Rangers should have group invis

[Elikal]

<DIV>Ok, I returned to the game for EoF, loving it, and plkayed a Ranger. For the first time, and I like it. However, there is one thing that really<BR>bugs me: we get no group invisibility at all. I know, until now it is a special feature of Swashbuckler (likely Brigand tóo, but only played<BR>Swashy before) and I feel this is kinda cheated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EVERY second group I join with my Ranger asks me "do you have group invis?" And EVERY time I look into their disappointed<BR>faces "then what the heck are you doing here?" Since other classes now can use bow I feel the Ranger class is somewhat behind<BR>the others. Maybe a Ranger does more dps than a Swashy, but from experience I feel a Swashy still has a lot more, good special<BR>attacks and he usually can take much more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, after a long time being gone, it seems almost every class has invis now. I saw Warlocks, Wizards, whatever, all with their<BR>own invis! Not that its wrong, but it takes the speciality of Rangers as solo invis even more away.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can track. Just rarely anyone uses it. (since all have EQ2map)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We COULD sneak and look what is ahead. But most groups dont give us he time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our best attacks are from behind - and many tanks just dont aggro in any way we can use it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can disarm - IF people would stop [Removed for Content] open the chests anyway.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our speciality is bow & arrows - just that is so many places there is no space for ranged!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So I think it is fair a square to ask for a group invis for Rangers. Not all Scouts want to be Swashys, there are already plenty of them,<BR>and I feel Ranger is a kind of neglected class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=4>GIVE RANGERS GROUP INVISIBILITY!</FONT></DIV>

[DarkMirrax]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote:<BR> <DIV>Ok, I returned to the game for EoF, loving it, and plkayed a Ranger. For the first time, and I like it. However, there is one thing that really<BR>bugs me: we get no group invisibility at all. I know, until now it is a special feature of Swashbuckler (likely Brigand tóo, but only played<BR>Swashy before) and I feel this is kinda cheated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EVERY second group I join with my Ranger asks me "do you have group invis?" And EVERY time I look into their disappointed<BR>faces "then what the heck are you doing here?" Since other classes now can use bow I feel the Ranger class is somewhat behind<BR>the others. Maybe a Ranger does more dps than a Swashy, but from experience I feel a Swashy still has a lot more, good special<BR>attacks and he usually can take much more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/Umm we do dps ... like LOTS of it ..</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, after a long time being gone, it seems almost every class has invis now. I saw Warlocks, Wizards, whatever, all with their<BR>own invis! Not that its wrong, but it takes the speciality of Rangers as solo invis even more away.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/Then why would we need group invis when they get there own invis + you can buy invis totems of the broker for a few silver anyways</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can track. Just rarely anyone uses it. (since all have EQ2map)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/Eq2 maps doesnt tell you if the nameds are up does it ?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We COULD sneak and look what is ahead. But most groups dont give us he time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/Get a better group or better still let the rogues sneak around</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our best attacks are from behind - and many tanks just dont aggro in any way we can use it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/Huh ? you mean the tanks arnt turning the mobs ? then /Tell (jnsert Stupid Tanks Name) Umm mind turning the mob so we can do a bit of damage pls ?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can disarm - IF people would stop [Removed for Content] open the chests anyway.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/omg what groups are u in ? seriuosly ! tell them to leave the chests alone</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our speciality is bow & arrows - just that is so many places there is no space for ranged!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/Where ? its not like you have to be a million miles away its just a few steps back is far enough to be in range for Ranged and Melee CA's</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So I think it is fair a square to ask for a group invis for Rangers. Not all Scouts want to be Swashys, there are already plenty of them,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/No i dont ever want to do naggy runs again</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR>and I feel Ranger is a kind of neglected class.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>/True</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=4>GIVE RANGERS GROUP INVISIBILITY!</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[thorvang]

dare you demanding utility!

[Elikal]

<P>I think it is still a valid request. Not all ppl have heaven-perfect groups. Often I am glad I find ANY group.</P> <P>Giving group invis is something EVERYONE would profit from. </P>

[Elikal]

<DIV>It is a simple thing, which EVERYONE would profit from.</DIV>

[gi]

<P>I personally believe that none of the scout classes should be able to invis others. It should be spellcasters only. ! You don't get rangers casting invisibility on others in fantasy genre games. Stealthing is different from invis, you should be able to stealth yourself if you are a scout class, but how do you stealth an entire group. Oddly enough Wizzies who get invisibility can only invis 1 single  target. No group invis spell for wizzies... :smileysad:</P> <P> </P>

[Eugam]

There where times where tanks turned the target for the scouts. I think some tanks still do. And there where times where scounts disarmed the chest. There where times where a single mage brought a full team through a dangerous place, but that took time and patience <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />   Maybe you just picked some bad groups... I think all is fine with stealth and invisibility. <div></div>

[Elikal]

