How to fix rangers. (With as little coding as possible!)

[Stamm]

The Problem -

High level rangers are not the dual wielding sword slashing experts they perhaps should be.

Low level rangers are the bane of all mobs with archery. This aint right.

Solution -

Increase ranger melee damage at high level.
Reduce ranger archery damage at low level.

How to do it -

Give rangers an extra attack at high level
Reduce chance to hit with archery at low level.
Reduce damage done by archery at low levels, have it scale (or scale more if it already does) up to what it is now.

The nitty gritty -

1) Give rangers an extra skill, at level 46.

Call it dual wield mastery

With this skill rangers get one extra attack with their off hand.

2) Ensure the chances to hit a mob using archery are properly dependant on the the relative level between the ranger and the target. Currently level 20 rangers can hit things with archery they simply should not be able to. This would mean making it more dependant on the archery skill, or their hitroll.

3) Make archery shots dependant on dual wield, double attack, and dual wield mastery.

First of all note that while this _potentially_ gives rangers 4 archery attacks at level 46+, it will be dependant if they make their dual/double/mastery rolls.

This will mean that a level 9 ranger will fire 1 shot.
A level 10 ranger will fire usually 1, sometimes 2.
A level 20 ranger wil fire 1, 2 or 2. Probably usually 1 or 2.
A level 30 ranger will fire usually 2.
A level 40 ranger will fire usually 2 or 3.
A level 50 ranger will fire usually 3 or 4.

How to comment on this post -

Please, if you're going to pick holes, and I know everybody loves to, at least say if you generally agree with the principles here, even if you don't agree with the implementation.

I genuinely hope this post will achieve something positive about rangers.

[Yasden]

Where's the poll option: "*moan* Not another $#&*$(!#@$&*( ranger thread!"

[Stamm]

Where's the poll option: "*moan* Not another $#&*$(!#@$&*( ranger thread!"

If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing. :P

It's the first ranger thread I can remember ever starting.

The thread is as clear and as coherant as I can possibly make it.

It's also a way to see what players actually think of the problem with a poll that is as unbias as I can.

This thread is not intended to be a whine, it's really intended to do something positive for the mud.

I'd ask people to please try not to be negative in the thread. By all means disagree with me, and feel free to say why. But please try and be constructive.

[Thilindel]

To me, rogues should be downgraded somewhat. Game is based on D&D, where rogues have sh*tty THAC0's vs. rangers. Besides archery rogues seem to be melee kings. Rogues get sneak/hide stacked. Rogues are so much better typically. Getting XP buffer for 2man DS is crazy. DG khanjari while we're at it. One weapon making a rogue kill faster than a small group is just nuts. That stupid dagger also seems to invite gender confused role-playing.

I think rangers should get triple attack. Since rangers should be able to sneak in nature, and they don't (vs. D&D) this would make up for it. Rogues own them so badly usually. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I just wish for once a god would say 'JUST QUIT POSTING ABOUT RANGERS' or x, y, z are really good points in a thread. Feedback from higher ups would help rid the frustration! :)

[Arilin Nydelahar]

To me, rogues should be downgraded somewhat. Game is based on D&D, where rogues have sh*tty THAC0's vs. rangers. Besides archery rogues seem to be melee kings. Rogues get sneak/hide stacked. Rogues are so much better typically. Getting XP buffer for 2man DS is crazy. DG khanjari while we're at it. One weapon making a rogue kill faster than a small group is just nuts. That stupid dagger also seems to invite gender confused role-playing.

I think rangers should get triple attack. Since rangers should be able to sneak in nature, and they don't (vs. D&D) this would make up for it. Rogues own them so badly usually. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I just wish for once a god would say 'JUST QUIT POSTING ABOUT RANGERS' or x, y, z are really good points in a thread. Feedback from higher ups would help rid the frustration! :)

I'm fairly certain at some point, a god, or many gods have posted that exact same thought. Just not in so many words.

