Forums » The Ranger

What a ranger is - what a ranger is not...

    • 504 posts
    August 14, 2016 9:47 AM PDT

    How close is too close when using a bow?  Be realistic now - 3 feet?  2 feet?

    • 249 posts
    August 14, 2016 12:36 PM PDT

    Realistic?  Anything closer than 15-20 feet and an opponent would slit a bowman's throat before they had time to nock an arrow.  A bow isn't a short-range weapon.  I would agree that it would be cool if the ranger had an ability like pulling an arrow from his/her quiver and stabbing an apponent as a special short-range attack, but something like that should be a special attack and not the rule for close quarters combat.

     

     edit: spelling


    This post was edited by Elrandir at August 15, 2016 7:12 AM PDT
    • 192 posts
    August 15, 2016 4:19 AM PDT

    Nephretiti: Chenzeme - this actually sounds more like a warrior. 

    I understand where you are coming from, yes a good warrior does do the crowd control at close quarters, however they cannot be everywhere at once. If the warrior is busy with 3 or four mobs and one breaks away to charge a cloth role, then the last thing you want to see is a warrior running with his group towards the group member where aoes from the battle could easily hit that member. It is much better for the cloth dude or dudette to run to the tank (but this has the same aoe problem). I would suggest it is much better for a quick footed, decent armoured semi-ranged, semi-melee character to grab the offending enemy and take it to the tank. That way tank is happy that he is not running wild swords through the group. Cloths are happy they can sit and nuke, and rangers are running their butts off keeping things neat and tidy.

    So I would, respectfully say that it is a warriors role to soak up damage and to keep agro, but it shouldnt be their role to run around picking up loose mobs as this can cause lots of problems when his attention is diverted. Much better for a mobile role to do the fetching and carrying

     

    Elrandir: archery wasn't practical because there was no space to get range on targets without training your group.

    An archer class would be vunerable and difficult to get distances required to be effective, but isnt that the point? I dont think any class should feel safe in what they are doing. They should always be on the look out for strays and wanderers, etc. I just suggested the idea for a dedicated ranged projectile class as this does seem to be a preference for some people. Mine is definately a mix of melee and ranged (as long as it is easy to switch roles, otherwise I would just stick with the bendy stick). But a good "archer" could be a real boon to a group, a bad one would be a real handicap.

    Nefretiti: I am hoping to see more armor types in this game.  The four used now are Cloth, leather, chain, and plate (in order of their toughness).  There are a lot of other types out there - scale and bragadine just being two of them.

    I totally agree. I would even go further and say that combos would be great. I would love to have different types of armour on different parts of the body, chain on chest, leather on shoulders, cloth on arms, ets. I do realise that it would be difficult to balance pros and cons of the stats for this, but I would love to see it.

    Elrandir: At times like this, donning heavier armor and forgoing stealth abilites to focus on durability and melee prowess makes perfect sense.

    Agree. Also, I would like to see situational stealth come into play. I mean out doors, a ranger would have the edge on stealth and scouting, but indoors, a rogue would definately have an advantage. However I do realise that this might lead to situations where one role was prefered over another depending on the quest. I hate this. Good players should be able to make (most) groups be effective.

    There are so many great ideas on this thread. I love the idea of a special skill for using the arrow as a dagger. Really does make sense, but this should be a last resort. Maybe to cripple the mob to give time for a retreat to safer area.

    I just hope PRotF lives up to my wild expectations.

    Speaking of (unreasonable) expectations: I know this is slightly off thread, but.. I would love to see a game that was a totally open world with great crafting and no specified roles. Your skill choices and play style leading naturally to roles. I would love to see any armour type being used by anyone. I would love to see spells interact with each other and projectiles so enforcing or counteracting effects and damage. I would love to see fluid, moving battles, intelligent "living" mobs with their own wants and needs. I would love to see kingdoms at war and have the ability to sit on a hill and watch a battle unfold or join in if I so wished. I would love to see nomadic tribes with their own agendas, moving naturally from resource to resource. Having to track them down if I needed to interact with them. I want animals spawning in a more natural way, also with their own wants and needs, from food to procreation to survival. So when a population is decimated, it will remain decimated. I want mobs to die and stay dead and new mobs to rise is different areas. I want to be able to roam wherever I choose. Exploration, over level progression. Selective hunting over farming mobs, I want a realistic, borderless world where nature is in control and humans and other races are fighting for survival. Ah.. if only. I know this is waaaaay beyond what we can currently have in an MMO, but I can dream. :-) Anyone want to fund this? LOL!