<P>Ok I know everyone imagines classes different, I respect that. However, I visualize the classes as most fantasy novels do.</P> <P>A wizard is USUALLY a loner, be it Gandalf or Belgarath, Allanon or Elminster. They are people who stay alone, by archetype.<BR>A Ranger however is THE classic group leader, like Aragorn. He goes ahead, leads the group through the terrain safely. Now<BR>since a game such abilities are spells, I find the idea that scouts have group invis quite logic. </P> <P>The classic ability of a wizard would be teleport, not invis. Just think that every class has one way to improve travel.</P> <P>So you'd say priests make faster travel and less aggro with divine blessings, spellcasters teleport, scouts make invis<BR>and tanks... well the hack the way.</P>

[Lev]

I am sorry to say, but I don't really think group invis is what I would most like to see added to the Ranger profession...We have so many more other stuff that is handicapping the ranger class.. Inventory managing for one (Bigger quivers FTW!)broken skills (Hawk dive anyone?), every skill we have looks like a scaled back version of the assasin counterpart.And btw the OP is totally in his right to say that Swashie's can outdo rangers at times. The problem is not our potential (cause we do actually have the potential to be t1 dps.. the problem is we have to work so hard to get there. Scout classes are by us players classified as t3, t2, and t1 dps. Troubs and Dirge (bards) being t3, having lots of buffs to compliment their lesser dps, Swashies and Brigands (rogues) being t2 slightly better single dps, but has debuffs to compliment their lesser dps. And finally t1 ranger and assasins, pure dps. And I can promise you most rangers has at one time or another been outdone by a swashie or even a brigand, depending on the situation of course.. the only problem is that this should not be occuring due to the classification.Sorry did not mean to make this a rant about dps thread.. sorry for the small hijack.. and honestly I don't mind being worse than assasins, I just don't understand why we are so close to the rogues when we are t1 and they are t2.. seeing as they have skills to compensate for their lack of dps (which isn't much). Not saying we should nerf rogues by all mean.. I guess I see too big a difference in skills and equipment for rangers vs. other classes. And of course this has been mentioned countless times before..Again sorry, I merely don't think group invis is a thing we should be worrying about, we have plenty of other stuff to chose from.<div></div>

[TerriBlades]

<DIV>Group invis is def NOT something I would want as a ranger. Its not as wonderful as you might think. Dont believe me? Ask a rogue what they think of smuggle. Im sure you think it would be a cool thing to have, but in all honestly, I almost Never use that when Im playing my brigand. Sides almost every other mob sees invis/stealth these days, you're better off just slaughtering anything in your way.</DIV>

[Turb]

If you want group invis as a scout, roll a swashie or brigand.It's fine the way it is, people should learn soon enough who has group invis, including swashies, brigands, furies and illusionists. There's no point diluting the differentiators between classes, else you may as well give swashies and brigs powerful ranged attacks.It's odd, there are a lot of rangers, but I rarely group with any. I guess most of them solo.

[Vaiko]

<P>I think the group stealth is perfectly fine placed with the sneaky swashys.<BR>If you group with people who don’t know what a ranger can do for the group I feel sorry. But my experience is also that player which don’t know what a ranger is also don’t know what their own class is and how their class works.<BR>Group stealth will not fix this.</P> <P>Ranger is not a class with has lots of utilities, never was and I hope never will be.<BR>There are other classes which fulfil that role and I don’t like the idea that every class is basically the same.</P> <P>Group stealth is not that huge of a utility, by the way, as someone else already answered to your post. There are totems available which allows every class to get invisibility and therefore is no real need for that skill anymore in my opinion.<BR>Ranger stealth was nothing special to begin with. Lots of classes had stealth or invisibility.</P> <P>Tracking is of limited use if everyone already knows where to find the mob. The map tool is one reason. People playing the 3, 4 or 5 alt may be another (but I guess that was not the reason in your group).<BR>The same is true for sneaking ahead. Of which use would it be? There is nothing special to see ahead.</P> <P>Tanks are so lazy these times. Not much you can do about it in my opinion.</P> <P>The usefulness of disarm was gone with the patch that stopped the chest traps from dealing lethal damage. I remember with fun back the time when fast looting wizards got killed trying to open a chest before I was able to disarm it. Good old times. But I also understand why SOE did the change.</P> <P>There is almost no occasion where I don’t have the space to use ranged arts.<BR>Sometimes the tank pulls really stupid but this is not a problem of the place. It is more a question of skill or ignorance.</P> <P>My feeling is you will not get lots of support from other rangers for your request. Maybe because other people see ranger different than you see them, maybe because there are other solutions available to get to the same result.<BR>I hope you understand my different opinion on the topic.</P>

