What's this all about? (bow changes) [Archive]

Neiloch

08-17-2010, 03:53 AM

<cite>Olihin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lourd@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Will there be any new pvp gear included in tomorrow's patch?</blockquote>No. We are currently evaluating the Toughness stat. There are also changes to Bows and 2Hand Weapons coming that should also yield some new results for players and we want to see how those change our game before adding new items. Olihin</blockquote>This the supposed ranged flurry and auto AE? Seems kind of soon for 57 some how, even though we have been waiting forever heh. Just looks like in context with the player quote they are referring to GU 57, but I guess 'soon' could be any time in the future. Was just gonna wait and see but since the patch got pushed back a day I suppose some random conversation about it will provide a distraction.

Writer Cal

08-17-2010, 04:20 AM

Pretty sure he didn't mean the bow changes will come with 57. Saying they're coming could be this week, in a few weeks, in a few months, next year...Although, I would imagine he was simply referring to what others have echoed from Fan Faire, some bow and 2-hander changes coming "hopefully" with the guardian changes or to be worked on after. (Depending on whether you refer to only the mechanics panel or what a dude posted in the guardian thread, saying he talked to Xelgad.)

Carpediem

08-17-2010, 11:16 AM

Anyone know what the bow changes are? I know they're doing flurry and AE auto attack but I've heard people say they're removing the attack rating penalty and increasing damaging rating on bows as well. Just haven't seen anything yet other than rumors on the last two.

Chanson

08-17-2010, 12:23 PM

<cite>akaglty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Anyone know what the bow changes are? I know they're doing flurry and AE auto attack but I've heard people say they're removing the attack rating penalty and increasing damaging rating on bows as well. Just haven't seen anything yet other than rumors on the last two.</blockquote>I know a dev has said they will be bringing ranged flurry, but can anyone confirm that a dev said AE autoattack will be coming to ranged as well?

Gaige

08-17-2010, 12:27 PM

They're going to make ranger an absolutely skilless class to play that simply requires turning on auto attack. I'm going to lol @ ACT breakdowns showing 75%+ of your damage from auto attack.

Yimway

08-17-2010, 02:05 PM

These changes were hinted at with the guard changes or shortly after (between gu57 and gu5<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> if things remain on schedule. Which I'd be shocked it they did.While I agree with Gaige's gibe about % of auto attack, I'm not sure what other changes you can make to allow rangers to get similar benefit from utility buffs without the net result being a bump to auto damage.

Neiloch

08-17-2010, 03:34 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>They're going to make ranger an absolutely skilless class to play that simply requires turning on auto attack. I'm going to lol @ ACT breakdowns showing 75%+ of your damage from auto attack.</blockquote>Either flurry and auto AE aren't going to boost our damage much or they are going to make our auto attack insanely higher. You make posts of flurry and ae auto not being a big deal if added and then this post, so I hope your joking heh. I still think the only reason they are really getting on top of it now is because Velious is going to have a lot more of these stats available for scouts, one way or another.As for if they are putting in AE Auto as well:Q:Any intention of applying flurry or ae auto attack to ranged attacks? Or if that's just too rediculous?A: Actually there is and we intend to do that very soon.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTeM3bMiVl4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTeM3bMiVl4</a>Very last question in the video. Suppose it could have gotten mixed in with since they confirmed flurry but he also asked about ae auto.

Gaige

08-17-2010, 04:18 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>While I agree with Gaige's gibe about % of auto attack, I'm not sure what other changes you can make to allow rangers to get similar benefit from utility buffs without the net result being a bump to auto damage.</blockquote>I don't care if they fix ae auto and flurry, the amounts a ranger can get will be next to meaningless. I meant removing the bow damage penalty and increasing their spread. Instead of doing that they need to address ranger CAs, so the class will at least require a conscious to play.

Neiloch

08-17-2010, 04:23 PM

Wasn't aware that's what they were going to do to bows (and 2handers too I suppose). Where did they talk about this?And I do agree I think we should be getting more damage from CA's (ranged CA's) instead of auto attack. I just wanted the same mechanics to apply to bows so its more of a level playing field, and frankly easier to balance things out.

Yimway

08-17-2010, 04:43 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wasn't aware that's what they were going to do to bows (and 2handers too I suppose). Where did they talk about this?</blockquote>It was mentioned at one of the mechanics panels that 2handers and bows would be looked at after guardian tweaks.<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't care if they fix ae auto and flurry, the amounts a ranger can get will be next to meaningless. I meant removing the bow damage penalty and increasing their spread. Instead of doing that they need to address ranger CAs, so the class will at least require a conscious to play.</blockquote>I agree CA's are a disporportionate amount of the class dps, fixing CA's alone doesn't address what I think is the bigger issue of the class not able to take advantage of the same buffs to the same benefit as their counterpart.As far as a conscious to play, neither predator to me feels very complicated, but yeah, I need to make fewer decisions on my ranger over assasin. That being said, for whatever reason I enjoy the ranger more. I'm probably a masochist.

Gaige

08-17-2010, 11:44 PM

Assassins rely on stealth and a huge portion of our DPS relies on about 9 CAs, 8 of which require stealth. If you use concealment at the wrong time and its interrupted, you're screwed.Ranger is far, far easier to play.

Neiloch

08-18-2010, 12:26 AM

I'd agree with that, compared to one another ranger is easier, but I wouldn't call playing an assassin difficult in general.I wouldn't be completely opposed to some mechanic being the way for more ranger DPS if its not ridiculously hard or just a stupid PITA. Wouldn't even mind the way they play now if the DPS was upped. What annoys me most is no matter what you do on a ranger, there's an assassin some where who can outparse you. The mathematical potential for ranger DPS just lower than assassin's and even some other classes.I'll probably catch some grief for this but how difficult a class is to play shouldn't factor in on balance. If a class is harder to play than another and its of large concern the devs should be working to balance the difficulty out. Not reward the harder one or penalize the easier one. No one else is gonna give a crap if a class is easier to play when they're not the one playing it."his DPS is lower than the others don't invite him.""Yeah but his class easier to play."Oh ok then invite him."No, that won't happen.

kartikeya

08-18-2010, 08:41 PM

Fixing the underlying mechanics, including removing that stupid invisible damage nerf and bringing bow ratings in line with other two handers (and fixing two handers in general), is exactly the first step they need to make.Even if it somehow ends up putting too much of our damage percentage back into auto attack, the underlying mechanics need to be fixed before they can start tweaking our CAs, or we're going to run face-first into this problem again down the road even if the CA tweaks were enough to get us back into T1 DPS. I really really really don't care which class is 'easier' to play, unless the difference becomes 'playground swings' and 'piloting a one winged plane to safety'. I want the classes to be balanced.The danger of putting too much DPS into auto attack is the class being made or broken by a good bow, which was most of our problem in T7, where rangers with the absolute top end bows did great and rangers without those bows fell so far behind the DPS curve in their raid force--getting steady DPS upgrades the whole while--that holding onto a raid slot until they could get a shot at the mobs dropping the good bows was ridiculously difficult to justify. The danger is in autoattack being less controllable than CA damage, and the devs being terrified to make any tweaks lest the rangers at the very high end have their DPS fly off the charts. But I much prefer fixing these underlying mechanics issues and then making adjustments than letting the mechanics issues just sit forever.A class being 'easymode' is mostly a bragging thing, and I reeeeally don't care who is getting digital internet fulfillment out of their class being zomg more difficult than some other class. No class in this game is what I'd consider terribly hard to play or learn. It's an MMO, not chess.

Umub

08-19-2010, 03:47 PM

<cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fixing the underlying mechanics, including removing that stupid invisible damage nerf and bringing bow ratings in line with other two handers (and fixing two handers in general), is exactly the first step they need to make.</blockquote>While I generally agree and I think it is a huge step forward that the devs are willing to admit that Ranger's need a boost in DPS, I am a little concerned by one thing. When I group without good aggro transer (love them pally's) I have problems on trash pulls with aggro. The issue is the auto attack damage. Even when I wait until the mob is turned if I lead off with an auto attack or a short cast CA which is followed immediately by an auto attack, I will grab aggro very often.The options I figured out were:* Wait even longer before attacking* Cast a debuf first (not really that useful on trash) to slow down the auto attack* Lead off with a long cast CA like miracle shot or crippling arrow.I have chose to do the last option but again it lowers my overall DPS. I am a bit concerned that with even more damage coming from auto attack that this problem with just get worse.I do have a master of my deaggro buff (dont' remember the name) plus I run with 2 deaggro adornments.By the way, this is not an issue at all solo or in raid for me.

Gaige

08-19-2010, 04:20 PM

<cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>A class being 'easymode' is mostly a bragging thing, and I reeeeally don't care who is getting digital internet fulfillment out of their class being zomg more difficult than some other class. No class in this game is what I'd consider terribly hard to play or learn. It's an MMO, not chess.</blockquote>I never implied that assassin was omg hard needs a college degree, I said timing your stealth CAs so as to ensure stealth isn't interrupted is in fact harder than turning auto attack on.Do you disagree?

Boise

08-20-2010, 09:40 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>A class being 'easymode' is mostly a bragging thing, and I reeeeally don't care who is getting digital internet fulfillment out of their class being zomg more difficult than some other class. No class in this game is what I'd consider terribly hard to play or learn. It's an MMO, not chess.</blockquote>I never implied that assassin was omg hard needs a college degree, I said timing your stealth CAs so as to ensure stealth isn't interrupted is in fact harder than turning auto attack on.Do you disagree?</blockquote>This is probably one of the main reasons why assassins are far ahead in parses. Assassins require (a little work...not much really once you figured it out) to time their stealth/chain attacks to achieve massive parses (assuming they don't get stun/stifle/whatever).I do disagree (to a degree) with you that rangers are such ez mode. It makes me want to work harder in achieving better parses and find some ways that are not often thought of. Sure, everything evolves around autoattack with rangers, but ask yourself how many rangers actually do decent parsing these days? Not many really (out of the thousands of players).

Sydares

08-20-2010, 09:56 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>A class being 'easymode' is mostly a bragging thing, and I reeeeally don't care who is getting digital internet fulfillment out of their class being zomg more difficult than some other class. No class in this game is what I'd consider terribly hard to play or learn. It's an MMO, not chess.</blockquote>I never implied that assassin was omg hard needs a college degree, I said timing your stealth CAs so as to ensure stealth isn't interrupted is in fact harder than turning auto attack on.Do you disagree?</blockquote>To an extent, I agree that Assassins are a more technical class. But then again, they're also overloaded with so many innate bonuses that it's bordering on ludicrous. So, yeah. Concealment chains take a bit of skill. But parsing high on an Assassin (due to aforementioned innate abilities) isn't anything particularly special.That said, I'd prefer they tweak us based on combat arts to deter this sort of nonsensical [Removed for Content]-stroking, but I'm not going to complain if they fix core mechanics first. Really, I'll take whatever I can get to be competitive at this point. When you're the squeaky wheel, you're not going to hold out specifically for WD-40 when someone's offering something that'll still make you squeak less.

Carpediem

08-20-2010, 12:59 PM

I've grouped with alot more fail rangers than I have assassins. One consistant thing with them it seems like is, they seem to rely to much on auto attack and don't put enough effort into trying to get as many of their CA's off in between autos as they can. I've looked at their parses and seeing 40-50% of their dps being auto attack right now is a very bad thing.We're not horrible at AE dps either and I see to many blow stuff like Arrow Barrage on a single mob instead of waiting a bit to use it on a group of mobs. That's all part of learning a zone though to know when they're coming. But I've seen them do it one fight before a encounter pull is coming.

Gaige

08-20-2010, 01:08 PM

<cite>Boise wrote:</cite><blockquote>I do disagree (to a degree) with you that rangers are such ez mode.</blockquote>No no, my comparison is talking about how it will become after the bow changes are implemented, now how it currently is on live.

Neiloch

08-20-2010, 04:09 PM

I don't see why its such a huge problem to just up the damage on ranged CA's. Is it some sort of image problem? They don't want to give JUST rangers a boost so if they do it to bows it creates the idea that lots of scouts and fighters will benefit greatly? Yeah maybe in BG's a little... As for bow changes, kind of depends on the increase. If it's like the increase they did a while back to all weapons, don't see it becoming some huge increase in ezmode.Would rather see a damage boost and reuse reduction in ranged CA's, but apparently that is a horrible idea when just about every ranger wants it and the devs won't even respond to it directly. Maybe they can slap some potency buffs on focus aim/nature's focus. Decent one on focus aim, another probably smaller one nature's focus for group, and they stack for the ranger so even better.

Gaige

08-20-2010, 04:16 PM

Um, afaik bows have a 40% damage penalty so if they remove that and increase spreads, that'd be pretty huge.

Neiloch

08-20-2010, 04:24 PM

Wow yeah I'd say so lol. So a huge damage increase, along with being able to flurry and auto AE would be huge. I mean if we got flurry and ae now it wouldn't be a big deal, but with that kind of damage increase, geez.Maybe part of their plan to ditch ammo, WoW and Rift are doing it heh. Rift also announced a Marksman soul/class. A purely bow based rogue class.

Toughone

08-20-2010, 05:27 PM

Id still like to have our ca's fixed, i dont want my auto attack doing 50% of my dmg, i like actually working for my dps!