And if not, lord knows they all think it.

[Stamm]

I'd like to hear from the 5 people who think that rangers aren't all they should be.

[Pisalos]

You'll probably just find they didn't play the class! i quit right away on ranger beczuse they're outclassed by fun in some other playable class like druid or rogue. rogu e is much easier to play for me, but i'm no good anyway. i really like your idea stamm on extra ranger attack because i didn't see why to play ranger when rogue can hit so much easier and people tell me over and over ranger sucks and nobody would group me but as rogue i get asked a lot more

[Ambar]

Lots of folks suggest rangers need something, Primary rangers included. The mass threads that have been started over the years attest to it. It has delved into some joke by now, cause rangers STILL await fixing .. Primary rangers read the new "lets fix rangers" threads that pop up and

just groan

[Arilin Nydelahar]

I'd like to hear from the 5 people who think that rangers aren't all they should be.

I still play Thalidyrr.

But I stopped responding to these posts because they're all totally ineffective.

It's no slam against you, it's just this is an old and tired subject that just won't be getting help anytime soon, if ever.

[kiryan]

part 1, dual wielding and melee damage

I disagree that ranger melee maage should improve unless top end archery damage improves by a similar amount. If you want ranger melee doing rogue melee damage thats fine but I want ranger archery doing that much more than ranger or rogue melee.

IMO rangers first option should be with their only truly unique and special skill which is archery. Melee should remain a backup skill.

part 2, archery

low level archery probably needs to be tweaked. a level 20 ranger can consistently hit a level 45 mob and thats just not right. A level 20 rogue would probably be hard pressed to hit a level 35 mob consistently.

the archery damage curve is probably not quite right. It maxes out fairly early and starts out fairly high. this is a factor of the # of shots that low level archers get probably maxing out too quickly . By level 25 a ranger is consistently getting 3 shots per round (same at 50). A level 40 ranger can deal about 40% more damage than a level 40 rogue circling hasted with khanjaris however at level 50 the ranger's damage really hasn't grown measurably but the rogue has caught up and is doing more damage in some situations.

the suggestion to make # of shots dependent on melee skills like dual wield or double attack I think is not so good. I don't think one has anything to do with the other and the basic thing your trying to address is that you max out the # of shots per round too quickly. Simply modifying the skill check on archery / range specialist would be a far easier and more obvious change.

If fixing the damage curve is your aim, you dont need to change the # of shots you could alternatively increase the miss rate or make damage per arrow more dependent on skill. I think your solution focuses in on one of three factors and is uncessarily complex. It might be good to make archery reliant on melee skills but I don't think a compelling case has been made for it. So far all we've managed to say is that the damage curve is wacky.

Also, I'm not saying that we can't have the odd power progression that exists in rangers currently, it gives an interesting feature. I used to play a mud where one class leveled to 40 on about half as much experience as any other class but made 50 at the same amount of exp as other classes. It was an interesting class to play.

I'm sure most rangers would trade power at low level for additional power at high level. They currently fall a little flat by 45. Its my opinion that ranger damage should improve by another 15% at level 50 and the damage and especially the hit/miss curve should be smoothed out at low level.

[Sarell]

Rangers are just a whiney bunch, and mostly do it all wrong, I saw one botting DI practice the other day when I was trying to get him for BC, what on earth is the point of that? I soloed archie at level 46 with my ranger, and couldn't dream of doing that with my rogue. I can clear all of DS per pop in a 2 person group with my ranger. Downgrade rangers. I totally agree with Kiryan, rangers should be archery masters not swordsfolk. They should be good at swords no doubt, but I think having archery as their main is kinda cool, makes them different to other classes.

I like the idea of Rangers firing different amounts of arrows per round. Something like {(Level/10) + (Dex/60) + (1d10/10)}Truncated. Then make damage more based on the str of the ranger so they can choose to go lots of arrows elf, or huge warbow human.