[DarkMirrax]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Vaiko wrote:<BR> <P>I think the group stealth is perfectly fine placed with the sneaky swashys.<BR>If you group with people who don’t know what a ranger can do for the group I feel sorry. But my experience is also that player which don’t know what a ranger is also don’t know what their own class is and how their class works.<BR>Group stealth will not fix this.</P> <P>Ranger is not a class with has lots of utilities, never was and I hope never will be.<BR>There are other classes which fulfil that role and I don’t like the idea that every class is basically the same.</P> <P>Group stealth is not that huge of a utility, by the way, as someone else already answered to your post. There are totems available which allows every class to get invisibility and therefore is no real need for that skill anymore in my opinion.<BR>Ranger stealth was nothing special to begin with. Lots of classes had stealth or invisibility.</P> <P>Tracking is of limited use if everyone already knows where to find the mob. The map tool is one reason. People playing the 3, 4 or 5 alt may be another (but I guess that was not the reason in your group).<BR>The same is true for sneaking ahead. Of which use would it be? There is nothing special to see ahead.</P> <P>Tanks are so lazy these times. Not much you can do about it in my opinion.</P> <P>The usefulness of disarm was gone with the patch that stopped the chest traps from dealing lethal damage. I remember with fun back the time when fast looting wizards got killed trying to open a chest before I was able to disarm it. Good old times. But I also understand why SOE did the change.</P> <P>There is almost no occasion where I don’t have the space to use ranged arts.<BR>Sometimes the tank pulls really stupid but this is not a problem of the place. It is more a question of skill or ignorance.</P> <P>My feeling is you will not get lots of support from other rangers for your request. Maybe because other people see ranger different than you see them, maybe because there are other solutions available to get to the same result.<BR>I hope you understand my different opinion on the topic.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>/shrug i liked my NO better lol

[xandez]

no pleage, it just doesnt fit the theme <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />++Xan<div></div>

[Teksun]

I agree that the OP has been in some pretty crappy groups. I have been in my share. If the tank doesn't turn the mob, I go behind it. If I get adds, I blame the tank for not turning it. If a non-scout opens chests, I wait til the first trap, THEN I say: See, you shoulda let me open it.If I were to ask for one bonus: Let Pathfinding stack with mounts. After level 30, it's about useless...<div></div>

[DarkMirrax]

<DIV>yea again with the no</DIV>

[TwistedFaith]

As a lvl 70 ranger, i'd say group invis is nowhere near the top of my requests. Have you any idea how annoying group invis is for the person who casts it, go ask a rogue or a fury.Anyway back to ranger issues:1. ARROWS ARROWS ARROWS ARROWS - Cost and lack of legendary arrows.2. Bows - Fabled duel wields drop in abundance yet, decent fabled bows with high dmg rating are insanely rare, totally screws over the class compared to Assasins. 3. Hawk Dive - Was fixed in beta until some total [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]wit pointed out how it could be used in PVP, nerfed back to the useless crap it was before the next day. So much for 2 rule sets huh.4. Utility - We have zero and do less dps than certain t2 class with oddles of utlity.5. God Diety - Tunare the classic wood elf/ranger god, has 1 AWFUL ranger blessing, and all he rest are heals. VERY ANNOYING!6. Procs - 'on a melee attack' HOW TOUGH IS IT TO ADD 'on a ranged attack'? Every damm proc seems to leave out ranged.

[thorvang]

a ranger is a typical group leader? huh?! /confused.../scratchok, aragorn led some folks through the mountains and such. but1st - he's been a loner before (strider)2nd - he's a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing KING!

[gi]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote:<BR> <P>Ok I know everyone imagines classes different, I respect that. However, I visualize the classes as most fantasy novels do.</P> <P>A wizard is USUALLY a loner, be it Gandalf or Belgarath, Allanon or Elminster. They are people who stay alone, by archetype.<BR>A Ranger however is THE classic group leader, like Aragorn. He goes ahead, leads the group through the terrain safely. Now<BR>since a game such abilities are spells, I find the idea that scouts have group invis quite logic. </P> <P>The classic ability of a wizard would be teleport, not invis. Just think that every class has one way to improve travel.</P> <P>So you'd say priests make faster travel and less aggro with divine blessings, spellcasters teleport, scouts make invis<BR>and tanks... well the hack the way.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>True, wizards are often loners,  however that said I do think there is a difference between Rangers safely guiding people through a wilderness and invis them past the monsters. although maybe I am thinking to litleraly here. </P> <P>Surely the primary function in my eyes for a ranger is to be masters of  track, and Range combat.</P>

[interstellarmatter]

<P>Group invis isn't nearly a coveted skill as it was when shards were in place.  Groups would pay a Brigands/Swashys just to sneak them down to their shards.  Most of the time now, it's used to sneak groups down to names or a quest mobs.</P> <P>I'm all for minimizing cross class skills.  We already have too many skills that cross class lines.  A ranger's role is a minimal utility with high DPS.  The Rogue is more of a utility class. The group sneak has always been an utility of the Rogue archtype.  There just isn't a compelling reason to give it to Rangers. </P> <P>Also, as someone said before, it's really a pain in the butt.  One step too far from Scout in an agro area can wipe a group.</P>