     

     

     

     

     


    This post was edited by chenzeme at August 15, 2016 4:28 AM PDT
    • 249 posts
    August 15, 2016 7:52 AM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    Speaking of (unreasonable) expectations: I know this is slightly off thread, but.. I would love to see a game that was a totally open world with great crafting and no specified roles. Your skill choices and play style leading naturally to roles. I would love to see any armour type being used by anyone. I would love to see spells interact with each other and projectiles so enforcing or counteracting effects and damage. I would love to see fluid, moving battles, intelligent "living" mobs with their own wants and needs. I would love to see kingdoms at war and have the ability to sit on a hill and watch a battle unfold or join in if I so wished. I would love to see nomadic tribes with their own agendas, moving naturally from resource to resource. Having to track them down if I needed to interact with them. I want animals spawning in a more natural way, also with their own wants and needs, from food to procreation to survival. So when a population is decimated, it will remain decimated. I want mobs to die and stay dead and new mobs to rise is different areas. I want to be able to roam wherever I choose. Exploration, over level progression. Selective hunting over farming mobs, I want a realistic, borderless world where nature is in control and humans and other races are fighting for survival. Ah.. if only. I know this is waaaaay beyond what we can currently have in an MMO, but I can dream. :-) Anyone want to fund this? LOL!

     

    This sounds like it would be a pretty amazing game.

     

    I think much of this may be acheivable in Pantheon.  Some minor tweeks to how some skills and modifiers work could add a lot more realism to the game.  For instance: if each armor piece had two stats: {noise} and {encumbrance} then default values could be assigned to each stat depending on the armor type.  For the {noise} stat, it could look something like:

    - cloth  <-- 0

    - leather <-- 1

    - chain <-- 2

    - plate <-- 3

    Now say there are 8 primary armor slots (helm, chest, arms, wrist x2, gloves, leggings, boots).  Someone decked out in all leather would have a total noise rating of 8.  Then skills could be given appropriate thressholds for use--so abilities like sneak or hide might have a thresshold of 10.  A ranger would then need to be decked out in primarily leather to have those skills available to them.  An additional level of realism could be added by making small modifiers to the equation for the noise rating depending on the skill that was being used.  For sneaking, say, the type of boots you're wearing might be extra important, so the equation could be calculated as 3 x feet + 1 x everything else.  All leather would then give you a noise rating of 10, but a pair of chain boots would kick that up to 13, over the thresshold for the sneak skill.

     

    Similarly, specific skills might depend on only certain armor slots.  Archery, for instance, could depend on the encumbrance ratings of wrists, gloves, and helm.  Some sword skills may depend on the encumbrance of the arms slot, and so on.

     

    Not only would this add more realism to skills and abilities, but it would open up alternate pathways to advancement in both skills and gear acquisition.  For instance, there could be magical elven chain that provides the protection and look of chain, but only has the noise rating of leather or cloth.  Or there could be AA's for classes that allow them to raise the thressholds for different skills so they have a little more leeway in armor selection when deciding what skills they want to have available to them.

     

    • 504 posts
    August 16, 2016 10:11 AM PDT

    Elrandir said:

    Realistic?  Anything closer than 15-20 feet and an opponent would slit a bowman's throat before they had time to nock an arrow.  A bow isn't a short-range weapon.  I would agree that it would be cool if the ranger had an ability like pulling an arrow from his/her quiver and stabbing an apponent as a special short-range attack, but something like that should be a special attack and not the rule for close quarters combat.

     

     edit: spelling

    Even realistically speaking you are way off base.  20 to 30 feet?  I think you need to reference a number of peoples before making such a claim.  The native Americans (I am part Muscalero) were way more talented than that.  The horde of Ghanghes Khan was nothing short of amazing.  The bowmen in feudal Japan would be amazing to you as well.  The English (or Welsh) long bow was the most dominant weapon for three hundred years.  Now THOSE were a little harder to rapid fire, but the short bow of the steppes?  Fired a lot faster.

