then why are we upset about balance? just increase the xp penalty. according to your logic that should make up for it am i right?
Except that I only have a problem with the specific race/class combo of ogre ranger - neither ogres nor rangers on their own deserve to have the exp penalty raised, IMO.
I have to put in my few cents before I even start reading page 3. Yes, in my opinion rangers are a bit stronger than they should. No, ogres should not be removed from the choice of rangers. If you want to talk about strong rangers I had my ranger named 'Iukkut'. Doubtful that you will remember him, but some of you may. He was a werebeast werewolf ranger, and with full mithril, opal/onyx rings, titanium bracers, a light, and ranger staff, transformed had about 50/50 or 55/55 hit/dam. Yea, some of you that stay normally decked might be thinking that is just decent hit/dam, but when you add in all the offensive settings that rangers have I ran up to THREE SEPERATE lvl 50's and THREE rounded each of them and used my pets to full loot. Using normal lvl 15-30 gear and ended up SUPER DECKED.
Perhaps taking blind fighting away could put them on a more balanced playing field, but then I started reading about the pets and how rangers have no way of lagging. Not everyone can afford to fly all the time, and/or not everyone remembers to fly all the time. Have you forgotten how many times rangers pets will trip?
And I totally agree with some of the fired weapons talk. There have been plenty of people whom I have fought that hardly hit upper case through sanctuary while their bow hits LACERATES? This also goes for warriors. I mean come on, most bows hit harder than the player. It's a little ridiculous.
But, in any case. I dont in anyway feel like rangers are overpowered. There are PLENTY of ways to kill a ranger, with PLENTY of different classes. Perhaps people should stop complaining more often and learn how to play a bit better. If rangers were that much overpowering they would have been looked into a long time ago. And this is just my input.
rangers cannot loot with pets anylonger.
if you were using ranger staff and wereformed then that is why ur hitdam was so high werewolfs get boost to hit/dam and ranger staff adds a good chunk , but you loose a defense sooo.... it evens out
You can say that you lose defense, but you actually don't lose that much. And you gain SO much more offense.
You can say that you lose defense' date=' but you actually don't lose that much. And you gain SO much more offense.[/quote'] you cant dodge, dual parry, shield block, two handed while in wereform
you cant dodge' date=' dual parry, shield block, two handed while in wereform[/quote']
The only thing you can do is dodge. What are you talking about? Go make a werebeast.
Yes' date=' in my opinion rangers are a bit stronger than they should.[/quote']
But' date=' in any case. I dont in anyway feel like rangers are overpowered.[/quote']
Talk about sitting the fence
Rangers being a bit stronger and being OP are two separate things.
Rangers being a bit stronger and being OP are two separate things.
Hush now, let Toten rip sentences out of their context 
People keep using rubbish examples of rangers (and any other flavor of the month things) being OP and thigs brought out of context, THEN they complain when the IMMs step in with the gimp stick.
Make your mind guys, eh?!
I remember when everyone was complaining about slow cabal promotions, then comes Klemkin who has nice RP and gets E super fast, then everyone starts complaining how he has connections with the IMMs and so on. I really feel that sometimes, the bigger part of you lack even the slightest bit of common sense.
Rangers being a bit stronger and being OP are two separate things.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. The reason I go after there offense is I see the balance in terms of offense (PVP and PVM), defense and survivablility.
If we change survivablility - which is largely affected by camo - rangers lose, well, what rangers are. They are rangers. They camo.
Defense is affected by camo - although no assisting in combat it does give a great advantage on escape.
Offense should not be as high on a survivable class (generally speaking). The extreme example is a cleric. Dk is probably the other side of the coin (high offense lower defense).
Simplicity - taking blind fighting afftects offesnse and defense with zero impact on survivability. I think rangers should be defined by the survivabliity and some ease of use. Blind fighting does mostly affect PK (true) but this is where they should suffer on their 'power curve'
We can debate other classes all the time (and choosing three classes is not a good way to do this) but I still believe that rangers are too playable for the level of power they gain. They should be playable - they should suffer a small power decrease.
L-A
Which is exactly what I'm saying. The reason I go after there offense is I see the balance in terms of offense (PVP and PVM), defense and survivablility.
If we change survivablility - which is largely affected by camo - rangers lose, well, what rangers are. They are rangers. They camo.
Defense is affected by camo - although no assisting in combat it does give a great advantage on escape.
Offense should not be as high on a survivable class (generally speaking). The extreme example is a cleric. Dk is probably the other side of the coin (high offense lower defense).
Simplicity - taking blind fighting afftects offesnse and defense with zero impact on survivability. I think rangers should be defined by the survivabliity and some ease of use. Blind fighting does mostly affect PK (true) but this is where they should suffer on their 'power curve'
We can debate other classes all the time (and choosing three classes is not a good way to do this) but I still believe that rangers are too playable for the level of power they gain. They should be playable - they should suffer a small power decrease.
L-A
for me the playability from rangers comes from the ability to make a staff, bow and arrows when i die making re-equipping easier than alot of other classes.
Tater the thing that was much more powerful in 1.0 was thunderstorm. Viri nerfed it after I killed a Savant with two thunderstorms.
FWIW, in all the time I have played FL, I can only clearly remember dying to a ranger at 50 twice. Once was a gang bang with a ninja at a cabal guardian (and I was new to cabal warfare so I thought I had to kill the cabal guardian to retrieve my item), and once was when Val Miran was changed and I got lost when blinded. (There might have been two others when I was initially trying new classes--can't remember for sure.) The reason is easy to see--rangers can't lag.