Venez

08-20-2010, 05:43 PM

Rangers have always been "balanced" around the hugh damage bows used to do, its the reason our CAs have always been the suck.IMO unnerfing the bow damage is the fastest and easiest way of puting us back to when we used to compete for dps.Now that said, I would rather have our CAs retuned to make the class more skill orianted than haveing auto attack do 50% of our dps. I personally think they dont want to spend the time in trying to retune our CAs. For one reason there is noone at $oE that has ANY clue on what Rangers were intended to do or how to actually fix our CAs, all the new guys see is the garbage of a class that we are now and a bunch of [Removed for Content] off Rangers blowing up there boards.At this point I really dont care how they bring me inline with my counterpart like I used to be. And any fix that closes that gap is a bonus. Im pretty sick and tired of the 4yr battle or trying to get them to fix my class.

Neiloch

08-20-2010, 06:13 PM

Well sounds like another step is fixing base mechanics. Getting rid of weird penalties and exemptions, BS like that. If it ends up being OP'd it will be bittersweet, more DPS like we wanted but done in the simplest most mindless way. Its just unfortunate the DPS boost is from auto attack rather than CA's for more skill oriented DPS. But like Venez said, we are well overdue for a boost and I'm not going to say no.

Xelgad

08-20-2010, 07:03 PM

<div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div> <div> </div> <div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div>

kartikeya

08-20-2010, 07:03 PM

Sorry, late response.I disagree that the level of difficulty between the two classes (which is nothing to write home about) should interfere with fixing the core mechanics problems. Or that it is a major balance concern when compared to everything else (that is, obviously, we shouldn't just be able to turn on auto attack and leave the keyboard). Assassins have more button mashing and more timing because of stealth chains, but the difference isn't that dramatic, and assassins have an easier time of doing more DPS than rangers, even if it's more difficult for them to do absolute top DPS. As someone said, unless the difference is extremely dramatic, that boils down mostly to [Removed for Content] waving than anything else. Oooh, you're doing good DPS but only because you're playing ezmode class, hurrhurrhurr, look at my l33t skillz. I don't give a crap about that.Rangers have ALWAYS been screwed with when it comes to core mechanics. In DoF it made us gods, but it wasn't our combat arts or our playstyle that made us so powerful, it was ridiculously broken proc mechanics. Since DoF it has, in various ways, contributed to the class's issues, whether it's bow auto attack damage being so powerful with a good bow that the devs don't dare fix the weak CAs, arrow mechanics, missing mechanics for ranged such as flurry or AE auto attack, the list goes on and on.I would love, love for them to just get right down to it and fix combat arts tomorrow. I am very very tired of being a badly broken class. I also worry that they'll fix whatever mechanics they see as broken then say 'welp, rangers are fixed, see the big numbers with a super high end bow? Our job is done' and then continue to ignore the imbalances in the actual class as opposed to bow mechanics.However, we really need those mechanics fixed. And we need them fixed right, and first. Fun as it was to have ridiculous mechanics on our side in DoF, I have absolutely no desire to see a nerf like we got in KoS over it. And remember, our class was actually boosted a bit for KoS, we were that broken when they fixed procs.The hidden flat 30% nerf to bow damage or whatever Aeralik slapped on is ridiculous and should never, ever have been put in, especially during a mechanics fix that was supposedly meant to get rid of hidden math like that. That needs to be removed first. If for some reason we need a 30% bow damage nerf, then they need to apply that to the bows themselves, or somehow make it visible. We need flurry and AE autoattack of some sort. The only reason we don't have it is because the coding for it was apparently daunting, not any sort of balance reasons. Quite frankly, ammunition and minimum range need to go too, I don't care how ranged they make us, but I doubt that will ever get changed. Frankly, I want us roughly on par with the auto attack DPS percentages of other scouts and our combat arts boosted so that we don't go back to a T7 situation, but base mechanics need to be untangled first, otherwise any balancing done is being done over the top of mechanics that are still completely screwed up, and fixing them after may well send us spiraling down again.And sure, we need a teensy bit of utility like the other T1 classes have, but as much as, again, I'd like that, this needs to be the concern addressed last in the priority list. First lets get us actually able to compete in DPS again.

kartikeya

08-20-2010, 07:09 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div><div> </div><div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div></blockquote><3 <3 <3Please see my above concerns RE: the balance of auto attack versus combat arts. The reason this was a problem and I worry about it being a problem again is because it led to rangers either being comparable T1 DPS or bottoming out and losing raid slots solely due to their bow, and it also resulted in the devs being afraid to adjust anything about rangers lest the top parsing rangers go flying off into the DPSing stratosphere at the slightest adjustment. (The general terribleness of bow itemization at the time meant you would do fine at entry tier raid zones, start bottoming out near the end of that, become terrible at mid-tier raids, and couldn't get a bow that would allow you to compete until your raid was doing top tier content, at which point everyone else had passed you by so far that you were likely sitting during these encounters unless you were the raid leader or your raid was very very understanding.)That's a concern that comes after this though. I just hope you guys keep it in mind, but I am very very thankful to hear what you've got planned! (please let the changes come soon).

Sydares

08-20-2010, 07:18 PM

Xelgad

08-20-2010, 07:19 PM

<cite>Sydares wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div> <div> </div> <div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div></blockquote>I love you again. Yes, yes. I am fickle. I guess this begs... ETA? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Hopefully with the Guardian changes in a few weeks.

Writer Cal

08-20-2010, 07:26 PM

Thank you, Xelgad. It's fantastic to see you post this. Looking forward to trying the new changes when they come. And I'll no longer have to cry when a dirge actually offers me spiffy buffs because I'll no longer have to say "Well, those don't actually do anything for me." <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Cheers! <3

Neiloch

08-20-2010, 07:30 PM

Striikor

08-20-2010, 07:32 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div> <div> </div> <div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div></blockquote>I have to say Xelgad, classy sense of self deprecating humor there <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> You posting in this thread is MUCH appreciated.What you are setting about to do will certainly help, so thank you.We still have to deal with the grouping logic that leaves us without buffs to compete, hopefully you are looking into that. Not to mean that I/we are looking for utility per se. But we are viewed as group 4 candidates along wiht several other classes. In my case usually a Brig and a Monk, we offer very little to each other in the way of buffs.

jjlo69

08-20-2010, 07:41 PM

when are these changes gonna make it to test or are they just gonna go strait to live ????Uncle

kartikeya

08-20-2010, 07:46 PM

I've decided this post needs more <3. So <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3<3

Striikor

08-20-2010, 07:56 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>Assassins rely on stealth and a huge portion of our DPS relies on about 9 CAs, 8 of which require stealth. If you use concealment at the wrong time and its interrupted, you're screwed.Ranger is far, far easier to play.</blockquote>I would have to disagree somewhat. Achieving the sweet spot, AA timing and our longer casts are constantly interrupted so they can be as big a challenge as the concealment chain. I have both and find them close to equal, though challenges are different. My ranger has a ~200K Sniper that seems to get interrupted just after I trigger coverage. While the concealment chain is more vulnerable it produces twice the damage. I do prefer the Ranger soooo ..... maybe it is easier. But certainly between the two the Ranger has a larger fun factor.

Carpediem

08-20-2010, 08:27 PM

First, thank you very much Xelgad!!!!I'm guessing these are the first of what might become a few changes (unfortunately if a dev says that he will get hounded forever) since they have plans of making us more of a ranged class than having to sit so close.This is a very good start though. Fixing the broken mechanics gives them a base line where we stand before they need to do anything else with CA's.I honestly think the best way to make us a more ranged class is to shorten the reuse on our ranged CA's that have the same damage as the melee ones so they're up fast enough that we don't have to stand close to use the melee CA's when our ranged ones are down.So, lower-medium damage CA's with long reuse timers like miracle shot and triple shot could be brought down to maybe 15 second recasts, make bloody reminder a ranged CA and maybe turn arrow rip into a ranged CA.This would leave the important melee CA's that low level rangers need to level, like immobilzing lunge and our quick attack intact and we wouldn't need to rely on them at higher levels when we want to be fully ranged because we won't run out of ranged CA's.

Neiloch

08-20-2010, 09:15 PM

if I had to choose one thing with CA's it would be lower the reuse on ranged CA's. This would enact increasing ranged CA DPS simply because we can use them more often in a set amount of time, and let us be at least more ranged by not forcing us to close in to keep using attacks.The problem that could still come up here though is if even if we can stay ranged, closing in to do our better melee CA's could still result in better DPS. This is the real problem. Ranged CA's DPS have to be increased to the point where they will either match or beat a CA rotation that includes melee CA's for rangers to ever truly be 'pure ranged' in the eye's of min/max'ers.Right now with the Miragul charm I can use such highly effective attacks such as Bloody Reminder, Sneak Attack, Ranger's Blade, Immobilizing Lunge, Noxious Enfeeblement at 20 meters, which is enough for the typical jousting range (15 meters). Now if I could use those along with Emberstrike and Lightning Strike at 20 meters WITHOUT needing to have Collected Memories of the Betrayer (miragul charm) equipped, I would be willing to call that a 'purely ranged' ranger.But like I said, even if you make it where we have ranged CA's up all the time, doesn't mean it will be good enough if going into melee (5-10 meters) still gets us a higher parse. I would call a purely ranged ranger one that can do their maximum possible parse at the distance of at least 20 meters if not more.

Writer Cal

08-20-2010, 09:27 PM

For being "more ranged": I'd say just up the max range of our melee CAs. Then they work the same for close range for low levels, and allow a ranger to still do their max damage RANGED.

Sydares

08-20-2010, 09:41 PM

Neiloch

08-20-2010, 09:49 PM

<cite>Daenee@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>For being "more ranged": I'd say just up the max range of our melee CAs. Then they work the same for close range for low levels, and allow a ranger to still do their max damage RANGED.</blockquote>lol [Removed for Content] someone saying what i said but with more brevity. Yes make our awesome melee Ca's reach 20 meters kkthx.

Toxicz

08-20-2010, 10:06 PM

So please explain to me how this is going to effect rangers in pvp? There arguably the best pvp class in the game, they can hit players harder than anyone else.. so please how is this going to effect pvp?

Lodor

08-20-2010, 10:19 PM

Rangers arent even in the top 5 pvp classes now days, lol.

Gaige

08-20-2010, 10:31 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hopefully with the Guardian changes in a few weeks.</blockquote>80k auto attacks means I'm betraying back. Will be nice to afk through raids and still parse top 3.The pendulum swings again!

Gaige

08-20-2010, 10:57 PM

<cite>Striikor@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would have to disagree somewhat. Achieving the sweet spot, AA timing and our longer casts are constantly interrupted so they can be as big a challenge as the concealment chain. </blockquote>I've raided top end extensively on both and ranger is easier. Nothing about ranger is challenging and you don't lose out on almost half of your parse because stealth gets interrupted. Its not even comparable.

Sydares

08-20-2010, 11:23 PM

So, maybe this is the wrong place to bring it up, but... (hey, it's a bow, so...) are we ever gonna see our Mythical buff changed to something useful to compensate for having the minimum range stripped?A chance to proc 60% arrow conserve isn't exactly in the same league as, say, 15% Passive Flurry. (Assassins)

Boise

08-20-2010, 11:35 PM

Alenna

08-21-2010, 12:02 AM

<cite>Boise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div><div> </div><div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div></blockquote>First, there are no rangers that are doing 20% dps auto-attack w/ their bows. I have not seen on ACT parse to prove me otherwise. Second, rangers "normally" do @25% auto-attack w/ bows, and you are giving us a 10% boost? So, now we will be more dependant on our bows than ever while our CAs fall far behind.I just fee this whole update for rangers is all about bow damage and nothing else. This "quick" fix will probably bite all rangers in the rear in the long run.</blockquote>Why don't we see wait to what happens this may be the first step.

Toxicz

08-21-2010, 12:16 AM

<cite>Lodor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rangers arent even in the top 5 pvp classes now days, lol.</blockquote>You either don't pvp, or have never seen a good ranger in pvp.

TheSpin

08-21-2010, 02:55 AM

Ok... so my ranger is currently the main character I'm focusing on, however I will admit my eq2 knowledge is more broad in the overall game than it is deep in one specific area such as the ranger class. I do have some suggestions though that I think are beneficial.If a ranger is truly going to become more ranged focus, why have stealth melee attacks at all? I think the abilities Sneak Attack, Emberstrike, and Ranger's Blade should be adjusted in some way to make them useful in both ranged and melee combat.As far as bringing 'something else' to a group I have a suggestion too. Change Arrow Rip to a buff that grants a CA. On ourselves the buff gives us what we have now, but If we put the buff on a different scout they get a higher damage CA . On a fighter it becomes a medium damage and hate position increase CA. This is kind of in the same spirit as the fury single target heal, which can be given to another group member.Lastly... If assassins have a skill that does great damage, but you have to lead up to it by casting a bunch of skills in a certain order and/or timeframe... give rangers something similar. I don't want to play the easymode version of an assassin. Maybe Sniper Shot would be a good candidate to be the CA that is adjusted.These are just some rough ideas. I'm sure if they have any merit others who are more experienced with the class would be able to think of more specific ways to implement them.edit: Probably more of a solo/casual player request, but how about change the 'bladed opening' AA attack into a 'bladed finishing' attack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody really wants to start their fights out with a weak AA attack, but a lot of times having something a little extra at the end of a fight can save ya from using a real worthwhile CA.

