasters, and dark knights all have a higher exp penalty than rangers. Therefore, to a small degree, they actually should be stronger skillset-wise than rangers.

Second, some very minor nit-picking: ranger thunderstorm is as useable as the ranger cares to make it - keeping the weather bad is really not that hard. Herb I would generally consider superior to acupuncture (as I recall, it does some things acu doesn't, and the failure penalty is much smaller - however, I could be wrong about both of these, it's been a long time).

Third, my personal position on this subject is... fuzzy... and it's primarily relating to ogre rangers more than those of other races. I feel like the ranger skillset is just a little too perfect a match for an ogre - he can camo and take advantage of his racially massive hp regen rather than relying on herb for a lot of healing, unlike the other races. He's still got all his vulns, sure, but now he's got pets, which can make it a lot harder to hit those vulns in melee (through mammoth or normal rescuing) or through spells (dirt/rescue). He also now has a basic mal curative skill through herb (again, let me know if I'm wrong there, but I'm pretty sure I'm right), something else no other ogre class has, which lessens the impact of the mal vuln.

The other ranger races I have absolutely no problems with, nor do I have a problem with rangers as a class in general... it's really just ogre rangers that feels like too perfect a match for me. Sure, a similar argument could be made for elf paladins or demon dks... but an ogre ranger has half the exp penalty an elf paladin does, and hits its ranking alone easily stride far earlier.

EDIT: L-A - I cannot agree that rangers tool paladins... or at least, not elf paladins. Sure, they've got a bit more melee output... but pure melee is not how paladins work (and regardless, elf paladins have crazy melee defense and flamestrike to deal with pets - I have a log of a level 42 elf paladin vs a level 50 ranger, with me unblind the pets would hit me maybe once or twice a round, blind around x2 that, and smart paladins use dirt kick time as dance/cure time anyways so it doesn't hurt that much as rangers lack lagging skills). In my experience, rather, paladins tool rangers.

I think they should have ease of play - I just think they shouldn't have so much punch in defense and offense if they do.

For an (extreme) example look at clerics:

1. Survivability - high. Can cast many major spells, almost unlaggable in native form.

2. Defense - high.

3. Offense - super low.

A class that is easy to get around with and not die but lacks something.

Rangers (IMHO) on the other hand have it really good in all areas. I think they need to lose some offense due to the ease of play eg camo, butcher (easy food), herb etc.

I can comment on all classes like this but its not that pertenant. Rangers aren't super killing machines any more than anything else in the right hands. IMHO they do get too much of everything from offense, defense and suriviability.

Higher survivability = (or should equal) lower offense.

Cheers,

L-A

I think they should have ease of play - I just think they shouldn't have so much punch in defense and offense if they do.

For an (extreme) example look at clerics:

1. Survivability - high. Can cast many major spells, almost unlaggable in native form.

2. Defense - high.

3. Offense - super low.

A class that is easy to get around with and not die but lacks something.

Rangers (IMHO) on the other hand have it really good in all areas. I think they need to lose some offense due to the ease of play eg camo, butcher (easy food), herb etc.

I can comment on all classes like this but its not that pertenant. Rangers aren't super killing machines any more than anything else in the right hands. IMHO they do get too much of everything from offense, defense and suriviability.

Higher survivability = (or should equal) lower offense.

Cheers,

L-A

then what do you do as a low con ranger race? die to bash and lack of defenses in about 3 rounds? i hate to say it but i'm with pali on this one get rid of ogres. You're a really good player and i respect your opinion A LOT, but i play a ton of rangers and warriors and i never really had a huge advantage as any race other than Ogre, which is why i do not play ogre rangers.

How would a low con (or should we say smaller sized...) DK approach that (since that's my example)? Easy, low con races generally have more dex (feral, elf, halfling) - this equate to more ac. You get your ac down where bashes are less effective.

What do low con warriors do at the moment? The same thing. Rangers have access to staff and shield block like anyone else. It not like you have zero defenses.

If we nerf (or eliminate) ogre rangers people will move to stone giants. In some ways stone giants. Large size, high str etc are stronger than ogres. If you think ogre hp is too much (and a stone giant is only a few hundred behind an ogre with no easy accesible vuln...) then the gain on rank could be altered.

