Iksar said:The problem comes when you start adding extras/consumbles and I would rather not go there. Strip everything extra from figuring out class balances or expenses, focus solely on a barebones geared character of any given class. All the classes would be more or less fully capable/competitive in their given roles EXCEPT ranger if they are forced into expendable ammo(s).
So you envision ranger outperforming other classes if they use the best ammo types? Basically you feel the ranger should be the best DPS class if they are rich or subpar if they are not?
(Also: behooving any one class into a specific tradeskill when all are players are limited to one skill stinks of poor design I'd say.)
I don't really deal in absolutes like this. When it comes to dealing "Ranged Physical Damage" then yes, I envision rangers consistently outperforming other classes, even if the ranger is using regular quality ammunition. It seems like you're putting way too much value on the ammunition quality if you think that it alone can be the difference between "best DPS class" and "subpar." As I have mentioned several times now, I think the specialized role for rangers should be "Ranged Physical Damage." If an enemy is vulnerable to crushing damage but also has a devastating fire aura that pulses nonstop in close proximity, this should be an encounter where rangers would shine. This is because rangers would be able to equip blunt-tip arrows and rain them down from a safe range while avoiding the need to joust the pulsing fire. In other words, it's a "situational value" that has layers of success. The first layer is being able to crank out damage with minimal downtime due to the inherent advantage that ranged attacks provide (there is less potential for mistakes with "maximum uptime" since there is less emphasis on being "perfect" with physical damage uptime compared to a melee class that has to joust). The second layer is being able to use different arrow types (pierce/slash/crush) that take full advantage of the power of their bow without skipping a beat. The third layer is using top-tier quality arrows. A lot of this really depends on the value of auto attack damage and the potency of using the right weapon-type vs a vulnerability but rangers should be highly versatile in their ability to exploit physical damage vulnerabilities. While rogues/monks would need to have equal caliber weapons of each damage type (pierce/slash/crush) in order to always perform their maximum auto-attack damage, a ranger would be able to pull it off with a single epic bow and healthy supply of each ammo type. If a melee class is able to maintain extremely high uptime on an NPC, while simultaneously using a high-quality weapon type that exploits a vulnerability, their damage should probably be superior. It should probably even be superior if there is no specific vulnerability that can be exploited. This is because melee weapons would be able to achieve more critical strikes and damage procs in rapid succession due to their shorter delay compared to that of a bow.
All of this is barely scratching the surface on the kind of depth and variance that I would like to see in the combat system. There shouldn't be an absolute best DPS class. The quality of ammunition alone shouldn't be the difference between amazing and subpar. Rangers should be versatile in their ability to deal all physical damage types due to the accessibility of ammunition (which comes at a cost) while also having a natural advantage for encounters that deny a bunch of uptime from melee classes. I'm sure rogues and monks will both have their own situational niches where they thrive and that is ultimately the kind of combat system that I want to see. A lot of this is assuming that every character/class has the best of the best of everything available to them and performing at the highest possible skill cap which is super farfetched and should almost never be realistically possible. As far as behooving any given class toward a specific profession, that's completely made up. For the sake of convenience, maybe it makes sense for a ranger to take up woodworking. But what if armorsmithing is more profitable overall? What if provisioning ultimately ends up being more convenient due to several yet unforeseen factors? There are too many assumptions and absolutes to try and make sense of any of this stuff. The bottom line from my last couple posts was that rangers should be highly desirable to groups as damage dealers. They should be capable of performing devastating damage under the right circumstances and if those circumstances are somewhat reliant on maintaining expensive ammunition ... so be it! That versatility will be valuable and it's worth paying for it, if someone can afford it. If they can't afford it then they will have to settle for some-degree-less-than-devastating damage. There are no hard numbers being used here. Ammunition quality should be a tangible and impactful factor, but not the end-all-be-all.
oneADseven said:I don't really deal in absolutes like this. When it comes to dealing "Ranged Physical Damage" then yes, I envision rangers consistently outperforming other classes, even if the ranger is using regular quality ammunition. It seems like you're putting way too much value on the ammunition quality if you think that it alone can be the difference between "best DPS class" and "subpar." As I have mentioned several times now, I think the specialized role for rangers should be "Ranged Physical Damage."
I suppose it's fine to want that, but that is not the vision for ranger that VR has presented. Ranger in Pantheon is a hybrid melee/ranged class, in order to fully perform as and maintain competitive DPS they will be required to weave in and out of melee.