Neiloch

08-21-2010, 03:13 AM

Well I imagine these changes will go to test first. Plus I'm sure its mostly ground work being laid before Velious and changes it brings, besides the obvious immediate benefits.Also if his numbers of 'increase' he used are right, using my damage numbers on a ZW, ~25% being auto attack, these changes will make MY auto damage go up about 2k DPS. Not quite an AFK-T1 dps level increase.EDIT: Found a much higher overall parse of mine, theoretically increase would be 3500 DPS increase on the really high end. This isn't gonna do much in closing the gaps between me and the people beating me heh. If it resulted in a 10k increase, might tie me up. Although I won't deny rangers in lower performing guilds would see a bigger increase in their share of the raid DPS.Remember not to just add 20% and 10% to 25% either lol. Its 10% and 20% OF 25%. So the amount of increasing not factoring in flurry and auto AE that Xelgad said is about right even if its a little on the low end. Factoring Flurry and auto AE is difficult to say the least without some practical tests.I've been told, by multiple assassins actually heh, that flurry and auto AE won't be the holy grail of DPS increase so certainly don't hope they will think it is now for some reason. Seriously its right now, "fine have auto ae and flurry won't do much", add it with about a 3k base increase and becomes, "OMGWTFBBQ OP'd!!!111"...what?

Striikor

08-21-2010, 11:13 AM

<cite>Toxicz@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lodor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rangers arent even in the top 5 pvp classes now days, lol.</blockquote>You either don't pvp, or have never seen a good ranger in pvp.</blockquote>Hmmm and how many rangers have you seen that can take down an equally equipped SK, Zerker, Bruiser, Warlock, Warden or Inquisitor in a one on one situation?We do have our strengths in BG but I guarantee that even a Brig can take down ranger if they get close before the ranger sees them. In fact many of the nerfs we have had to deal with in PvE came from PvP whining.

Darchon6

08-21-2010, 07:36 PM

double post - disregard.

Darchon6

08-21-2010, 08:14 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div><div> </div><div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div></blockquote>Are you going to limit the effectiveness of AE auto-attack and flurry for bows and two-handers to make them comparable to the damage bonuses provided for dual wielding classes? Currently, these attributes only apply to the primary weapon for dual wielders, making it less effective for them than rangers w/ their bows (after your proposed modifications) and fighters w/ two-handers due to the difference in base damage output for a single weapon. If you don't plan to limit the effectiveness, you'll have to compensate dual wielders by making AE auto-attack strike each target in AoE twice (with only the first hit triggering procs) rather than once and make flurry affect our offhand auto-attack swings as well.Possible limitations include restricting the maximum number of flurry hits to 2 rather than 4 for bows / two-handers and reducing the base damage of AoE auto-attacks by 50% in order to put the bonuses on par with dual wielding classes.To all you assassin haters - I know that rangers have been comparitively less desirable in raids than assassins since T7, but it's not an excuse to make them more effective than us at their primary role. We all know what the final outcome would be - assassins betraying to rangers and die-hard assassins being replaced with rangers in raid guilds due to the difference in damage output. It's happened before with other classes.Those points aside, how exactly do you plan to implement AE auto-attack for bows? Will rangers face the same range limitations as melee classes? What advantage will melee classes have to compensate for the range difference now that damage values are mostly equal? Should I just betray? /boggleWith the upcoming changes to ranged auto-attack, perhaps you should consider boosting the base range of melee auto-attack to match the average range of our combat arts. "Target is too far away" while the target is moving can cost us thousands of dps mostly due to the fact that NPC movement isn't fully synchronized between the client and server. The location of the NPC which you perceive from your end is often half a second behind schedule.Also, you should consider giving melee-classes the option to boost the hit bonus of our attacks to match those found on arrows. Just the same, it would have to be a consumable item at a comparable cost.As the mechanics developer of this game, I hope that you've considered the repercussions of equalizing the base auto-attack damage output of bows and dual wield weapons while giving them the "full" benefit of flurry / AE auto. Don't disappoint me (in other words, force me to betray since the grass is greener on the other side)

Candoor

08-21-2010, 09:53 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Striikor@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>I would have to disagree somewhat. Achieving the sweet spot, AA timing and our longer casts are constantly interrupted so they can be as big a challenge as the concealment chain. </blockquote>I've raided top end extensively on both and ranger is easier. Nothing about ranger is challenging and you don't lose out on almost half of your parse because stealth gets interrupted. Its not even comparable.</blockquote>Despite poor sins being so severly challenged they still manage to out dps rangers by a mofo bucket load.....ZOMG I have to get my concealment chain just right and crap I havent this fight but i still out dps'ed a ranger comfortably.... by 10k dps instead of 30k.Yes Ive played both classes too on the same toon and respect sins click faster...and have to get ffu chain just right to max their stuff out... but even if they dont... they stil leave rangers for dust right now.So where is the difficulty in maxing dps on a sin assuming a reasonably well played toon with half decent gear? Ranger maxing is all based on making the most of crappy mechanics on top of having the right gear. If FFU wasnt broken 1 out of 3 just how much more dps would a sin do when they are already the defacto melee dps class?I see a lot more crappy rangers than assassins. So still debate if your point is valid tbh.

Neiloch

08-21-2010, 10:08 PM

I'm just gonna be a [Removed for Content] and say i have ZERO sympathy for assassins, former-rangers or otherwise. Been riding high and easy for literally YEARS straight, one bump of rangers POSSIBLY doing more DPS and then more than likely knocked down isn't gonna hurt your precious baby bottoms. And don't start crying about 'well we are gonna get replaced in our slots and blah blah blah' hey we've been living it for years. Shut up. You don't GET to whine.You also keep forgetting ranger CA's blow HARD in comparison to Assassin CAs. To suggest some balance should be put in place to make the auto attack even when CA's aren't is ignorant to say the least. If our CA's aren't going to get adjusted our auto attack SHOULD be better in every single way for proper balance.

Lodor

08-21-2010, 10:18 PM

<cite>Toxicz@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lodor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Rangers arent even in the top 5 pvp classes now days, lol.</blockquote>You either don't pvp, or have never seen a good ranger in pvp.</blockquote>Lol, I have a 90 ranger (plus 3 other 90s) and pvped as one off and on since eof era when they were truelly the top pvp class.Crusaders, and near all healers if played and geared well will always beat a ranger less they majorly mess up.

Corwinus

08-21-2010, 10:47 PM

<cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote>...To all you assassin haters - I know that rangers have been comparitively less desirable in raids than assassins since T7, but it's not an excuse to make them more effective than us at their primary role. We all know what the final outcome would be - assassins betraying to rangers and die-hard assassins being replaced with rangers in raid guilds due to the difference in damage output. It's happened before with other classes....As the mechanics developer of this game, I hope that you've considered the repercussions of equalizing the base auto-attack damage output of bows and dual wield weapons while giving them the "full" benefit of flurry / AE auto. Don't disappoint me (in other words, force me to betray since the grass is greener on the other side)</blockquote>Koldsteel, there is no assassin haters here and I am sure there is no need for you to betray so forget the drama.Assassins are still wanted more in raids than Rangers be it for pure dps (look at your CAs reuse timers and damage) or hate transfer to the tank.Xelgad gives us a glimmer of hope with the bow mechanics and it concerns auto attack which represents now only about 30% ouf our dps output. If as he says it adds 20% more damage on auto attack we are talking about an increase of 6% of overall dps. so you still outparse Rangers, no need to whine unless your real objective is just to bargain another little dps increase for assassins (well it used to work with Aeralik right?)Corwin - Still a Ranger - Cotw - Oasis

Ballzz

08-22-2010, 09:43 AM

This is great news. I may have to reevaluate my opinion of Xelgad in light of this action. It may not be exactly what people want but it's *something* and it's at least a good start. At this point anything is welcomed. As for our CAs or giving us utility I still think they should add another component to FA that gives a group buff to Ability Reuse. This would not only help us for our CAs but would make us not so worthless to be grouped with and seems like it would be fairly easy to implement so long as it doesn't throw any major balance of power out of whack in groups.I also don't agree that Ranger's are so EZ-mode. If it was so easy to play a Ranger why do they have such a bad rep for doing horrible damage while Assassins have a rep for playing half-[Removed for Content] and still outparsing Rangers and other classes? I mean if it's so easy then every Ranger..even horrible players should be able to parse well (at least well for a Ranger which isn't even the case). Also, if Ranger is so much easier than Assassin then why is it so easy for raiding Rangers to betray and add an immediate 10k+ dmg to their parse without even knowing the details of how to play an Assassin or even having their Master spells? Unless the numerous posts from people saying how easy it was to boost their damage by simply betraying were incorrect then this whole EZ-mode Ranger argument sounds pretty weak. The crying already from some Assassins about a change that hasn't even happened yet is pretty pathetic considering how far behind Rangers have been and how needed the changes are. Sins that are worth a [Removed for Content] will more than likely still outparse Rangers and they have utility in an aggro xfer and a nice ally DPS buff and Rangers have nothing in that dept. I seriously doubt Assassins are going to suddenly betray to Ranger because of this..with the exception of maybe former Rangers that felt they had to switch to Assassin for raid viability. Good lord.

Venez

08-22-2010, 11:49 AM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div><div> </div><div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div></blockquote>ROFL I think this is just great, remember all the posts I had about the bow modifier being nerfed with the Aeralik "arrow fix", and everyone telling me I was wrong........ya well kiss my lilly white /chuckleRangers have ALWAYS been balanced around there HUGH AUTO ATTACKS, higher than normal proc rates and the good ole sweet spot. Our DPS has been falling behind from the start of the -20% damage penelty, then it fell further with the standarization of all the procs,the implementation of much better rated melee weapons,lack luster Ranged AAs compared to some melee AAs, and just sucky mechaincs.Right now melee auto attack still does more ext dps than ranged, so this fix should bring us back on par with melee auto dps. When we were parsing with Assassins we were doing MORE auto attack dps. This is because our CAs are FAR behind other T1 Dps class's.So again just the 20% being added back is not going to bring us up to our counterparts, since in LU35? melee auto attack also recieved a +damage modifier to auto attack, but it is a very good start.Im cautiously waiting to see what flurry/ae will do on bows, Im hopeing that all it does is equal out the +modifier that melee auto got back in LU35? and put us back to near that level. I do understand everyone freaking out about it possibly being OP and if it is I hope they just "tweak" it down in smaller increments instead of going WOOOO and destroying it and haveing it take years to get fixed.

Gaige

08-22-2010, 01:00 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm just gonna be a [Removed for Content] and say i have ZERO sympathy for assassins, former-rangers or otherwise. Been riding high and easy for literally YEARS straight, one bump of rangers POSSIBLY doing more DPS and then more than likely knocked down isn't gonna hurt your precious baby bottoms. </blockquote>Rangers were as good in RoK and TSO so this "years" straight is complete BS. I betrayed from assassin to ranger in RoK and was immediately competitive on the parse and stayed that way throughout TSO.Also its not "easy" - ranger is a lot easier in comparison in raid settings, as I've said numerous times.<div><cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>If it was so easy to play a Ranger why do they have such a bad rep for doing horrible damage while Assassins have a rep for playing half-[Removed for Content] and still outparsing Rangers and other classes?Also, if Ranger is so much easier than Assassin then why is it so easy for raiding Rangers to betray and add an immediate 10k+ dmg to their parse without even knowing the details of how to play an Assassin or even having their Master spells? </blockquote>Ranger is a popular class and there are tons of crappy ones out there who have no idea how to setup their character.That happens in SF because the mechanics are skewed so in favor of assassins that even if you're terrible you'll be better than you were as a ranger.The reason I'm talking about betraying back already is because SOE can't do shifts in balance without screwing it up. Guardian/SK for example? One goes from best tank in the game to meaningless and the other becomes extremely overpowered and it has been that way for months and is just starting to get addressed. What about illy/coercer? Illy used to be omg amazing and then poof all the sudden they suck lol. Its pretty obvious that doing sweeping changes like this all at once will so crazily overpower ranger auto attack that they will have the ability to compete just buy pressing their ranged auto attack button.</div>

Venez

08-22-2010, 01:55 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm just gonna be a [Removed for Content] and say i have ZERO sympathy for assassins, former-rangers or otherwise. Been riding high and easy for literally YEARS straight, one bump of rangers POSSIBLY doing more DPS and then more than likely knocked down isn't gonna hurt your precious baby bottoms. </blockquote>Rangers were as good in RoK and TSO so this "years" straight is complete BS. I betrayed from assassin to ranger in RoK and was immediately competitive on the parse and stayed that way throughout TSO.Also its not "easy" - ranger is a lot easier in comparison in raid settings, as I've said numerous times.<div><cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>If it was so easy to play a Ranger why do they have such a bad rep for doing horrible damage while Assassins have a rep for playing half-[Removed for Content] and still outparsing Rangers and other classes?Also, if Ranger is so much easier than Assassin then why is it so easy for raiding Rangers to betray and add an immediate 10k+ dmg to their parse without even knowing the details of how to play an Assassin or even having their Master spells? </blockquote>Ranger is a popular class and there are tons of crappy ones out there who have no idea how to setup their character.That happens in SF because the mechanics are skewed so in favor of assassins that even if you're terrible you'll be better than you were as a ranger.The reason I'm talking about betraying back already is because SOE can't do shifts in balance without screwing it up. Guardian/SK for example? One goes from best tank in the game to meaningless and the other becomes extremely overpowered and it has been that way for months and is just starting to get addressed. What about illy/coercer? Illy used to be omg amazing and then poof all the sudden they suck lol. Its pretty obvious that doing sweeping changes like this all at once will so crazily overpower ranger auto attack that they will have the ability to compete just buy pressing their ranged auto attack button.</div></blockquote>Rangers were not competive with Assassins in RoK because we had to use the RSB while melee dps kept getting upgrades. Melee could use there fabled myth / any new offhand. We didnt start to compete untill you were geared up and after another arrow/bow change, then you had to have Vol'drath or your full blown mythical, because if you used any bow besides the RSB you lost auto attack damage.EDIT: And this was not a short duration, iirc we had to wait almost the whole xpac before they fixed it.And in TSO we (Defiance) didnt have a assassin, we actually havent had one since half thru RoK, so I cant compare versus our sin. All I can compare is the parse differance on flames and in chat channels, and those showed High End Assassins ahead of High End Rangers on almost every parse except most Avatars, and ahead by a fair amount, not a competitive amount.Even the parses you posted show you behind sins in TSO.And now in SF it even further due to lots of things that have happened in the last 3 xpacs.And im not talking average sins vs rangers, strictly high end raiding. And yes there are alot of very bad Rangers out there. But a average Assassin has outparsed a average Ranger for 3yrs now(if both are equally geared and mastered), and every parse post shows this to be true.