I don't think that is the issue though.

L-A

Sorry, ranger damage output is EASILY as much as a DK. And Sandbox, you talk about malforms, but have you actually ever tried getting high level malforms? I tell you now, its not a cakewalk, and most people give up before they even get them!

Rangers have fired weapons for a start, even without taking the archery stream, this means you MUST get missile immunity. Guess what, these scrolls cost alot and don't last very long, so I hope your RICH.

Fired weapon damage is largely unblockable. Unblockable damage is a HUUUUUUUUUGE bonus. What it means is that you can play a huge defense, and rely solely on fired weapons for damage. I've seen battles won through bashes alone, and fired weapons are certainly more damaging then these (and as a bonus, you take NO LAG from it, its basically like the old internal damage shadowstrike) Use of missile immunity can nullify this issue vs non-archers, but as already noted, it is expensive and not viable for alot of people. You can get a gyvel potion to cure blind for 500, but need to spend THOUSANDS on a missile immunity scroll, to protect you from arrows.

I've fought alot of rangers. Ogre, feral, stone giant, halfling, elf. They are all capable of massive damage output, infact, Lianthias (elf) layed down ALOT of hurt! Rangers of the correct path can also quite reliably lag, provided they can see. I CERTAINLY think a ranger would 'tool' mages more then any DK or warrior will, damage wise. Get an invoker or battlemage or something, fight it with a ranger, dk, warrior and a zerk. I bet you damage output from a ranger and a zerk would end up pretty equivalent.

Herbs alot better then those other healing spells and camoflauge cant be underrated. Not all classes have the ability to stop a ranger from hiding, in which case, what do you do?

Ninjas and thieves can hide, but I assure you, if you bash lock them with a warrior, they are dead. I have a beef with rangers being able to dual wield two handed weapons (in either hand, none the less), but thats a completely different problem. Dual wielding a disarmable two handed weapon behind a cursed 1 handed weapon is just garbage if you ask me. Two handed weapons with a high AVG are usually disarmable for good reason, this completely shifts the balance when they can no longer be disarmed.

Thunderstorm can be ABSOLUTELY DEVASTING when used in the right circumstances. I remember getting completely massacred by Druggin (halflng ranger) as my 1.0 chaos leader DK, solely because of thunderstorm. Its also how Faye killed Philantees, with help of 12 rounds of pure lag from her stupid dragon (didn't get to enter a single command, apart the one I entered to initiate combat). Then you've also got insect swarm, which can also prove rediculously powerful.

My 20c, for now.

It's not the ogre hp (which basically just reflects the vulns), it's the ogre regen combined with camo that I think is too perfect a match. Also, stones have barely higher strength (what, one or two?) than ogres, while losing I think 3 dex points to them - their defense suffers for it.

I'm also not wholly against your idea of removing blind fighting... it's a skill that, by my count, only rangers, warriors, and blademasters have, and warriors and blademasters have nowhere close to the survivability of rangers.

I also wouldn't have anything against a massive revamp of the class to be far more pet dependent, reducing them to, say, thief-level melee abilities while enhancing the pets and making them more important (and likewise, make keeping them alive more important). However, that's a big thing that I really haven't thought through at all and would take a ton of work, so... shrugs

First off, it is worth noting that paladins, blademasters, and dark knights all have a higher exp penalty than rangers. Therefore, to a small degree, they actually should be stronger skillset-wise than rangers.

this is silly, if their skillset is stronger at 50 it doesnt matter how hard the 3-7 days were that it took to rank up. lvl 50 is all that matters when it comes to balance. Paladins and blademasters both have answers to just about every situation, rangers can cope with most situations blademasters can counter them outright and paladins can cure right through just about anything on top of their omgwtfpwn buffs not to mention elf paladins have the strongest skillset and strongest stats the game has to offer... throw some nice cabal skills on top of that OR avatar cough cough and a exp penalty is supposed to make up for that?

qlass > demons > blademasters > paladins > shamans > battlemages > all others in power at lvl 50.