Iksar said:I suppose it's fine to want that, but that is not the vision for ranger that VR has presented. Ranger in Pantheon is a hybrid melee/ranged class, in order to fully perform as and maintain competitive DPS they will be required to weave in and out of melee.
We all know that things won't exactly function "as presented." A ranger wouldn't need to weave in and out of combat to have a ranged advantage over monks/rogues in a fight where doing so might be considered too dangerous. This is the problem with applying blanket statements or assuming absolutes. Even when it does come to weaving in and out of combat, rangers will still have an advantage when it comes to jousting AoE attacks or persistent damage auras. They would be able to make good use of any tight jousting window by being able to dish out their close-range abilities before using an ability like Withdraw that helps them get back to a safe range where they won't necessarily see a drop in their damage like the other melee classes would. It's highly unlikely that rogues/monks will be able to compete with rangers when it comes to ranged physical damage. To be clear, here is what their class description reads:
The Ranger excels at both melee and ranged combat, able to weave between the two with elegant ease. In close combat, Rangers prefer the use of one-hand weapons over two-handed, able to deliver devastating damage with swift precision. When the Ranger chooses to withdraw from close quarters combat, they can masterfully employ bows and crossbows to inflict lethal ranged damage, restrain enemies, illuminate their environment, set traps or flee from danger.
If you could provide a source that suggests that rangers will be required to weave in and out of melee combat in order to achieve competitive DPS output, I'd like to see it. I'm not doubting that to be true (for absolute maximum damage) because I'm sure they will have melee cooldowns and resource generators that players will want to have maximum uptime on, but odds are that rangers will be able to exploit "tight windows" much better than traditional melee classes since only a portion of their kit is reliant on melee range. Their ability to do "lethal ranged damage" while traditional melee classes might see their damage fizzle out a bit is going to be a difference maker. Maybe this doesn't qualify as their "true specialization, as presented" but it seems pretty obvious that it will be an area where they offer high situational value.
100% you need to fill your ammo slot with a projectile that is limited. You need to craft or buy something. But let the stack size be variable based on the quiver or pouch. So you need to upgrade the quiver to hold 1000 arrows. Or you need a special skill that uses a magic arrow in place of a crafted arrow - Like some sort of endless quiver magic skill which would work completely seperate from your range attack skill and use mana/resources.
this whole narrative about classes being balanced, competitive and comparable really irks me, rubs me the wrong way, this is the exact "equality" narrative that has destroyed the best of MMOs we had.
in this game classes are not their theoretical maximal DPS output, they are better than that! classes are flavour, crowd control, utility. that is why we are waiting for pantheon.
for perfectly balanced classes i can run mythics in WOW, and i dont.
classes should NOT be balanced, they should be different, they should be played differently, one has mana and have to med, other has to buy arrows, one can only attack from behind, one can cleave two mobs together. thats why there is no PVP in this game! ( at least on release)
classes should be like chess pieces where nobody gets to be the queen, each one with completely different looks, moves, abilities, strenghts an weaknesses.
so ranger has to spend money on arrows? yes! but he can buy flame arrows, armor piercing arrows, poison arrows, etc etc and adapt himself to the situation, mages have mana and can meditate? yes, but what if a frost mage attacked by ice elementals? he cant change his spells.
ranger is about preparation to the wildlands, the trademark of a good ranger is that he prepared different ammo types for every encounter. and when he is out of arrows, then he is out of luck.
and even then he can rely on his traps, pet and melee weapon, he is not useless without ammo!
regarding the monetary sink, tanks have the hardest as they have to repair plate sets of armor every run. priests will probably have to buy expensive ingredients in order to raise dead. and if the priests didnt purchased the ingredient his friends will have to corpserun.
bag space? well all the hybrid classes will have to walk with at least two sets of gear on them all the time, i hope noone on these forums will demand separated "wardrobe" slots for the hybrid classes.
so monetary sink and bag space are not a valid arguments.