Ballzz

08-22-2010, 05:03 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote>Also its not "easy" - ranger is a lot easier in comparison in raid settings, as I've said numerous times.<div><cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>If it was so easy to play a Ranger why do they have such a bad rep for doing horrible damage while Assassins have a rep for playing half-[Removed for Content] and still outparsing Rangers and other classes?Also, if Ranger is so much easier than Assassin then why is it so easy for raiding Rangers to betray and add an immediate 10k+ dmg to their parse without even knowing the details of how to play an Assassin or even having their Master spells? </blockquote>Ranger is a popular class and there are tons of crappy ones out there who have no idea how to setup their character.That happens in SF because the mechanics are skewed so in favor of assassins that even if you're terrible you'll be better than you were as a ranger.The reason I'm talking about betraying back already is because SOE can't do shifts in balance without screwing it up. Guardian/SK for example? One goes from best tank in the game to meaningless and the other becomes extremely overpowered and it has been that way for months and is just starting to get addressed. What about illy/coercer? Illy used to be omg amazing and then poof all the sudden they suck lol. Its pretty obvious that doing sweeping changes like this all at once will so crazily overpower ranger auto attack that they will have the ability to compete just buy pressing their ranged auto attack button.</div></blockquote>Ranger may be a popular class but only if you include non-raiding Rangers. You can't really include Rangers that only solo or do group or PVP content because Rangers are fine in those settings so who cares how many of them there are? I seriously doubt there are more raiding Rangers than raiding Assassins.As for crappy Rangers..sure there are plenty but there are crappy Assassins as well and the fact that a poorly played Assassin or a freshly betrayed Ranger can not only equal but far surpass Ranger DPS without having a firm grasp of the class sort of discredits the idea that Rangers are so easy to play. You said it yourself. The mechanics so skewed in favor of Assassins. It doesn't matter if it's from skewed mechanics or something else. It's easier to put up higher parses as an Assassin whether they are played well or not. If only well played Assassins parsed well then I might agree but that is not the case and a poorly played Ranger isn't going to parse well... at all.If getting a higher percentage of DPS from AA makes playing a Ranger somewhat easier it will only put them on par with Assassins in the difficulty department IMO but they will still need to go above and beyond AA dmg to maximize DPS so I don't think anyone will be able to sit there with only AA dmg and be competitive unless they are surrounded by seriously sub-par players.

Neiloch

08-22-2010, 05:37 PM

There's just no way, unless your playing with crappy DPS in your raids, these changes alone will not have rangers beating other T1 DPS performing classes. It's just groundwork to even stuff out for Velious. With both ae auto and flurry going in I can almost guarantee we are going to see A LOT more items and possibly skills with AE auto and flurry on them.Honestly I was surprised at the 10% bump in ranged weapons they talked about. But the removal of the penalty and the long over due inclusion of AE auto and flurry need to be put in one way or another. will be nice not having to work under these ridiculous restrictions.

Sydares

08-23-2010, 12:54 AM

This is Gaige.Gaige is troll.Troll, Gaige, Troll.

Gaige

08-23-2010, 01:44 AM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>With both ae auto and flurry going in I can almost guarantee we are going to see A LOT more items and possibly skills with AE auto and flurry on them.</blockquote>I can guarantee you that smart assassins will be using ranged auto attack and standing at 10m if they're smart.

kartikeya

08-23-2010, 04:21 AM

I'm calling complete BS on that bit about competitive rangers in TSO. Maybe if you were Avatar geared in RoK, I don't know, I rejoined the raiding game late in that expansion, but TSO? BS, or your other DPS classes weren't pulling their own weight/weren't as well geared. SF compounded the problems and added a few new ones, but it didn't suddenly make them all appear out of thin air.It's kind've cute how you've gone from 'oh, flurry and AE auto-attack aren't really that much of the parse, rangers will need more fixes than that' to 'zomg, rangers will be super easymode and will dominate so hard that all assassins are going to sit in the sweet-spot and macro their combat arts to ranged auto-attack' the moment these fixes are actually announced as coming. Save the complaining until if and when we get more adjustments. You said yourself that having bow mechanics fixed isn't going to threaten your precious parse. This is coming off as complaining for the sheer sake of whining about something.

Neiloch

08-23-2010, 04:46 AM

lol I still love that before when it wasn't confirmed I read posts and comments by multiple people that rangers wanting flurry and auto AE was stupid and wouldn't be much DPS. But now apparently its the end all, be all to auto attack DPS by people who don't even know how much the increase would actually be on paper and haven't played it on test. I thought rangers were the whiniest but apparently being pampered makes people cry a river when ranger's might possibly have the chance to get a better performing auto attack. Yes I know they didn't announce it with these damage increases either, but our auto attack DPS was already better than most, so if they will truly be op'd it would have been OP'd even without the damage increase.Maybe rangers will get the bonus end of a special exception this time. That exception being only rangers can make Auto AE and flurry work off a bow. Know whats even greater about that? It makes PERFECT sense, why would anyone else be able to use a bow to its fullest extent like a ranger? People whining about it being ranger only wouldn't have a leg to stand on, would be like a 8 year old pouting and saying 'but but but its not FAIR!' Xelgad did say their coming 'for bows' so its also likely it will work for everyone. Plus I'm not sure if they are willing or even able to make the stats work like that.Also can people who were rangers the day of these changes get a special title so we can be identified from the turncoats and fair weather players? lol

Sydares

08-23-2010, 04:58 AM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>our auto attack DPS was already better than most</blockquote>It wasn't, though.

Neiloch

08-23-2010, 05:33 AM

Well I was talking single target since we have no practical data for ranged AE auto comparison yet (wasn't possible). Obviously when people can AE with theirs and we can't with lots of adds, ours is gonna end up being less. Like on Maalus Imbued in Palace I tend to beat or at least match out everyone elses auto attack.

Writer Cal

08-23-2010, 07:37 AM

I like lemongrass chicken. I also like bow fixes. What does this have to do with this thread? Not a clue. Except lemongrass chicken + bow fixes = double tasty.Also? As much as certain people post about how rangers are inferior to assassins? It's pretty funny when ranger fixes are incoming and certain posters instantly jump from the not enough crowd to the lolzomgisbad crowd.In summary. Lemongrass chicken is tasty.

Striikor

08-23-2010, 12:42 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>With both ae auto and flurry going in I can almost guarantee we are going to see A LOT more items and possibly skills with AE auto and flurry on them.</blockquote>I can guarantee you that smart assassins will be using ranged auto attack and standing at 10m if they're smart.</blockquote>And why is that? Most assassins I know disregard AA, I do. CA's create much more damage. Chain is much more important along with the procs off melee weapons and buffs. I only concentrate on AA timing whilst my CA's come back up (much more quickly than my Ranger)No need to worry though Assassins will still get much better groups than a Ranger. Just do what I did, it does not take long. Run an Assassin and a Ranger.For me it is tough to change my rhythm regarding timing, position and jousting on a Ranger to an assassin ca spam and position. I admit stealth timing and trying to avoid interrupts on cancealment change can be a challenge.AA for my ranger is ~20-25% of my DPS ~10-15% on my Sin. I fail to see how a max of 5% increase in damage (25%*20%) and flurry+AoE is going to make a dramatic difference. They are still not talking about getting Ranged procs across the board that are the same as melee.Hopefully our Melee Ca range will change form 2 to 5 to 5 to 10 or something along those lines. That would help minimize DPS loss while constantly trying to get close enough and at the same time far enough for Ranged AA and CA's when they are up. A lot of mobs waste a few AutoAttacks because the box is not indicative of a 2-5 meter distance. Or the mob moves and you lose an AutoAttack and some CA's because they move too close.On my assassin I just run up on the back of the mob and stay there, I try to make sure I trigger my concealment in between any aoe that may interrupt me. On my Assassin most of the CA's are quick enough I don't worry about them being interrupted. In fact Slip Away being instant cast and recast with a .25 Recovery mean I am much quicker to recover on stealth Assassin attacks than I can on stealth Ranger attacks. My highest hitting Ranger attacks are stealth based and slow casting and if interrupted I am going to have to wait MUCH loner to re-stealth and try it again. Unless of course I am running PFT which my assassin has also. I would expect to get ~10% increase and I am often 10-20% and sometimes as much as 40% behind and equally equipped assassin (admittedly the groups we are in are much different.) I don't expect this to change dramatically, particularly if we are still without grouping logic. Grouping logic that Rangers don't have and that Assassin's and Swashy's still maintain.

Boise

08-23-2010, 04:32 PM

Sydares

08-23-2010, 06:13 PM

Melee classes still excel with dirge/coercer buffs - often that means being in the main tank group if you don't have many dirges. Unlike an assassin or swashbuckler, a ranger has absolutely no business being in the main tank group, so that often means we get shunted in to "that group". The developers can't seem to grasp this concept.

Boise

08-23-2010, 06:47 PM

The problem here is that the bow increase will help not only rangers, but assassins and other bow-weilding classes. Top end assassins will see an dps increase because they will start using bow auto attack instead of melee. Why? Simply put, bows will have a higher damage rating. Add in AE Auto-attack and flurry and assassins will be just the new rangers now since they will be auto-attacking with there bows.Makes no sense.

Xelgad

08-23-2010, 06:50 PM

These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.

Boise

08-23-2010, 06:53 PM

Neiloch

08-23-2010, 07:05 PM

Gungo

08-23-2010, 07:13 PM

<cite>Boise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>And assassins just became the top parsing class in the game. /sighMight as well just delete the ranger class from the game.</blockquote>So let me get this straight.Now offhand weapons will flurry and aoe auto atk. Which means dual wielding zerks got a massive dps boost. 1 hand/shield zerks see no change.Swashies see a big dps boost.Assassins will see a big dps boost.Brawlers get a decent dps boost.Rangers see a big dps boost. Brigands will see a small dps boost.Now here comes the dilemma for assassins either they will end up using a bow and finding that "sweet spot" rangers use to sit at n raids and autoatk with a bow and use melee CA's, like old rangers Or they will do more dps dual wielding and just do more dps then they currently do on live.

Gungo

08-23-2010, 07:17 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>Ahh wasn't aware the off hand was getting its restrictions removed as well.So again, just more groundwork to even things out.Kind of confused by your reply Boise, we get a huge increase in damage and mechanics and others don't get even half of that increase.</blockquote>I think boise is getting to this point.Dual wield receives a small boost from offhand flurry and aoe auto atk. Bows receive a massive boost from basically a 20-30% auto atk damage increase and flurry and aoe auto atk.So an assassin will have 1 of 2 choices, either they will end up using a bow and finding that "sweet spot" rangers use to sit at in raids and autoatk with a bow and use melee CA's, like old rangers Or they will do more dps dual wielding and end up doing more dps then they currently do on live.while rangers and assassins will be alot closer in terms of dps output assassins will gain alot from these changes eitherway and should in thoery be the top dps class in game by a decent margin.I do think these changes are needed but the devs do have to pay attention to how this change will effect other classes.

Darchon6

08-23-2010, 07:24 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>Thanks for the update -- while two T9 dual wield weapons have a slightly lower damage rating than a comparable bow, our increased number of guaranteed proc triggers (CoB, VC, deity blessings, etc) should cover the difference in terms of maximum damage output.However, would you consider boosting the maximum range of melee auto-attack slightly to compensate for the nearly identical damage values? Like I said before, melee classes (scouts and fighters alike) tend to lose thousands of dps when a target suddenly moves due to a combination of a small "target is too far away" threshhold and poor synchronization between the client and server. Boosting the max range from 2 to 5 meters in PVE would make a world of difference for us. Also, tell Kander to design T9 raid items with enhancements to maximum attack range <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Sydares

08-23-2010, 07:26 PM

Darchon6

08-23-2010, 07:33 PM

<cite>Sydares wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're going to make this change, you should consider re balancing the Assassin myth's passive 15% flurry. Maybe make it 60% ammo conserve. Or move it to the ennervated version of their weapon. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>Sorcerers are currently ahead of the curve by a small margin -- even more so when you take uncontested avoidance into account. Perhaps you should ask for additional enhancements to the ranger class instead. There's no need to call forth the nerf bat on another class.

Sydares

08-23-2010, 07:35 PM

<cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sydares wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're going to make this change, you should consider re balancing the Assassin myth's passive 15% flurry. Maybe make it 60% ammo conserve. Or move it to the ennervated version of their weapon. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></blockquote> Perhaps you should ask for additional enhancements to the ranger class instead.</blockquote>Which is exactly what I just did in demonstrating the sickening imbalance in our mythical effects.

