What the Ranger Really is

[Grayf]

Here is the company line:"Rangers are master outdoorsmen and trackers, using stealth to defeat their adversaries."No. Rangers are not "master outdoorsmen", and -Scouts- are trackers; Rangers do it no better than anybody else. I don't see the word "tracker" in the Bard or Assassin description, why should it be in the Rangers?So what is a Ranger, really? I think of it this way:1. The Predator class is the basic version of the EQ1 Rogue.2. The Assassin subclass is the realized version of the EQ1 Rogue.3. The Ranger subclass is an Assassin... with a bow.I, for one, am not satisfied with that. The Ranger, in play, does not reconcile with the description we've been given. I want my Ranger to "feel" like a Ranger. Here are my suggestions:1. Rangers are survivalists -- bring forage back. Rangers should be able to forage food, water, and other natural items from outdoor zones. Make the food tradeable and comparable to vendor-bought food(worse than provisioner food). If the economy is an issue, make the food/drink no-rent.2. Ranger tracking should have increased range in outdoor zones. This is their element. If balance is an issue, decrease tracking range indoors.3. Ranger stealth should have an increased speed in outdoor zones. If balance is an issue, decrease the speed indoors.4. Ranger pathfinding should have an increased speed in outdoor zones. If balance is an issue, decrease the speed indoors.5. Animal companions. These should not be fluff abilities, but we don't need to be a pet class. Use them like procs. Perhaps the hawk could proc disarm, the tiger proc a DD, etc.6. Certain abilities make no sense. Shadowflame and Lightning Strike have nothing to do with the EQ2 version of the Ranger. We have no business harnessing the power of fire and lightning if we are not spellcasters. Pathfinding should not give a Spirit of the Wolf animation.These are merely suggestions. I don't care how it's done, but I'd like the Ranger to somehow match the description we've been given. It's a good description, standard J.R.R. Tolkien fare, and why many of us play the Ranger class in every game that has one. I, for one, am not satisfied playing an Assassin with a bow. I could always try another class, but I'd rather play a Ranger that feels like a Ranger.

[Vecsus_E]

<DIV>1. Agree.  Nothing fancy necessary</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2.  Fine with me.  Tracking indoors sucks anyway.  Too many turns and levels</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3.  I would love increased stealth speed outside but not at the expense of my speed inside.  Shard recovery and scouting indoors would suck if we were slower than we already are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4.  No issue.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>5.  I agree that the pet is largely worthless.  Mine has saved me once.  And once it completely screwed up a tethered pull my group was doing.  It thought I was running from the fight and attacked the mob.  When it died the encounter ended and we could not re-agro the mob til it got back to the spawn point.  An interesting pet idea would be if they took damage from traps if we fail to disarm them.  If the pet dies then fine, can resummon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>6.  Why do those skills have to have a tie-in with EQ1. EQ1 Rangers never had pets but you have no problem having them in EQ2.  We have every business dealing with fire and lightning.  What starts most forest fires?  Lightning.  If we are the masters of the woods then we would logically have learned a lot about nature.  And whats the problem with a Spirit of the Wolf icon for Pathfinding?  What the hell does it matter what the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] icon looks like?  Of all the things to be concerned about, the look of an icon is the dumbest.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you feel like an assassin with a bow then perhaps you picked the wrong class.  I don't feel at all like that.  In fact, I consider assassins to be Rangers with crappy bow skills.  Aside from some basic bow skills, an assassin has to wait for the mob to get in melee range to do his damage.  By the time a solo mob is close enough to hit me I've taken it down to about 60% HP.    Hell, you are 4 levels higher than me, so you have even better bow skills than I do.  Am I missing something?  Do we get crappier as we get higher?</DIV>

[Kaga]

What the ranger really is, is a hunter. That's it. We are not like other rangers from other games, people need to realize this. What we are given, is a wide range of tools to kill our prey. How people use them, separates them from good rangers, and bad rangers. We do nothing else other than kill things. Yes it would be nice to have a superior track, yes it would be nice to have forage (even though this is a wood elf racial trait), but we are Hunters, and killers. This issue with the pet, yeah it would be nice if it was useful like the paladin horse, but it's not. So drop it. This was given to us as a cool factor, nothing has been taken away from us. We do our job as hunter's and that's all that matters.

