Ranged double attack.

[littleman17]

<DIV>I can see why ranged double attack is being removed, but I believe that rangers should be able to... I mean come on... how useless is melee auto attack for us in raids... or even good exp groups?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just add in a new line of coding that is specific for ranged double attack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Make it so that Rangers get an aa/CA that gices us the ability to get certain % toward double attacking with our ranged weapon.</DIV>

[Cowdenic]

and ranged melee attack for warlocks  from 50 paces.

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>littleman17 wrote:<DIV>I can see why ranged double attack is being removed, but I believe that rangers should be able to... I mean come on... how useless is melee auto attack for us in raids... or even good exp groups?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just add in a new line of coding that is specific for ranged double attack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Make it so that Rangers get an aa/CA that gices us the ability to get certain % toward double attacking with our ranged weapon.</DIV><hr></blockquote> Maybe they will give you Ranged Double Attack in the expansion?

[Deson]

<div></div>Why is getting rid of ranged double attack a good idea?<div></div><p>Message Edited by Deson on <span class=date_text>08-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:49 PM</span>

[Tevilspek]

Excuse my ignorance please (as it's late and I can't be bothered thinking) but could you explain what you mean by "ranged double attack" please?<div></div>

[littleman17]

<DIV>It means that currently with specific aa's, certain classes can attack twice with all their ranged attacks, allowing them in some cases to do the best dps in the when they are not suppose to.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am just saying that as the masters of ranged combat (or at least we are suppose to be), that we should be the only class able to do a double ranged attack.</DIV>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>Deson wrote:<div></div>Why is getting rid of ranged double attack a good idea?<div></div><p>Message Edited by Deson on <span class=date_text>08-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:49 PM</span><hr></blockquote>Getting rid of the obvious melee double attack AAs from affecting ranged auto-attack is obviously a good idea, because it was never meant to affect ranged as well.

[Deson]

<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>Deson wrote:<div></div>Why is getting rid of ranged double attack a good idea?<div></div><p>Message Edited by Deson on <span class="date_text">08-19-2006</span> <span class="time_text">04:49 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Getting rid of the obvious melee double attack AAs from affecting ranged auto-attack is obviously a good idea, because it was never meant to affect ranged as well.<hr></blockquote>I understand that. I was asking what made it so important to get rid of as in what made it overpowering.  I found the thread where it was all discussed though so no need to answer. Was pretty impressive some of those numbers.</div>

[rcknchr]

Because with Ranged double attack you can do more damage than a Ranger with ranged auto attack. Thats why they should get rid of it.

[Kodros]

<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>Deson wrote:<div></div>Why is getting rid of ranged double attack a good idea?<div></div><p>Message Edited by Deson on <span class="date_text">08-19-2006</span> <span class="time_text">04:49 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Getting rid of the obvious melee double attack AAs from affecting ranged auto-attack is obviously a good idea, because it was never meant to affect ranged as well.<hr></blockquote>BTW, the rogue AA line never specifically said melee auto-attack (http://www.[Removed for Content].com/sstair/EQ2/AA/Rogue/).  One is a 20% increase to the double attack base and the other is a double attack increase in attacks.  My main beef with this change is that it shouldn't have to affect every class.  For example, some tank classes get this AA too I think, therefore their ranged DPS might be higher then their melee DPS (auto-attack and CA).  On the other hand, a rogues ranged DPS would be a lot lower then melee DPS (auto-attack and CA).   So it would make sense to only change it for certain classes.  And as the OP said, if the rangers have this type of AA, then they should keep it since they are all about ranged.  </div>

[Kodros]

<div><blockquote><hr>Deson wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>Deson wrote:<div></div>Why is getting rid of ranged double attack a good idea?<div></div><p>Message Edited by Deson on <span class="date_text">08-19-2006</span> <span class="time_text">04:49 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Getting rid of the obvious melee double attack AAs from affecting ranged auto-attack is obviously a good idea, because it was never meant to affect ranged as well.<hr></blockquote>I understand that. I was asking what made it so important to get rid of as in what made it overpowering.  I found the thread where it was all discussed though so no need to answer. Was pretty impressive some of those numbers.</div><hr></blockquote>Keep in mind that those numbers were from extremely buffed players with 100% haste and 100% DPS mod.  Using those buffs, you can make anything look overpowered.  </div>