Ballads

08-23-2010, 07:42 PM

Gaige

08-23-2010, 07:43 PM

<cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's kind've cute how you've gone from 'oh, flurry and AE auto-attack aren't really that much of the parse, rangers will need more fixes than that' to 'zomg, rangers will be super easymode and will dominate so hard that all assassins are going to sit in the sweet-spot and macro their combat arts to ranged auto-attack' the moment these fixes are actually announced as coming.</blockquote>My main problem was always with increasing bow damage. Flurry/AE are simple mechanics fixes.

kartikeya

08-23-2010, 07:43 PM

<cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>Thanks for the update -- while two T9 dual wield weapons have a slightly lower damage rating than a comparable bow, our increased number of guaranteed proc triggers (CoB, VC, deity blessings, etc) should cover the difference in terms of maximum damage output.However, would you consider boosting the maximum range of melee auto-attack slightly to compensate for the nearly identical damage values? Like I said before, melee classes (scouts and fighters alike) tend to lose thousands of dps when a target suddenly moves due to a combination of a small "target is too far away" threshhold and poor synchronization between the client and server. Boosting the max range from 2 to 5 meters in PVE would make a world of difference for us. Also, tell Kander to design T9 raid items with enhancements to maximum attack range <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>You are severely overestimating the effect this change is going to have on rangers. I would love if it would be a massive DPS boost, because we need it, but it really isn't. And as Xelgad just stated, the goal is to make autoattack come out DPS even. This means that we'll do the same autoattack DPS than assassins do, in theory, (instead of less as it is now), and we'll still have incredibly weak CAs that need looking over.Seriously, just do a simple comparison between ranger CAs, Assassin CAs, and our mythical buffs. The disparity is, as another poster just put, sickening. Flurry, AE autoattack, and the removal of that stupid flat nerf to our bow damage is extremely needed, but we're not suddenly going to be challenging assassins on the parse (but this SHOULD be the end goal), especially since assassins are getting a small offhand boost now as well. Settle down.

Gungo

08-23-2010, 07:43 PM

<cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>Thanks for the update -- while two T9 dual wield weapons have a slightly lower damage rating than a comparable bow, our increased number of guaranteed proc triggers (CoB, VC, deity blessings, etc) should cover the difference in terms of maximum damage output.However, would you consider boosting the maximum range of melee auto-attack slightly to compensate for the nearly identical damage values? Like I said before, melee classes (scouts and fighters alike) tend to lose thousands of dps when a target suddenly moves due to a combination of a small "target is too far away" threshhold and poor synchronization between the client and server. Boosting the max range from 2 to 5 meters in PVE would make a world of difference for us. Also, tell Kander to design T9 raid items with enhancements to maximum attack range <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I am all for making auto atk 5m, but mostly because it makes NO sense how melee combat arts are 5m and auto atk is less ~2-3m. Its not intuitive AT ALL for new players. Combat arts would be the ideal way to show melee players they are in range of melee.

kartikeya

08-23-2010, 07:47 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's kind've cute how you've gone from 'oh, flurry and AE auto-attack aren't really that much of the parse, rangers will need more fixes than that' to 'zomg, rangers will be super easymode and will dominate so hard that all assassins are going to sit in the sweet-spot and macro their combat arts to ranged auto-attack' the moment these fixes are actually announced as coming.</blockquote>My main problem was always with increasing bow damage. Flurry/AE are simple mechanics fixes.</blockquote>As I understand it, this is simply removing that stupid invisible nerf that Aeralik put in when he fixed arrow mechanics. This is something that we should have had in RoK. If somehow that makes bow damage too much, I guarantee they will nerf it, but I highly highly doubt that it will. It has the effect of making bows do the kind of damage they SHOULD be doing ANYWAY, but haven't because Aeralik couldn't stand the thought of a ranger focused fix actually helping rangers (no I'm not still bitter, nooo).

Gaige

08-23-2010, 07:48 PM

<cite>Ballads wrote:</cite><blockquote>So wait, your boosting all melee now? I understand rangers have an issue bu tto UP all meleers makes no sense to me. If your assassins can't keep up with your sorcs now, get better assassins.Can mages get AoE spell cast ? How about spell flurry? Upping all melee with out adjusting casters as well is a terrible solution to fixing rangers.</blockquote>You have spell double attack, last I checked CA double attack doesn't exist.

Neiloch

08-23-2010, 07:48 PM

Well I see what you mean now Boise/Gungo. Basically the same problem we have now with maybe the gap being a little smaller.I really don't expect this to fix our DPS as no one should. Its just ground work to try and even out auto attack. Once they do that they can see what kind of CA adjustment we need. Our auto attack mechanics were always handicapped, and trying to fix both auto attack and CA's at the same time would be a huge fuster cluck. So it makes sense to first balance our auto attack then adjust CA's as needed so we don't have this constant BS burden of having a auto attack with weird rules.Adjusting caster DPS will probably be included with any CA adjustments as well. Casters are just currently being left out of this stage since they don't really use auto attack as a major source of DPS.Really looking forward to trying this all out on test though.

Gungo

08-23-2010, 07:51 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's kind've cute how you've gone from 'oh, flurry and AE auto-attack aren't really that much of the parse, rangers will need more fixes than that' to 'zomg, rangers will be super easymode and will dominate so hard that all assassins are going to sit in the sweet-spot and macro their combat arts to ranged auto-attack' the moment these fixes are actually announced as coming.</blockquote>My main problem was always with increasing bow damage. Flurry/AE are simple mechanics fixes.</blockquote>I dont think there is ANYONE in this game but you that thinks rangers will be outparsing assassins after this change. The fact of the matter is if bow auto atk ends up better then melee auto atk (which after this current change from xelgad I doubt) An assassin still can just end up using a bow in the "sweet spot". Bottom line is after all these proposed changes you end up with asassins making better use of 100% raidwide/group wide proc buffs. Assassins having a higher chance at flurry and aoe auto atk.The only thing rangers benefit from these changes is specialized bows made specifically for them with higher damage ratings. And Bow ammo which has increased accuracy and damage.

Sydares

08-23-2010, 07:51 PM

If this does equal out all methods of autoattack to be similar (possible, I suppose), then they do need to actually follow through and go back and reevaluate class-specific buffs to flurry and AE auto, as well as the base CA damage. For everyone capable of doing any of the above.Particularly with flurry, you're tinkering with the mechanics of a thing that certain classes have a much greater chance of actually having in large quantities vs. almost no access to.

Boise

08-23-2010, 08:04 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>Ahh wasn't aware the off hand was getting its restrictions removed as well.So again, just more groundwork to even things out.Kind of confused by your reply Boise, we get a huge increase in damage and mechanics and others don't get even half of that increase.</blockquote>I think boise is getting to this point.Dual wield receives a small boost from offhand flurry and aoe auto atk. Bows receive a massive boost from basically a 20-30% auto atk damage increase and flurry and aoe auto atk.So an assassin will have 1 of 2 choices, either they will end up using a bow and finding that "sweet spot" rangers use to sit at in raids and autoatk with a bow and use melee CA's, like old rangers Or they will do more dps dual wielding and end up doing more dps then they currently do on live.while rangers and assassins will be alot closer in terms of dps output assassins will gain alot from these changes eitherway and should in thoery be the top dps class in game by a decent margin.I do think these changes are needed but the devs do have to pay attention to how this change will effect other classes.</blockquote>I do not see rangers and assassins "getting" closer dpswise. In fact, I see assassins pulling away even more because they will reap the benefit of the changes 1) increase bow damage rating 2) AE Auto-Ataack 2) FlurryXelgad is just balancing the weapons and not really giving rangers any chance to compete at the high end. Rangers have no utility and not much dps in comparison to assassins and other top tier clasees.

Sydares

08-23-2010, 08:05 PM

In a nutshell, this isn't the Ranger fix we were hoping for. It's a mechanics change, nothing more and nothing less.

Sydares

08-23-2010, 08:09 PM

Although, it still get us out of the Intoxication line, so thank god for that.

Boise

08-23-2010, 08:09 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's kind've cute how you've gone from 'oh, flurry and AE auto-attack aren't really that much of the parse, rangers will need more fixes than that' to 'zomg, rangers will be super easymode and will dominate so hard that all assassins are going to sit in the sweet-spot and macro their combat arts to ranged auto-attack' the moment these fixes are actually announced as coming.</blockquote>My main problem was always with increasing bow damage. Flurry/AE are simple mechanics fixes.</blockquote>I dont think there is ANYONE in this game but you that thinks rangers will be outparsing assassins after this change. The fact of the matter is if bow auto atk ends up better then melee auto atk (which after this current change from xelgad I doubt) An assassin still can just end up using a bow in the "sweet spot". Bottom line is after all these proposed changes you end up with asassins making better use of 100% raidwide/group wide proc buffs. Assassins having a higher chance at flurry and aoe auto atk.The only thing rangers benefit from these changes is specialized bows made specifically for them with higher damage ratings. And Bow ammo which has increased accuracy and damage.</blockquote>Frankly, rangers will get nothing new to close the gap. Bow ammo is used by all and not just rangers. As for ranger specialized bows, there is only one bow made for rangers only and that bow will never see a ranger's hand until next expansion. Do you honestly think rangers will see that bow this expansion anytime soon?

Darchon6

08-23-2010, 08:11 PM

<cite>Ballads wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>So wait, your boosting all melee now? I understand rangers have an issue bu tto UP all meleers makes no sense to me. If your assassins can't keep up with your sorcs now, get better assassins.Can mages get AoE spell cast ? How about spell flurry? Upping all melee with out adjusting casters as well is a terrible solution to fixing rangers.</blockquote>Name one scout who can break 74k dps on Aereon, 149k on Ernax Heridion + surrounding adds, 70k on 3-rune roehn theer, and 200k+ on groups of trash in Underfoot Depths? I thought so.Sorcerers have a definite advantage over scouts against single targets which parry / block a portion of melee attacks and encounters containing multiple targets. The only advantage an assassin has over a sorcerer is against single targets which don't parry attacks from behind and don't include surrounding adds -- even then, sorcerers (especially wizards) are dangerously close. There's only a few NPCs in this expansion which fit that criteria, tbh. This change is needed without the compensation of sorcerers.

Boise

08-23-2010, 08:16 PM

<cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ballads wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>So wait, your boosting all melee now? I understand rangers have an issue bu tto UP all meleers makes no sense to me. If your assassins can't keep up with your sorcs now, get better assassins.Can mages get AoE spell cast ? How about spell flurry? Upping all melee with out adjusting casters as well is a terrible solution to fixing rangers.</blockquote>Name one scout who can break 74k dps on Aereon, 149k on Ernax Heridion + surrounding adds, 70k on 3-rune roehn theer, or 200k+ on groups of trash in Underfoot Depths? I thought so.Sorcerers have a definite advantage over scouts against single targets which parry / block a portion of melee attacks and encounters containing multiple targets. The only advantage an assassin has over a sorcerer is against single targets which don't parry attacks from behind and don't include surrounding adds -- even then, sorcerers (especially wizards) are dangerously close. There's only a few NPCs in this expansion which fit that criteria, tbh. This change is needed without the compensation of sorcerers.</blockquote>I personally don't care about how "bad" assassins have it vs. Mages. This is a ranger forum where ranger issues are posted. Personally, you should be happy Xelgad is doing this. Assassins will reap this benefit while rangers simply fall behind.

Gaige

08-23-2010, 08:22 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only thing rangers benefit from these changes is specialized bows made specifically for them with higher damage ratings.</blockquote>It drops off Yael, so I doubt very many rangers will ever see it.

Boise

08-23-2010, 08:33 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only thing rangers benefit from these changes is specialized bows made specifically for them with higher damage ratings.</blockquote>It drops off Yael, so I doubt very many rangers will ever see it.</blockquote>Exactly. SoE at it's finest: "Let's put a ranger only bow on the hardest mob in the game and see when a ranger will actually loot it?" lolJust priceless

Neiloch

08-23-2010, 08:42 PM

<cite>Boise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only thing rangers benefit from these changes is specialized bows made specifically for them with higher damage ratings.</blockquote>It drops off Yael, so I doubt very many rangers will ever see it.</blockquote>Exactly. SoE at it's finest: "Let's put a ranger only bow on the hardest mob in the game and see when a ranger will actually loot it?" lolJust priceless</blockquote>Its very likely the first ranger to get it will be a ranger ALT. Was also a bad idea to put a one class only bow on a crazy hard mob. I'm sure raids who bust their butt to kill him will love seeing that drop. Should be dropping off something in wing 2 imo.I do agree with Sydares though. Our myth buff and probably some ranger AA's need to be looked at to possibly give us some flurry and ae auto. Double Arrow AA would be a good candidate to get turned into a increase in flurry, 8% DA just isn't a big deal anymore.

kartikeya

08-23-2010, 08:44 PM

<cite>Boise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only thing rangers benefit from these changes is specialized bows made specifically for them with higher damage ratings.</blockquote>It drops off Yael, so I doubt very many rangers will ever see it.</blockquote>Exactly. SoE at it's finest: "Let's put a ranger only bow on the hardest mob in the game and see when a ranger will actually loot it?" lolJust priceless</blockquote>Isn't that also the bow that has better extra stats and a neat effect but the exact same damage rating as hardmode Tox bow? Or am I thinking of something else/did they actually fix that? Because woohoo there. -.-