[Saihung23]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> interstellarmatter wrote:<BR> <P>Group invis isn't nearly a coveted skill as it was when shards were in place.  Groups would pay a Brigands/Swashys just to sneak them down to their shards.  Most of the time now, it's used to sneak groups down to names or a quest mobs.</P> <P>I'm all for minimizing cross class skills.  We already have too many skills that cross class lines.  <FONT color=#ffff00>A ranger's role is a minimal utility with high DPS</FONT>.  The Rogue is more of a utility class. The group sneak has always been an utility of the Rogue archtype.  There just isn't a compelling reason to give it to Rangers. </P> <P>Also, as someone said before, it's really a pain in the butt.  One step too far from Scout in an agro area can wipe a group.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Agreed.  More DPS please.  And more Ovaltine!</P> <P>Rangers are not utility classes.  Rogues are (and bards in a way ).  Rangers were intended to be hardnosed gritty damage dealers that lug around 10k arrows in a tiny little quiver.<BR></P>

[Laoch69]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV>Ok, I returned to the game for EoF, loving it, and plkayed a Ranger. For the first time, and I like it. However, there is one thing that really<BR>bugs me: we get no group invisibility at all. I know, until now it is a special feature of Swashbuckler (likely Brigand tóo, but only played<BR>Swashy before) and I feel this is kinda cheated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>EVERY second group I join with my Ranger asks me "do you have group invis?" And EVERY time I look into their disappointed<BR>faces "then what the heck are you doing here?" Since other classes now can use bow I feel the Ranger class is somewhat behind<BR>the others.</FONT> Maybe a Ranger does more dps than a Swashy, but from experience I feel a Swashy still has a lot more, good special<BR>attacks and he usually can take much more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also, after a long time being gone, it seems almost every class has invis now. I saw Warlocks, Wizards, whatever, all with their<BR>own invis! Not that its wrong, but it takes the speciality of Rangers as solo invis even more away.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can track. Just rarely anyone uses it. (since all have EQ2map)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We COULD sneak and look what is ahead. But most groups dont give us he time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our best attacks are from behind - and many tanks just dont aggro in any way we can use it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We can disarm - IF people would stop [Removed for Content] open the chests anyway.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our speciality is bow & arrows - just that is so many places there is no space for ranged!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So I think it is fair a square to ask for a group invis for Rangers. Not all Scouts want to be Swashys, there are already plenty of them,<BR>and I feel Ranger is a kind of neglected class. In classic fantasy, Rangers are those who lead a group safely. The group<BR>invis would be the logical ability therefore, while the classic fantasy swashbuckler (adventurer) is often the soloist - in stories.<BR>For matters of fairness you could give all scouts group invis to make it THEIR feature.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=4>GIVE RANGERS GROUP INVISIBILITY!</FONT></DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR><FONT color=#66ffff>Just because other classes can use a bow, does not mean they are rangers.  If your group wants invisibility, tell them to shell out 4 sp and buy a Totem of the Chameleon, or you can buy a stack and hand them out to your group.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#66ffff>/cheers!</FONT></P>

[USAFJeeper]

<DIV>No.  Its not what we do.</DIV>

[BSbon]

while group invis has some advantages i cant stand it. i often turn it off and cast my own cause all it takes is 1 chucklehead trying to get the shiny and everyone is dead. kill your way in and kill your way out.

[Delpha]

<DIV>Chameleon totems cost how much again?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Saihung23]

<DIV>[Removed for Content] happened here</DIV><p>Message Edited by Saihung23 on <span class=date_text>11-28-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:17 PM</span>

[Saihung23]

<P>I think two threads were merged...what fun</P> <P>Fix the guild recruitment tool please.</P> <P> </P> <P>OH....and no...rangers should not have group invis.   Swashies and Brigs have that right?  I dont want to be a Swashie.  What I would like...is a more useful Hawk Dive and Stream of arrows instead of some group utility like invis.</P><p>Message Edited by Saihung23 on <span class=date_text>11-28-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:21 PM</span>

[Elikal]

<DIV>Great. An entire thread against me. Just make my day. :/</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didnt think it is such a great thing that ppl really could disagree. It would not do damage to anyone, take nothing away, and STILL you are all against it.</DIV> <DIV>Ever heard the word "negative personality"? Why is it that every time someone has a request 20 ppl jump up and say nay for the sake of nay saying.<BR>God, I love MMO communities... everyone so understanding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, thanks for nothing.</DIV>

[BSbon]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote:<BR> <DIV>Great. An entire thread against me. Just make my day. :/</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didnt think it is such a great thing that ppl really could disagree. It would not do damage to anyone, take nothing away, and STILL you are all against it.</DIV> <DIV>Ever heard the word "negative personality"? Why is it that every time someone has a request 20 ppl jump up and say nay for the sake of nay saying.<BR>God, I love MMO communities... everyone so understanding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, thanks for nothing.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>i'm not against new ideas it's just that you picked the 1 spell that i hate lol. we have a swashy in our guild that likes to sneak whole groups past heroic mobs and he just ends up getting us wiped. i just hate that spell. nothing against you or new ideas.