    • 249 posts
    August 16, 2016 6:43 PM PDT

    I stand by my statement.  You close to doubled the effective minimum range I gave (15'-20').  I challenge you to give me a credible reference to any warriors throughout history that used a bow as a weapon of choice at ranges closer than that.  A bow is far too unweildy a weapon to use in close range combat.

     

     

    • 504 posts
    August 17, 2016 7:23 AM PDT

    Google Lars Anderson - a new level of Archery.  Debate over.

    • 249 posts
    August 17, 2016 9:27 AM PDT

    Lars Anderson is an impressive trick-shooter, but the low draw-weight bows he uses for those stunts wouldn't penetrate even the most basic of armor.  Beyond that, as shown in the video that Kayo linked in the "War Archer" thread, little of what Lars presents in his video has any historical accuracy.  If you do some reading up on the history of the use of archery you'll see that it was seldom (if ever) used as a precision weapon, and was instead used for volleys at ranges far, far beyond anything we're discussing here (distances exceeding 200 yards).  The short bow was phased out after advances in armor left them unable to have any practical impact on the enemy.  They were replaced by long bows and crossbows that could fire larger, heavier arrows or bolts capable of generating the momentum needed to pierce armor.

     

    In reality, even the 15-20' that I site above is laughably close to be using a bow against a skilled opponent.  I was only basing that loosely off of the 21' rule used in law enforcement which says that a person with a blade can travel up to about 21' before an unsuspecting officer would have time to draw and fire their weapon (despite the controversies over the rule's implementation, no one seems to be disputing the accuracy of the initial research).

     

    While the bow is an excellent tool for hunting, (ie one, maybe two shots fired on an unsuspecting target) the idea of someone standing at close range and repeatedly firing arrows into a fast moving target is pretty absurd.

     

    I think EQ had it closer to right early on, before auto-fire, endless quiver and all the increased damage AA's.  I would much prefer to see the bow be used as an appropriate tool than the 'defacto weapon' for the ranger class.  The bow and arrow should be used more as a hunting/pulling tool, the arrows should do large amounts of damage, and special effects could be added to give the class flavor.  For instance, instead of the magical 'snare' ability rangers had in EQ, they could have a 'hamstring' ability where they shoot a target in the leg and leave them unable to flee.

     

     

    • 109 posts
    August 17, 2016 11:11 AM PDT

    Sabatour said:

    Ranger does not mean ranged combat. 

    Two handed weapon ranger should be just as viable a weapon choice as a short, long or crossbow. 

     

    I could not agree more.  I dont want a Legolas archer type of a ranger.  My ranger will use a 2hander for heavy melee damage,  low-level druid spells and will use the bow on occasion.  That is how I geared and played my EQ1 ranger.

    • 504 posts
    August 17, 2016 12:20 PM PDT

    Trick shooting?  Yes.  But it proves the point that you CAN rapidly fire a bow several times before your oponent gets "within range of cutting your throat".  Lars isn't using a bow created in Pantheon.  He isn't using poisons either.  He isn't using skills and abilities to offset an advancing oponents ability to close with either.  Don't get too caught up with reality.  We are discussing an MMO.  Reality proves you can fire off a bow several times in a very short amount of time.  The short bows were most effective in the hands of cavalry or like minded individuals.  Native Americans still used them towards the end of the 1800's - and they were very effective (I'd say ask Custer - but we all know what happened to him) - especially while moving.  Notice the amount of armor worn by Custer's Cavalry.  It was pretty much not mentionable.  It was cloth for the most part.  The reason plate mail stopped being used was because the protection it offered was a HUGE detriment to movement.  So if a ranger was using a bow in Pantheon, I bet he'd get off quite a few shots before some irond-clad full plat-wearing warrior got too close.

    Please.  Quit trying to trivialize Bow-use for rangers.  If you want to be a warrior with a bow - go be a warrior with a bow.