Darchon6

08-23-2010, 08:51 PM

<cite>Boise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ballads wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>So wait, your boosting all melee now? I understand rangers have an issue bu tto UP all meleers makes no sense to me. If your assassins can't keep up with your sorcs now, get better assassins.Can mages get AoE spell cast ? How about spell flurry? Upping all melee with out adjusting casters as well is a terrible solution to fixing rangers.</blockquote>Name one scout who can break 74k dps on Aereon, 149k on Ernax Heridion + surrounding adds, 70k on 3-rune roehn theer, or 200k+ on groups of trash in Underfoot Depths? I thought so.Sorcerers have a definite advantage over scouts against single targets which parry / block a portion of melee attacks and encounters containing multiple targets. The only advantage an assassin has over a sorcerer is against single targets which don't parry attacks from behind and don't include surrounding adds -- even then, sorcerers (especially wizards) are dangerously close. There's only a few NPCs in this expansion which fit that criteria, tbh. This change is needed without the compensation of sorcerers.</blockquote>I personally don't care about how "bad" assassins have it vs. Mages. This is a ranger forum where ranger issues are posted. Personally, you should be happy Xelgad is doing this. Assassins will reap this benefit while rangers simply fall behind.</blockquote>Did you completely disregard the details of Xelgad's response? Rangers will be closer to assassins on the parses since they utilize ranged auto-attack a greater percentage of the time. It's needless to say that you'll also be much closer to sorcerers than before, perhaps even at a competent level.

jjlo69

08-23-2010, 08:54 PM

xegladthanks your your lasetest responce when is the change making to to test so it can be tested out????Uncle

Geothe

08-23-2010, 08:55 PM

Aule

08-23-2010, 09:25 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>Does this Bow damage increase, also include Throwing Weapons?Some classes (Rogues and Brawlers) are locked to using throwing weapons if they want to use their ranged CAs.If you make these bow changes, and not do the same with throwing weapons, you're putting in a brand new imbalance.</blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div><div> </div><div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div></blockquote>You have become better at reading the thread you are responding to! (1/450)

Striikor

08-23-2010, 09:25 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>OK color me confused then. Someone please itemize the benefit this is actually going to be for Rangers (this is after all a Ranger thread)Upping the damage of dual wield and two handers equally with bows is going to fix our DPS disparity .... how? Procs added to off-hand upping Assassin, Brigand and Swashbuckler DPS? What melee DPS class uses a two-hander?How is it that Rangers gain on Swashies and Assassins (who invaribly get the bulk of the buffs that melee DPS want)? Tanks DPS gets upped via two-handers?It felt like we were getting something and now it is greatly mitigated. My Ranger AutoAttack is generally around 25% of my DPS. My Assassin AutoAttack is 10-15% of my DPS. From what was originally described it looked like an increase of about 5% (without counting AoE and Flurry procs). So the result is what ..... less than ~2.5% gain. But add in the off-hand procs, scaling up dualwield damage and it is pretty nearly evened out.So help me see how we as Rangers are going to close the DPS gap with this change which in view of the last post by Xelgad would seem to maintain the staus quo.

Boise

08-23-2010, 09:42 PM

<cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boise wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ballads wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>So wait, your boosting all melee now? I understand rangers have an issue bu tto UP all meleers makes no sense to me. If your assassins can't keep up with your sorcs now, get better assassins.Can mages get AoE spell cast ? How about spell flurry? Upping all melee with out adjusting casters as well is a terrible solution to fixing rangers.</blockquote>Name one scout who can break 74k dps on Aereon, 149k on Ernax Heridion + surrounding adds, 70k on 3-rune roehn theer, or 200k+ on groups of trash in Underfoot Depths? I thought so.Sorcerers have a definite advantage over scouts against single targets which parry / block a portion of melee attacks and encounters containing multiple targets. The only advantage an assassin has over a sorcerer is against single targets which don't parry attacks from behind and don't include surrounding adds -- even then, sorcerers (especially wizards) are dangerously close. There's only a few NPCs in this expansion which fit that criteria, tbh. This change is needed without the compensation of sorcerers.</blockquote>I personally don't care about how "bad" assassins have it vs. Mages. This is a ranger forum where ranger issues are posted. Personally, you should be happy Xelgad is doing this. Assassins will reap this benefit while rangers simply fall behind.</blockquote>Did you completely disregard the details of Xelgad's response? Rangers will be closer to assassins on the parses since they utilize ranged auto-attack a greater percentage of the time It's needless to say that you'll also be much closer to sorcerers than before, perhaps even at a competent level.</blockquote>I am skeptical at best. Xelgad has said many things ("like rangers are a mighty force") that I don't agree with. He does not care that there are probably so little high end rangers raiding (suggest checking every high end guild and see if they have a ranger full time). Assassins give high end raids utility and top end dps. Rangers give zero utility and sub-standard dps. Nothing has change.Skeptical...

Seolta

08-23-2010, 11:08 PM

LardLord

08-24-2010, 01:19 AM

<cite>Striikor@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>So help me see how we as Rangers are going to close the DPS gap with this change which in view of the last post by Xelgad would seem to maintain the staus quo. </blockquote>Rangers get the 20% penalty removed and the 10% increase to bow damage, in addition to Flurry and AE auto-attack. Even if meleers decide to use their bow for auto-attack, which seems unlikely now, Rangers will still net the greater gain, since bow damage is currently lower on live than DW damage.

Albatroz

08-24-2010, 01:39 AM

<cite>Seolta@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>Nice, now how about fixing 2hander itemization so people can actually hope to loot some before the next expansion?</blockquote>care to enlighten me what needs to be fixed ?and bow mechanics need to be entirely restricted to Rangers , no other class should get Ranged Flurry or Range AEotherwise we need to have compensation for Mages , as you guys dont really believe there isnt an itemization inflation inc that is going to imbalance the entire idea ? it always has been like that and it generates more issues that does goodi also dont care if they up the base auto dmg for rangersRangers , yesall other classes no Range AE and Flurry , Rangers do not benefit from AE and flurry meleeing due to the class design and so shouldnt the other classes benefit from Ranged stuff to begin with , leave if you like Ranged DA how it is an if Ranger tag should be no problem imowhile you are at it , you need to look into proc rates for item procs off concerning meleeing especially in the high delay department , this is ridiculous that melee classes proc these items 4 to 5 times as much as castersand before you put any changes in , TEST them with END GAME RAID PLAYERs so you get accurate parse DATAno one cares what the casual crowd is parsing and I also doubt that any of the developers are good enough to play the classes they did create as the top end players do since if that would be like that the game would have less major flaws to begin with in terms of end content and class design and HAVE A SERIOUS TALK WITH YOUR ITEMIZATION DEPARTMENT about FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF GEAR , game mechanics and itemization seem to have horrible communication going on for ages now

Corwinus

08-24-2010, 03:19 AM

<cite>Darchon6 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Did you completely disregard the details of Xelgad's response? Rangers will be closer to assassins on the parses since they utilize ranged auto-attack a greater percentage of the time It's needless to say that you'll also be much closer to sorcerers than before, perhaps even at a competent level.</blockquote>Stop freaking out and cry wolf, you have nothing to fear of Rangers with that change. You may even get something on your off hand. So go troll somewhere else and spill your drama in the assassin forum. It is a Ranger forum here after all.Gee, what an insecure assassin.Cor

TwistedFaith

08-24-2010, 08:49 AM

Gaige and Koldsteel should be embarrassed, what a pair of whiny little girls. The mere thought of some dps loving for Rangers had you two little girls all in a sweat.

Toxicz

08-24-2010, 09:24 AM

As usual brigs see little improvement even with these changes. EVERY dps scout(sin/ranger/swashy) will see there dps improve quite a bit. With out de-buffs be practicly worthless brigands almost have no reason to be in raids anymore. Hopefully SOE will eventually take a look at the class and at least try to balance it with swashy.

Shareana

08-24-2010, 10:24 AM

This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=445320&post_id=5399571" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=44532...post_id=5399571</a> Please do not insult other players on these forums...

Striikor

08-24-2010, 11:21 AM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Striikor@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>So help me see how we as Rangers are going to close the DPS gap with this change which in view of the last post by Xelgad would seem to maintain the staus quo. </blockquote>Rangers get the 20% penalty removed and the 10% increase to bow damage, in addition to Flurry and AE auto-attack. Even if meleers decide to use their bow for auto-attack, which seems unlikely now, Rangers will still net the greater gain, since bow damage is currently lower on live than DW damage.</blockquote>Removing the 20% penalty results in an improvement of ~5%. As stated earlier Assassins can consitently put out 10-15% more dps at the low end and up to 40% at the high end. Our highest hit can maybe make it to 200K thiers to 400K.It is really nice to get access to AoE and Flurry which will improve Ranger DPS by providing something that was not there before. But it is likely to be equal to the gain Assassin will get from off-hand procs. No one has said we will ever get those procs off a bow. So it is most likley a wash and not net gain for Rangers. Still odd man out on grouping logic so no gain there, assassins and swashies will get the groups and preferential buffs.On the plus side Assassins, with the added damage should be able to overcome the to hit% making socerers work hard to try and stay ahead on the parse. In fact all melee DPS should be able to close some of the gap on socerers.

Geothe

08-24-2010, 11:25 AM

<cite>Elyl@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>drivel</blockquote>Grats on bringing something useful to the topic of discussion. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" />As I mentioned before, I just want to get clarification from Xelgad that there will not be damage penalties remaining on throwing weapons as well. In his original post he said he was removing the 20% Penalty from bows, but didnt say anything about removing it from throwing weapons.

-=Hoss=-

08-24-2010, 12:35 PM

Yesterday when I read this thread, rangers were laughing at the assassin QQ'ing. But today? LOL ranger's don't dissapoint. Didn't even let the changes hit test before the crying started. There's too much to even try responding here. Wish I knew how to multiquote on this forum without having to quote/paste/copy/go back over and over again.

Ballzz

08-24-2010, 05:38 PM

What they should do is just leave the bow dmg penalty in for classes that aren't Rangers. If it was good enough for Rangers as their primary attack method for however long it should be plenty good for other classes using bow attacks as a secondary attack method. Rangers having an inherent advantage using a bow seems so obvious and simple it's probably out of the realm of possibility.

Ranja

08-24-2010, 06:29 PM

<cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>What they should do is just leave the bow dmg penalty in for classes that aren't Rangers. If it was good enough for Rangers as their primary attack method for however long it should be plenty good for other classes using bow attacks as a secondary attack method. Rangers having an inherent advantage using a bow seems so obvious and simple it's probably out of the realm of possibility.</blockquote>Rangers better with a bow than any other class. You are talking crazy talk.I always thought it odd that we had no inherit range bonus in our ranged aut0-attack. The only thing that makes us rangers is the fact that our CAs are ranged.

Venez

08-24-2010, 06:39 PM

<cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yesterday when I read this thread, rangers were laughing at the assassin QQ'ing. But today? LOL ranger's don't dissapoint. Didn't even let the changes hit test before the crying started. There's too much to even try responding here. Wish I knew how to multiquote on this forum without having to quote/paste/copy/go back over and over again.</blockquote>Ya seeing that most of the QQing is STILL your precious Assassins , go troll somewhere else, its what u do best as proven in all your other posts.

Neiloch

08-24-2010, 06:41 PM

If the changes go through how they want there is no clear incentive for melee classes to use their melee auto attack over their bow auto attack. Other than their melee weapons being better than their bow. Maybe convenience, just going with melee because it would be a pain to macro all their melee CA's to /autoattack 2. Not really a problem for rangers I guess. Our myth buff makes it so we can always use a bow better than anyone else given stats are equal, isn't by much though. Just think it should be more of a clear cut bad idea for other melee scouts to opt for ranged AA. If they do end up being perfectly even I guess its fine, just not likely that will happen and people are going to find little loopholes I think.Speaking of which, where is our auto-attack selection option? Or at the very least an automatic switch between ranged and melee auto attack based on range. Too close for ranged, melee auto kicks on. Too far for melee, ranged auto kicks on.

Venez

08-24-2010, 06:45 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Striikor@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>So help me see how we as Rangers are going to close the DPS gap with this change which in view of the last post by Xelgad would seem to maintain the staus quo. </blockquote>Rangers get the 20% penalty removed and the 10% increase to bow damage, in addition to Flurry and AE auto-attack. Even if meleers decide to use their bow for auto-attack, which seems unlikely now, Rangers will still net the greater gain, since bow damage is currently lower on live than DW damage.</blockquote>Xelgad posted this was so that melee and auto attack damage would be equal. SO what rangers will gain is the differance that currently exists in AUTO ATTACK ONLY, 3,4,5,6k ? not that 10-20k differance that you see now on some mobs (from posted parses between the two classes)It will be nice to have the flurry/ae mechanic being able to work with bows and finally haveing the -20% modifier removed. Other than that its the same status quo, and it wasnt meant to be a "fix" for us Rangers, but one to there faulty mechanics.

Striikor

08-24-2010, 07:47 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>If the changes go through how they want there is no clear incentive for melee classes to use their melee auto attack over their bow auto attack. Other than their melee weapons being better than their bow. Maybe convenience, just going with melee because it would be a pain to macro all their melee CA's to /autoattack 2. Not really a problem for rangers I guess. Our myth buff makes it so we can always use a bow better than anyone else given stats are equal, isn't by much though. Just think it should be more of a clear cut bad idea for other melee scouts to opt for ranged AA. If they do end up being perfectly even I guess its fine, just not likely that will happen and people are going to find little loopholes I think.Speaking of which, where is our auto-attack selection option? Or at the very least an automatic switch between ranged and melee auto attack based on range. Too close for ranged, melee auto kicks on. Too far for melee, ranged auto kicks on. </blockquote><cite><cite>Sorry Neiloch but Huh? I assume you did not look at Xelgads second post?</cite></cite><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>

Neiloch

08-24-2010, 07:56 PM

Yeah they said the goal is for them to be the same, but if they are so close melee scouts could get some new bow that slightly better than their DW combo, and get better DPS from using their bow. So wanted to some overt incentive for other melee to use melee auto attack other than not wanting to macro out CA's or something.Rangers get a bonus to bow auto attack damage from myth buff, there is no melee equivalent far as I know. So after this, if they are indeed very close to even and balanced, others can use either one and get roughly the same results, while it will be clearly better for rangers to use bows. Really not a problem mechanically I guess, just lame there is only small bonuses and differences, instead of rangers being insanely awesome with bows and being a last resort for attacking at ranged anyone else, regarding ranged auto attack. Even right now fighters can take huge advantage of using bows, and still will be able to after these changes, with only that 20% myth bonus making a difference between us and them for auto attack.Guess I'm saying I wish rangers got a bonus from bows other than our myth buff and more ranged CA's. Be nice if assassins/rogues got innate bonus to DW and say crusaders got a nice bonus just for 2 handed sword DPS. More of a general gripe not entirely specific to these changes.Even if they wanted to make the gaps wider depending on weapon type they would still have to do all this to even it out proper first. anxious to try this stuff out on test.

