Forums » The Ranger

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

    • 243 posts
    November 4, 2017 2:47 PM PDT

    Jfed said: I'd have a hard time seeing rangers being completely archers. I think that should be their primary damage. But they need some sort of melee ability. Maybe a weapon shield like ability with a long reuse to short term tank. If rangers aren't going to be shooting to be a top damage class, the question does remain. What do they bring to the group then. I saw this struggle with eq2 with so many classes. So you had brigand and swashbuckler that had physical and offensive debuffs. If you go do that road it still gets messy as raids would still just have 1 of that class to debuffs and the rest just high damage classes or other classes that add more on a group level. The only thing I could come up with is some sort of group buff for a rangers group. Like a short term dmg increase or proc. Maybe a reduction to resistances or ac. But just for the rangers group not raidwide. I'm just brainstorming, nothing well thought out. If top damage ,pulling , off tanking aren't a rangers thing there will have to be something to give them pull for groups.

     

    I personally wouldn't look to EQ2 as a template for what the Pantheon ranger is likely to be.  As far as I know, EQ and Vanguard are the main games that Pantheon is drawing inspiration from.  In EQ rangers weren't even all that great at dps in the early days.  They were a light tank that traded defense for a lot of utility.  Archery was just a pulling tool and our nukes weren't worth the cast time unless you were weaving casts in between a really high delay 2-hander.

     

    That said, I never had much trouble finding a group:

       - every group needed a snarer

       - we could pull in many situations with harmony

       - tracking was a great perk in many zones

       - we were great for off-tanking and root-parking adds.

     

    A lot of the issues for the class came in the raid setting, where most if not all of our utility was lost.  I agree that boosting others might be a nice way to increase the classes desirability, but I personally wouldn't want to see the ranger turned into a buffing class.  Just spit-balling ideas here, but one idea could be to leverage the defensive target feature:

     

    If ranger abilities had a similiar though reduced effect on their defensive target, it could make for a variety of nice boons.  As an example, say the ranger had a defensive ability that let them parry 25% of oncoming attacks for 30 seconds.  If their defensive target was the group's tank and the ranger decided to use this ability, the tank might see a 5% increase in parry rate for the duration of the ability.  If an offensive ability increased damage output for x amount of time for the ranger, and the ranger's defensive target was the group's rogue, then the rogue would see an enhanced offensive output for the duration of the ability.  With a system like this, the ranger would have to actively manage their defensive targets and ability usage to maximize their effectiveness.  In a raid setting, a tank group would want a ranger to help boost the tank's performance and in a dps group the ranger could selectivily enhance a group-member's damage output.  It would also tie in the idea that rangers take others under their wing and act as protectors and mentors.

     

    • 122 posts
    November 5, 2017 8:15 AM PST

    Elrandir said:

    Jfed said: I'd have a hard time seeing rangers being completely archers. I think that should be their primary damage. But they need some sort of melee ability. Maybe a weapon shield like ability with a long reuse to short term tank. If rangers aren't going to be shooting to be a top damage class, the question does remain. What do they bring to the group then. I saw this struggle with eq2 with so many classes. So you had brigand and swashbuckler that had physical and offensive debuffs. If you go do that road it still gets messy as raids would still just have 1 of that class to debuffs and the rest just high damage classes or other classes that add more on a group level. The only thing I could come up with is some sort of group buff for a rangers group. Like a short term dmg increase or proc. Maybe a reduction to resistances or ac. But just for the rangers group not raidwide. I'm just brainstorming, nothing well thought out. If top damage ,pulling , off tanking aren't a rangers thing there will have to be something to give them pull for groups.

     

    I personally wouldn't look to EQ2 as a template for what the Pantheon ranger is likely to be.  As far as I know, EQ and Vanguard are the main games that Pantheon is drawing inspiration from.  In EQ rangers weren't even all that great at dps in the early days.  They were a light tank that traded defense for a lot of utility.  Archery was just a pulling tool and our nukes weren't worth the cast time unless you were weaving casts in between a really high delay 2-hander.

