Forums » The Ranger

Update: Newsletter highlights

    • 22 posts
    February 17, 2018 6:52 PM PST

    I think the melee vs ranged ranger think is kind of goofy myself. In Vanguard unless you did both you were just a subpar toon taking up space. Vg rangers had around 14 dots that could be put up using both ranged and melee attacks plus spells and then knowing when to use your big attacks (both melee and ranged) at the right times allowed me to often top the dps of everybody in a raid. Did help that my wife played either a disciple or a warrior as needed and either class brought huge bonuses in their own ways to what i could do damage wise too. 

    I hope the Pantheon ranger is similar to the Vg ranger personally and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they do wind up being similar being a lot of the same devs from Vg.

    iamme

    • 2464 posts
    February 18, 2018 12:31 AM PST

    Elrandir said:

    oneADseven said:

    I don't even see why this is up for debate.

    Truth be told, it isn't.

    It's good that people are letting their opinions be known, but there's not much point in arguing about it.  We'll see what the devs have in mind for the class during testing and I'm sure they'll solicit feedback then to see if the class is delivering on what they intend for it.

    You listed a bunch of things that a monk would be able to bring to the table and ask the question of why should another class do so?  Well, the short answer is because like monks, rangers are also 'light fighters.'  They are a spin-off of the warrior class, and in lore they aren't just hunters or scouts.  They are protectors that roam the land and take the battle against external threats to their source.  They are, in fact, masters-at-arms.

    Like Kellindil, I really enjoyed the flexibility and utility that the EQ ranger provided.  It made the class interesting to play for those who were willing to embrace all the class had to offer.

    Can you share any references you have found in the lore that describe them as a light fighter or master-at-arms?  Kellindil mentioned that rangers were light fighters in EQ2/EQOA but that's not what I remember at all.  In EQ2, the only 'light fighters' were monks and bruisers.  Rangers were in fact, scouts.  In EQOA, rangers were described as "These soldiers of the wilderness are unique experts with the bow and unrivaled in their keen perceptions."  In FFXI (another game where they shined as a ranged physical damage specialist) they are described as "With unparalleled tracking abilities and skill with the bow and arrow, rangers are experts in the field of hunting."

    The most recent newsletter touched on the ranger several times including a quote where the bow is the only weapon mentioned:

    Jared:  "All I can say is that I'm excited about playing an Elven Ranger. Most likely an Ember owing to a Ranger's wide roaming tendencies. A humble bow, hewn and hand crafted as a loving tribute to the Lucent Tree, a clever albino ferret in a belt pouch and a stealthy forest lynx with fur like woodland grasses at my side… so good. I'd be a very happy guy!"

    The only real weapon displayed in the concept art is a bow ... unless you count the kitty cat, of course.  I understand that a single picture doesn't define a class and also understand that the actual description for ranger mentions "a ferocious warrior"  --  and this is why I'm inquiring about any lore that specifically touches on how they might play.  I would never expect a ranger to be exclusively ranged but I do expect them to be ranged specialists with some melee prowess mixed in rather than the other way around.

    If anybody has information they could share that would suggest rangers are a "fighter" I would love to see it.  The "Ranged Physical Damage Specialist" is a must-have IMO and if the ranger doesn't fulfill that role then I sure as hell hope we get an "Archer" as the next expansion class.  Just to be clear though, I don't see anything wrong with a ranger being able to get up close and personal with a sword or an axe ... I just feel that should be secondary if their primary method of ranged combat isn't feasible, the same way that a rogue committing to ranged damage would be secondary if their primary method of melee combat isn't feasible.  This is just my opinion and it's not going to ruin the game for me either way the cards end up falling.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at February 18, 2018 1:17 AM PST
  • Wig
    • 171 posts
    February 18, 2018 7:22 AM PST
    I wouldn’t mind primarily ranged combat while weaving in melee damage between each bow shot. Min maxing babyyy
    • 2464 posts
    February 18, 2018 8:09 AM PST

    Indeed.  I would usually try to find a bow with a massive delay (9 seconds plus) on my warrior and squeeze in some ranged shots here and there if I could pull it off.  Wasn't the easiest thing to do as a tank but if you coordinated your shots around CC it was doable.