Corwinus

08-24-2010, 09:49 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote> anxious to try this stuff out on test.</blockquote>Yeah, same here Neiloch. Let the hard data speak and away with the speculation. Our feedback should help Xelgad tweak it.Cor

-=Hoss=-

08-25-2010, 12:40 PM

<cite>Venez@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yesterday when I read this thread, rangers were laughing at the assassin QQ'ing. But today? LOL ranger's don't dissapoint. Didn't even let the changes hit test before the crying started. There's too much to even try responding here. Wish I knew how to multiquote on this forum without having to quote/paste/copy/go back over and over again.</blockquote>Ya seeing that most of the QQing is STILL your precious Assassins , go troll somewhere else, its what u do best as proven in all your other posts.</blockquote>You and I are not reading the same thread. You should try reading the thread we're actually responding in.Oh but thanks for the recognition on my ranger trolling prowess. It means a lot to me.<cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>What they should do is just leave the bow dmg penalty in for classes that aren't Rangers. If it was good enough for Rangers as their primary attack method for however long it should be plenty good for other classes using bow attacks as a secondary attack method. Rangers having an inherent advantage using a bow seems so obvious and simple it's probably out of the realm of possibility.</blockquote>At the same time, they can introduce a melee weapon penalty for everyone except assassins? Cause Rangers should use bows better than anyone else just like assassins should use melee better. Quit being greedy, you've already got the myth buff, how much better with a bow do you want to be? How about if they just make every bow and every throwing weapon in game ranger only. Will you be happy then? If eof era bow dmg is any indicator, your bow shots are liable to be hitting for 80k each. Some of you rangers seem to think you're entitled to some sort of reparations for 6 months of sucking.

Ballzz

08-25-2010, 02:12 PM

<cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Venez@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yesterday when I read this thread, rangers were laughing at the assassin QQ'ing. But today? LOL ranger's don't dissapoint. Didn't even let the changes hit test before the crying started. There's too much to even try responding here. Wish I knew how to multiquote on this forum without having to quote/paste/copy/go back over and over again.</blockquote>Ya seeing that most of the QQing is STILL your precious Assassins , go troll somewhere else, its what u do best as proven in all your other posts.</blockquote>You and I are not reading the same thread. You should try reading the thread we're actually responding in.Oh but thanks for the recognition on my ranger trolling prowess. It means a lot to me.<cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>What they should do is just leave the bow dmg penalty in for classes that aren't Rangers. If it was good enough for Rangers as their primary attack method for however long it should be plenty good for other classes using bow attacks as a secondary attack method. Rangers having an inherent advantage using a bow seems so obvious and simple it's probably out of the realm of possibility.</blockquote>At the same time, they can introduce a melee weapon penalty for everyone except assassins? Cause Rangers should use bows better than anyone else just like assassins should use melee better. Quit being greedy, you've already got the myth buff, how much better with a bow do you want to be? How about if they just make every bow and every throwing weapon in game ranger only. Will you be happy then? If eof era bow dmg is any indicator, your bow shots are liable to be hitting for 80k each. Some of you rangers seem to think you're entitled to some sort of reparations for 6 months of sucking.</blockquote>Uhhh..that's not even remotely the same thing but nice analogy! Every melee class uses melee weapons *except* Rangers. Rangers can't stand in melee range and do comparable dmg with melee weapons like an Assassin or Swashy or whatever so why should a tank or Assassin get comparable bow dmg at range? That makes no sense.

-=Hoss=-

08-25-2010, 04:05 PM

<cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Uhhh..that's not even remotely the same thing but nice analogy! Every melee class uses melee weapons *except* Rangers. Rangers can't stand in melee range and do comparable dmg with melee weapons like an Assassin or Swashy or whatever so why should a tank or Assassin get comparable bow dmg at range? That makes no sense.</blockquote>Yes they can. In fact, I think you do more dmg if you melee AA versus if you ranged AA. I saw many threads about that when SF launched. If its changed, I missed it. This change should fix that. If you and I were to melee auto attack a dummy now, we'd be doing equal damage unless one of us has suck weapons or better stats. The problem is that if you stay in melee range, you can't use all of your combat arts. All other classes will have the exact same issue, if they stay at range to use the bow auto attack, they can't use most of thier abilities. I don't see an issue.

Ballzz

08-25-2010, 05:51 PM

<cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Uhhh..that's not even remotely the same thing but nice analogy! Every melee class uses melee weapons *except* Rangers. Rangers can't stand in melee range and do comparable dmg with melee weapons like an Assassin or Swashy or whatever so why should a tank or Assassin get comparable bow dmg at range? That makes no sense.</blockquote>Yes they can. In fact, I think you do more dmg if you melee AA versus if you ranged AA. I saw many threads about that when SF launched. If its changed, I missed it. This change should fix that. If you and I were to melee auto attack a dummy now, we'd be doing equal damage unless one of us has suck weapons or better stats. The problem is that if you stay in melee range, you can't use all of your combat arts. All other classes will have the exact same issue, if they stay at range to use the bow auto attack, they can't use most of thier abilities. I don't see an issue.</blockquote>First of all. I know of no credible Ranger DPS strategy that includes using melee AA over ranged AA. If there is then it's likely some specific or theoretical case that is not used to my knowledge. If there is please point me to it as I would love to read it. Every Ranger DPS thread I have every read has always said to never use melee AA over ranged. My experience confirms that. The fact that melee AA dmg has started approaching bow AA dmg is precisely why the change is needed to increase bow dmg for Rangers but that doesn't mean it should be across the board. Rangers use bows and should excel at that..using it as their primary attack method and have melee as a secondary but inferior option. The reverse of that should be true for melee DPS. Secondly, you are right that a Ranger couldn't stand in melee AA range and do most of their CAs but I don't think the reverse is true for melee DPS. They could stand at the minimum bow range and still use melee CAs (like several mentioned in this thread as a new strategy for melee DPS) which makes my point even more appropriate. There should be *something* in place to make melee DPS opt for melee range and ranged DPS to opt for ranged DPS as their first option..not some classes having perfectly viable options for both.

Gungo

08-25-2010, 06:08 PM

Even if somehow xelgad balances flurry/aoe auto atk proc rates to be equal on ranged and duel wielding. Melee classes will still duel wield due to the way many raid buffs benefit duel wielding and faster delays on 100% proc rate buffs. The dps gains from VC, COB, stampede, etc is huge on raids.Rangers however should still use ranged simply because of the mythical bonus giving them 20% bonus on ranged. Whether that buff alone will compensate for the damage rangers need I dont know. Rangers may need additional tweaks such as a flurry AA and/or CA adjustments.

Neiloch

08-25-2010, 06:20 PM

I was thinking about that earlier today gungo, with faster weapons they are more likely to exploit percentage based mechanics to their fullest, much more so than slower weapons. Including 100% chance here btw heh. On longer fights they might get closer though.I hope, and am fairly certain, these changes won't close the gap for overall ranger DPS. Like others have stated i'd rather have ranged CA's close the gap and get us caught up. I imagine that will be forthcoming after these changes.

Striikor

08-26-2010, 02:32 PM

Well I hope to see it on test in the next week or two. If it does not look like a significant improvement in relational DPS ..... my subscription expires on 9/8. So you may not see many more posts.I do wish they would enable those of us challenged for a good group to cross buff one another. Brawlers, Brigands and Rangers get stuck together all the time and we should have buffs that compliment one another at this point IMO. You could add Illy's to that lately.Honestly, at this point even if we got a great fix I am not sure there are populations on Nektulos or in my guild to continue to enjoy playing.

-=Hoss=-

08-26-2010, 03:46 PM

<cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>First of all. I know of no credible Ranger DPS strategy that includes using melee AA over ranged AA. If there is then it's likely some specific or theoretical case that is not used to my knowledge. If there is please point me to it as I would love to read it. Every Ranger DPS thread I have every read has always said to never use melee AA over ranged. My experience confirms that. The fact that melee AA dmg has started approaching bow AA dmg is precisely why the change is needed to increase bow dmg for Rangers but that doesn't mean it should be across the board. Rangers use bows and should excel at that..using it as their primary attack method and have melee as a secondary but inferior option. The reverse of that should be true for melee DPS. Secondly, you are right that a Ranger couldn't stand in melee AA range and do most of their CAs but I don't think the reverse is true for melee DPS. They could stand at the minimum bow range and still use melee CAs (like several mentioned in this thread as a new strategy for melee DPS) which makes my point even more appropriate. There should be *something* in place to make melee DPS opt for melee range and ranged DPS to opt for ranged DPS as their first option..not some classes having perfectly viable options for both.</blockquote>I don't know about ranger strategies. What I'm saying is what I said. right after SF launch (and in beta) rangers were testing on dummies and did the same AA dmg with crappy melee weapons as they did with thier mythical bow. If rangers aren't doing that now, maybe its because the dmg stayed equal and they decided to not change the playstyle they'd become accostmed to, or because they quickly got the wurm tendon which outlcassed the melee weapons signicantly that it wasn't true anymore. As for melee being able to stay in a sweet spot and use ranged AA along with combat arts, I intended to see if that existed last night but forgot. As a ranger, if the spot exists you probably know better than I do. What I remember is that I was not able to do it myself until I got vexthorne (which has a 1m min range). I haven't tried to work in the ranged attacks since I stopped using vex, so I'm not sure if that sweet spot exists for us. Some of these people may have avatar / miragul charms that increase thier melee range. Don't know if that increases range on combat arts or just auto attacks.

Venez

08-26-2010, 06:13 PM

<cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>First of all. I know of no credible Ranger DPS strategy that includes using melee AA over ranged AA. If there is then it's likely some specific or theoretical case that is not used to my knowledge. If there is please point me to it as I would love to read it. Every Ranger DPS thread I have every read has always said to never use melee AA over ranged. My experience confirms that. The fact that melee AA dmg has started approaching bow AA dmg is precisely why the change is needed to increase bow dmg for Rangers but that doesn't mean it should be across the board. Rangers use bows and should excel at that..using it as their primary attack method and have melee as a secondary but inferior option. The reverse of that should be true for melee DPS. Secondly, you are right that a Ranger couldn't stand in melee AA range and do most of their CAs but I don't think the reverse is true for melee DPS. They could stand at the minimum bow range and still use melee CAs (like several mentioned in this thread as a new strategy for melee DPS) which makes my point even more appropriate. There should be *something* in place to make melee DPS opt for melee range and ranged DPS to opt for ranged DPS as their first option..not some classes having perfectly viable options for both.</blockquote>I don't know about ranger strategies. What I'm saying is what I said. right after SF launch (and in beta) rangers were testing on dummies and did the same AA dmg with crappy melee weapons as they did with thier mythical bow. If rangers aren't doing that now, maybe its because the dmg stayed equal and they decided to not change the playstyle they'd become accostmed to, or because they quickly got the wurm tendon which outlcassed the melee weapons signicantly that it wasn't true anymore. Incorrect, in SF Beta, Rangers were doing up to 1k more melee auto attack damage with subpar weapons, than they were with Ranged auto attack and there myth, and parses were provided for the Devs in SF Beta. 1k might not seem like its alot, but when the weapons were low t1 raid/ instance weapons, compared to Mythical.....And they are not useing melee auto basically because the timeing is horrendous with our long cast time CAs for overall dps. And Melee auto (with Septic/Umbra) still out parses Ranged auto (with Dendroxa and void arrows).As for melee being able to stay in a sweet spot and use ranged AA along with combat arts, I intended to see if that existed last night but forgot. As a ranger, if the spot exists you probably know better than I do. What I remember is that I was not able to do it myself until I got vexthorne (which has a 1m min range). I haven't tried to work in the ranged attacks since I stopped using vex, so I'm not sure if that sweet spot exists for us. Some of these people may have avatar / miragul charms that increase thier melee range. Don't know if that increases range on combat arts or just auto attacks.</blockquote>