     

    That said, I never had much trouble finding a group:

       - every group needed a snarer

       - we could pull in many situations with harmony

       - tracking was a great perk in many zones

       - we were great for off-tanking and root-parking adds.

     

    A lot of the issues for the class came in the raid setting, where most if not all of our utility was lost.  I agree that boosting others might be a nice way to increase the classes desirability, but I personally wouldn't want to see the ranger turned into a buffing class.  Just spit-balling ideas here, but one idea could be to leverage the defensive target feature:

     

    If ranger abilities had a similiar though reduced effect on their defensive target, it could make for a variety of nice boons.  As an example, say the ranger had a defensive ability that let them parry 25% of oncoming attacks for 30 seconds.  If their defensive target was the group's tank and the ranger decided to use this ability, the tank might see a 5% increase in parry rate for the duration of the ability.  If an offensive ability increased damage output for x amount of time for the ranger, and the ranger's defensive target was the group's rogue, then the rogue would see an enhanced offensive output for the duration of the ability.  With a system like this, the ranger would have to actively manage their defensive targets and ability usage to maximize their effectiveness.  In a raid setting, a tank group would want a ranger to help boost the tank's performance and in a dps group the ranger could selectivily enhance a group-member's damage output.  It would also tie in the idea that rangers take others under their wing and act as protectors and mentors.

     

    Really nice feedback and ideas guys. I'm not entirely sure how or what to specifically give them (honestly there are a lot of viable options), but I love that parry idea; not that the numbers and %s are perfect but I think you're on the right track for sure. As you mentioned it would enhance more than just our tanking ability, which would require a ranger in each group containing a tank on raids; I'm definitely impressed. 

    I sincerely don't mean to be a biggot or nitpick, but I suppose I just feel strongly about class imbalances and just wanted to add a couple responses to the list you made about our grouping strengths:

    -every group needed a snarer, but there were many classes that actually got a snare, and then many of the ones that didn't had pets that could snare (I remember being sad/confused when I realized other classes got snare AND something better than our SoW; I felt useless because of this like 30-60ish)

    -harmony could only be cast outdoors and had high resistance checks against normal mobs, and raid mobs were immune to it (additionally it didn't work on a lot of random NPCs if they were too high level)

    -track was priceless for helping people with epics and npc locations, but in the best/popular dungeons, I'd honestly say about 85% of the the time by the time you cleared over to the named you tracked, another group will have already killed it or another group is already at that camp farming and about to pull it.

    -lower levels we may have been able to tank (I can't remember), but at end game I just know you needed to be raid geared to off tank (apart from the 10ish second WS we got every hour) without draining the healer and forcing a 7 minute med break after each pull. Our root was definitely useful in a group when it wasn't resisted though other classes had a similar function for that as well (and was it me or did our root feel as if it had a high resistance check? I can't remember how many second intervals the root ticked for a res. check, but I just remember having to spam it pretty often if I wanted the mob to be reliably secure, which presented problems in itself with aggro and mana management)

    Just being objective with the list and responses; it isn't personal in any way and I don't mean to deter anyone from posting. I'm probably just a bit more biased toward class balance because of the highly competitive guild I was in and the theory crafting values of the ranger compared to others across various games, but I want viable options when choosing my class in Pantheon (would love to be able to roll this class and not have to worry about the "gar" nicknames/jokes and general class stigmas that go along with it being a weaker jack of all trades).

    Kilsin has on countless occasions referred to VG's mechanics/abilities in response to various topics on the dev forums, so they're definitely consulting those older templates (DnD, EQ1 VG) if for no other reason than to see what they have done, how effective/balanced it was, and what options are on the table to innovate/expand upon said designs, so hopefully they can take everything into account and give us something a little more impactful/unique this time around. In my opinion, they were really close with their design in VG . I'd be happy with a little more effective stances and then just replacing the raid debuff with something that just "feels better" for lack of a better explanation...Your ideas are honestly a really great starting point for a new design. Something to strengthen the tanks abilities with our own, or something similar to strenghten ourselves along with the group would definitely make us a more viable pick in groups and especially in raids.