    • 244 posts
    February 18, 2018 9:04 AM PST
    If you mean Pantheon lore, we don't have any info yet other than:
    In untamed regions, the Ranger is a versatile and ferocious warrior, united with the land and animals he communes with.

    When I talk about ranger lore, I'm speaking in the more general sense of the term.

    Everquest's classes were loosely modeled off of tabletop games. The ranger there was sculpted around Tolkien's race of Dunedain.

    If you want a modern day example of a character that fits the textbook description of a ranger, I'd point to Jon Snow, from Game of Thrones.
    • 400 posts
    February 18, 2018 9:14 AM PST

    oneADseven said:

    If anybody has information they could share that would suggest rangers are a "fighter" I would love to see it.  The "Ranged Physical Damage Specialist" is a must-have IMO and if the ranger doesn't fulfill that role then I sure as hell hope we get an "Archer" as the next expansion class.  Just to be clear though, I don't see anything wrong with a ranger being able to get up close and personal with a sword or an axe ... I just feel that should be secondary if their primary method of ranged combat isn't feasible, the same way that a rogue committing to ranged damage would be secondary if their primary method of melee combat isn't feasible.  This is just my opinion and it's not going to ruin the game for me either way the cards end up falling.

    Fighting (solo) with only a bow in EQ wasn't really feasible - you could kite eventually but it took forever to kill anything - but it was doable. In a group it was possible but not usually the best way to inflict the most damage. Really depended on your equipment and group make up. Rangers were indeed a fighter and could (kinda) fill the role of a tank if desperate but far better off as an off tank. If you check out the class description from the EQ Wiki they are described as "Ranger: A versatile hybrid class combining some of a Warrior's fighting prowess with a Druid's spellcasting, Rangers are able to deal large amounts of damage both from a ranged distance and in close quarters."  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest#Damage_dealers )  I loved fighting with a bow and working on the quests to obtain them was great! It was super exciting finally getting my trueshot bow and that was at pretty low level.

    After the last newsletter Pantheon's Ranger reminds me of Vanguard's Ranger - a light fighter with the possibility to have a pet ( http://vanguard.wikia.com/wiki/Ranger?file=Ranger_official.jpg ) In fact, reading that description again (after not seeing for so long lol) it really could describe what we saw in the newsletter. 

    I'm wondering if there will be a couple of sub classes under Ranger or if they will all follow the same path. I could see a spec that's more pet based vs. one that's more ranged. Looking forward to finding out!

    • 1177 posts
    February 18, 2018 9:30 AM PST

    Elrandir said: If you mean Pantheon lore, we don't have any info yet other than: In untamed regions, the Ranger is a versatile and ferocious warrior, united with the land and animals he communes with. When I talk about ranger lore, I'm speaking in the more general sense of the term. Everquest's classes were loosely modeled off of tabletop games. The ranger there was sculpted around Tolkien's race of Dunedain. If you want a modern day example of a character that fits the textbook description of a ranger, I'd point to Jon Snow, from Game of Thrones.

     

    Indeed.  Most of the famous rangers from fantasy literature are known for their melee.  The few who are known more for their bows were also quite skilled at melee combat.  As far as EverQuest and Ranger jokes go, anyone who played a Ranger successfully in early EverQuest (in era) embraced those Ranger jokes, and anyone who knew a good Ranger back then also knew how much they contributed despite the ignorance of the masses.  DPS is not everything.  That said, I can deal with a primarily ranged PRF Ranger.  What I don't want is a copy of the WoW Hunter.

    • 107 posts
    February 18, 2018 10:33 AM PST

    Hopefully the ranger can specialize as either melee dps or ranged dps and both should be good pullers for a group. I wrote this in another thread

    Ranger: An exceptional outdoorsman well versed in ranged and melee weaponry. A skilled wilderness survivalists able to Track, Hide, and Hunt without peer.