[ProtoDe]

<DIV>My biggest gripe is that my class of choice, the Ranger, has been based <STRONG>entirely</STRONG> on the Rogue class.  Rogue tactics, Rogue attacks, Rogue abilities - it's blatantly obvious.  Since when (what game, story, or novel?) have Rangers <STRONG>ever</STRONG> known how to pick locks or disarm traps?  I want to be a Ranger - not a [Removed for Content] glorified Rogue!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The whole idea of the bulk of my attacks being "stealth" attacks is BS.  I shouldn't have to worry about my orientation to a mob to be able to use my best attacks.  The only reason I would want to avoid the front side of a mob is to avoid its ripostes - if they even exist in EQ2.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The only aspect of a Rogue that has <STRONG>ever</STRONG> been shared by the Ranger class - in any genre you choose - has been the ability to sneak.  Yes, Rangers can be sneaky, but it has never been a class-defining ability the way EQ2 makes it.  My class-defining ability is Archery.  Period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At level 25 I'm only halfway through the levels, so I don't know what's to come further down the road, but so far I still <STRONG>feel</STRONG> like a forced Rogue - with a bow.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I doubt that there is anything that can be done about it at this point.  The class definition goes all the way back to the root of this bogus "class" they created, so I don't really see any way to correct this.  The Fighter class should have been the basis for all the melee classes and branched off of that -  but who ever said that the designers had any intention of being logical.  Just look at the wacky interdependencies in the tradeskills - I mean, really - does it make sense that a Tailor can't make their patterns?  Or a Sage can't make their own Ink?  Ridiculous!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having fun anyway, but when I want to be a true Ranger, I have to go back to EQ1 - there were at least a <STRONG>few</STRONG> things that team got right.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So far I've been severely disappointed by what the EQ2 team has done to my beloved Ranger.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>P.S.  I don't mind the (severe) lack of range in the tracking window nearly as much as I miss the sorting functions.  I really miss being able to get an idea of the distance to a mob based on its position in my distance-sorted list.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kaga]

People really have to realize, that at level 50, that's still only level 50. The game was designed to go to 200. At 200, we will probably be able to track an entire zone, but at level 50... well that's just a quarter of the way there.

[Geoli]

I'm inclinded to agree with a few of the things said about the definition of a ranger. Dictionary.com defines ranger as 1) A wanderer, rover. This fits in with the rogue class. 2) A warden employed to protect a natural area, such as a forest or park. When most people think of a ranger, the outdoors of course comes to mind. Then there's the US Armed Forces type ranger, which is something totally different. In the fantasy genre, for whatever reason, rangers are always associated with archery. I never understood that personally, but whatever. In LotR, Aragorn was a ranger...not Legolas. As far as how EQ2 defines a ranger, you must first consider the archetype and class:Scout - Use stealth and cunning to explore the unknown. Highly skilled at detecting and disarming traps, they are experts at infiltrating the lair of the enemy. In combat, scouts rely upon the element of surprise to inflict opportunistic damage and gain an advantage over their opponents.Predator - Relentless hunters who use stealth and cunning to stalk their prey. At home in the shadows, predators use the element of surprise to give their allies the upper hand.Ranger - Natural outdoorsmen and trackers, masters of stealthy movement in the undergrowth. They use perception and cunning to gain the advantage over their adversaries.The above definitions were pasted directly from the EQ2 homepage. I'm going to have to agree with Grayfyn about the outdoor stealth movement. If we're supposed to be "masters" then increased speed is a must, along with a lowered chance of detection. As for "perception and cunning"...well that's another story. There is no coding involved with that. Only the person sitting at the keyboard can do that, it's not something the game itself can offer.I don't have the experience a lot of you have. This is my 3rd MMO, and the first in this type of setting. I'm used to playing more of a tank-type role, but I find it extremely boring and unchallenging in EQ2. I don't have 4 toons or even 2. My character is a level 18 predator at this writing, and will be doing the ranger subclass when I can. So far my biggest gripe is the lack of range bows have, and the fact that I can't see it slung across my back when not in use.

[Artr]

I agree completely. Rangers are the fantasy equivilant to special ops. I can do what the archtype, class and sub-class basically say is my job. To scout and infiltrate. Several times I have used my hunt skill to check out an area, both indoors and out. I know most zones very well because I can check them out on my solo times. Often in SH I'm the one running to pick up new group members because of track and just general knowledge of the area. Rangers are an excellent class if you know how to use them. The tactics aren't handed to you on a silver plater. You have to plan and execute. A ranger in good hands in incredabley deadly and useful to any group. We are ghosts. We are seen only when we want to be seen. As for track, I can usually guess where it is before I click to track it. 9 times out of 10 I use track just to see if something has popped. I'm still faster with PF than any other class with SoW. I think for once someone hit right one with what a Ranger should be and handing us overkilled skills isn't the answer to the "problems"

[Kaga]

In higher levels, most things see through the scout invis. Fury's are the only ones that get an invis scouts can't see through.