So grey elf at 50 might on average get 6 shots of weaklingness. While a human might get 4 shots of a bit more power. If the more shots you had, the more chance you had of getting a special effect, then the damage should increase significantly for str, so you can choose to have consistent high damage, or more chance of doing something nifty and nancy while still doing reasonable damage.

One skill I would love to see rangers have is intercept, if a mob is incoming, they can skill based engage it first, obviously the guard code was just a tester for this greater ability :|.

.2% chance that a ranger's shot has a special effect, e.g. blind, slow. Would be cool, because then all the khanjari rogues could come back at rangers on BBS with equally ridiculous arguments about the super duper amazing power of rangers. And rangers would start feeling good about themselves because all they really wan't is to look cool, the best function of a ranger. I still think khanjari heal is just a good balancer for riposte, is heaps of fun and we should keep it and move on. It was stupid when rogues needed more defense magic in zones than the tanks.

I also think the idea that rogues are the best damage is getting old and silly, the khanjari jokes were fun and all when we started them, but seriously, vokers are better, rangers are as good at damage. When they make dragons !para again and a bit less absurd on the areas/insta full heal it will help combat this sillyness.

PS: I would like to stop losing my culmitive stack of arrows from high end zones to crashes of course. I think once rangers have a way to hang on to their arrows I might be able to convince one or two of them to actually use their DS only arrows in a zone.

[teflor the ranger]

Delete Rangers.

[Thilindel]

Delete khanjari while we're at it.

[kiryan]

i love torilmud

[Pril]

Delete Kiryan :p

[auslyx]

8)

If you delete all kiry.x then half the mud's characters would be deleted!

[Pisalos]

I totally agree with Kiryan, rangers should be archery masters not swordsfolk. They should be good at swords no doubt, but I think having archery as their main is kinda cool, makes them different to other classes.

i don't think its fair that a ranger isn't as strong in melee as rogue as far as damage output. when ip lay D&D with my friends, a rogue has a really crappy chance to hit as it is. y shoud rogue be able to hide and get corpses while moving and not get hit, they can solo things that a medium group can't even get so i've finally got to see. lucky people here put up with english not being my first language but when i say rangers should beat up in melee faster than a rogue it is because a warrior type fights for a living. a rogue is sneaky and evasive. why should he trip and garrote, hide, sneak while hidden and assassinate, trip, etc. they even get failprufe rescue. all a ranger is mainly nown for is shooting things but it's why i quit playing ranger. rogues are always more invited but i wasn't big enough to go into muspil because i don't know my way around.

[Sarell]

I agree with you pisalos that rangers should do more melee than rogues, I'm a tad confused because the part where you quoted me didn't say anything different, I think most of them do do more damage too. Khanjaris are really really hard to get and don't make as much of a boost as people would have you believe. They do a lot, they are the best rogue weapon so they should, but nothing ridiculous. I think archery where you can use it should be better than swords, it is pretty stylish, shame to have it go to waste.

[Lahgen]

I'm all for downgrading rogue melee. Let them keep dual wield, but remove double attack. Perhaps take offense away too.

[teflor the ranger]

Where is my ranger nance? I like swords and archery. Put them together to make us the melee class.

Rogues have enough tricks.

[Ambar]

Where is my ranger nance? I like swords and archery. Put them together to make us the melee class.

Rogues have enough tricks.

gotta be a grey elf!

[Thilindel]

After looking at the poll, there's clearly some things wrong with rangers. It's the most bitched about class. How can a standing joke be considered 'fine' by the handful of players? I agree that rogues own rangers in virtually every avenue. One class shouldn't be pivotal just for having archery. Archery if I remember right is a type of ranger (archer?) but I'd like to be a dual sword wieling crazed triple attack like stammers said. That'd be kick ass! :) Sub warriors paladin/AP's tank well, rangers don't. So I'd like to see that offset by having rangers be the masters of melee AND archery both. They can only do one or the other anyway. Archery is nice cuz it can save the chanter from globing someone, unless ranger has to do emergency backup rescue :P

[Birile]

I don't have an opinion here, but I thought I would mention that if we allowed rangers to deal as much damage with swords as they now do with archery by making them "sword masters" or "dual-wielding masters" that the art of archery would probably die off and only be used to lure.