    • 32 posts
    November 5, 2017 11:40 AM PST
    I think it's very important to use eq2 as a compairison. There were a lot of things that were complete failures as a departure from eq/van but I feel there were some very useful advances as well. I think rangers increasing any defensive ability really won't make the class any more desirable. Also that makes rangers only desirable in a raid setting in the main tank group. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, I think it would fit with the class. I just struggle to see what would make people not necessarily need a ranger but not pass them up for other classes that bring more damage or more group benifit. I think something like snaring fleeing mobs and maybe a harmony like ability not limited to outdoors would be a good start. I think there is room in setup to make rangers an alternate option puller to monk. It would depend as well on what bard is able to do as well. Now that sort of thing helps us in groups. I think the hardest thing will be finding a raid purpose. Rangers pulling couldn't compete with FD pulls on raids. A defensive increase might get one ranger in a MT group. Is that going to feel very meaningful? I still lean towards something to help other classes with damage. Like maybe an armor breaking arrow shot that gives next magic or melee attack a crit or more damage. A lot is hard to speculate until we see what all other classes are able to do.
    • 122 posts
    November 5, 2017 2:38 PM PST

    Jfed said: I think it's very important to use eq2 as a compairison. There were a lot of things that were complete failures as a departure from eq/van but I feel there were some very useful advances as well. I think rangers increasing any defensive ability really won't make the class any more desirable. Also that makes rangers only desirable in a raid setting in the main tank group. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, I think it would fit with the class. I just struggle to see what would make people not necessarily need a ranger but not pass them up for other classes that bring more damage or more group benifit. I think something like snaring fleeing mobs and maybe a harmony like ability not limited to outdoors would be a good start. I think there is room in setup to make rangers an alternate option puller to monk. It would depend as well on what bard is able to do as well. Now that sort of thing helps us in groups. I think the hardest thing will be finding a raid purpose. Rangers pulling couldn't compete with FD pulls on raids. A defensive increase might get one ranger in a MT group. Is that going to feel very meaningful? I still lean towards something to help other classes with damage. Like maybe an armor breaking arrow shot that gives next magic or melee attack a crit or more damage. A lot is hard to speculate until we see what all other classes are able to do.

     

    I agree. If I had to choose a buff style ability, I think an offensive one of some kind would be more appropriate. Seems a little more natural for a ranger than a defensive centric bonus. If I had complete free reign I'd give us a true pulling mechanism to compete with FD pulling. There are a variety of reasons, but most importantly there isn't any rival to the pulling potential of FD, whereas every other class has an opposing class who can equally perform said function, so that there are always 2 options (e.g. cleric/shammy for heals, war/sk tank, rogue/wiz dps etc). It just makes sense for holistic balance of classes while simultaneously solving the overarching dominance of FD pulling.

    • 243 posts
    November 5, 2017 2:56 PM PST

    Zuljan said:

    Jfed said: I think it's very important to use eq2 as a compairison. There were a lot of things that were complete failures as a departure from eq/van but I feel there were some very useful advances as well. I think rangers increasing any defensive ability really won't make the class any more desirable. Also that makes rangers only desirable in a raid setting in the main tank group. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, I think it would fit with the class. I just struggle to see what would make people not necessarily need a ranger but not pass them up for other classes that bring more damage or more group benifit. I think something like snaring fleeing mobs and maybe a harmony like ability not limited to outdoors would be a good start. I think there is room in setup to make rangers an alternate option puller to monk. It would depend as well on what bard is able to do as well. Now that sort of thing helps us in groups. I think the hardest thing will be finding a raid purpose. Rangers pulling couldn't compete with FD pulls on raids. A defensive increase might get one ranger in a MT group. Is that going to feel very meaningful? I still lean towards something to help other classes with damage. Like maybe an armor breaking arrow shot that gives next magic or melee attack a crit or more damage. A lot is hard to speculate until we see what all other classes are able to do.