[Vecsus_E]

<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ProtoDewd wrote:<BR> <DIV>The whole idea of the bulk of my attacks being "stealth" attacks is BS.  I shouldn't have to worry about my orientation to a mob to be able to use my best attacks.  The only reason I would want to avoid the front side of a mob is to avoid its ripostes - if they even exist in EQ2.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First off, Ripostes do exist.  By level 25 you should have realized that by now.  Second, it makes perfect sense that an arrow in the middle of the back will do more damage than in the front.  Armor is usually heavier in the front and a mob that cannot see the attack coming cannot do much to mitigate it.  </P> <P><BR> </P> </FONT>

[Belar2001]

<DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hunt and Sneak stack, use them stacked and you will find most things can no longer see through your sneak.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As far as the class is concerned, I TOTALLY agree with the person who wrote that the class is fine the problem is that most people don't use it correctly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If I have to explain to another scout archetype 20+ leveler where Vermin's Snye is, or how to get to Gnollslayer Keep, or how to use the mariner bell, or how to get to the Commonlands ect...well you get my point.  Rangers are supposed to be leaders and guides, we are supposed to be the best in the game at pulling, we keep applying EQ1 experiences to EQ2 when EQ2 is a completely different game.  I am having a blast with my Ranger (actually a 19th Predator that has already passed the Ranger quest and is waiting to DING to 20), I find that with my knowledge of zones and ability to pull I generally am the leader of the group and that is exactly what the designers had in mind for this class.</DIV>

[Grayf]

<blockquote><hr>Kagara wrote:What the ranger really is, is a hunter. That's it. We are not like other rangers from other games, people need to realize this. What we are given, is a wide range of tools to kill our prey. How people use them, separates them from good rangers, and bad rangers. We do nothing else other than kill things.</blockquote>Correct; that is basically what I've already said. Sony's definition of the class is not actually what the class is. People choosing a Ranger based on the description are in for a disappointment.

[Grayf]

<blockquote><hr>Kagara wrote:People really have to realize, that at level 50, that's still only level 50. The game was designed to go to 200. At 200, we will probably be able to track an entire zone, but at level 50... well that's just a quarter of the way there.<hr></blockquote>I've seen many players saying this, but not Sony.

[Ra]

<DIV>Actually, trade levels count as player levels.  So I think this game is expandable to 100 Combat and 100 Trade levels.</DIV>

[Grayf]

<blockquote><hr>Artrus wrote:Rangers are an excellent class if you know how to use them. I think for once someone hit right one with what a Ranger should be and handing us overkilled skills isn't the answer to the "problems"<hr></blockquote>Noone said Rangers are a subpar class.

[Artr]

Then why mess with it? If it isn't sub-par in your opinion then why do you want to change anything?

[Grayf]

<blockquote><hr>Artrus wrote:Then why mess with it? If it isn't sub-par in your opinion then why do you want to change anything?<hr></blockquote>As a DPS class, Rangers are fine. As "master outdoorsmen and trackers", they're not. You might as well call Dirges "master outdoorsmen and trackers", they have the same skills as far as those things go. You may not agree and that's fine with me, but I think that the Ranger class should align with the description we've been given.

[Kaga]

Why can't Master Outdoorsmen and Tracker be role played? Tracking is more than turning on tracking, and then then looking at your box. It is not defined solely by abilities, it's the way you play.

[Audio]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kagara wrote:<BR>Why can't Master Outdoorsmen and Tracker be role played? Tracking is more than turning on tracking, and then then looking at your box. It is not defined solely by abilities, it's the way you play.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Sure it can be roleplayed, like another poster said above he scouts out zones and knows them well and doesn't have to rely so much on tracking.</P> <P>This however doesn't change our role from the dirge's as far as tracking and stealth are concerned.  They can do it just as well whether we roleplay it or not it doesn't change our abilities.  </P>