    • 249 posts
    August 17, 2016 12:36 PM PDT

    I'm not trying to trivialize the bow for rangers, I'm trying to prevent the FALSE representation that it's somehow the cornerstone of the ranger class (it is not). Regardless of how the class has been portrayed in some games, early EQ had a much more accurate representation of the original class and I hope that we see that return in Pantheon. If there are enough archery skills in game that someone can play their toon specifically as an archer, then fine. That's great! But that shouldn't come at the expense of the 'two handed sword, ranger,' or the 'dual weilding axe, ranger,' or even the 'chain-wearing, sword and shield, ranger.' All of which (and more) are appropriate playstyles for the ranger class, and the version of the ranger that would do the most justice to the class would have the ability to assume any of these playstyles in the appropriate context.


    This post was edited by Elrandir at August 17, 2016 12:37 PM PDT
    • 101 posts
    August 18, 2016 2:30 PM PDT

    I think ranger is a good opportunity to add a 'ranged melee' class.  So I think the ranger class should be balanced around the bow and arrow. 

     

    Regarding the problem which occurs in MMOs when the enemy gets right on top of you.. give the ranger the ability to use short swords and daggers, but the ranger should prefer to root/snare/dodge or lose aggro somehow and return to ranged attacks, as opposed to standing close and use swords.

     

    The ranger could be 'created' in game very similar to a caster, just give him bow and arrow animations instead of casting animations.  Of course, add sweet effects to the arrow shots to distinguish different types of shots, or different arrow types, or magic imbued shots, etc.  Give him basic hybrid spells as well which match the class.

     

    And then also give them all those other non-combat abilities like tracking and sneak or awareness, etc.


    This post was edited by Defector at August 18, 2016 2:31 PM PDT
    • 192 posts
    August 20, 2016 9:59 AM PDT

    I love debate! From what I am reading, there are two clear ideas that a ranger should be able to do. Ranged with minimal melee or mixed and balanced between melee and ranged. Maybe (as I said before) there should be two "Ranger" type classes, one for range heavy, one for a range/melee mixture, then you can choose which way you want to take your character.

    Personally I would love to see a mixture, but have an expertise for a weapon type of your choice ( from bow/crossbow(?)/axe/dual wield/double handed/sword and shield), so you can choose the most appropriate for your play style. Failing that, then I am thinking there should be two lines to choose from.

    I think without either two types of "Ranger" or choosing a specialist weapon will see one side of the argument never be happy.

    • 249 posts
    August 20, 2016 12:36 PM PDT

    chenzeme said:

    I love debate! From what I am reading, there are two clear ideas that a ranger should be able to do. Ranged with minimal melee or mixed and balanced between melee and ranged. Maybe (as I said before) there should be two "Ranger" type classes, one for range heavy, one for a range/melee mixture, then you can choose which way you want to take your character.

    Personally I would love to see a mixture, but have an expertise for a weapon type of your choice ( from bow/crossbow(?)/axe/dual wield/double handed/sword and shield), so you can choose the most appropriate for your play style. Failing that, then I am thinking there should be two lines to choose from.

    I think without either two types of "Ranger" or choosing a specialist weapon will see one side of the argument never be happy.

     

    I tend to agree with you, and I don't see any reason why we can't have both in Pantheon.  It sounds like we're going to be gaining abilities by tracking down trainers throughout the game world.  Hopefully there will be enough of them out there that if someone wants to play the archer, they can seek out the appropriate trainers for archery related skills and if someone wants to be a swordsman they just seek out a different set of trainers.

     

    One thing I would love to see is more variance in archery.  Instead of having just a single 'archery' skill, break it up into 'short bow,' 'long bow' and 'crossbow' (really hoping for crossbows in Pantheon).  Then have them each perform differently:

     -- Short bows - This would be the weapon of choice for the Legolas style abilities.  Lower damage, but rapid firing and a shorter minimum range.

     -- Longbows - High damage, long range, maybe with a special dmg bonus vs large or armored targets

     -- Crossbows - Massive damage and massive hate generation, but too slow to reload during fights.  Sort of a pulling or finishing off tool, or something you use when you really want to get a mobs attention.

     

    Other classes could then have flavor appropriate abilities and skill-caps with the different weapon-types too.  Rogues might have certain 'assassination' type abilities with the short or long bow.  The plate tanks might be good with the crossbows, as they don't require the same degree of maneuverability.