[Lev]

<blockquote><hr>Elikal wrote:<div>Great. An entire thread against me. Just make my day. :/</div> <div> </div> <div>I didnt think it is such a great thing that ppl really could disagree. It would not do damage to anyone, take nothing away, and STILL you are all against it.</div> <div>Ever heard the word "negative personality"? Why is it that every time someone has a request 20 ppl jump up and say nay for the sake of nay saying.God, I love MMO communities... everyone so understanding.</div> <div> </div> <div>Well, thanks for nothing.</div><hr></blockquote>I am sorry you feel flamed, but I really don't think this is the case.. The thing is when you post about adding something to what many considers the forgotten class of everquest 2 you are sure to get alot of opinions. And to be honest your asking for something to make us more like rogues, I believe most people of any class would rather have something that makes them more unique than something to make them more similar to other classes. Don't take this personal, cause I don't think anyone that answered your thread took it personal either... They just shared their opinion, just like you did.<div></div>

[Elikal]

<P>With all respect, but so many posters disagree and thus destroy a maybe valid request by citing singular, <BR>non objective experiences, like yours: the swashy you know that leads the group to wipe. </P> <P>I am sorry for you, being am empatic person. But I just find it neither fair nor reasonable to undermine some <BR>person's request simply because you know some people who are unable to handle group invis.</P> <P>This is what EVERYONE is doing on forums.</P> <P>Some has a suggestion.</P> <P>Another disagrees, because he has had a few bad experiences with it. No matter if that is reasoable against<BR>the idea per se or not. This so ruins any reasonable and logical debate. Or the argument - "oh but we Rangers<BR>have SO many much more important problems".</P> <P>That is the most STUPID thing to say! There is something more important compared to almost EVERY problem.<BR>"We cant help you with your stupid headache because other people have cancer." Doh.</P>

[Lev]

<blockquote><hr>Elikal wrote:<div></div> <p>With all respect, but so many posters disagree and thus destroy a maybe valid request by citing singular, non objective experiences, like yours: the swashy you know that leads the group to wipe. </p> <p>I am sorry for you, being am empatic person. But I just find it neither fair nor reasonable to undermine some person's request simply because you know some people who are unable to handle group invis.</p> <p>This is what EVERYONE is doing on forums.</p> <p>Some has a suggestion.</p> <p>Another disagrees, because he has had a few bad experiences with it. No matter if that is reasoable againstthe idea per se or not. This so ruins any reasonable and logical debate. Or the argument - "oh but we Rangershave SO many much more important problems".</p> <p>That is the most STUPID thing to say! There is something more important compared to almost EVERY problem."We cant help you with your stupid headache because other people have cancer." Doh.</p><hr></blockquote>actually it is not like that at all.. First of Rangers not having group invis is not persei a problem, it is something you would like ADDED. And in that word lies the true problem with your request, asking for something to be added instead of something fixed when so much is not as it should be is like working towards an objective but going backwards. Not at all like your headache and cancer example, but rather like. Would you start building a garage if your house was missing a roof?<div></div>

[Stormcrest]

<div><blockquote><hr>Elikal wrote:<div>Great. An entire thread against me. Just make my day. :/</div> <div> </div> <div>I didnt think it is such a great thing that ppl really could disagree. It would not do damage to anyone, take nothing away, and STILL you are all against it.</div> <div>Ever heard the word "negative personality"? Why is it that every time someone has a request 20 ppl jump up and say nay for the sake of nay saying.God, I love MMO communities... everyone so understanding.</div> <div> </div> <div>Well, thanks for nothing.</div><hr></blockquote>Well, it doesn't seem that everyone here is jumping up to say nay for the sake of nay saying. You gave an opinion on something that you would like, but it just so happened that most of us don't agree with it for our class as a whole. I'd rather see DPS more easily attained for our class than a group invis that is not as fun as it seems (yes, I have plenty of experience with it on my Fury). Like someone said, all it takes is one person grabbing a shiny or just plain missing a mob with see invis to get thrown into combat and then take the whole group down due to an unprepared fight. This is off course more frequent in PUG's though as groups that know one another tend to know the limitations of their group make-up a little better.Just because something wouldn't do damage to a class doesn't mean it is something every player of that class would want it. I don't think using a bow would hurt my Fury, but I wouldn't want to see it added as it doesn't fit the flavor.I wouldn't disagree had you said "I think Rangers should have a bonus to stealth in wooded or natural environments" as I already don't like the fact that my Fury is a better Scout for a hunting group due to more mobs having See Stealth over See Invisibility. To counter that, give Rogues bonuses in urban or dungeon like environments. This would get hammered because of it's effect on PvP though <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />No need to feel that people didn't agree with you to spite you... we disagreed because we disagreed on the topic.</div>

[Elikal]

<P>The idea is an abstraction of what a Ranger does. In a realistic world, a Ranger leads a group of people through a safe way.<BR>In the real world or any realistic world, there wouldn't be wolves or bears every 2 meters, as in EQ2. Thus, EQ2 is not a<BR>realistic world, it is a condensed abstraction.</P> <P>A real ranger in a real world, would lead his group between the pack of wolves here and a cave bear there, between trees<BR>and bushes, hidden from sight and smell. In the dense EQ2 environment this is not possible, because the world is<BR>unrealistic packed with mobs. Therefore the invis is only an abstraction of his ability to find a safe path.</P>