     

    I agree. If I had to choose a buff style ability, I think an offensive one of some kind would be more appropriate. Seems a little more natural for a ranger than a defensive centric bonus. If I had complete free reign I'd give us a true pulling mechanism to compete with FD pulling. There are a variety of reasons, but most importantly there isn't any rival to the pulling potential of FD, whereas every other class has an opposing class who can equally perform said function, so that there are always 2 options (e.g. cleric/shammy for heals, war/sk tank, rogue/wiz dps etc). It just makes sense for holistic balance of classes while simultaneously solving the overarching dominance of FD pulling.

     

    I was actually suggesting having those sorts of side effects with both our offensive and defensive abilities.  The ranger should have a healthy mix of both since they are first and foremost a fighter class.  The general idea was to be able to select a group member to augment using the defensive targeting system.  Two advantages to this would be:

      1)  It's semi-passive.  The ranger would still play like a fighter class, and not a bard, shaman or other buffing class.

      2)  It could provide larger boosts than what you'd expect from something like a bard song, since it would only impact one other player and not the entire group.

      3)  It means that a ranger by themself could still be the light-tank, light-dps sort of class that it was originally, but the added boost they could provide in group/raid settings would offset the inherrent shortcomings that come along with that.

     

    • 440 posts
    November 5, 2017 10:45 PM PST

    The reason rangers in various games aren't allowed to have good DPS/cc/support is because of their utility, mainly being able to switch between melee and ranged equally, and also wear heavier armor at the same time.

    Sure Aragorn can, but Pantheon is not being made by Tolkien, nor is Pantheon any of those other places you have seen rangers.

    If you take out ranger's ability to do particularly well in melee, then suddenly you have all this space for rangers to do other things;

    1. Actually strong ranged physical DPS (a role which is not yet filled)
    2. CC (I think this one would fit really well with a class who specializes in nature, especially since enchanters are currently the only official CC class)
    3. tracking
    4. Befriending/weakening animals
    5. Nature based damage/spellcasting
    6. Tank/group support abilities (like the ones in DnD where you fire arrows that distract enemies, allowing a dodge or parry, or disrupt ranged attacks). (This fills the physical "counterspell" mechanic in an interesting way).
    7. Interesting hit and run abilities. (monk and probably enchanter are the only pullers that I know of so far). 

    All of the above will make you much more desirable in groups/raids than being able to switch between melee and ranged seemlessly to fit the situation, (particularly when it comes in exchange for doing less support/cc/dps than the other guys).

     

    The ranged/melee ranger has repeatedly not worked in games. It's too versatile. Game creators are rightly afraid to give it anything unique or even on par, because when they do, it breaks the game.

    Make Ranger a unique class. Make it do whatever it does well, instead of whatever other classes do less than well (or as well, thus making ranger extremely op).

     

    P.S. I highly doubt that, with paladins/dire lords/monks/warriors in the tank mix already, ranger would find much space in groups as tanks or even off tanks. Why not take the physical glass cannon route instead?

    Balanced, unique classes get groups. Bad hybrids built based on various past fantasy stories/games do not. 


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at November 5, 2017 11:12 PM PST
    • 32 posts
    November 6, 2017 5:50 AM PST

    Zuljan said:

    Jfed said: I think it's very important to use eq2 as a compairison. There were a lot of things that were complete failures as a departure from eq/van but I feel there were some very useful advances as well. I think rangers increasing any defensive ability really won't make the class any more desirable. Also that makes rangers only desirable in a raid setting in the main tank group. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, I think it would fit with the class. I just struggle to see what would make people not necessarily need a ranger but not pass them up for other classes that bring more damage or more group benifit. I think something like snaring fleeing mobs and maybe a harmony like ability not limited to outdoors would be a good start. I think there is room in setup to make rangers an alternate option puller to monk. It would depend as well on what bard is able to do as well. Now that sort of thing helps us in groups. I think the hardest thing will be finding a raid purpose. Rangers pulling couldn't compete with FD pulls on raids. A defensive increase might get one ranger in a MT group. Is that going to feel very meaningful? I still lean towards something to help other classes with damage. Like maybe an armor breaking arrow shot that gives next magic or melee attack a crit or more damage. A lot is hard to speculate until we see what all other classes are able to do.