Thunderstorm can be ABSOLUTELY DEVASTING when used in the right circumstances. I remember getting completely massacred by Druggin (halflng ranger) as my 1.0 chaos leader DK, solely because of thunderstorm. Its also how Faye killed Philantees, with help of 12 rounds of pure lag from her stupid dragon (didn't get to enter a single command, apart the one I entered to initiate combat). Then you've also got insect swarm, which can also prove rediculously powerful.

My 20c, for now.

1. please dont use 1.0 rangers as an example they were way more poweful back then.

2. you're 100% correct about dual wielding 2 handers, its stupid, stupid stupid stupid.

3. i've had a zerk and it layed down WAY more damage than any of my rangers ever had. (emertis) and it didn't even have enhanced damage because i lost that due to being evil.

4. the fact that most people give up before getting full malforms doesn't change the amount of potential the skill has. The maximum potential is always the variable that matters.

5. its not hard to seperate a ranger and its pets.

Ease of ranking, time to rank, overall power, offense, defense, survivability are ALL part of balance of each class. PK is only a part of it - look at my cleric examle above.

L-A

PS - could we change the title of the thread to Ranger Discussion Thread or something

You might be surprised to find out that Lianthias (elf ranger) easily outdamaged my demon dk with dual full malforms when we were both blinded. I agree with everything totenkopf wrote. I've always disliked ranger's high offense together with their great survivability.

Oh, and one more point against rangers; At least a necro has to work to gather his army.

Druggin was a 1.0 WM too - he has no place on this thread.

That issue you have with dual wield (Toten) is something that a warrior could easily do. Its not an issue restricted to rangers - its is something I think that perhaps should be looked at though.

Zerks have great offense - but get screwed on defense. Rangers have great offense and do NOT get screwed no defense (in combat or out). Notice a re-ocurring theme here?)

Separating a ranger and his pets is bloodly had for most classes. Summon is not a tactic that most classes have access to.

L-A

PK

in the end these 2 letters are the only thing that will silence the masses, when every class is 100% balanced in PK ( which will never happen in any game in the history of games.) and all players are on a level amount of skill and game knowledge. (which will also never happen.) i could give a rats a$$ how long it took me to level if at 50 my feral ranger is getting murdered in 3 flamestrikes. because this elf paladin has retarted stats with an amazing skillset and i have nothing to answer back with at all.

edited. sorry.

Sandbox, if you wish to discuss classes do so in a humble manner. Let me remind you that you are not the only player here and whining does not beget results.

Criticize and analyze..go ahead. But do so constructively.

This goes for any other knucklehead who thinks it is alright to go around claiming that the system is broken by labeling everything as "bs".

really I just feel rangers have too much overall effectivity in all fronts. They have great melee, great defense (riposte and mind link with a mammoth are very interchangable) and high damage spells. What they are missing is lag, which given their overall ability I do not think anyone would choose bash over ranger skill set in PK ability. The only thing that really causes a weakness is the lack of polearms, which can lead to some mean damage but all the same I feel their weapon selection should be trimmed a bit, as they have high melee, afflictive, maledictive, and attritioning tactics. They really are a complete package as far as a class that can do alot.

Druggin was a 1.0 WM too - he has no place on this thread.

That issue you have with dual wield (Toten) is something that a warrior could easily do. Its not an issue restricted to rangers - its is something I think that perhaps should be looked at though.

Zerks have great offense - but get screwed on defense. Rangers have great offense and do NOT get screwed no defense (in combat or out). Notice a re-ocurring theme here?)

Separating a ranger and his pets is bloodly had for most classes. Summon is not a tactic that most classes have access to.

L-A

Yeah, warriors do it too, can be even worse. I consider it an issue and have already brought it up months ago on prayer.

As for Druggin being a 1.0 warmaster, completely irrelevant. I am talking about thunderstorm ability alone, not rangers in general. Please my comments completely before regarding them as irrelevant.

1) please dont use 1.0 rangers as an example they were way more poweful back then.

Read above comment. And I have to disagree. They were not way more powerful in 1.0. Infact, they were considered lacking, and thus the reason they received alot of beefs? Did you even play much in 1.0? I had at least 7 pinnacles I can remember and fought a BROAD range of opponents.

But yes, I agree, 1.0 rangers are irrelevant, however, thunderstorm and the devastating damage it can cause, are not, which was the point I was making.