Forums » The Ranger

Update: Newsletter highlights

    • 1007 posts
    February 14, 2018 11:35 AM PST

    "On the Class design front, we are focused on the Ranger and the Dire Lord right now. While the Ranger is not exclusively a ranged combat class, the time we spend fleshing out the Ranger's ranged gameplay mechanics will go a long way towards informing how we approach ranged combat in our NPCs and certain environmental scenarios as well. This is exciting for us, because physical-based ranged attacks, be it arrow or tomahawk, single shot or a battalion volley, is not something we've been able to show off yet. And as for the Dire Lord, I know many of you are curious as to what this class is all about. The mystery currently shrouding this class is fitting - we're excited to reveal more soon!"

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/newsletter/2018_february_state_of_the_game/

     

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

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/newsletter/2018_february_elves_roundtable/ 

     

    Jared I look forward to joining you with my own ferret, bow, and lynx! :) yay!

    • 1179 posts
    February 14, 2018 12:23 PM PST

    Definitely good to see Rangers are coming.  The ferret pet is very interesting to me.  I remember Brad mentioning a couple years ago that he thought Rangers might have small pets that you could send to do things (retrieve/deliver an item, flip a switch/lever, etc.), and I wonder if the ferret is an example of that.  I do hope the lynx turns out to be more than your standard combat pet tank that allows Rangers to just sit back and shoot things.  Of course, that could just be concept art and nothing more.

    • 474 posts
    February 14, 2018 5:58 PM PST

    I'm just stoked that they have finally "confirmed" that Ranged combat can be a primary combat choice and isn't just something of an after thought.

    • 270 posts
    February 14, 2018 6:01 PM PST
    Definitely sounds like we're getting hybrid fighters with pets
    • 474 posts
    February 14, 2018 6:53 PM PST

    Ashvaild said: Definitely sounds like we're getting hybrid fighters with pets

    Aye, the fighter part was pretty much a given all along. The pet thing, I'm still not too sure about. We'll see how it all fits together when we get our hands on it.

    Still, I can deal with pets if I am allowed to have my bow Ranger.

    • 101 posts
    February 15, 2018 3:11 AM PST

    Reading the part about not being exclusively a ranged combat class gave me a big sigh of relief.  While I love shooting a bow in RPG games, being stuck to one without the ability to melee has caused me to quit games that have that mechanic.  Really interested in seeing how pets for rangers will be implemented and how we can use them.  Hopefully they have a rudimentary ranger class ready to use for the next pre-alpha phase (wishful thinking).

    • 268 posts
    February 15, 2018 2:25 PM PST

    Bummer. Was looking forward to playing a real Ranger, not some hybrid master of nothing class.

    • 101 posts
    February 16, 2018 4:54 AM PST

    I think you're confusing a Ranger with an archer.

    • 268 posts
    February 16, 2018 9:02 AM PST

    Nope, I think you've just only played a Ranger in EQ1 so your perspective of them is a little bias. For example, in the two other EQ franchise games (EQOA/EQ2) they really improved upon the class design from EQ1 and made their combat specialized so they could offer something that no other class could. Unlike EQ1 where they were the butt of all jokes, they were a very and sought after and viable class in these games.


    This post was edited by Flossie at February 16, 2018 9:06 AM PST
    • 474 posts
    February 16, 2018 9:27 AM PST

    Flossie said:

    Bummer. Was looking forward to playing a real Ranger, not some hybrid master of nothing class.

    ....... Where did you even get this? The Ranger is supposed to be a light fighter, just like they were in Vanguard, EQ2, EQ1, and EQOA. The only difference between EQ1 and the rest was the fact that the Ranger's secondary abilities lent more towards group support and that the multitude of tools granted the class meant it's straightforward DPS output was less than other light fighters. Which I actually prefered for the class, but thats just me.

    In the other games you mention, the Ranger was more focused towards straight forward dps output, lost a large number of their awesome tools so that people could "see" their contribution. Because too many people were to damn dumb to understand that bigger numbers isn't the real measure of group contribution.

    The only joke in EQ1 was the fact that a Ranger had taunt and other tank abilities but at launch did not have the defenses to tank much of anything. A rogue would die just as fast as a Ranger. The Ranger died more often because they were not given any abilities to lose aggro because they were intended to be a little more tanky than a Rogue or Monk, but that ended up not being the case at launch. That issue was fixed later down the road, but the jokes had already become a meme.