     

    I agree. If I had to choose a buff style ability, I think an offensive one of some kind would be more appropriate. Seems a little more natural for a ranger than a defensive centric bonus. If I had complete free reign I'd give us a true pulling mechanism to compete with FD pulling. There are a variety of reasons, but most importantly there isn't any rival to the pulling potential of FD, whereas every other class has an opposing class who can equally perform said function, so that there are always 2 options (e.g. cleric/shammy for heals, war/sk tank, rogue/wiz dps etc). It just makes sense for holistic balance of classes while simultaneously solving the overarching dominance of FD pulling.

    I'm all for that too. I don't see why there isn't room for another pulling class. It would have to be balanced to be just as dangerous as fd pulling. But I think for grouping that would help rangers a lot. Now on the raid side of things, I mained a brigand in eq2 for 7 years. Now I know no one wants to use that game as a template but it did have a good idea. Brigand had an ability "dispatch" that took a large chunk of resistances and ac down for 13 secs. It was on a minute recast so it wasnt too overpowered. The whole raid would wait to see that ability go to launch all their heavy hits. I don't think some thing like that would be completely out of character for rangers ,no matter if you are on team melee or team ranged for rangers. It could be a melee or arrow attack. It would have to be balanced to not require a ranger for raids but still be benifitial enough that your dps would like one or two on a raid. Im not saying it should be a resistance and ac reduction because that becomes a slippery slope that they just start designing mobs with more resistances. Maybe just a higher chance to crit or double crit dmg. Something dps classes can see get their little wands and daggers hard to want you in the raid. Just throwing some stuff out there and hope it sticks on some of walls of those in control.

    • 326 posts
    November 6, 2017 9:46 AM PST

    BeaverBiscuit said:
    If you take out ranger's ability to do particularly well in melee, then suddenly you have all this space for rangers to do other things;

    that made me think of another one:

    8. zone foliage obstruction effects; where ranger could cast an AE that would allow a group\raid mvoe faster through certain terrain

    • 122 posts
    November 6, 2017 1:14 PM PST

    Jfed said:

    Zuljan said:

    Jfed said: I think it's very important to use eq2 as a compairison. There were a lot of things that were complete failures as a departure from eq/van but I feel there were some very useful advances as well. I think rangers increasing any defensive ability really won't make the class any more desirable. Also that makes rangers only desirable in a raid setting in the main tank group. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, I think it would fit with the class. I just struggle to see what would make people not necessarily need a ranger but not pass them up for other classes that bring more damage or more group benifit. I think something like snaring fleeing mobs and maybe a harmony like ability not limited to outdoors would be a good start. I think there is room in setup to make rangers an alternate option puller to monk. It would depend as well on what bard is able to do as well. Now that sort of thing helps us in groups. I think the hardest thing will be finding a raid purpose. Rangers pulling couldn't compete with FD pulls on raids. A defensive increase might get one ranger in a MT group. Is that going to feel very meaningful? I still lean towards something to help other classes with damage. Like maybe an armor breaking arrow shot that gives next magic or melee attack a crit or more damage. A lot is hard to speculate until we see what all other classes are able to do.

     

    I agree. If I had to choose a buff style ability, I think an offensive one of some kind would be more appropriate. Seems a little more natural for a ranger than a defensive centric bonus. If I had complete free reign I'd give us a true pulling mechanism to compete with FD pulling. There are a variety of reasons, but most importantly there isn't any rival to the pulling potential of FD, whereas every other class has an opposing class who can equally perform said function, so that there are always 2 options (e.g. cleric/shammy for heals, war/sk tank, rogue/wiz dps etc). It just makes sense for holistic balance of classes while simultaneously solving the overarching dominance of FD pulling.