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<P>The point is that every skill that gives Double Attack came with a restriction to balance it's power. Either it's unarmed for Brawlers (roughly a 1hander in damage or less), Warrior's buckler line (therefore restricted to onehander), Rogue's offhand empty line, etc.</P> <P>They were all designed so that you would use, at best, a 1hander in damage with Double Attack.</P> <P>Since it was working with ranged weapons, and ranged weapons are the equivalent to twohanders in damage, it was basically a loophole on the <STRONG>restriction</STRONG>.</P> <P> </P> <P>Hence the fix. Regardless of 100% Haste/DPS or not... the mechanic was put into the game, balanced on the condition of using a 1hander in damage. Ranged weapons being an unintended increase in damage needed to be fixed.</P>

[Cowdenic]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raidi Sovin'faile wrote:<BR> <P>The point is that every skill that gives Double Attack came with a restriction to balance it's power. Either it's unarmed for Brawlers (roughly a 1hander in damage or less), Warrior's buckler line (therefore restricted to onehander), Rogue's offhand empty line, etc.</P> <P>They were all designed so that you would use, at best, a 1hander in damage with Double Attack.</P> <P>Since it was working with ranged weapons, and ranged weapons are the equivalent to twohanders in damage, it was basically a loophole on the <STRONG>restriction</STRONG>.</P> <P> </P> <P>Hence the fix. Regardless of 100% Haste/DPS or not... the mechanic was put into the game, balanced on the condition of using a 1hander in damage. Ranged weapons being an unintended increase in damage needed to be fixed.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not to defend the rangers or anything but maybe they should increase swing time on all one handed weapons to 7 secs.</P> <P>That is where the balance point is for ranged weapons is the god awful delay. Next time please be informed when you come to the argument. Thanks.</P>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>Cowdenicus wrote:Not to defend the rangers or anything but maybe they should increase swing time on all one handed weapons to 7 secs.That is where the balance point is for ranged weapons is the god awful delay. Next time please be informed when you come to the argument. Thanks.<hr></blockquote>Did you know, there are 3.0s throwing weapons out there? That and bows have nothing to do with it. 2Her being used with Double Attack = too much damage for a class. It's not about the delay, it's about the damage rating which is a combination of the delay and how much damage the weapon does. And either way, as said, 2Her + Double Attack = too much damage. Just look at the Wurmslayer + Double Attack, it's the same exact mechanic, except it's melee instead of ranged. So you should come to be informed on the argument, also not to mention that a 1Her with a 7.0 delay would kick some serious [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] with procs and capped haste. Every swing, proc, why do you think the Grinning Dirk of Horror is so awesome, because of it's 4.0 delay.

[littleman17]

<DIV>Ranged weapons may have dmg similar to that of two handers, but often times, the long bows have around three times the delay...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh yeah, Rangers never even get the option to double attack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I was syaing that if any one should be allowed to range double attack, it would be the masters of ranged combat, Rangers.</DIV>

[Raidi Sovin'faile]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Cowdenicus wrote: <P>Not to defend the rangers or anything but maybe they should increase swing time on all one handed weapons to 7 secs.</P> <P>That is where the balance point is for ranged weapons is the god awful delay. Next time please be informed when you come to the argument. Thanks.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>What?</P> <P>If the weapon has a higher Damage Rating (DR) it's going to do more damage. Ranged weapons have exact same DR as twohanded weapons, and yes they do more damage than a onehander.</P> <P>Delay is only half the info of the weapon. Something that does 300 damage every 3.5 seconds is exactly the same in effectiveness as a weapon that does 600 damage every 7 seconds.</P> <P>Fact is, my <STRONG>crafted</STRONG> throwing weapons were doing 70.4 DR and parsed much higher than my 54 DR weapons or unarmed. That is why it's a loophole in balance.</P> <P> </P> <P>I can forgive lack of knowledge when countering an argument, that thing happens, and I've done it myself. But don't go and talk smack about being informed when you yourself haven't done all the homework.</P> <P>I've <EM>personally</EM> tested this, and an el cheapo ranged weapon will outparse the rarest of rare fabled drops... how about you?</P>