Rangers can be killed easily by a lot of classes. When I played an evil cleric, I used to seek out rangers, especially ogres. Just summon them over water and have your way with them. Fun stuff.
Playing a ranger, any number of classes always gave me incredible trouble. Clerics, thieves, giant warriors, vampires, you name it. Practically any melee will outdamage you if you try to go toe to toe. DKs, forget it. Any Warmaster, a Justice, whatever. Try killing a paladin, even with an ogre. It's hard. Everyone talks about the damage, but the truth is it's pretty hard to outdamage a pure melee or DK. Okay zerkers you have an advantage, especially before they got staff. But if they know what they're doing and have good eq, it's tough. Battlemages? Hope they get cocky and forget about thunderstorm.
Butcher? Please.
If any change should be made, I would just suggest that you make camo size dependent. So it's not automatic at 100% proficiency for giant sized races. But that might be too much of a gimp, since if you can find a ranger you can pretty much kill him.
Even bards have lag skills.
Rangers don't...which makes it all even
No matter how much melee I throw, it's never enough because I can't make them stay and take it.
No matter how fast I run and camo, I can still be caught...anyone can find any number of potions and cast area affects with no lag.
Rangers are survivable, and aside from ogre rangers, we aren't pk monsters. Everyone I talk to about rangers says essentially the same thing.
When I say "I have no killing power with my ranger!"
They say "You do if you're decked."
And I'm sorry, but any class that the populace says you have to be decked to do anything with doesn't need to be nerfed.
I play a ranger on a daily basis, and have almost exclusively played rangers my entire time here (8 out of 10 pinns have been rangers for me) and I don't think they are overpowered. When was the last time you saw a ranger as a cabal leader for anything other than watcher?
Even bards have lag skills.
Rangers don't...which makes it all even
No matter how much melee I throw, it's never enough because I can't make them stay and take it.
No matter how fast I run and camo, I can still be caught...anyone can find any number of potions and cast area affects with no lag.
Rangers are survivable, and aside from ogre rangers, we aren't pk monsters. Everyone I talk to about rangers says essentially the same thing.
When I say "I have no killing power with my ranger!"
They say "You do if you're decked."
And I'm sorry, but any class that the populace says you have to be decked to do anything with doesn't need to be nerfed.
I play a ranger on a daily basis, and have almost exclusively played rangers my entire time here (8 out of 10 pinns have been rangers for me) and I don't think they are overpowered. When was the last time you saw a ranger as a cabal leader for anything other than watcher?
i hate to drop this name because things where nerfed because of him but Triathix was a (L) right? Granted he was a DECKED out Ogre Ranger Reaver before the ogre hp regen nerf.
The nexus ogre ranger right?
I'm not sure if he ever got leader, and I don't remember who played 'im to ask.
But, you can think of one? Right? Exactly.
The nexus ogre ranger right?
I'm not sure if he ever got leader, and I don't remember who played 'im to ask.
But, you can think of one? Right? Exactly.
Most leaders i've seen have been battlemages. There was a warmaster (L) feral ranger beastmaster recently as well, but some of those warmaster abilities make up for what ferals loose in general. That person tends to play a lot of rangers too i belive, I have always thought of his rangers as strong, but when i see a ranger i never think... oh crap i'm screwed. Its usually the battlemages/shamans that make me think that.
Most leaders i've seen have been battlemages. There was a warmaster (L) feral ranger beastmaster recently as well' date=' but some of those warmaster abilities make up for what ferals loose in general. That person tends to play a lot of rangers too i belive, I have always thought of his rangers as strong, but when i see a ranger i never think... oh crap i'm screwed. Its usually the battlemages/shamans that make me think that.[/quote']
Well thank you. Actually, I had a feral ranger beastmaster Warmaster Leader before Svenik named Senrail, before that I hadn't had a ranger since 1.0 and that was a halfling Justice ranger that I only played for like a month before the whole ranger split into the diff sections. Before the two feral ranger warmaster Leaders, I had never really played rangers. Infact, I went beastmaster with both so i'm just now starting to learn what some of the other types of rangers can do. I think rangers CAN be very strong and buff, if they are played right, but far from OP. However, rangers can lag, atleast one kind of rangers can. And really three kinds, due to two diff cabal perks that can be achieved as a ranger if they go that route. Before I made my first feral ranger though I was always more of a shaman/cleric lover for the most part, and I always found rangers to be an obstacle, but never too difficult to overcome. Yet as my feral rangers it was the opposite. I found all clerics (except battlemages) to be a walk in the park to take down. Anyway, rangers definately aren't over powered, but they DEFINATELY aren't a weak class either. Every class/race combo has their bane, or several.
And one more thing. Yes Warmaster abilities did make my feral rangers partly stronger in ways, but at the same time, I coudln't use thunderstorm b/c it is a spell, AND I coldn't use staves, couldn't use glimmering staff, so no sanction for my pets against invokers and bmgs and such. So there are definitely are other cabals that would make a feral ranger MUCH stronger than warmaster. I personally find warmasters to be a blast to play, and love the whole honor rp that goes along with gladiator types.
You can lag with throw, but you can't really lag lock, and it's easy to stop by saccing the shield or just blinding. And if you're a caster you can avoid ranger lag altogether (not counting cabal abilities). IOW you can get away, which is why I've rarely died to rangers.
This was a lot to read...
Interestingly I did not notice the one complaint I have,
Insect swarm, its affects are decent enough, but I believe that the duration for someone mastered in the art should be longer than it currently is.
Sorry to interupt, please continue.