[alvathair]

got some nifty ideas here stammerz. i also like what sarrell had to say about chances for something special to happen on some shots etc. sounds familiar..hmmm... as for stopping khanjari jokes pat... it's NEVER gonna happen :P

on KhanjariMud we aim for excellence, customer service, and weak ass butter knife that hastes,heals and blows me (away).

caran, tai.

[kiryan]

I disagree with your interpretation of the poll results.

The poll results show that there are an equal # of people at the two extremes (no problem, and big problem). There are more votes overall indicating a problem, but I'd say those votes would be fairly evenly split if there were only two options.

There IS clearly a disagreement on the vision for the ranger class as well as the power/usefullness of the class in game. Beyond that your just peddling.

One of the biggest challenges facing ranger is not their skill tree their damage output their usefulness in zone/group, but the pre-existing belief/"facts" and the perception of the class as worthless.

[teflor the ranger]

I disagree with your interpretation of the poll results.

The poll results show that there are an equal # of people at the two extremes (no problem, and big problem). There are more votes overall indicating a problem, but I'd say those votes would be fairly evenly split if there were only two options.

There IS clearly a disagreement on the vision for the ranger class as well as the power/usefullness of the class in game. Beyond that your just peddling.

One of the biggest challenges facing ranger is not their skill tree their damage output their usefulness in zone/group, but the pre-existing belief/"facts" and the perception of the class as worthless.

Or you could just be wrong Kiryan. One of the reasons why people say that there is nothing wrong with rangers is because they never play as one.

[Sarell]

The you never played one argument, when talking about the balance of a class, is really a poor one to use towards a very successful leader of groups, because good leaders have an excellent understanding of group and class dynamics. Besides, Kiryan has a level 50 ranger.

[teflor the ranger]

The you never played one argument, when talking about the balance of a class, is really a poor one to use towards a very successful leader of groups, because good leaders have an excellent understanding of group and class dynamics. Besides, Kiryan has a level 50 ranger.

I am fully aware that he has a level 50 ranger. I assisted in getting him there.

I do not believe that Kiryan understands that OTHER people who say there is nothing wrong with the class do so while having never actively played the class.

Your assumption is incorrect, I did not accuse Kiryan of having never played a ranger. I accused him of not being aware that many of the opinions entered in the poll are opinions from the ignorant.

[kiryan]

I don't think i said there was nothing wrong with the class.

I'm saying the poll results clearly show that there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there about the ranger class. If the class is clearly weak, then why do you have a significant portion of the votes saying there is no problem? Personally, I suspect a lot more rangers who use archery and leaders voted "no problem" and a lot more inexperienced or die hard melee rangers voted "significant problem". The poll probably shows a difference in opinion between archery and melee rather than saying anything specific about the class as a whole.

[Sarell]

Or you could just be wrong Kiryan. One of the reasons why people say that there is nothing wrong with rangers is because they never play as one.

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the poll in any instance. Most people who currently play rangers full time are just sitting afk doing nothing in my experience. I think that warriors and mages who have been to 1000 zones compared to a ranger who spends their days sitting afk 1w have a far better idea of the balance of a ranger in a zone than the ranger themselves. If people didn't have an opinion on rangers then hopefully they wouldn't bother voting, then again, the number of posts by inactive players is kinda terrifying? It is these inactive wannabe aragon rangers that give the class a bad name more than any of their skills. That's why I rolled Enemis, leveled him to 46 in a day and started soloing and smiting stuff, to see if rangers really sucked (and to get them downgaded), guess what, they don't. Get out there and smite stuff rangers.

at time of post...
who ranger sort
Listing of the Staff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<None>

There are 0 visible staff member(s) on.