    I'm all for that too. I don't see why there isn't room for another pulling class. It would have to be balanced to be just as dangerous as fd pulling. But I think for grouping that would help rangers a lot. Now on the raid side of things, I mained a brigand in eq2 for 7 years. Now I know no one wants to use that game as a template but it did have a good idea. Brigand had an ability "dispatch" that took a large chunk of resistances and ac down for 13 secs. It was on a minute recast so it wasnt too overpowered. The whole raid would wait to see that ability go to launch all their heavy hits. I don't think some thing like that would be completely out of character for rangers ,no matter if you are on team melee or team ranged for rangers. It could be a melee or arrow attack. It would have to be balanced to not require a ranger for raids but still be benifitial enough that your dps would like one or two on a raid. Im not saying it should be a resistance and ac reduction because that becomes a slippery slope that they just start designing mobs with more resistances. Maybe just a higher chance to crit or double crit dmg. Something dps classes can see get their little wands and daggers hard to want you in the raid. Just throwing some stuff out there and hope it sticks on some of walls of those in control.

    You and the others are onto some really good stuff. That dispatch ability would be equally doable with the right fine tuning (at first I thought you'd need to make it a group thing to require a ranger in the dps groups, but with the right CD timer, it would be like CH heal chains on the cleric vent channels; we would just time our strings, which would be pretty cool). Some other great ideas being bounced around here as well. So many options for the devs to take into account while they make their designs with all of this constructive back and forth we've all had. Can't wait until their reveal : )

    • 122 posts
    November 6, 2017 1:24 PM PST

    BeaverBiscuit said:

    The reason rangers in various games aren't allowed to have good DPS/cc/support is because of their utility, mainly being able to switch between melee and ranged equally, and also wear heavier armor at the same time.

    Sure Aragorn can, but Pantheon is not being made by Tolkien, nor is Pantheon any of those other places you have seen rangers.

    If you take out ranger's ability to do particularly well in melee, then suddenly you have all this space for rangers to do other things;

    1. Actually strong ranged physical DPS (a role which is not yet filled)
    2. CC (I think this one would fit really well with a class who specializes in nature, especially since enchanters are currently the only official CC class)
    3. tracking
    4. Befriending/weakening animals
    5. Nature based damage/spellcasting
    6. Tank/group support abilities (like the ones in DnD where you fire arrows that distract enemies, allowing a dodge or parry, or disrupt ranged attacks). (This fills the physical "counterspell" mechanic in an interesting way).
    7. Interesting hit and run abilities. (monk and probably enchanter are the only pullers that I know of so far). 

    All of the above will make you much more desirable in groups/raids than being able to switch between melee and ranged seemlessly to fit the situation, (particularly when it comes in exchange for doing less support/cc/dps than the other guys).

     

    The ranged/melee ranger has repeatedly not worked in games. It's too versatile. Game creators are rightly afraid to give it anything unique or even on par, because when they do, it breaks the game.

    Make Ranger a unique class. Make it do whatever it does well, instead of whatever other classes do less than well (or as well, thus making ranger extremely op).

     

    P.S. I highly doubt that, with paladins/dire lords/monks/warriors in the tank mix already, ranger would find much space in groups as tanks or even off tanks. Why not take the physical glass cannon route instead?

    Balanced, unique classes get groups. Bad hybrids built based on various past fantasy stories/games do not. 

     

    You make some good points that others have also brought up (I think we went back and forth with almost every point you listed there in the past few pages of this thread topic, nearly beating it to death, so definitely glance back over those if you get time). The last big mmo Brad and Kilsin designed was VG, and I think they came really close to nailing down the most organic feeling template of the ranger I've played (3 stances were pretty well done, and if they just gave us something more impactful/mechanical than the raid mob debuff, it would be a great design pretty close to lore). But as you and said (I said the same thing a couple pages ago); this is Pantheon, and while Brad and Kilsin have explicitly used EQ/VG as reference points for a variety of topics, there is always a possibility they design the ranger in a completely new way. Regarless, as you pointed out, they've been a weakened jack of all trades in most renditions, so hopefully rangers get some love this time around. Would be great for our rangers to be the best at something; anything! :D

    • 4 posts
    November 15, 2017 9:52 AM PST

    I think the Aion ranger class was one of the most fun classes I've played and would be a great place to look for inspiration - aside from having high ranged dps, they could snare, stun, mute and blind foes, all of which help negate damage and save on heals, which adds incentive to add them opposed to a second healer.