    Wardens are mystical protectors of wild places often springing from ambush to destroy their prey.

    A. Duel wielding specialists- Sword and hand axe, Scimitar and Scimitar, Battle axe and Mace etc.

    B. Nature related enchantments and remedies

    C. Camouflage experts able to mask their passage through natural environments.

    D. Throwing weapon experts. Throwing axe, Javelin. high damage but very long reload or limited ammo.

    E. skilled in parry and evasion.

    F. skilled use of medium armor especially keeping it quiet with use of padding and clothing.

    Pathfinders are deadly hunters of the wilderness able to track over any surface and be unseen while doing it.

    A. Master Archers without peer- all types of bows and slings.

    B. trained experts with spear, quarterstaff and woodsman axe

    C. Uncanny Stealth which restricts them to light armor.

    D. Animal companion- helps them track, hunt, scout

    E. Master Trackers

    F. Improved Evasion

     

    The Warden is more mystical in nature with a bit of nature based magic or herbal remedies and specializes in the martial art of duel wielding while the Pathfinder is the ultimate Hunter  a master with ranged weaponry. Both are dps but will play differently. Both should be good pullers for a group especially in natural environments.

    • 508 posts
    February 18, 2018 6:42 PM PST

    In all due respect, in books and reality "warriors" in their plate armor stuck to armies and cities. They didn't go off adventuring wearing it, like video game warriors do.

    Guys like John Snow and Aragorn live in a world where lighter armor is actually beneficial in some ways- it allows maneuvarability, preserves energy, is cheap, doesn't rust, etc. Video games rarely communicate these details very well.

    Getting this "ranger" you picture would be just as simple as forcing video game "warriors" to realistically wear light armor and neglect their shield, when they go out adventuring (which is more or less all the time).

    ___

    To put it another way:

    Aragorn and his ranger ilk were called "rangers", more as outdoorsman warriors who didn't belong to any particular faction, and preferred no, or small, groups. They naturally picked up some survivability along the way, having no quartermaster to offer them food and shelter. Finally, people who chose to live the survival/adventurer lifestyle (as in living that way rather than just going on one or two adventures/long trips) would all be considered "mysterious" (a trait which I feel many players value in the term "ranger"). It's just not very normal to choose this lifestyle in a realistic, dangerous world.

    Enter video game warriors, who don't tend to belong to any particular master, and are only active in no, or small, groups (even a "raid" is a small group compared to an army). They go off adventuring all day every day, outdoors almost all of the time, and so pick up some survivability along the way, having no quartermaster to offer them food and shelter. The only reason video game warriors aren't considered mysterious is because almost everyone else are adventurer types too. 

    Basically,  We already have these "rangers" you describe in video games, we just call them warriors. For simplicity's sake, we don't make them wear light armor even though the video game lifestyle of warriors certainly calls for it, realistically speaking.

    Your arguments may be better served in the warrior forum, calling for greater immersiveness regarding at least one specialization of our warriors, forcing them to neglect heavy shields and plate armor in favor of more realistic gear for their adventurer lifestyles. 

     

     


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at February 18, 2018 7:32 PM PST
    • 107 posts
    February 19, 2018 1:35 AM PST

    Field Plate weighed only 50 to 60 lbs and was well distributed over the body. You will tire faster wearing a chain haubrek weighing 20-30 lbs because most the weight is distributed over the shoulders. While weariing a chain hauberk you would wear a belt which helps some distributing some of the weight at the waist. Leather armor requires as much if not more maintenance then metal armor due to weather.

    I have faught in both field plate and a Chain Hauberk and ill wear the plate because of the weight distribution.

     

    They most certainly did Adventure wearing their armor. Take the crusades for example as small bands of armed men traveled across Europe to reach the holy lands. This is written and depicted during the time. Mercenaries often traveled in full tack.

    All this being said they didn't run across the world by foot the walked slowly or rode a horse or traveled by sea.