Listing of the Mortals!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[50 Ran] Teflor Lyorian, the Wanderer (Human) (AFK) (RP)

There are 1 mortal(s) on.

...how do rangers get RP and AFK to stay on anyhow? :P

[teflor the ranger]

Or you could just be wrong Kiryan. One of the reasons why people say that there is nothing wrong with rangers is because they never play as one.

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the poll in any instance. Most people who currently play rangers full time are just sitting afk doing nothing in my experience. I think that warriors and mages who have been to 1000 zones compared to a ranger who spends their days sitting afk 1w have a far better idea of the balance of a ranger in a zone than the ranger themselves. If people didn't have an opinion on rangers then hopefully they wouldn't bother voting, then again, the number of posts by inactive players is kinda terrifying? It is these inactive wannabe aragon rangers that give the class a bad name more than any of their skills. That's why I rolled Enemis, leveled him to 46 in a day and started soloing and smiting stuff, to see if rangers really sucked (and to get them downgaded), guess what, they don't. Get out there and smite stuff rangers.

at time of post...
who ranger sort
Listing of the Staff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<None>

There are 0 visible staff member(s) on.

Listing of the Mortals!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[50 Ran] Teflor Lyorian, the Wanderer (Human) (AFK) (RP)

There are 1 mortal(s) on.

...how do rangers get RP and AFK to stay on anyhow? :P

Teflor zones, not every night but on quite a few. So does my other l50 alts.

Rangers are fine to take into a zone. You'd just rather have any other as skilled character from a different class anyway.

(Which is why they're a complete and abject failure.)

Also, I'm a ranger. I can get anything to stick to myself. I'M ON AN ADVENTURE!

Rangers are a great class if you like playing by yourself. All by yourself.

[belle]

part 1, dual wielding and melee damage

IMO rangers first option should be with their only truly unique and special skill which is archery. Melee should remain a backup skill.

The thing is basically EVERY high level old time ranger completely disagrees with you. Whenever this talk has come up (several hundred times over the years), the long term rangers have always come down heavily on the side of upping melee (or reducing other class melee), and keeping archery as a backup skill. Forcing rangers to be archers prim takes out any fun of the class, and removes the 'jack of several trades' flexibility. There is no question rangers _should_ have the best melee damage in game.

First Belleranger whine of 05!

[Ragorn]

I guess I'll make the same point in this thread I've made in every other:

As long as Rangers are expected to use archery, and their skills are all melee-based, the class will be broken.

It's sad when the most efficient use of the Ranger class is to purposely forego using all of your combat skills in favor of "afire target."

[Delmair Aamoren]

You know, if you add another attack to rangers, thats further going to mess things up unless they standardize weapon damage. As it stands right now, there are a good number of GREAT 1h weapons that are equal to or better than the dice on 2h weapons. So a ranger with 4X 1h weapon attacks vs a warrior with 2X 2h attacks, the ranger is going to be doing MORE than double the damage. Silly at best. Now, if this coincides with weapon damage being "fixed", i'm all for it. Otherwise it just widens the melee gap. And yes, when i say 1h weapons, i mean both swords and ESPECIALLY daggers. *cough*2d11 stiletto*cough* (which i THINK has been downed a bit, but the 4d6 daggers still exist). To put this in perspective....

[kiryan]

best 1h im aware of is average 14 damage and your typical 2hs are 20 damage with the new twilight being 28 damage (not counting the extra 3 damroll which could make it a 31 when compared to old twilight). And that 14 damage 1h doesn't have a damage proc.

standardizing damage and dice on weapons has little to do with a "melee" problem and would make very little impact unless your talking doubling 2h dice damage and even then there are ratio issues that won't be solved.

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16831