    • 268 posts
    February 16, 2018 10:09 AM PST

    EQ1 Ranger's were a complete mess. The difference with the other games is that they specialized in ranged physical damage, with a litte bit of utility like snares and tracking. No other class could provide that, as all other physical damage was melee, and all other ranged damage was magical. That's what made them useful, not their mediocre trapping and gimp tanking. That stuff got left behind really fast. It is what it is though, if VR doesn't design the class as it should be, then I'll roll a different class. Problem solved.

    • 474 posts
    February 16, 2018 10:27 AM PST

    Flossie said:

    EQ1 Ranger's were a complete mess. The difference with the other games is that they specialized in ranged physical damage, with a litte bit of utility like snares and tracking. No other class could provide that, as all other physical damage was melee, and all other ranged damage was magical. That's what made them useful, not their mediocre trapping and gimp tanking. That stuff got left behind really fast. It is what it is though, if VR doesn't design the class as it should be, then I'll roll a different class. Problem solved.

    Gotcha, so you're one of those that just ragequits if they don't get it their way.  /sarcasm

    Bottom line, the Ranger is NOT synonomis with Ranged combat. Period. There is absolutely no lore reason to lock them into the bow. MANY people do not want a Ranged style Ranger. They want a melee Ranger. I believe VR's message in the letter is saying "Rangers will be just as good as every other melee light fighter in melee combat, and we are working to make Ranged combat just as good."

    Bottom line, this is a GREAT desicion on VR's part. I want a Ranged based Ranger myself, but I would absolutely HATE being locked into Ranged as my only real option for DPS. There are times when it's just not viable.

    And, on a side note, people who believe the Ranger "was a mess" in EQ1 just didn't know how to play the class or wanted nothing but to raid. The Ranger was an amazing class in group content, which is why I still play a Ranger in EQ today and why I love the class so much.

    • 268 posts
    February 16, 2018 11:12 AM PST

    Honestly, I just want the class to excel in one thing and not be outshined by other classes in everything. I want one thing to make the class unique, and hopefully that would mean heavy hitting ranged physical damage. As long as they lean towards the bow, I'm okay with a little melee damage for certain situations. The bow and ranged abilities is what makes the Ranger unique. Period.

    • 249 posts
    February 16, 2018 12:30 PM PST
    It's a little mind boggling to me that the first thing we hear about the ranger class is that the devs are hard at work figuring out the mechanics of ranged combat, and yet some are up in arms about a clause stating that rangers aren't exclusively distanced fighters. Anyone interested in playing an archer should be rejoicing right now--It's been confirmed that your desired playstyle will be supported in Pantheon.

    But the mindset that what makes a ranger unique is that they can use a bow is completely false. All fighter classes had the option to specialize in ranged weapons, the only difference for rangers is that it wasn't an option for them. This wasn't because they were primarily bow-weilders, it was because they are survivalists, so regardless of whether they fought with a sword, a spear, an axe or whatever, they were expected to be able to pick up a bow and hunt for game to get by.

    I think it's great that the devs are putting in the effort to make ranged fighting engaging, but I'm also relieved to hear that I won't be forced to play an archer.

    I'll be happy to pull out a bow on occasion when the situation requires it. But at the end of the day, I view it as just a tool in the rangers tool-belt, by no means is it the bread and butter of the class.
    • 474 posts
    February 16, 2018 12:42 PM PST

    Elrandir said: It's a little mind boggling to me that the first thing we hear about the ranger class is that the devs are hard at work figuring out the mechanics of ranged combat, and yet some are up in arms about a clause stating that rangers aren't exclusively distanced fighters. Anyone interested in playing an archer should be rejoicing right now--It's been confirmed that your desired playstyle will be supported in Pantheon. But the mindset that what makes a ranger unique is that they can use a bow is completely false. All fighter classes had the option to specialize in ranged weapons, the only difference for rangers is that it wasn't an option for them. This wasn't because they were primarily bow-weilders, it was because they are survivalists, so regardless of whether they fought with a sword, a spear, an axe or whatever, they were expected to be able to pick up a bow and hunt for game to get by. I think it's great that the devs are putting in the effort to make ranged fighting engaging, but I'm also relieved to hear that I won't be forced to play an archer. I'll be happy to pull out a bow on occasion when the situation requires it. But at the end of the day, I view it as just a tool in the rangers tool-belt, by no means is it the bread and butter of the class.