    • 2464 posts
    February 19, 2018 6:14 PM PST

    Posted this in another thread but I would like to hear what the local rangers would think.  Forester/Deadeye would each be their own specialization path for the class.  This is assuming that rangers could eventually learn both specializations and rotate between them while out of combat.  There would also be plenty of "core" abilities that any ranger could use regardless of specialization.  Would love to hear some feedback as I may rework this one a bit.  I'm thinking that some of the abilities that I listed for each spec might be considered "core" which would leave a void for other more specialized abilities to take their place.  What do you think?

     

    Ranger:  Rangers thrive in open space but won't hesitate to leverage their cunning and perception in tight quarters.  Their combination of stealth, tracking, survival, and herbalism pack the utility of a swiss army knife while braving the wilds ... but it's their proficiency with the bow that strikes fear (and death) into the hearts of their adversaries.


    Forester:  Your wisdom of all things nature allows you to communicate with the planet in ways that the untrained eye and ear could never comprehend.  Speak with the trees and the wind, and harvest the nourishing properties of the earth around you.  Rangers trained in the arts of Forester can harness the environment by calling upon the animal whose very instinct was forged within it, allowing them to share in the evolution of natural order.

    • Herbalism:  Identify and harvest natural resources that can be used to create makeshift tools, salves, reagents, or companion snacks.  (Various regen/curing elements, fletching material, toxins, armor/weapon modifications, and player/pet consumables.)
    • Camouflage:  Blend in with the environment, allowing you to avoid visual and scent detection methods.  (Avoiding audial detection is a core ranger ability.)
    • Advanced Tracking:  Observe various trails by following the story that nature shares with you.  Creatures that are successfully tracked are open to pre-emptive bonus damage.
    • Animal Companion:  Summon a companion that can provide various degrees of utility depending on the situation.

    Deadeye:  Picking foes apart from range is the tried and true approach of those who have mastered the bow and arrow.  Using pinpoint accuracy and refined technique can render your foes vulnerable, but finding the right angle and positioning can be tricky.  Rangers trained in the arts of Deadeye can inflict very high damage under the right circumstances  --  whether it's launching a rain of arrows into a calculated radius, a flurry of arrows in the same direction, or a single devastating headshot ... enemies are terrified of being caught in their gaze.

    • Volley:  Let loose a hail of arrows that will damage all creatures within a medium sized radius.
    • Barrage:  Temporarily modify your bow to allow a multitude of shots in rapid succession.  (Movement is decreased significantly for duration of this channeled effect)
    • Cripple:  High damage attack that impairs the movement speed, avoidance, attack speed, or accuracy of your opponent, depending on your range and angle relative to the target.
    • Headshot:  Massive attack that does bonus damage based on available health.  (The higher their current HP % is, the larger the bonus.)

    Rites of Passage:  Rangers can enhance their survival techniques by seeking out various earthly trials scattered around the world of Terminus.  Each trial is meant to test their endurance and cunning, requiring them to tap into their surroundings in order to survive through the night.  Each trial will reward the ranger with a new foraging technique, companion to summon, or tool that further refines their mastery of the bow and arrow.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at February 19, 2018 6:15 PM PST
    • 15 posts
    February 19, 2018 8:22 PM PST

    Of course no one, including myself can comment of what the Ranger class is in Pantheon yet because it's not finished and we have not played it. 

     

    That being said, from the post in the newsletter I'm already getting that feeling after my first "free" month I'll prolly be quitting. Who knows though, maybe these guys will get the class right but I just have no interest in playing another mindless melee class, if I wanted that why wouldn't I play one of the many many many other ones that don't usually get lumped in doing so many things that they must suck at everything.

     

    4 roles devs, thats all you get to work with... If you create a class, any class that tried to be too much you either get a OP class that you will nerf later or you get a crap class that like in EQ just drags on for a lifetime because you can't go back to the drawing board and remake the class the right way.

     

    What I don't get is, if there is an issue with melee vs Archery why not create the Archer class? Archery changed warfare yet it's like most game developers don't understand that fact and always chit on archery... yet make most caster classes OP, magic that can be done anyway they want as it has no real life rules/limitations/history. I'm not going to argue for Archery, I simply don't care if they get it right or wrong, I'll just not pay them to keep playing, that simple. This team has a epic sucess and a epic failure under their belts, so I have no reason to think they will or won't make a great game. 