[Stormcrest]

<div><blockquote><hr>Elikal wrote:<div></div> <p>The idea is an abstraction of what a Ranger does. In a realistic world, a Ranger leads a group of people through a safe way.In the real world or any realistic world, there wouldn't be wolves or bears every 2 meters, as in EQ2. Thus, EQ2 is not arealistic world, it is a condensed abstraction.</p> <p>A real ranger in a real world, would lead his group between the pack of wolves here and a cave bear there, between treesand bushes, hidden from sight and smell. In the dense EQ2 environment this is not possible, because the world isunrealistic packed with mobs. Therefore the invis is only an abstraction of his ability to find a safe path.</p><hr></blockquote>In all honesty though, we are Rangers in a EQII world with different roles. We are a DPS class not a utility class. You can role play the style of Ranger if you would like, that is the beauty of a MMORPG. You mentioned Aragorn earlier, yes he was a leader and a King. The version of Aragorn that I see us as is Strider. Stealth and go ahead of the group looking for the open areas, and then work through it after you find the safer route of passage. This is not always possible due to the fact that the world is densely populated as you mentioned earlier.Again we are not real rangers in a real world, we are EQII Rangers in a fantasy world. For that matter, a real ranger in a real world would not be able to make his companions poof on a whim. He would probably have to pass out camo kits or ghillie suits to conceal his companions. Again role play steps in here, make a woodworker to be a factory for invis totems and pass them out  to the group as camo kits if you so desire. </div>

[Jay]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote:<BR> <P>With all respect, but so many posters disagree and thus destroy a maybe valid request by citing singular, <BR>non objective experiences, like yours: the swashy you know that leads the group to wipe. </P> <P>I am sorry for you, being am empatic person. But I just find it neither fair nor reasonable to undermine some <BR>person's request simply because you know some people who are unable to handle group invis.</P> <P>This is what EVERYONE is doing on forums.</P> <P>Some has a suggestion.</P> <P>Another disagrees, because he has had a few bad experiences with it. No matter if that is reasoable against<BR>the idea per se or not. This so ruins any reasonable and logical debate. Or the argument - "oh but we Rangers<BR>have SO many much more important problems".</P> <P>That is the most STUPID thing to say! There is something more important compared to almost EVERY problem.<BR>"We cant help you with your stupid headache because other people have cancer." Doh.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>LOL, dude, grow a thicker skin or don't bother posting on any forum, anywhere. You shared an opinion of yours, others shared their opinions on the same subject. If you didn't want to hear their thoughts, don't ask for them. </P> <P>Nobody flamed you or called you names, nobody attacked you personally, people just happened to disagree and say "nah, not for me." Some folks went on to elaborate on what they WOULD like done for the class, and you call them stupid for that. Nice sig there, too, calling us all losers. Clearly a winning way to encourage people to listen to you and evaluate your ideas objectively. </P> <P>You posted one suggestion that didn't get an overwhelmingly positive reception, and you go all emo on us. Your choice, just don't be surprised if your overreactions tend to cost you what little credibility you may have.</P> <P>-----</P> <P>As to the subject at hand: I don't really want group invis. I wouldn't cry if I got it, but the last thing I really need is other classes' abilities. I want unique class abilities that give the ranger something special to offer in a group - unless there's something new in the Ranger AAs, we're still stuck with what, Miracle Arrow? That's about it. One of my big problems with EQ2 - and thus one of the reasons I'm barely playing it anymore - is the homogenization of classes across all archetypes. As you yourself said, everyone and their brother gets some kind of invis or stealth. Safe Fall is a joke, disarm is a joke, tracking is a joke, and stealth is now more of a hindrance than a benefit b/c every other mob sees through it. Evac is nice, but it's ridiculous how so many other classes get it. I'm sorry, but a PLATE TANK should not be evac'ing anyone, not even himself. Wizards get TWO evacs, one personal and one group. Wardens evac, too. Yay?</P> <P>Point being, I want *less* ability-swapping across classes, not more of it, even if it benefits my class. I don't want to cast fireballs or heal groups or tank Heroics, I want us to be the masters of ranged combat. I want to be a unique and beautiful snowflake, dammit! </P> <P>IMO, group invis should go to illusionists and rogues only, not furies. (The druidic masters of the elements and raging natural destruction suddenly become exceedingly crafty and subtle enough to conceal six people simultaneously. Riiiiiight.)</P><p>Message Edited by Jay42 on <span class=date_text>11-28-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:15 PM</span>