MyNegation said:this whole narrative about classes being balanced, competitive and comparable really irks me, rubs me the wrong way, this is the exact "equality" narrative that has destroyed the best of MMOs we had.
in this game classes are not their theoretical maximal DPS output, they are better than that! classes are flavour, crowd control, utility. that is why we are waiting for pantheon.
for perfectly balanced classes i can run mythics in WOW, and i dont.classes should NOT be balanced, they should be different, they should be played differently, one has mana and have to med, other has to buy arrows, one can only attack from behind, one can cleave two mobs together. thats why there is no PVP in this game! ( at least on release)
classes should be like chess pieces where nobody gets to be the queen, each one with completely different looks, moves, abilities, strenghts an weaknesses.
so ranger has to spend money on arrows? yes! but he can buy flame arrows, armor piercing arrows, poison arrows, etc etc and adapt himself to the situation, mages have mana and can meditate? yes, but what if a frost mage attacked by ice elementals? he cant change his spells.
ranger is about preparation to the wildlands, the trademark of a good ranger is that he prepared different ammo types for every encounter. and when he is out of arrows, then he is out of luck.
and even then he can rely on his traps, pet and melee weapon, he is not useless without ammo!
regarding the monetary sink, tanks have the hardest as they have to repair plate sets of armor every run. priests will probably have to buy expensive ingredients in order to raise dead. and if the priests didnt purchased the ingredient his friends will have to corpserun.
bag space? well all the hybrid classes will have to walk with at least two sets of gear on them all the time, i hope noone on these forums will demand separated "wardrobe" slots for the hybrid classes.
so monetary sink and bag space are not a valid arguments.
I agree, WAY to much emphasis is put on "balance" and I have seen WAY to many clases be destroyed in the name of "balance".
Now with that said things should not be too missmatched, there shouldent be one class that nobody will play like a pure DPS that can't to 50% of the damage that the next lowest DPS can do, but a Ranger not needing Arrows due too balance, thats taking balance too far.
No one else needing anything simular may also be too far the other way, this is why I suggested Casters having Research for some of there spell making. Any more balance than that is game breaking.
Unless of course you some Min Maxing Raider that would not play or have a ranger in his group becouse he would have 10 less DPS than a Wizard with the exact same Platnum invested in 38.625 days.
my thought's on that... okay, don't play a Ranger, I'll have one.
MyNegation said:this whole narrative about classes being balanced, competitive and comparable really irks me, rubs me the wrong way, this is the exact "equality" narrative that has destroyed the best of MMOs we had.
ranger is about preparation to the wildlands, the trademark of a good ranger is that he prepared different ammo types for every encounter. and when he is out of arrows, then he is out of luck.
Rangers in Pantheon are melee dps as well though.
The issue is not classes being balanced to each other, rather it is them being balanced to themselves/environment.
A caster has a mana pool to balance out their ranged spell damage use. That is, they are limited to how much damage they can put out based on that mana pool. It is an immediate control factor to the class.
A ranger does ranged damage, so what is its control factor? What is the maximum damage ability of a ranger? Is it unlimited? Is it controlled by their ammunition space? There needs to be a control factor to their damage if you want to promote downtime and endurance based combat.
If a caster can do a maximum of 1000 damage using their best damage spell before their mana runs out, then this is the maximum potential before they run out and need to rest.
How much can the ranger do in ranged damage in that same situation? If there is no control aspect, they can essentially do unlimited damage, there is no management of resources, no consideration to such.
I am not trying to balance between the two, I am just showing how a caster has a control to their abilties.
In AD&D, this was controlled by memorizing spells. You could only memorize a certain number and level of spells and ocne they were cast, you no longer had them anymore and needed to rest and memorize them again. This was a control aspect to game play.
The rangers in AD&D had a limited number of arrows before they ran out. That number of arrows was limited to a realistic level (ie maybe 15-30 arrows max? ).
The point is, there was a balance to their ablities.
That is the point, not balancing to each other (which leads to hemogenization).
All of these things have subtle balances to which promote strategic play. A melee can swing a sword, but is controlled by HPs, so they need some form of healing to stay fighting. A caster who heals or does damage has a mana pool, which restricts how much they can heal/damage in a given period of time. A ranger can melee, or they can ranged damage from a far, but they are restricted by the number of arrows they have available. Combine all this together and you get endurance based management in play where you have consider resources and circumstance in order to succeed.
I think that is something missing from games today as a lot of the resource management is greatly limited in modern games. The depth of classes and play has been streamlined to be more arcadish action play, not that of an RPG.