[Pins]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> littleman17 wrote: <DIV>Ranged weapons may have dmg similar to that of two handers, but often times, the long bows have around three times the delay...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh yeah, Rangers never even get the option to double attack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I was syaing that if any one should be allowed to range double attack, it would be the masters of ranged combat, Rangers.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If they have 3 times the delay of a 2her, they also do 3 times the damage, hence why their DR is the same.</P> <P>Example:</P> <P>Gaudralek, Sword of the Sky     67-200 damage range    133.5 average damage    2.5s delay   106.7 DR<BR>Ancestral Sarnark War Bow     127-722 damage range   424.5 average damage    8.0s delay   106.2 DR</P> <P>Lets look at that, delay is a bit over 3x, DR is roughly the same, min-damage is a little under 2x, but max damage is over 3x, oh and check out average damage just over 3x the 2her.  Hrm, don't see what your comment has anything to do with how bows have around 3x the delay of 2hers and the same damage, when just looking at this shows that bows do 3x the damage, and have 3x the delay.</P>

[Gareorn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raidi Sovin'faile wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ranged weapons have exact same DR as twohanded weapons, and yes they do more damage than a onehander.</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well, sort of.  The highest DR on a ranged weapon is 106.  There are many 2H wepons that have higher damage ratings including some in the 120's.  We were told that the Bow damage ratings would be equal to 2H weapons, but this has not yet come true.<BR>

[Saihung23]

<DIV>Agreed on the DR.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you have a fabled or legendary bow that is one of the hardest to come by ( so few bows period )  why isnt it at least comparable in DR to the best 2H?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is called inconsistency and it stinks....I still love this game...still love playing my ranger...but there are really too many issues out there that are in my opinions just slights to the ranger class. This ranged autoattack change is a fix to one of them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why on earth should a non ranger be outdamaging a ranger on autoattacks?  He shouldnt.  If they are the same level, same bow...ranger should win out.  If any class gets anything special to their ranged it should be rangers. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No offense to the other classes...you have the edge when it comes to melee...we <U>should</U> have the edge when it comes to ranged.</DIV>

[Magic]

<P>I think that removing ranged double attack doesn't make sense in some cases.</P> <P>A Monk, among other classes, has two hands and can throw two ranged weapons at once.  It makes sense to have ranged double attack for thrown weapons.</P> <P>A bow is a two-handed weapon because it requires you to hold it with one hand and draw the arrow back with the other hand.  You can't fire two arrows at once without a modification to the bow to give an extra arrow rest and properly space the arrows against the bowstring to keep them parallel.  I would say that to fire two arrows at once would need a special bow.  Like the difference between one-handed swords and duel-wield swords, there should be single-arrow bows and double-arrow bows.  All classes that can use a bow should be able to use a double-arrow bow but can only fire one arrow at a time unless they have a double-arrow skill.  Am I making any sense here?  Rangers and other bow specialists should have the double-arrow skill, or ranged double attack skill if it will do the same thing.</P> <P>But if I'm missing the point, like Rosanne Rosannadanna, Never Mind!!!!</P>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>Gareorn wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raidi Sovin'faile wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ranged weapons have exact same DR as twohanded weapons, and yes they do more damage than a onehander.</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Well, sort of.  The highest DR on a ranged weapon is 106.  There are many 2H wepons that have higher damage ratings including some in the 120's.  We were told that the Bow damage ratings would be equal to 2H weapons, but this has not yet come true.<BR><hr></blockquote> I would like to see the 2Hers with a DR of 120. Specially want to know if they're Mage equipable so I can go down my STR AA line with them for max damage.