[Saihung23]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote:<BR> <P>The idea is an abstraction of what a Ranger does. In a realistic world, a Ranger leads a group of people through a safe way.<BR>In the real world or any realistic world, there wouldn't be wolves or bears every 2 meters, as in EQ2. Thus, EQ2 is not a<BR>realistic world, it is a condensed abstraction.</P> <P>A real ranger in a real world, would lead his group between the pack of wolves here and a cave bear there, between trees<BR>and bushes, hidden from sight and smell. In the dense EQ2 environment this is not possible, because the world is<BR>unrealistic packed with mobs. Therefore the invis is only an abstraction of his ability to find a safe path.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sorry if I was harsh in any way Elikal. I am honestly not trying to just disagree.</P> <P> </P> <P>I just dont find this to be a utility that we really need.  Just as we all can have our opinions and points of view.  I allow you yours as does everyone else.  It simply isnt a matter of everyone jumping on the bad idea bandwagon.</P> <P>There has been much talk in the forums over time about the fact that rangers have no utility and what our role was in a group if we had no utility.</P> <P>Our role has always been from day one of EQ2 to be the ranged damage dealer.  Big hits from afar.  We can survive AoE's by not being in range and if the tank dies we can attempt to protect the healers and other squishy folk since we can also take a hit or two from the big mobs.</P> <P>Our tracking is just as viable as any other scouts tracking.  It is still very much useful in contested areas where regardless of whether you have EQ2map...you need to know what named or needed mobs are up at the time.</P> <P>I dont want to step on the toes of other scouts simply for the sake of a good bit of lore.  I dont disagree with your reasoning behind having group invis....but then that leads us down a slippery slope of give and take concerning class abilities.</P> <P>Well if Rangers can have Swashy group invis...Maybe Swashies should get more DPS...or Maybe a Heal...or this or that...</P> <P>The end of that slope is a bunch of classes that do everything that others do and we no longer need each other to survive.  I dont wish to take away from Brigs and Swashys one of the big bonus' to having them in groups (besides their great debuffs)</P> <P> </P> <P>No offense...perhaps my lack of caffiene directly reflected my lack of humor or dialogue on this.</P> <P>It isnt a personal thing...its just not a good path for us to take.   We surely have enough broken bits to take care of first before trying to round out our class further.  And rounding us out at the expense of another class is never a good idea.</P> <P> </P> <P>No offense...no insults...just a simple difference of opinion as far as I can see.  Though not worded the best in the beginning.</P> <P>I know how much I enjoy the forums and would not want to spoil your experiences here by giving you a bad experience.</P> <P>Enjoy the game, and dont stop bringing ideas to the table simply because we disagree or have a different take on them.  Bouncing ideas off each other is the name of the game in the forums.<BR></P>

[Gareorn]

<DIV>Group invis/stealth would seriously suck on raids.  What do we do just before the pull?  That's right, we go into stealth so we have the option of hitting focus and fire off one of our big shots that require us to be in stealth followed by as many ranged attacks as we can within the 10 seconds.  Imagine what would happen if we had group invis/stealth instead of our self stealth...  Someone would always cast a buff or something breaking our stealth right before the pull.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's exactly what we need, another ability that decreases our DPS.  We could store that on the hotbar right next to hawk dive and label it DPS reducing abilities that rarely get used.:smileytongue:</DIV>

[Gerdos]

<P>God NO !!  I couldn't think of anything worse then having group invis.</P> <P>If you've ever been grouped with someone who has an active group invis up, you'll see how slow and tedious it can get, and even worse in pickup groups.   When i play, i self invis and always go on ahead to scout out the area with all the freedom that i currently enjoy.   Last thing i want is my group dependent on me to get them from location A to location B.</P>

[TerriBlades]

<DIV>Pardon my derail for a second.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jay42 wrote: <P>As to the subject at hand: I don't really want group invis. I wouldn't cry if I got it, but the last thing I really need is other classes' abilities. I want unique class abilities that give the ranger something special to offer in a group - unless there's something new in the Ranger AAs, we're still stuck with what, Miracle Arrow? That's about it. One of my big problems with EQ2 - and thus one of the reasons I'm barely playing it anymore - is the homogenization of classes across all archetypes. As you yourself said, everyone and their brother gets some kind of invis or stealth. Safe Fall is a joke, disarm is a joke, tracking is a joke, and stealth is now more of a hindrance than a benefit b/c every other mob sees through it. Evac is nice, but it's ridiculous how so many other classes get it. <FONT color=#ff0000>I'm sorry, but a PLATE TANK should not be evac'ing anyone</FONT>, not even himself. Wizards get TWO evacs, one personal and one group. Wardens evac, too. Yay?</P> <P>Point being, I want *less* ability-swapping across classes, not more of it, even if it benefits my class. I don't want to cast fireballs or heal groups <FONT color=#ff0000>or tank Heroics</FONT>, I want us to be the masters of ranged combat. I want to be a unique and beautiful snowflake, dammit! </P> <P>IMO, group invis should go to illusionists and rogues only, not furies. (The druidic masters of the elements and raging natural destruction suddenly become exceedingly crafty and subtle enough to conceal six people simultaneously. Riiiiiight.)</P> <P>Message Edited by Jay42 on <SPAN class=date_text>11-28-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:15 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'll just comment on the two things mentioned real quick.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First, if that Plate tanks a Tinkerer, you better watch out, tinkerers have some of the best "utility" in the game. Portable Defibulators, FD, Rez items, and lets not forget the Port-O-Mender.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Second, We can tank heroics Jay... I tanked OoB with a Warden and a Templar... they had a quest they needed updated in there, and well, I was the only one on at the time. :smileyvery-happy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyways.. derail over.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seriously though, I totally agree with Jay. We dont need more "utility" that blurs the line between rogues and preds. The only thing I'd say that we really need, is a better selection of bows and arrows. I'd liked like to see more bows with DRs in the 90s and 100s. Arrows... oh they could do so much with these things if they really wanted to.  They could give us all sortsa nice things for them, but I think many would settle for some legendary ammo other then from rare dropped bows. I think they idea of having arrows that deal a secondary form of damage (that would work in conjunction with CAs) would be nice and prolly worth the costs.<BR></DIV>