Zorkon said:MyNegation said:this whole narrative about classes being balanced, competitive and comparable really irks me, rubs me the wrong way, this is the exact "equality" narrative that has destroyed the best of MMOs we had.
in this game classes are not their theoretical maximal DPS output, they are better than that! classes are flavour, crowd control, utility. that is why we are waiting for pantheon.
for perfectly balanced classes i can run mythics in WOW, and i dont.classes should NOT be balanced, they should be different, they should be played differently, one has mana and have to med, other has to buy arrows, one can only attack from behind, one can cleave two mobs together. thats why there is no PVP in this game! ( at least on release)
classes should be like chess pieces where nobody gets to be the queen, each one with completely different looks, moves, abilities, strenghts an weaknesses.
so ranger has to spend money on arrows? yes! but he can buy flame arrows, armor piercing arrows, poison arrows, etc etc and adapt himself to the situation, mages have mana and can meditate? yes, but what if a frost mage attacked by ice elementals? he cant change his spells.
ranger is about preparation to the wildlands, the trademark of a good ranger is that he prepared different ammo types for every encounter. and when he is out of arrows, then he is out of luck.
and even then he can rely on his traps, pet and melee weapon, he is not useless without ammo!
regarding the monetary sink, tanks have the hardest as they have to repair plate sets of armor every run. priests will probably have to buy expensive ingredients in order to raise dead. and if the priests didnt purchased the ingredient his friends will have to corpserun.
bag space? well all the hybrid classes will have to walk with at least two sets of gear on them all the time, i hope noone on these forums will demand separated "wardrobe" slots for the hybrid classes.
so monetary sink and bag space are not a valid arguments.
I agree, WAY to much emphasis is put on "balance" and I have seen WAY to many clases be destroyed in the name of "balance".
Now with that said things should not be too missmatched, there shouldent be one class that nobody will play like a pure DPS that can't to 50% of the damage that the next lowest DPS can do, but a Ranger not needing Arrows due too balance, thats taking balance too far.
No one else needing anything simular may also be too far the other way, this is why I suggested Casters having Research for some of there spell making. Any more balance than that is game breaking.
Unless of course you some Min Maxing Raider that would not play or have a ranger in his group becouse he would have 10 less DPS than a Wizard with the exact same Platnum invested in 38.625 days.
my thought's on that... okay, don't play a Ranger, I'll have one.
Should we then not have mana for casters as well?
It is the same concept.
Having a ranger have a limited amount of arrows to use in a fight is the same as a mage having a limited amount of mana to use. Why is it proper for one to have unlimited resources and the other not?
Again, this isn't about class vs class, it is about the logic of why we put a restraint or control factor on a class.
It isn't even about requiring ammo that is the issue, as WoW did that and it was pointless as it wasn't a combat control factor, it was just an expense to overcome. Having to have ammo, but being able to carry around large piles of ammo defeats the entire point of the balance.
A ranged class should have limited ammunition space and that space should be balanced in the same manner as you would mana. That is, your damage potential before you have to "recover" is limited and this creates a strategy element for play (just as a magic user has to manage their mana).
Not sure i am following yout point,
on one hand you say:
Tanix said:The rangers in AD&D had a limited number of arrows before they ran out. That number of arrows was limited to a realistic level (ie maybe 15-30 arrows max? ).
The point is, there was a balance to their ablities.
That is the point, not balancing to each other (which leads to hemogenization).
All of these things have subtle balances to which promote strategic play. A melee can swing a sword, but is controlled by HPs, so they need some form of healing to stay fighting. A caster who heals or does damage has a mana pool, which restricts how much they can heal/damage in a given period of time. A ranger can melee, or they can ranged damage from a far, but they are restricted by the number of arrows they have available. Combine all this together and you get endurance based management in play where you have consider resources and circumstance in order to succeed.
I think that is something missing from games today as a lot of the resource management is greatly limited in modern games. The depth of classes and play has been streamlined to be more arcadish action play, not that of an RPG.
which is as i understand exactly what @zorkon and myself are saying, on other hand you disagree with us.
so what is the exact difference? that the arrows can be put in quiver only and the arrow amount should be limited by the rarity of the quiver and not put in the general inventory?
yep, sure. why not. whatever mechanic the devs want to implement, i just dont want the bows to have unlimited arrows like laser weapon, or drink a potion of "more arrows" and continue to shoot.