    • 192 posts
    August 21, 2016 10:14 AM PDT

    I really like the idea of weapon specialisation, but there is one thing that bothers me. In my many years of MMOs it has shown me that groups and raids tend to specify exactly what roles were required for a group, even down to traits and/or skills and equipment, otherwise they were not intrested. This (imo) shows a high degree of selfishness. Yes I know, it makes it easier to take down a mob, but not for the excluded. Specialist weapon skills (or specialist skill sets of any kind) if not implemented in a balanced way, will cause this to happen here too.

    Dont get me wrong, I dont know what the answer is except being very careful with balancing but I would hate to be in a game that forced players down a route to be able to progress at the expense of their full enjoyment.

    Yes, give me specialist skills; no dont force me to be a cookie cut character.

    • 44 posts
    August 30, 2016 3:24 PM PDT

    I admit I had to groan a bit when I read Brad saying the ranger would probably not equal a monk or rogue's DPS. I had flashbacks of being the single most undesired class, mechanically the absolute worst at any role they could try to fill. Being, once again, the worst by design is worrying... but we'll just have to see, won't we?

    A key word in the class description so far is "versatile" - I would hope that the ranger, if we are going to be the lowest out of the DPS classes, has defenses among the highest of those classes. There is not much utility you could give us that could compete with the power of Feign Death or the myriad of rogue skills, after all.

    More likely, the versatility refers to their fighting style - being able to fight both at range and up close. Sadly, that kind of versatility has, in the past, not proven to be more valuable than simply putting out competitive damage, save perhaps for a few oddball encounters, where you would shine for once.

    I'm sure we'll see a mixture of ranged and melee.  Look at EQ1; the ranger was a melee fighter with powerful and iconic abilities like Weaponshield, but the bow had its place once she hit 50+, particularly using Trueshot. Look at the Vanguard ranger who had a plethora of close combat abilities (Blade of Winter/Equinox and impressive parrying) and definitely belonged in the thick of the melee. And for Pantheon, just look at the class icon - twin swords front and center.

    This does seem to be the obvious thing to do with regards to ranger "paths" or specialization - archery focus or melee focus. I'm all for it, but it is indeed not an easy thing to balance.

    I do hope to see a very limited selection of "divine" magic, it is just too classic to discard.

    • 270 posts
    December 7, 2016 4:39 PM PST
    Sounds like we're getting an eq1 version ranger with pets

    RANGER
    In untamed regions, the Ranger is a versatile and ferocious warrior, united with the land and animals he communes with.
    • 4336 posts
    December 9, 2016 6:43 AM PST

    Ashvaild said: Sounds like we're getting an eq1 version ranger with pets RANGER In untamed regions, the Ranger is a versatile and ferocious warrior, united with the land and animals he communes with.

    Brad said in his AMA that Rangers will not be required to have pets (ie WoW). However, we can assume that they will have a good ability to charm animals that they find.

    • 101 posts
    December 9, 2016 2:46 PM PST

    I have always felt that a ranger is a jack of all but a master of none.  Fantasy novels always depict rangers as master swordsman with some having excellence with a bow.  With Pantheon going the route of using animals, I can see us somewhat as an EQ beastlord and WoW hunter type of hybrid.  Whatever VR chooses for the class, being relavant is probably most important.  The years in EQ where the ranger was often looked over for just about any other DPS was brutal.  We don't need to be the highest DPS, since I'm prettyy sure that's what our role will be, but we shouldn't be looked over because our DPS is laughable.  If you old school rangers remember, it was really tough for us to play the class we loved because we were basically snarers or raid DT eaters. 

     

    EQ live has rangers in a good niche currently.  A group geared ranger can tank with the right AA in a group setting while a raid geared ranger can tank all but bosses.  We have great utility with CC, snares, group attack buffs, great pulling abilities, and good DPS with melee and decent ranged DPS.  I wouldn't mind something along those lines as a Pantheon ranger, but I'll take pretty much anything as long as I am relavent to group and raid content.

    I was dedicated to the ranger class in EQ and will be the same in Pantheon, unless they make rangers into some monstrosity that makes baby evles cry haha.