[Elikal]

<P>Well, I admit maybe I am spoilt by the old SWG where you didnt have fixed classes but you could select of each and everything<BR>and MAKE YOUR class. I love that. I know fantasy fans are more "conservative" and literally want to conservate things as they<BR>are. I always missed the fantasy equivalent of the dirty, [Removed for Content] up cantina atmo. Fantasy still has some very steretypical thing,<BR>honorable Pallys, runty Dwarfs, ethereal Elfs and grumpy Gnomes.</P> <P>I can only advise everyone to read a few Terry Pratchett books, just for the educational element. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Fantasy purists have a bit too many "holy cows" IMO, but ok I do not HAVE to change the world, just an observation.</P> <P>And ok, I dont take it personal. But the sheer mass of NO (usually in capitals) ppl sometimes post can frustrate.</P>

[Vaiko]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote: <DIV>Great. An entire thread against me. Just make my day. :/</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didnt think it is such a great thing that ppl really could disagree. It would not do damage to anyone, take nothing away, and STILL you are all against it.</DIV> <DIV>Ever heard the word "negative personality"? Why is it that every time someone has a request 20 ppl jump up and say nay for the sake of nay saying. God, I love MMO communities... everyone so understanding.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, thanks for nothing.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually, you got loots of feedback on your idea, even if the people don’t share your opinion they looked at your idea and spend time on thinking about it.</P> <P>I would not consider this as negative.</P> <P>I accept your view of a ranger. My view of a ranger is just very different from yours.</P> <P>So we have an opposing standpoint, but does that make one of them the absolute truth. No, of course not. They are just two different opinions on what rangers should be.</P>

[Vaiko]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elikal wrote: <P>Well, I admit maybe I am spoilt by the old SWG where you didnt have fixed classes but you could select of each and everything and MAKE YOUR class. I love that. I know fantasy fans are more "conservative" and literally want to conservate things as they are. I always missed the fantasy equivalent of the dirty, [Removed for Content] up cantina atmo. Fantasy still has some very steretypical thing, honorable Pallys, runty Dwarfs, ethereal Elfs and grumpy Gnomes.</P> <P>I can only advise everyone to read a few Terry Pratchett books, just for the educational element. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Fantasy purists have a bit too many "holy cows" IMO, but ok I do not HAVE to change the world, just an observation.</P> <P>And ok, I dont take it personal. But the sheer mass of NO (usually in capitals) ppl sometimes post can frustrate.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I totally agree with you when you would like to see more flexibility in how a character is ‘defined’.</P> <P>Believe me, my understanding of my ranger is not “conservative” in any way. I would not be able to do half of the quests as a consistent character if I would see a ranger in a “conservative” way. I found my own arrangement with this. :smileywink:</P>

[Jeris Nefz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jay42 wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> I want to be a unique and beautiful snowflake, dammit! </BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I had to laugh at this.  I can see Jay in the middle of a raid zone like Deathtoll or Emerald Hills singing, "I feel pretty... oh so pretty!"  :smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>/derail off</P> <P>Seriously though... no on the group invis.  We now have pathfinding to 46% if you choose to take it.  That is the extent of the group utility I think we need.  I am looking for more dps.  I am a stalker, a hunter, a killing machine... not someone who will hold someone's hand past a few mobs that might give them an owie.  Let someone else do that.  My feeling is if I need to sneak a group by a mob, we need to drop invis and kill it so it won't come back later to haunt us.  YMMV.  </P>

[Teksun]

<div><blockquote><hr>Jeris Nefzen wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Jay42 wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> I want to be a unique and beautiful snowflake, dammit! </blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <p>I had to laugh at this.  I can see Jay in the middle of a raid zone like Deathtoll or Emerald Hills singing, "I feel pretty... oh so pretty!"  :smileyvery-happy:</p> <p>/derail off</p><p></p><p>So, you been on raids with Kareos??? I have to mute him on Vent <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote></div>

[Jay]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Teksun wrote: <P>So, you been on raids with Kareos??? I have to mute him on Vent <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And you wonder why I never raid anymore... nobody listens to my dulcet songs and everyone mutes me!!  </P> <P>/cry</P> <P>/emo</P> <P>/reroll_dirge</P>

[Mronin]

Awww poor Jay /plays a little violin just for Jay :p