There is no rule that says that "arrows" should function for rangers the same way "mana" does for casters. Melee classes are designed differently. There are control mechanisms in place that limit how many times they can attack in a given period of time (weapon delay/ability cooldowns) and for rangers specifically they also have a "momentum" resource that throttles their attack speed bonus as well as certain abilities that require it for use. In other words, the class is already designed with several controls in place. Beyond that, consumable arrows are never truly "unlimited" -- a full quiver of arrows will obviously sustain a ranger longer than a full mana bar would a wizard but these two things are apples and oranges. Trying to balance them against each other in order to be fair or "proper" seems like an attempt to homogenize fruit just for the sake of doing it. There is a big difference between a basic ranged attack and casting a spell -- mana is a versatile resource that can be used for any number of things whereas you pretty much always get the same thing out of a consumed arrow.
I see zero merit in suggesting "being able to carry around large piles of ammo defeats the entire point of the balance" -- what balance? Who says that these things are being balanced against each other? Seems like some made up nonsense to me. If the amount of ammunition that a player carries around is going to be regulated, there are other ways to accomplish that. Quivers could end up being a bonus "bag slot" that can only carry ranged ammunition. Once those slots are filled, extra arrows would be competing for standard inventory space. Beyond that, it's also possible that arrows have "weight" which can only be reduced if they are held within a quiver.
MyNegation said:
so what is the exact difference? that the arrows can be put in quiver only and the arrow amount should be limited by the rarity of the quiver and not put in the general inventory?
yep, sure. why not. whatever mechanic the devs want to implement, i just dont want the bows to have unlimited arrows like laser weapon, or drink a potion of "more arrows" and continue to shoot.
Pretty much.
As I said, games like WoW and others used Ammo not as a combat limiting factor, but a cost buy in, which I never understood because if a player has enormous amount of money, the control factor is irrelevant.
If the ranger can only have a limited number of arrows, they are constrained to a combat limitation of how much damage they can apply before they rest.
As for potions, I wasn’t thinking of that exactly, more along the lines of the ranger running out and have to rest to recover arrows. Maybe explain it as they are picking up the arrows they shot, or they are fletching new arrows, etc…
You could also put in a skill that would during combat allow the ranger a chance to recover and arrow from an NPC that is killed quickly. This would provide an “in combat” means to regain arrows, but limited by the skill, cool down or percent chance recovery.
Point is, now you have limited arrows, limited capability, and the need to manage those resources (ie not just blindly shot at everything without concern).
My main point though was how a cost impediment for arrows really isn’t a balancing factor as it is easily circumvented.
Tanix said:
MyNegation said:so what is the exact difference? that the arrows can be put in quiver only and the arrow amount should be limited by the rarity of the quiver and not put in the general inventory?
yep, sure. why not. whatever mechanic the devs want to implement, i just dont want the bows to have unlimited arrows like laser weapon, or drink a potion of "more arrows" and continue to shoot.
Pretty much.
As I said, games like WoW and others used Ammo not as a combat limiting factor, but a cost buy in, which I never understood because if a player has enormous amount of money, the control factor is irrelevant.
If the ranger can only have a limited number of arrows, they are constrained to a combat limitation of how much damage they can apply before they rest.
As for potions, I wasn’t thinking of that exactly, more along the lines of the ranger running out and have to rest to recover arrows. Maybe explain it as they are picking up the arrows they shot, or they are fletching new arrows, etc…
You could also put in a skill that would during combat allow the ranger a chance to recover and arrow from an NPC that is killed quickly. This would provide an “in combat” means to regain arrows, but limited by the skill, cool down or percent chance recovery.
Point is, now you have limited arrows, limited capability, and the need to manage those resources (ie not just blindly shot at everything without concern).
My main point though was how a cost impediment for arrows really isn’t a balancing factor as it is easily circumvented.
I follow ya. Ammo management could be a whole facet of the Ranger class. They would need to be allowed to Fletch during combat, maybe need to sit to reach and fill their Quiver (much quicker than fletching of course). I could totally see a gather Arrows from fallen foe skill working in conjunction with the already known ability
WITHDRAW
These types of things would fit with the Devs plans to make boxing difficult if not impossible.
I'm not against the idea, it shows promise.
Tanix said:oneADseven said:There is no rule that says that "arrows" should function for rangers the same way "mana" does for casters.
Yep, no rule and that would be a great point if that was in fact what was being argued.
You're comparing the two things as a "combat control factor" or "constraint" -- you suggested that they are the same concept and that they should be balanced against each other.