[Krooner]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aljola wrote:<BR> <P>I think that removing ranged double attack doesn't make sense in some cases.</P> <P>A Monk, among other classes, has two hands and can throw two ranged weapons at once.  It makes sense to have ranged double attack for thrown weapons.</P> <P>A bow is a two-handed weapon because it requires you to hold it with one hand and draw the arrow back with the other hand.  You can't fire two arrows at once without a modification to the bow to give an extra arrow rest and properly space the arrows against the bowstring to keep them parallel. <FONT color=#ff0000><STRONG><U> I would say that to fire two arrows at once would need a special bow.</U></STRONG> </FONT> Like the difference between one-handed swords and duel-wield swords, there should be single-arrow bows and double-arrow bows.  All classes that can use a bow should be able to use a double-arrow bow but can only fire one arrow at a time unless they have a double-arrow skill.  Am I making any sense here?  Rangers and other bow specialists should have the double-arrow skill, or ranged double attack skill if it will do the same thing.</P> <P>But if I'm missing the point, like Rosanne Rosannadanna, Never Mind!!!!</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Incorrect.  For historical proof you might want to read up on details of the English and Spanish conflicts at sea.  At one point Spain outfitted their people with Crossbows.  The English stayed with the long bow.  The English we able to put out a higher rate of fire and fire multiple arrows at once.  As someone who used to be an avid practier of Archery I can tell you that firing multiple arrows on an old fashoined long bow is NOT difficult.  Your not going to hit stuff 50 meters away without a great deal of practice.  But anything 15 meters away and closer is going ot be cake.<BR><p>Message Edited by Warbird1 on <span class=date_text>08-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:59 PM</span>

[Magic]

<P>Ah!  I stand corrected on double arrows.  Thanks Warbird1.  History was my worst subject in school.</P> <P>I used to fool around with archery myself and never did well with two target arrows at once because of two effects.  The first is that the arrows diverged after leaving the bow.  The other thing was that the extra weight severely reduced the range, as you have said.  A modified bow, as I had previously described, would fire two arrows in parallel the entire way, within reason.</P>

[Boli32]

<blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> littleman17 wrote: <div>Ranged weapons may have dmg similar to that of two handers, but often times, the long bows have around three times the delay...</div> <div> </div> <div>Oh yeah, Rangers never even get the option to double attack.</div> <div> </div> <div>I was syaing that if any one should be allowed to range double attack, it would be the masters of ranged combat, Rangers.</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>If they have 3 times the delay of a 2her, they also do 3 times the damage, hence why their DR is the same.</p> <p>Example:</p> <p>Gaudralek, Sword of the Sky     67-200 damage range    133.5 average damage    2.5s delay   106.7 DRAncestral Sarnark War Bow     127-722 damage range   424.5 average damage    8.0s delay   106.2 DR</p> <p>Lets look at that, delay is a bit over 3x, DR is roughly the same, min-damage is a little under 2x, but max damage is over 3x, oh and check out average damage just over 3x the 2her.  Hrm, don't see what your comment has anything to do with how bows have around 3x the delay of 2hers and the same damage, when just looking at this shows that bows do 3x the damage, and have 3x the delay.</p><hr></blockquote> The longer the delay, the higher the crit though, the bow will crit 723-939 and the sword will crit 201-260. Unless crits are normalised the same way procs are (i.e. the longer the delay the less chance of a crit) the longer the delay on a weapon the more damage it will do over all when you factor in the 1% (plus bonuses) critical hit bonuses <div></div>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>boli wrote: The longer the delay, the higher the crit though, the bow will crit 723-939 and the sword will crit 201-260. Unless crits are normalised the same way procs are (i.e. the longer the delay the less chance of a crit) the longer the delay on a weapon the more damage it will do over all when you factor in the 1% (plus bonuses) critical hit bonuses <div></div><hr></blockquote> Then there are bows that are far superior to even some of the best 2Hers! Thus the complaining can stop about bows being crappier than 2Hers in damage.