     

    It's always upsetting that there is an amount of infighting on the Ranger class, just make a dumb wanabe tank class that uses melee and casts a bunch of silly outdated druid spells and buffs and let that group of people be happy with that. Then make the Archery class, a DPS focused Ranged class, outdoor abilities but make it all self buffs and whatever if they use magic (hopefully not). Watch as months into the realse no one plays the silly Ranger class and everyone flocks to the class that fills an actual role in the game. Problem solved and everyone's happy... but lets face it, Devs know an Archer class done right would make all that work put into the "ranger melee class" wasted as it can't get enough people sticking with it long term. 

     

    Again, the only way a melee ranger will have long term usefulness is if it's made OP. 

    • 107 posts
    February 19, 2018 8:39 PM PST

    oneADseven your quite the wordsmith but i would roll most of that into one specialization for a ranged dps ranger. Keep the master archer great tracker/huntsman. I prefer the term Pathfinder your ultimate scout/hunter/tracker type outdoorsman. Dependent on how they do tracking advanced tracking would enable this ranger to either increase the radius of the mobs you can detect or track older tracks which went through the area. Has a pet which maybe part of why he is even more exceptional at tracking then a ranger who chose another specialization.

    The other specialization which you have neglected is a ranger which is focused more on melee. A Warden! I would suggest he more mystical in nature perhaps tying in nature based remedies and magic. Their magic should be different and more subtle then a druids. More utility and out of combat remedies which could be based on herb lore. Their fighting style should be unique and more animal based martial art form. Duel wielding is the obvious choice. It was not a common martial art form and i only really know of some vikings fighting in such a style sword and hand axe and later in the renaissance rapier and dirk. The japanese also had to martial art forms which did so. Their are probably other examples.

    I am interested in your take of such a spec path.

    Both specializations are dps i  would think the Pathfinder is more burst dps while the Warden would be more sustained dps. Both are Outdoorsmen with exceptional surival skills in natural environments.

    • 898 posts
    February 20, 2018 6:14 AM PST

    I took this newsletter as saying the Ranger will be a Ranged Pyshical DPS class, with a companion/pet, but still have melee abilities as well if targets get too close or they run out of arrows/throwing weapons. I always thought the Ranger should have melee abilities as well as ranged, because I want crafting arrows to be a thing. Meaning they can run out, and if they can't melee then they would do 0 damage once out of arrows. Sure arrows are there preferred source of damage as it gives the most DPS, but I'd like Rangers to have to pick when to use them or not. 

     

    I'll just wait to see though as i'm excited to see them Demo the Ranger in the future for us! :)

    • 107 posts
    February 20, 2018 12:58 PM PST

    Saicred said:

    I took this newsletter as saying the Ranger will be a Ranged Pyshical DPS class, with a companion/pet, but still have melee abilities as well if targets get too close or they run out of arrows/throwing weapons. I always thought the Ranger should have melee abilities as well as ranged, because I want crafting arrows to be a thing. Meaning they can run out, and if they can't melee then they would do 0 damage once out of arrows. Sure arrows are there preferred source of damage as it gives the most DPS, but I'd like Rangers to have to pick when to use them or not. 

     

    I'll just wait to see though as i'm excited to see them Demo the Ranger in the future for us! :)

    I did to main reason i started posting on alternate specializations for a Ranger. Definetly a dps class but no reason you couldn't specialize one way or the other. DDO ranger is a great example of the ranger done right DAOC was as well. I heard some good things about the Vanguard ranger but never tried it for some reason played a dread knight which was a blast. I enjoyed the everquest ranger as well melee centric at least initially. It was certainly not an op class.

    EQ2 ranger was a mix of both melee and ranged while fun just seemed silly shooting at near point blank then jumping in melee till your big shots ready again rinse and repeat. I guess it seemed unrealistic to me...ye ye i know its a fantasy game but still just seemed silly.