Tanix said:A caster has a mana pool to balance out their ranged spell damage use. That is, they are limited to how much damage they can put out based on that mana pool. It is an immediate control factor to the class.
A ranger does ranged damage, so what is its control factor? What is the maximum damage ability of a ranger? Is it unlimited? Is it controlled by their ammunition space? There needs to be a control factor to their damage if you want to promote downtime and endurance based combat.
If a caster can do a maximum of 1000 damage using their best damage spell before their mana runs out, then this is the maximum potential before they run out and need to rest.
How much can the ranger do in ranged damage in that same situation? If there is no control aspect, they can essentially do unlimited damage, there is no management of resources, no consideration to such.
In AD&D, this was controlled by memorizing spells. You could only memorize a certain number and level of spells and ocne they were cast, you no longer had them anymore and needed to rest and memorize them again. This was a control aspect to game play.
The rangers in AD&D had a limited number of arrows before they ran out. That number of arrows was limited to a realistic level (ie maybe 15-30 arrows max? ).
Again, there are major differences between mana and ammunition. One is a versatile resource that can be used for a variety of things that recharges on its own. The other is more single-focused and doesn't recharge on it's own. Ammunition is used for "basic ranged attacks" -- these aren't considered "spells" and are therefore not governed by the same rules.
Tanix said:Should we then not have mana for casters as well?
It is the same concept.
Having a ranger have a limited amount of arrows to use in a fight is the same as a mage having a limited amount of mana to use. Why is it proper for one to have unlimited resources and the other not?
It is not the same concept. One is used for a "basic attack" and the other is used for a "spell."
Tanix said:Having to have ammo, but being able to carry around large piles of ammo defeats the entire point of the balance. A ranged class should have limited ammunition space and that space should be balanced in the same manner as you would mana. That is, your damage potential before you have to "recover" is limited and this creates a strategy element for play (just as a magic user has to manage their mana).
They should not be balanced in the same manner. Rangers will already have their "abilities" throttled by cooldown timers and their momentum resource. You're implying that their ability to perform ranged basic attacks should follow the same logic as a caster casting spells in the name of "recovery" and "strategy." Apples and oranges. A more similar comparison would be melee basic attacks vs ranged basic attacks. These two things follow the same "recovery" rules by having a built-in "delay" timer. The obvious difference is that ammunition is expendable while melee weapons are persistent.
Tanix said:Zorkon said:Tanix said:
MyNegation said:so what is the exact difference? that the arrows can be put in quiver only and the arrow amount should be limited by the rarity of the quiver and not put in the general inventory?
yep, sure. why not. whatever mechanic the devs want to implement, i just dont want the bows to have unlimited arrows like laser weapon, or drink a potion of "more arrows" and continue to shoot.Pretty much.
As I said, games like WoW and others used Ammo not as a combat limiting factor, but a cost buy in, which I never understood because if a player has enormous amount of money, the control factor is irrelevant.
If the ranger can only have a limited number of arrows, they are constrained to a combat limitation of how much damage they can apply before they rest.
As for potions, I wasn’t thinking of that exactly, more along the lines of the ranger running out and have to rest to recover arrows. Maybe explain it as they are picking up the arrows they shot, or they are fletching new arrows, etc…
You could also put in a skill that would during combat allow the ranger a chance to recover and arrow from an NPC that is killed quickly. This would provide an “in combat” means to regain arrows, but limited by the skill, cool down or percent chance recovery.
Point is, now you have limited arrows, limited capability, and the need to manage those resources (ie not just blindly shot at everything without concern).
My main point though was how a cost impediment for arrows really isn’t a balancing factor as it is easily circumvented.
I follow ya. Ammo management could be a whole facet of the Ranger class. They would need to be allowed to Fletch during combat, maybe need to sit to reach and fill their Quiver (much quicker than fletching of course). I could totally see a gather Arrows from fallen foe skill working in conjunction with the already known ability
WITHDRAWKick off of your enemy as you fire a point-blank shot, vaulting backwards 8m. (Automatically toggles Ranged auto attack)
These types of things would fit with the Devs plans to make boxing difficult if not impossible.
I'm not against the idea, it shows promise.
Yep, it would certainly move the the design away from modern arcade systems.
The one thing I liked about EQ was that the fights were long, you had to pay attention to your resources, you could not just DPS your way out of things (as modern MMOs do). I think designing the ranger within that form of limitation encourages that conept of play.