    In addition, if they could help negate the negative climate effects present in Pantheon,  be one of 2 classes (rogue additionally) that can unlock chests scattered throughout the lands and dungeons and also be the most adept with the perception system in addition to rogues - that would definitely make them sought after and a necessity for groups.

     


    This post was edited by SkyFvll at November 15, 2017 10:22 AM PST
    • 254 posts
    February 8, 2018 11:02 AM PST

    I personally wouldn't look to EQ2 as a template for what the Pantheon ranger is likely to be.  As far as I know, EQ and Vanguard are the main games that Pantheon is drawing inspiration from.  In EQ rangers weren't even all that great at dps in the early days.  They were a light tank that traded defense for a lot of utility.  Archery was just a pulling tool and our nukes weren't worth the cast time unless you were weaving casts in between a really high delay 2-hander.

     

    I don't see why not, I played a Ranger on EQ2 for many years and it's my favorite class in the game. It's a lot of fun and I feel like a big reason for that is they actually had a definitive vision for the class, something that EQ1 severely lacked for the Ranger. EQ1's ranger was always being pulled in different directions each expansion and thus, didn't have a defined role.

    • 243 posts
    February 12, 2018 11:01 PM PST

    Flossie said:

    I don't see why not, I played a Ranger on EQ2 for many years and it's my favorite class in the game. It's a lot of fun and I feel like a big reason for that is they actually had a definitive vision for the class, something that EQ1 severely lacked for the Ranger. EQ1's ranger was always being pulled in different directions each expansion and thus, didn't have a defined role.

     

    That wasn't intended as a dig on the EQ2 ranger.  I was just pointing out that Pantheon is a spiritual successor to EQ and Vanguard (those are the projects this dev team were responsible for) and those games had a more traditional take on the ranger class.  EQ2's ranger was part of a scout archtype, which lumped them more with rogues than any other class. Old school rangers had nothing to do with the rogue class aside from some limited stealth abilities while out in the wild.  They were actually prohibited from a lot of the tactics that you would expect from a rogue, like using poisons, for instance.

     

    • 91 posts
    February 16, 2018 10:15 AM PST

    My main in EQ and EQ2 were rangers while i liked both i preferred the EQ ranger over the EQ2 ranger. I am hoping that you can specialize a ranger thus you can be melee focused or ranged focused. I will go the melee focused route. Personally i like how DDO did the ranger best in an mmo.

    • 40 posts
    May 21, 2018 6:05 AM PDT

    As someone who played Ranger for years in EQ1 and eagerly went to re-create that character when EQ2 came out, I ended up quickly loathing the EQ2 ranger. It was alright back when you were the odd in-between class of "Predator" and you were weaving all kinds of abilities, but when you specialized into Ranger, what you became was an archer. Nothing else to it.

    If you were in melee then your #1 concern was now getting the bleep out of melee. You could not even properly defend yourself if you did not get the drop on an enemy. Most of your abilities could not be activated in melee. You had no spells, either. At that point, shouldn't you call it an archer? Isn't that what it is?

    I loathed it to the point where I betrayed to assassin (despite topping the parses - let it not be said the eq2 "ranger" struggled with its role like its predecessor) because that felt closer to what I was used to, which was a bit heartbreaking.

    I always like to see a take on the ranger that actually takes it back to its roots - a colorful variety of warrior that can stand between the paladins and barbarians. So, I can certainly echo Cynwulf here - the DDO ranger was really fun. Lot of HP, could be built as a front-liner and noone would raise an eyebrow.

    Another iteration of the ranger that I kind of enjoyed was the Neverwinter ranger. It's not a game I'd easily point to for "good design", but that ranger had to use both their melee and their ranged tools or they were just not using their potential, and I could appreciate that as well.

    That all said, I can really understand the people who want their rangers to be archers. In most MMO frameworks, the ranger is the only class that really works for that kind of character. But, I think forcing that into the class' base design is doing the ranger a very real disservice. Better that the archer is an optional specialization, or a different class.