    WOW hunter i hated archer with a pet bleh....boring....

    I played a ranger in GW2 but to be honest do not remember a lot about it. PVP'd alot couldn't get into the pve world though think was just getting sick of the linear theme park mmos. More into a sandbox mmo over theme parks.

  • Wig
    • 171 posts
    February 24, 2018 8:22 AM PST
    So, what’s everyone’s opinion on a ranger having a pet. I personally would like to be able to temporary tame companions. I’m not a huge fan of having a pet at all times, but not class breaking for me. I don’t think we’ve received a concrete answer if ranger will have full time pets or not? I just remember Brad saying that Rangers will not have full time pets a while back. Or am I remembering incorrectly?
    • 107 posts
    February 26, 2018 8:15 AM PST

    Personally i  am not a fan of rangers haveing pets. Hopefully will be ranger specializations so one can build their ideal ranger weather that is with a pet or not.

    • 508 posts
    February 27, 2018 6:36 AM PST

    Wig said: So, what’s everyone’s opinion on a ranger having a pet. I personally would like to be able to temporary tame companions. I’m not a huge fan of having a pet at all times, but not class breaking for me. I don’t think we’ve received a concrete answer if ranger will have full time pets or not? I just remember Brad saying that Rangers will not have full time pets a while back. Or am I remembering incorrectly?

    Each time a class gets a pet, it makes it much harder for sumoners to fill a unique niche. 

    If they do give rangers, shamans, enchanters, etc. pets, I hope VR has a lot of unique, amazing ideas for the summoner class.

    In other words my opinion on the matter depends on how well VR builds summoners.


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at February 27, 2018 6:37 AM PST
  • Wig
    • 171 posts
    February 27, 2018 3:20 PM PST
    I agree. I also hope that if a ranger is a full time pet class, which I hope we are not, that we all won’t have the exact same pet. Seeing 30 rangers running around with the same blue lynx will hurt my eyes ...and my soul.
    • 40 posts
    March 23, 2018 11:45 AM PDT

    I'm excited to see what VR decides to go with. Especially since I remember Brad emphatically saying that he is creating a Ranger at launch, in the Jim Lee stream i think. It just leads me to believe they are going to be awesome. 

    That said, my opinion of the Ranger is sort of the opposite of the Rogue. While both do great dps and both can use melee or ranged attacks, the rogue would be more deadly in melee range with some options for throwing daggers at ranged. While the Ranger would be more deadly at ranged with some options in melee range.

    A melee based dps that will have a little ranged ability already exists in the Rogue, A Melee based class the can OT in pinch already exists in a Monk. It only makes sense that the Ranger would be a ranged based dps that has a little melee ability, don't you think?

    Personally i am hoping for the ranged dps class that does not have to melee but can.

    • 909 posts
    March 23, 2018 1:48 PM PDT

    That said, my opinion of the Ranger is sort of the opposite of the Rogue. While both do great dps and both can use melee or ranged attacks, the rogue would be more deadly in melee range with some options for throwing daggers at ranged. While the Ranger would be more deadly at ranged with some options in melee range.

    That was EQ2's ranger/assassin design but I wasn't frankly fan of it.

    To me the difference is mainly that ranger has access to magic, elemental/druidic magic. Something the rogue won't have much, except a few tricks and shadow oriented concealments. Bow fighting is really a niche I hope the ranger will not be put in, as it should even be relevant in close environnements (caves, dungeons, etc...).

    • 40 posts
    March 23, 2018 8:06 PM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    That said, my opinion of the Ranger is sort of the opposite of the Rogue. While both do great dps and both can use melee or ranged attacks, the rogue would be more deadly in melee range with some options for throwing daggers at ranged. While the Ranger would be more deadly at ranged with some options in melee range.

    That was EQ2's ranger/assassin design but I wasn't frankly fan of it.

    To me the difference is mainly that ranger has access to magic, elemental/druidic magic. Something the rogue won't have much, except a few tricks and shadow oriented concealments. Bow fighting is really a niche I hope the ranger will not be put in, as it should even be relevant in close environnements (caves, dungeons, etc...).