There may be other solutions, but the cost of buying ammo isn't a limitation when it can easily be eliminated by wealth. The mechanic we are talking about can't be purchased out of. You are restricted to a concept that monetary advancement can no remedy. I think designing things more along that idea is also another way to limit the influence of RMT on game play as well. If you can't "buy" your advantages, then it has less value.
What about infinite ammo with low enough damage and a cooldown that would make it feasible to really only use to pull.
Ammo that would actually suffice for DPS without an inconvenient cooldown would require management.
I like the idea of an infinite ammo only because range classes can get into a spot where they are using it to pull, run out and then the group has to stop shop so that the puller can go make/buy more ammo. Something that allows the puller to continue his job at bare bones effectiveness without stopping the group but not allowing true to form unlimited ammo I think can be useful.
Or... maybe just a "throw stone" ability or something with low damage and a cooldown for all classes so that they all have the ability to range pull something without actually having a true range damage ability.
Tanix said:Why are you arguing with me OneADSeven? Remember you are right!
Carry on!
This is an interesting change of pace considering your typical responses when it comes to being objective and speaking to specifics.
Tanix said:You are welcome to specify exactly where you think your argument is valid, but just generally referring to my comments without attending to any specifics is really just a failure to state, a very fallacious attempt to appear valid.
That is, come in and get dirty, speak to specifics, don't vaguely refer to others as being invalid with such general comments.
There is no discussion with you on the topics presented because you are here to "win" for your opinon, not defend a legitimate point in your premise.
The emerging pattern with you is that you find it easier to retreat to sarcastic one-line responses than attend to legitimate points that challenge your premise.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:Why are you arguing with me OneADSeven? Remember you are right!
Carry on!
This is an interesting change of pace considering your typical responses when it comes to being objective and speaking to specifics.
Tanix said:You are welcome to specify exactly where you think your argument is valid, but just generally referring to my comments without attending to any specifics is really just a failure to state, a very fallacious attempt to appear valid.
That is, come in and get dirty, speak to specifics, don't vaguely refer to others as being invalid with such general comments.
There is no discussion with you on the topics presented because you are here to "win" for your opinon, not defend a legitimate point in your premise.
The emerging pattern with you is that you find it easier to retreat to sarcastic one-line responses than attend to legitimate points that challenge your premise.
Nope, merely that you straw man my points and I have no desire to argue with you in a circle correcting your constant straw mans only to have to make them again.
Practice what you preach. I quoted you in context multiple times. Your spouting of misinformation and contradictions in logic and consistency aren't a strawman on my part. In any event, it'd be great if I didn't have to waste my time with you anymore so do me a favor and don't bother responding to my posts. Thank you!
oneADseven said:We all know that things won't exactly function "as presented." A ranger wouldn't need to weave in and out of combat to have a ranged advantage over monks/rogues in a fight where doing so might be considered too dangerous. This is the problem with applying blanket statements or assuming absolutes. Even when it does come to weaving in and out of combat, rangers will still have an advantage when it comes to jousting AoE attacks or persistent damage auras. They would be able to make good use of any tight jousting window by being able to dish out their close-range abilities before using an ability like Withdraw that helps them get back to a safe range where they won't necessarily see a drop in their damage like the other melee classes would.
If you could provide a source that suggests that rangers will be required to weave in and out of melee combat in order to achieve competitive DPS output, I'd like to see it. I'm not doubting that to be true (for absolute maximum damage) because I'm sure they will have melee cooldowns and resource generators that players will want to have maximum uptime on, but odds are that rangers will be able to exploit "tight windows" much better than traditional melee classes since only a portion of their kit is reliant on melee range. Their ability to do "lethal ranged damage" while traditional melee classes might see their damage fizzle out a bit is going to be a difference maker. Maybe this doesn't qualify as their "true specialization, as presented" but it seems pretty obvious that it will be an area where they offer high situational value.
Sources for Ranger needing to weave in and out of melee:
https://youtu.be/4vebn1AN6KY?t=1882 (also suggesting their lethal/big damage is going to be more packed into melee than ranged)
and
https://youtu.be/2FXXE4IWu6k?t=3116
Again, to me it just makes sense that (like every other class) a ranger would know and be prepared to perform all the things they are specially skilled in. Since bow use is such a big part of their vocation it would follow that they would have arrows and special enchantments/coatings all taken care of either just by default/passively or via various active abilities.