    • 198 posts
    December 11, 2016 6:12 AM PST

    What ranger is not is an archer. The word ranger has little to do with ranged combat, it means warden and police of nature. Doing things like caring for the forest and stopping poachers.
    So let us try and figure something out from this definition of ranger.

    Weaponry. What kind of weapons would they carry? I would argue that as protectors of said land and the risk of running in to both criminals and wild animals but also having to move through wilderness a lot my suggested list is as follows: 1h-swords, 1h-axes, staves, spears (A staff or spear can double up as walking stick), bows(The duty of hunting down certain animals is also that of a ranger), buckler(Sword and buckler were one of the most popular combinations during the middle ages when traveling for its ease of carry).

    Armour. Being a ranger can be a dangerous job with the risk of running into wild animals that can hurt you pretty bad or poachers willing to fight over it, but they would also need something light enough to be able have the mobility of working and wandering in the wilderness. What I suggest: Cloth(This is usually thought of as wizard robes but cloth armour such as gambesons were extremely popular since ancient times up to modern days), Leather, Chain(Another widely popular and effective armour from history).

    Skills. Except that of combat I think that the skills of a ranged would entail: Tracking, Trapping, Survival, Hunting.

    Those were some quick throught from me about the ranger. Cheers folks!

     

    //Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie

    • 270 posts
    December 12, 2016 9:10 PM PST

    I think (hope) you nailed it. if Rangers can indeed charm animals as pets, they may be a viable soloing class. I would love decent ranged and melee abilities, combined with a pet. Mix in the survival/environmental spells and that combo would give me the ability to really explore terminus like i want to. 

     

    Rangers are the wardens of nature, not pure archers. wish the whole master of the bow thing would die. theyre more of a scout than an archer. 


    This post was edited by Ashvaild at December 12, 2016 9:11 PM PST
    • 54 posts
    January 29, 2017 2:55 PM PST

    I'd like a ranger whose abilities actually encourage to switch between ranged and melee, instead of favoring one range. You'd have melee attacks that set up strong ranged attacks and vice versa. Make his versatililty non-optional :-)

    • 474 posts
    February 1, 2017 7:48 AM PST

    Youmu said:

    What ranger is not is an archer. The word ranger has little to do with ranged combat, it means warden and police of nature. Doing things like caring for the forest and stopping poachers.
    So let us try and figure something out from this definition of ranger.

    I've said this before in the dozen or so threads this has been debated in.

    The Ranger is a roaming protector, by definition. That is where the name comes from.

    BUT, due to the Ranger's lifestyle of roaming his homeland protecting it where he can would see that person inherently become above averagely talented with a bow. They would relay on the bow for hunting and basic survival. The bow is THE weapon for hunting. Traps don't always yeild results, but an arrow to the heart will. It would mean that the person would either learn the use of a bow beyond what most people who stay to towns and such would.

    That said, the Ranger would not have to be pure ranged combat. The bow is not a good close quarter combat weapon. Period. Regardless of trick shooters and what you see in the movies. That is not realistic in any sense. Using that as an arguement is silly. 

    This is a FANTASY game. There is magic. It is called suspention of disbalief. In this world there are some who can become so skilled with the bow that they can effectively use it in close combat.

    The Ranger is a combat specialist and protector of his realm. How he chooses to do that, whether it be by bow, sword, shovel doesn't and shouldn't matter. 

    No one should be forced into something they do not want to do. I want to use the bow as my primary weapon. If I am forced to do otherwise I will not enjoy the class. I'm sure that many people feel the reverse, and thats perfectly fine. Hopefully the combat system will allow for the use of many different types of weapons and not lock any class into a specific weapon type without a VERY good reason (Rogues can't backstab with a club for instance).

     

    • 101 posts
    February 1, 2017 8:48 AM PST

    ^^ agreed

     

    Some people want to be Legolas.  The ranger should have a skill path option for those people.

     

    The bow option should be balanced with the melee option.

    • 1179 posts
    February 1, 2017 10:40 AM PST

    If they stick with their specialization plan from two years ago that was based on colored mana, I could see Rangers having a bow path with abilities that use one color and a melee path with abilities that use another color.  You wouldn't be locked into one path or the other.  You'd decide whether you want to use a bow or use melee (or both) by which equipment you are wearing/using and which abilities you have memorized.