     

    This guy gets it.

     

    Flossie, the bow is not what makes the Ranger unique. Rangers have always been a more utility based light fighter, that brings DPS and utility to the group. The Ranged abilities came from the lore of the class. Being that they were out in the wilderness and had to hunt for food almost exclusively. Thus they became skilled with a bow. Were as a rogue would be tied more closely to a city. They would need to buy food to live, hence their thievery based skill sets.

    Traps, pets, nature based spells, and other utility abilities have always been what made the Ranger really unique. If the Ranger were nothing but a Rogue with a bow it'd be a piss poor excuse for a Ranger.


    This post was edited by kellindil at February 16, 2018 12:42 PM PST
    • 268 posts
    February 16, 2018 1:00 PM PST

    Meh, no, you guys don't get it. Go enjoy your gimp class who's utility is overshadowed by enchanters/bards and who's DPS is overshadowed by rogues/sorcs, I'll enjoy being a valuable asset to a group by rolling a different class. 

    • 474 posts
    February 16, 2018 1:05 PM PST

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

    • 268 posts
    February 16, 2018 1:07 PM PST

    Sure thing bud. :)

    • 564 posts
    February 16, 2018 6:56 PM PST

    Out of curiosity, why a melee ranger and not a rogue or monk? Monks can attack from the front for good dps, tank ok, and pull great. Rogues can stand behind the mob and do great dps with nature/environment type things like sneak, poisons, and other fun gimmicks.

    Assuming that rogues must exist only in cities is an insult to all halflings.

    Monks are even traditionally found meditating in nature, and becoming "one with the universe". This should satisfy needs for a nature oriented fighter. 

    From that perspective, the only somewhat unique playstyles I see the melee ranger providing are:

    1. The ability to do great dps from the front alongside their pet (if they even get reliable animal companions that don't require being outdoors and charm).
    2. Spellsword knockoffs who cast nature spells instead of arcane ones, in a game where we already have holy warriors, death warriors, ki fighters, and possibly arcane focused rogues.
    3. Occasionally jumping backwards to shoot an arrow flavorfully, even though having "tanks" makes that sort of action more or less pointless if you don't want to stay at range.

    Are these playstyles and roleplays really so great, that they merit the balancing headaches? In almost every game coming before, typical-all-round rangers were either absolutely overpowered (on par role performance along with great defense and ranged/melee options), or just bad enough at every role they can perform that other, more focused, classes are preffered in groups/min-max.

    Elrandir said: It's a little mind boggling to me that the first thing we hear about the ranger class is that the devs are hard at work figuring out the mechanics of ranged combat, and yet some are up in arms about a clause stating that rangers aren't exclusively distanced fighters. Anyone interested in playing an archer should be rejoicing right now--It's been confirmed that your desired playstyle will be supported in Pantheon. But the mindset that what makes a ranger unique is that they can use a bow is completely false. All fighter classes had the option to specialize in ranged weapons, the only difference for rangers is that it wasn't an option for them. This wasn't because they were primarily bow-weilders, it was because they are survivalists, so regardless of whether they fought with a sword, a spear, an axe or whatever, they were expected to be able to pick up a bow and hunt for game to get by. I think it's great that the devs are putting in the effort to make ranged fighting engaging, but I'm also relieved to hear that I won't be forced to play an archer. I'll be happy to pull out a bow on occasion when the situation requires it. But at the end of the day, I view it as just a tool in the rangers tool-belt, by no means is it the bread and butter of the class.

     

    Because of the balancing worries mentioned above by myself and others. Noone wants to risk being gimped. Noone wants to risk potential allies and friends not playing the game because the chosen class was boring or sucked.

    True, this isn't guaranteed, but there have been enough games in the past where this rule has been true to merit quite a bit of worry.

    I don't mind if a ranger can do melee damage in a pinch, like a melee dps can do ranged damage in a pinch. However, if rangers are allowed to do melee attacks half or more of the time with equal dps and utility then there is no unique physical ranged class, and every reason for gimping. I admit the balance issues and sheer unfairness of it do bother me. 