I don't believe there should be all sorts of different expendable arrows. Things like fire/ice/shock/etc arrows should just be abilities with cooldowns that the ranger can use or be things that apply or proc via use of arrow coatings. We can already see that ranger has glass arrows and silencing arrows as part of their kit, or are people seriously arguing that those should be removed and made into special expendable ammo? Gameplay and balance over realism for this please.
Iksar said:Again, to me it just makes sense that (like every other class) a ranger would know and be prepared to perform all the things they are specially skilled in. Since bow use is such a big part of their vocation it would follow that they would have arrows and special enchantments/coatings all taken care of either just by default/passively or via various active abilities.
I don't believe there should be all sorts of different expendable arrows. Things like fire/ice/shock/etc arrows should just be abilities with cooldowns that the ranger can use or be things that apply or proc via use of arrow coatings. We can already see that ranger has glass arrows and silencing arrows as part of their kit, or are people seriously arguing that those should be removed and made into special expendable ammo? Gameplay and balance over realism for this please.
Yep, that seems more like a logical approach, especially considering the history of what a ranger is in traditional fantasy lore (ie a melee/ranged druid/thief). It is logical then for the ranger to imbue their arrows with nature based effects. So, like you said, they use a base arrow and then imbue it with spells.
Regardless, I still think a ranger should have a limitation on how many arrows they can reasonably use in a given encounter so they are forced to balance the play and manage their resources.
I agree that gameplay is far more important than realism. I do like realism (it is why I am more of a Gygax fan over Arneson), but when it comes to realism, practical application as it concerns gameplay is key. If it is a decision between gameplay or realism, gameplay wins every day and twice on Sunday.
I was mostly thinking piercing/slashing/crushing arrowheads as far as what would be consumable since those are tied into basic attacks. Elemental enchantments or toxic coatings would make more sense as a limited duration buff. Things like Fiery/Silent Arrow would be an ability and those probably shouldn't require ammunition since they are already balanced around cooldowns and other potential resource costs.
As a big fan of traditional fantasy, table top games, and a player of alot of mmo's in the past. This decision should reflect a core direction the devs want to take the game. I like the idea of having ammunition, a secondary variable that the player has control over to influence his performance in the game. But the decision to go this route shouldn't be made in isolation, if having an infinite arrows is immersion breaking then so should equipment not breaking and taking damage or magic users not needing components. ( Most traditional fantasy casters required components of some sort, including most table top games. ) If these things aren't also going to be pursued then the extra effort required to obtain ammunition needs to be rewarded by other means such as superior dps or significant additional utility. Since I kinda of dislike the pay to win approach I'ld prefer either an "all in" approach and making everyone has supplies that need to be managed for adventuring, or an attitude that if 100s of giants over a few hours can beat on a shield and armor with massive 100lb weapons and it isn't a useless mangled mess, then always having arrows on hand isn't any more immersive breaking.
Now I've also noticed from what I can only assume are going to be caster mains, the pro ultra limited ammo crowd; that they shouldn't have to contend with components because of mana is their component. This to me at least is a silly argument. All classes have a resource that has to be managed as part of play. Not to mention most traditional fantasy including PnP spellcasting was both mentally fatiguing as well as requiring alot of prep including components. Furthermore casters have always been portrayed as the ones needing the most training, the most preperation, the most knowledge to master; so why is it that we feel the archer should feel the heaviest burdon. It doesn't make sense.
Now gear maintenance and component use like ammo if implemented should be something that adds more to the game rather just be a simple chore and sink. Higher grade repair tools might give a durational buff to the armor including certain effects and resistance modifiers. Using crummy cheap tools might break easier and leave armor and weapons with penalties while higher grade tools repair gear with a bonus and allow for gear to last longer before needing repairs again. Spells could have a burn chance where the more powerfull the spell being cast the more likely it is to burn through a component, but higher quality components are more resistant to burn. Higher quality components could also alter a spell makeing it more powerfull or changing it in some fashion such as additional projectiles, damage type, aoe size etc etc. For all of these additional skills can be implemented, such as allowing tools to be used up slower, making buffs last longer, makeing ammo salvage more likely, reducing burn chance of components etc. It also allows for a much more vibrant player economy, because all but the cheapest and most basic tools, components, or ammo should require some sort of work to obtain.
To sum it all up, if you want to implement this, try to do it well or don't do it. If it doesn't add to the experiance then it shouldn't be there.