[Audio]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Grayfyn wrote:<BR>Here is the company line:<BR><BR>"Rangers are master outdoorsmen and trackers, using stealth to defeat their adversaries."<BR><BR>No. Rangers are not "master outdoorsmen", and -Scouts- are trackers; Rangers do it no better than anybody else. I don't see the word "tracker" in the Bard or Assassin description, why should it be in the Rangers?<BR><BR>So what is a Ranger, really? I think of it this way:<BR><BR>1. The Predator class is the basic version of the EQ1 Rogue.<BR>2. The Assassin subclass is the realized version of the EQ1 Rogue.<BR>3. The Ranger subclass is an Assassin... with a bow.<BR><BR>I, for one, am not satisfied with that. The Ranger, in play, does not reconcile with the description we've been given. I want my Ranger to "feel" like a Ranger. Here are my suggestions:<BR><BR>1. Rangers are survivalists -- bring forage back. Rangers should be able to forage food, water, and other natural items from outdoor zones. Make the food tradeable and comparable to vendor-bought food(worse than provisioner food). If the economy is an issue, make the food/drink no-rent.<BR><BR>2. Ranger tracking should have increased range in outdoor zones. This is their element. If balance is an issue, decrease tracking range indoors.<BR><BR>3. Ranger stealth should have an increased speed in outdoor zones. If balance is an issue, decrease the speed indoors.<BR><BR>4. Ranger pathfinding should have an increased speed in outdoor zones. If balance is an issue, decrease the speed indoors.<BR><BR>5. Animal companions. These should not be fluff abilities, but we don't need to be a pet class. Use them like procs. Perhaps the hawk could proc disarm, the tiger proc a DD, etc.<BR><BR>6. Certain abilities make no sense. Shadowflame and Lightning Strike have nothing to do with the EQ2 version of the Ranger. We have no business harnessing the power of fire and lightning if we are not spellcasters. Pathfinding should not give a Spirit of the Wolf animation.<BR><BR>These are merely suggestions. I don't care how it's done, but I'd like the Ranger to somehow match the description we've been given. It's a good description, standard J.R.R. Tolkien fare, and why many of us play the Ranger class in every game that has one. I, for one, am not satisfied playing an Assassin with a bow. I could always try another class, but I'd rather play a Ranger that feels like a Ranger.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>1.  I would welcome a forage ability although I don't think we need it.  I do think it would need to be no-value and possibly no-rent or no-trade however.  There's no reason that we should be able to forage valuable items when other classes can't.</P> <P>2/5.  I agree that we should have an extended tracking to seperate us from other scouts.  I think that this could be a possible use for our hawk pet as a tracking range extender, much like an EQ1 Wizard's familiar gave him certain buffs.  A hawk would definatley be able to search the land and have extended vision that would augment a Ranger's ability.</P> <P>3/4.  I would like to see increased speed as well, either in outdoor zones or while in stealth.  At the very least it should increase with level or with App. and Adept upgrades.  Again, it shouldn't be game breaking.  Mages already get Invis that allows faster movement than us although invis and stealth are supposedly used under different checks (see invis doesn't reveal hidden players in stealth).  I'd like to see one of these OR see Preds get the best stealth of scouts since Rogues already get group stealth.<BR></P> <P>6.  I disagree on these points.  These are merely effects and animations.  Think of the attacks as being so strong that they inflict the force of fire damage.  If that doesn't work for you remember when Aragorn faught off the Ring Wraiths in LOTR? He used a torch, fire attack if you will, that damaged them.  It works for me to RP like that.</P> <P>As for the Pathfinding animation it is just eye candy.  It looks cool.  In beta they usd a cat animation instead of the wolf which I tough was cool too (I think that's where the little cat icon for pathfinding comes from).  Anyway, it's a small thing that makes the game fun.</P> <P>Finally, I don't think Grayfyn's post diserved to be one-stared.  He brings up some valid points about our class even if you don't agree with them.  This thread is one of the few on this board that offers good discussion and insight to the gaming experience.</P>

[Artr]

As far as sneaking is concerned with Hunt at adept 1 I can sneak past low level reds where are before with just app1 I could only sneak past yellows. This may apply to mages as well, I don't know.

[Abi]

Let Rangers be the only class to track Ressources...

[PrometheusO]

<DIV>Sony never said there are 100 combatant levels. The only thing confirmed is that there is a level 50.  Please show me the article or place from which you got this information.  There is no such thing as a level 51+ yet.  Show proof.</DIV>

[Ra]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> PrometheusO wrote:<BR> <DIV>Sony never said there are 100 combatant levels. The only thing confirmed is that there is a level 50.  Please show me the article or place from which you got this information.  There is no such thing as a level 51+ yet.  Show proof.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=35511&highlight=200+levels#M35511" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=35511&highlight=200+levels#M35511</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[PrometheusO]

<DIV>Thank you Ravi, I stand corrected. /bows.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>