    ________________

    Melee hunting is extremely unrealistic from an outdoor survivalist perspective, now that you mention it. The dagger is more for wittling wood/trap construction than for fighting.

    _________________

    Melee fighting has no defined place with anyone who is exclusively a ranger. I'd consider Legolas part rogue, and Aragorn mostly OP 2hw warrior. 

    Sure, VR could decide that their specific ranger class is good at melee in Pantheon, perhaps due to some invisible subclassing/class hybridization. Thait said, In a game with "unique" classes as well as a defined "holy quaternity", I fail to see how these ranger specifications fit the situation, particularly when the concept art shows light leather armor. Rangers can't defend with martial arts/ki like monks, heavy armor like warriors, nor general sneakiness/"opening" favorability like rogues.

    ________________

    Finally, I don't see why you feel all rangers being melee capable is a given.

    Why should a "keeper of a park or forest" be particularly good with an axe beyond chopping wood or the occasional pinch where his enemy manages to close the distance? Why should he be as good in melee as actual melee classes who spend all or most of their time practicing in melee?

     


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at February 16, 2018 9:37 PM PST
    • 474 posts
    February 16, 2018 9:51 PM PST

    Did you read the news letter? They are using the Ranger to fine tune ranged physical combat for EVERYONE. Not just for bows either. You assume that the Ranger would be the only class that might use ranged combat or have some abilities that work from range. Why couldn't Monks use throwing weapons and Rogue use crossbows?

     

    It seems to me that they want both Ranged and Melee to be on par for ALL classes. I am sure the Ranger will end up with more Ranged abilities than the other light fighters, and the other light fighters will most likely have more Melee abilites.

     

    Check out the base abilities the Ranger had in Vanguard. That seems closer to how VR *SEEMS* to be taking the Ranger. http://vanguard.wikia.com/wiki/Ranger

     

    This seems to me to show a class that can deal decent damage in both melee and ranged combat and both have their own unique play style. Abilities that are tankish without being tanky. Like having an ability to save a group member using a weapon shield like ability. That is a fantastic utility ability centered around melee that could save a CCer or Healer. Not a bad thing to have in the group, or raid, in a pinch. Critical strike ranged abilities. Group buffs. Minor heals.

    Not saying VR should copy the class 1 to 1, but this paints the picture of a skilled fighter with both melee and ranged abilities to choose from depending on the situation that can tank in a pinch and help top off a low health group member to help take some pressure off the healer.

     

    Compare this to the Rogue, http://vanguard.wikia.com/wiki/Rogue , which is obviously more melee centric. The critical strike abilities between the two classes are very nearly identical, except one uses ranged and the other melee. The non-critical abilities are pretty on par as well. Again with the Ranger seeing them a little more split between ranged and melee, where the rogue is pure melee. The spells from the ranger would be used to cause damage over time for both melee and Ranged comabt to make up for the fact you'll lose one or the other for most of a fight.

     

    From my point of view, it looks like the Rogue might inch out the Ranger in an optimal fight, meaning the Ranger could use his criticals, move to melee, and then move back to ranged for more criticals and the rogue could stay in melee range and use stealth as required, but in a fight where the Rogue might not be able to use all his tools the Ranger would overtake him easily. To make up for this *slight* handicap vs the Rogue, the Ranger has a few limited utility abilities and a pet. Seems like a pretty decent setup as far as I can see. I would be happy as **** with this Ranger.

    Now, being as the guys from VR (some) where responsible for making Vanguard, I think the Ranger in Pantheon will come out just peachy. What EXACTLY the class will play like, we will need to wait and see. Judging from these guys' past games though, I think we are in good hands.

     

    *DISCLAIMER* I didn't play Vanguard past lvl 20ish and that was a couple years after launch. So I don't know what balance was like at end game. This is just an observation based solely on the limited list of ablities at the linked wiki.

    • 564 posts
    February 16, 2018 11:26 PM PST

    kellindil said:

    Did you read the news letter? They are using the Ranger to fine tune ranged physical combat for EVERYONE. Not just for bows either. You assume that the Ranger would be the only class that might use ranged combat or have some abilities that work from range. Why couldn't Monks use throwing weapons and Rogue use crossbows?