    Well the Eq2 Ranger had a "Sweet Spot" mid-range where dps was maximized, but could still use the bow in close range and a lot of the abilities were heat based.

    I was just listening to the Cohh Carnage stream from a few days ago and Dev Joppa touched on the Ranger and it sure sounded like 60-40 or even 70-30 split on Ranged versus Melee

    although its not decided on 100% it seems

    • 909 posts
    March 23, 2018 8:26 PM PDT

    I just keep my hopes up we can play competitively using both styles. While archery can be convenient, it can also force you to spread a bit from your party and end up with unwanted aggros, especially if there is no point blank shot feature.

    Don't get my wrong, I like archery and especially on a ranger. I just don't want it to be more than 50% of my time, but I don't especially have ideas about it.

    In EQ1 archery was quite broken until at least kunark, where the bow discipline and passive kicked in and allowed you to get a good burst every few minutes, but outside of it Archery was below melee fighting, you couldn't be a full time archer and that's what I would like (on a personal point of view, I agree).

    Tieing archery to a cooldown, like one that would reduce by half the cooldown of archery shot (that would all have a pretty lenghty cooldown, like 20s), could work into making this fighting style a "casually shotting in the opening then switching to melee once cooldowns are blown" versus "having my fast quiver cooldown up and beeing able to rain death on the ennemy".

     

    Not sure it's balanced however, it could end up like GW2 where you swap weapons once your major cooldown are blown to ofset the penalty of waiting.

    • 40 posts
    March 25, 2018 10:42 PM PDT

    I hear ya. Not sure which stream i was listening to today but i heard Brad say that he enjoys "hybrid classes" hence his love for Paladins and Rangers and that Rangers are one of the 2 classes they are working on at the moment, so they are probably close to being playable for those lucky peeps in pre-alpha. I guess we will get some insight soon enough.

    If I had my time back i would have upped my pledge to play pre-alpha, but oh well, Hopefully Alpha isn't too far off.

    • 15 posts
    April 4, 2018 12:17 PM PDT

    kellindil said:

    What class? Like a Monk that's a light fighter that seems to be getting some off tanking utility? Or the Rogue, who is getting some CC Utility? That's cool. I'll be back here on my Ranger with my DPS that will match that of your rogue or monk with my class utility, laughing and having a great time.

     

    Well that was a lot of assumptions... Oddly what you just did is describe Flossies version of the Ranger as the desirable build, a high end DPS Archer. Now if you had said:

    "I'll be *next* to the mob on my Ranger with my *mid level* DPS that will be less than that of your rogue or monk with my class utility, laughing and having a great time.

    Most would have been like ... "eeeehhhh no thanks~" 

    If Rangers Melee is equal to Rogues and monks then all the Dev team did is create the same class again... A high end DPS fighter... And that, would be lazy of them. Many people want a full on Archery, that is 'high end deepz." To not fill that roll because of DnD or old EQ, or some books I have never read and don't care about is super silly. Taking advantage of Archery to build a class around is a great idea, very supported by many players. Without an Archer build with high end DPS the Ranger class is like many other classes, begging the question as for the need of the Ranger class. 

     

    In real life it works like this Archery>Melee. To make a game where the 2 are equal is only silly because you can see how the Dev team ultimately is building two classes on top of each other. VR is going to do what VR wants to do, but if by chance they are so closed minded as to not have a Archer class then they deserve what they get, and it will be a little bit less interest in the game from it's playerbase. If you want to play a melee DPS class you have option as the game stands today in pre alpha... If I want a DPS Archer class, that does not exsist for sure that we know of, it's not an option. A foolish route would to create another version of the same thing with a Ranger (melee fighter) over building the class around Archery first.

     

    Last point. As a hypothetical If the secret class was an Archer in Pantheon, and done well... I would bet everything I own that class have several times over the amount of players playing that class over a melee fighting half tanky half druid, half moronic class that the same team built in EQ. 

     

    Just my thoughts~