    I may not have made it clear enough, but I did mention that other classes would be capable of using ranged weapons in a couple places, such as the words "melee dps can do ranged damage in a pinch"

    However, VR mentioning that they are fine tuning ranged physical combat for everyone, at least to me, does not in any way mean that classes which have thus far only been melee, will have entire specializations that allow them to be ranged, and effectively stay that way for half or more of a fight. I'm not sure exactly how much specialization of individual classes we will have in Panthon, but from what I've seen, the answer is-Not much, so that the classes remain unique.

    At the very least, I doubt classes will specialize to the point of changing their entire combat style. Wizards likely won't be able to equip a mana shield and a mana sword and become, essentially, warriors with differently flavored abilities.

    Similarly I hope rangers won't be able to equip a nature shield/plate armor and 2 axes and become, essentially, monks with differently flavored abilities. (front physical dps with support, offtanking, and good pulling cababilities)

    I don't want to risk a class which can suit the playstlye: "I want to be able to fill every dps, and related, role at the same time without gimps".

    kellindil said:

    This seems to me to show a class that can deal decent damage in both melee and ranged combat and both have their own unique play style. Abilities that are tankish without being tanky. Like having an ability to save a group member using a weapon shield like ability. That is a fantastic utility ability centered around melee that could save a CCer or Healer. Not a bad thing to have in the group, or raid, in a pinch. Critical strike ranged abilities. Group buffs. Minor heals.

    Not saying VR should copy the class 1 to 1, but this paints the picture of a skilled fighter with both melee and ranged abilities to choose from depending on the situation that can tank in a pinch and help top off a low health group member to help take some pressure off the healer.

    Ranged Physical DPS could have their own variants of all of these melee abilities. In addition, abilities like a weapon shield seem like they would work just as well for the 5 current melee focused classes, as well as any temporary melee inclinations of our healers/casters/pets. Clerics, for example, will have heavy armor suited for close ranged combat, and an iconic ability heavily involving close-up CC.

    As for balance, sure it is possible for the mixxed ranger, even if extremely difficult, and risky, and not unique. But why do we need a 6th physical melee class (not to mention the fact that many pets will likely be physical melee as well) when we have NO purely ranged physical classes? Why do rangers, when they don't realistically have the defensive nor melee weapon specializations of the melee classes, need to be able to melee beyond the occasional utility?

    I'm not saying remove melee enitrely, I'm saying don't let rangers focus on it to a point where they don't need to be ranged most of the fight if they don't want to be. If you want to focus melee, there are 2 dps options and 3 tank options for you. You may even be able to field a 2h sword as a warrior and feel plenty "Aragorny" and "offtanky".


    This post was edited by BeaverBiscuit at February 17, 2018 12:20 AM PST
    • 268 posts
    February 17, 2018 8:13 AM PST
    ^ This guy ACTUALLY gets it. Thank you BeaverBiscuit.
    • 3250 posts
    February 17, 2018 2:17 PM PST

    I'm with Flossie on this.  Rangers provided amazing value in both EQOA and EQ2 because they had the highest ranged physical damage in the game.  There were specific encounters where you wanted to mostly use ranged damage (we see tons of these in every MMO) but sometimes the mobs had high magical resistance.  This allowed the ranger to shine in a rather niche combat scenario but still be effective in others.  I played EQ2 for many years and I always told myself that if I ended up going back I would absolutely play a ranger.  This is because, as Flossie said, they were a desirable class rather than the butt of jokes.  I have never been able to relate to the ranger jokes that seem to be so common from the EQ1 crowd because the rangers I have experience with (EQOA/EQ2) were actually pretty damn awesome.  We already have a DPS/Off-Tank melee in the monk ... I don't even see why this is up for debate.  I would much rather see rangers have a unique role than be a hybrid of a hybrid (druid/warrior) that competes with another hybrid (monk) for a hybrid role (melee/off-tank/magic).


    This post was edited by oneADseven at February 17, 2018 2:25 PM PST
    • 249 posts
    February 17, 2018 4:41 PM PST

    oneADseven said:

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

    Truth be told, it isn't.

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

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

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

     


    This post was edited by Elrandir at February 17, 2018 4:42 PM PST
    • 474 posts
    February 17, 2018 6:16 PM PST

    There isn't a debate here, other than the fact that Flossie seems to think that the fact that VR said Rangers will be Ranged and Melee seems to mean they will be ****. Which seems a completely baseless assumption.

    The Ranger can be both melee and Ranged without being gimp.