Seiffil

08-26-2010, 06:18 PM

<cite>=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't know about ranger strategies. What I'm saying is what I said. right after SF launch (and in beta) rangers were testing on dummies and did the same AA dmg with crappy melee weapons as they did with thier mythical bow. If rangers aren't doing that now, maybe its because the dmg stayed equal and they decided to not change the playstyle they'd become accostmed to, or because they quickly got the wurm tendon which outlcassed the melee weapons signicantly that it wasn't true anymore. As for melee being able to stay in a sweet spot and use ranged AA along with combat arts, I intended to see if that existed last night but forgot. As a ranger, if the spot exists you probably know better than I do. What I remember is that I was not able to do it myself until I got vexthorne (which has a 1m min range). I haven't tried to work in the ranged attacks since I stopped using vex, so I'm not sure if that sweet spot exists for us. Some of these people may have avatar / miragul charms that increase thier melee range. Don't know if that increases range on combat arts or just auto attacks.</blockquote>There were people trying to say that specing sta line for AE auto attack and jousting out to use range CA's worked, the problem was it only worked while using the epic, and only while our AE's were up, it was primarily a strategy on a big AE fight where the mobs would probably die fairly quickly. You could not effectively parse as a ranger by melee auto attacking because while the auto attack damage increase, our crappy CA damage just got worse and worse, since while inside of 2m which is required for melee, the only range attacks that can be triggered are the AE's and sniper shot, assuming epic is equipped. It was quickly thrown out as a viable option, for the same reason that rangers who stood outside of the sweet spot were basically considered rangers, you don't have access to all of your CA's.Feel free to check but the sweet spot exists for all classes. 5m max range on most melee CA's with the exceptions generally having 10m or longer range. You probably haven't seen it since as an assassin, you wouldn't have any reason to primarily use a bow when melee auto attack is so much more beneficial, which this could have the possibility to change. Stick to assassins and mystics, and stop trolling the ranger boards since obviously as you said you don't know a thing about how we are played.

jjlo69

08-27-2010, 04:33 PM

well i hate to say this but smokejumper just posted that alot of the fainfare changesWILL NOT happen until mid october... so that probley includes the ae auto/flurry changesUncle

-=Hoss=-

08-27-2010, 04:47 PM

<cite>Venez@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>Incorrect, in SF Beta, Rangers were doing up to 1k more melee auto attack damage with subpar weapons, than they were with Ranged auto attack and there myth, and parses were provided for the Devs in SF Beta. 1k might not seem like its alot, but when the weapons were low t1 raid/ instance weapons, compared to Mythical.....And they are not useing melee auto basically because the timeing is horrendous with our long cast time CAs for overall dps.</blockquote></blockquote>Thanks for the clarification. This is actually what I remembered, but when I typed it it sounded ridiculous, so I backed off and said equal. Either way, proves the point.<cite>Seiffil@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>There were people trying to say that specing sta line for AE auto attack and jousting out to use range CA's worked, the problem was it only worked while using the epic, and only while our AE's were up, it was primarily a strategy on a big AE fight where the mobs would probably die fairly quickly. You could not effectively parse as a ranger by melee auto attacking because while the auto attack damage increase, our crappy CA damage just got worse and worse, since while inside of 2m which is required for melee, the only range attacks that can be triggered are the AE's and sniper shot, assuming epic is equipped. It was quickly thrown out as a viable option, for the same reason that rangers who stood outside of the sweet spot were basically considered rangers, you don't have access to all of your CA's.Feel free to check but the sweet spot exists for all classes. 5m max range on most melee CA's with the exceptions generally having 10m or longer range. You probably haven't seen it since as an assassin, you wouldn't have any reason to primarily use a bow when melee auto attack is so much more beneficial, which this could have the possibility to change. Stick to assassins and mystics, and stop trolling the ranger boards since obviously as you said you don't know a thing about how we are played.</blockquote>You need to compare notes with venez. Sounds like I know more about rangers than you. You will not stop me from participating in any thread on these forums that I feel inclined to participte in. But I looked the wyrm tendon up on xanadu (the bow I actually have), and its got a 2m range. So if that's accurate, you're right, unless a mob has messed up hitboxes, the sweet spot should be easy to find. I remembered bows having like 3m or 5m min ranges, but its been a while since I looked at that.

Seiffil

08-27-2010, 06:03 PM

<cite>-=Hoss=- wrote:</cite><blockquote>You need to compare notes with venez. Sounds like I know more about rangers than you. You will not stop me from participating in any thread on these forums that I feel inclined to participte in. But I looked the wyrm tendon up on xanadu (the bow I actually have), and its got a 2m range. So if that's accurate, you're right, unless a mob has messed up hitboxes, the sweet spot should be easy to find. I remembered bows having like 3m or 5m min ranges, but its been a while since I looked at that.</blockquote>What venez says is true, but for me the issue was more does the auto attack damage I gain counter the CA damage lost from not having access to all of my CA's while being in close enough to melee. There were guys on flames who were suggesting and using it, but it seemed like they were really concentrating more on the AE fights where a lot of mobs died. For me, it just never really worked out. Even with the claws from the JoJo heritage quest I think I could outparse range auto attack on my mythical combined with my makeshift arrows and offensive stance proc. I'd hardly say you know more about rangers though.Bow of the underfoot has a 4m range, but that would still allow you to use a sweet spot on any class, it's just a 1m window as opposed to 3m, which basically means you have less margin for error when trying to find that sweet spot. You would actually need to find a ranged weapon with a minimum range larger then 5m to keep from having access. Vast majority of bows and throwing weapons are around a 2m minimum range though.

Xelgad

08-27-2010, 06:50 PM

As an update, the ranged weapons and two-handed weapon rating increase should be coming to test later today or early next week.Flurry and AE Auto-Attack to ranged and offhanded weapons will be coming to test shortly but a little bit later, hopefully next week.

jjlo69

08-27-2010, 07:00 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an update, the ranged weapons and two-handed weapon rating increase should be coming to test later today or early next week.Flurry and AE Auto-Attack to ranged and offhanded weapons will be coming to test shortly but a little bit later, hopefully next week.</blockquote>is the 20% dmg pentality gonna get removed as well when the rating increase goes in or is that gonna happen with the ae/flurry change ????UNcle

Xelgad

08-27-2010, 07:11 PM

The ranged penalty will be with this change. The Flurry and AE Auto-Attack changes will go later, and then everything should go to live servers at the same time.

jjlo69

08-27-2010, 07:17 PM

Boise

08-27-2010, 07:29 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an update, the ranged weapons and two-handed weapon rating increase should be coming to test later today or early next week.Flurry and AE Auto-Attack to ranged and offhanded weapons will be coming to test shortly but a little bit later, hopefully next week.</blockquote>Nice.Any chance you can confirm that Test will get the first part of the updates tonight? I have no clue when Test gets updated.

Xelgad

08-27-2010, 07:36 PM

Should be posted in the Test Update notes when it's updated.

Writer Cal

08-27-2010, 07:37 PM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>As an update, the ranged weapons and two-handed weapon rating increase should be coming to test later today or early next week.Flurry and AE Auto-Attack to ranged and offhanded weapons will be coming to test shortly but a little bit later, hopefully next week.</blockquote>Thanks for the update, Xelgad. Looking forward to checking it all out, hopefully sooner rather than later. /nods

Corwinus

08-28-2010, 02:15 AM

<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>The ranged penalty will be with this change. The Flurry and AE Auto-Attack changes will go later, and then everything should go to live servers at the same time.</blockquote>Thank you for the update Xelgad, I am eager to test those changes and make an accurate comparison with live.(Nota for testers: on test sever, after the wipe, Knight of Kithicor managed to get a GH with training dummy amenities)Cor

Nocks

08-28-2010, 02:43 PM

Thanks Xelgad for finally posting in the ranger forums. The mechanics change is a fix across the board and not specifically a ranger "fix" although I can see how we could stand to benefit the most from it. As for Ranged Flurry and AE auto THANK YOU for making that happen for us it is appreciated. Although IMO we should have had this from the beginning. I've yet to read a post from a dev that explained why we were excluded from getting it in the first place.While these changes are all well and good it still begs the question "Does Xelgad STILL think we're a mighty force?". Xelgad you asked for the high end raid parses on Rathgar yet I have not seen you comment on what you gleaned from that data. Of course I'm most interested in what you saw in regard to rangers.You have never commented on our utility or "lack thereof". What is your opinion of our current utility? Personally I think this is a large part of our DPS/grouping woes. What do we offer in the way of utility? 24.8% increase in accuracy AND increased Slashing, Piercing, and Crushing of 126.7 for 20 seconds... I'm not even going to mention the useless hawk. As stated numerous times in this forum these things are INVISIBLE to a raid. No one notices a significant increase in their DPS due to this and it certainly does not help us in regard to group placement.I've seen a few of you rangers posting comments along the lines of "we'll see how this change works out for us and if it doesn't close the gap for us then maybe we'll see future tweaks to our CA's to make up the difference" I've seen nothing from Xelgad or anyone else that said anything about this fix being the "first step" towards anything. As stated above I have yet to hear any dev say we are lacking in the area of DPS. Are there plans to increase ranger dps beyond what these changes may give us? Is there some magical number (percentage) of increase you're looking to give us? Heck just a simple "Yea or Nay" on whether or not, in your opinion, we need any help beyond what's being given here would be nice to know.Xelgad a few words from you on the above mentioned items would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Corwinus

08-28-2010, 04:40 PM

I started to put some data in a thread call Bow changes in Testing.So far On the same epic mob (12,360,000 hp), using the same char, AAs, equipment, buffs, bow (Wyrm Tendon), arrows (field point):On Live Crush did 7,143,439 dmg (4700dps), On Test, Crush did 7,857,040 dmg (6236 dps), so increase of dps for crush was like 25%. Now if you take the overall Auto attack including poisons, procs, ... on Live dps was 8124 and on test it was 9810 so the increase of dps on Auto attack only would be 17%. it gets even more diluted I think when we add our CAs which represent at least 2/3 of our overall dps (if not 3/4).Hope that helps.Cor

FearDiadh

08-28-2010, 10:48 PM

So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... In order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps. That means that we will see a 5% increase to our overall dps, but in order to offset this you are giving assassins flurry and aoe auto on their offhand weapon? Who wants to bet that will give assassins more than a 5% increase?

Neiloch

08-28-2010, 11:21 PM

<cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... In order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps.</blockquote>Again, this isn't meant to fix ALL our DPS problems. This is NOT a 'end all be all' solution to ranger DPS. No ever said it was, and clearly comes up short to solve our problems, so I am repeatedly confused why people act as if it is the holy grail to fixing ranger DPS.You have to look at it purely in terms of auto attack for us and other classes. These changes on test and upcoming additions to flurry and ae auto are meant to better even out auto attack DPS and auto attack mechanics across classes that rely on auto attack.So its not surprising this won't fix all all DPS woes, because its not supposed to. Now if after these changes you have classes doing insanely better auto attack DPS than others, then we have a problem.Beat up a bunch of heroic dummies today:Live MergedEXT DPS TYPE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT TO HIT % CRIT % 5,889.41 crush 13,728.95 7,364 25,503 100.00 100% Test MergedEXT DPS TYPE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT TO HIT % CRIT % 8,150.47 crush 18,768.80 9,531 33,784 100.00 100%

Albatroz

08-29-2010, 12:46 AM

Ranger CA base dmg needs to be brought in line with their Assassin counterpart aswellI got a Ranger alt in all t3 SF raid amor except the bp and quite a bunch of nice jewelery , so im sittin at like 85 CB dont know how much potency atmbut that doesnt matter anyways , a guildie of mine got a similar geared Assassin alt and his parses are still about 25-30% off when we you take auto attack dps out of the equation , theyre ahead there aswell but by smaller amountI for sure not askin here for increasing melee combat Arts but the Ranged CAs need a significant increase in base dmg by at least 20-30% , when I compare Sniper Shot to Assassinate and see it doing double the dmg then theres something terribly wrong with thatCAST timers need to be looked into , Hidden Shot for example got a 2,11 sec cast time for me for about 50k dmg when it crits i dont even consider the Reuse here but its not exactly great in order to keep the cast time it needs to do triple the amount of dmg it currently doesArrow Barrages Recast need to be brought down along with Stream of Arrows and Storm of ArrowsCoverage just remove already those stupid restrictions to this spell , you cast it next CA gains 32% in damage I dont know why it has to be such a hassle with it , the skill is by a mile weaker than Fatal Follow upI do understand that Assassin CAs need to be more potent as they cant do the majority of their DPS by stayin 30m away from the mob but in comparison and considering this fact Ranged CAs are way too weak still

Sydares

08-29-2010, 12:57 AM

Coverage, even on servers with 0 lag is taking 2-5 seconds to register its user as being stealthed. It's a finicky piece of garbage that really needs to be removed.

Neiloch

08-29-2010, 01:06 AM

Yeah the check to see if we did a qualifying attack before it is horrible on Coverage. All i use it for is trying to get high hit sniper shots for kicks.

Ballzz

08-29-2010, 03:02 AM

Coverage is a huge POS. I *hate* that ability. It's such a PITA to use and so laggy it's ridiculous. I even macro'd it to Rear Shot which helped a little but like Neiloch said..it takes so [Removed for Content] long to do that qualifying check that half the time I think it didn't work and I interrupt it with a CA because it's counter productive to sit there waiting for it to work. They should just change that ability to a new Ranged ability that only becomes available after a positional attack or something.

Neiloch

08-29-2010, 10:15 AM

Beat up some Epic dummies:LiveEXT DPS TYPE DAMAGE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT6,181.06 crush 7,590,335 14,853.88 7,364 25,968TestEXT DPS TYPE DAMAGE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT8,039.74 crush 8,192,490 19,552.48 9,584 34,061If you don't feel like doing the math this is a increase of 30.07%

Geothe

08-29-2010, 10:31 AM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>[parses]If you don't feel like doing the math this is a increase of 30.07%</blockquote>Which is exactly what should be seen on test at this point with the removal of the 20% damage penalty along with a 10% increase on top of that.

Neiloch

08-29-2010, 10:33 AM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote>Which is exactly what should be seen on test at this point with the removal of the 20% damage penalty along with a 10% increase on top of that.</blockquote>It certainly is. So 'confirmed' I guess heh. Now we wait ong ae auto and flurry, hopefully next week.

Venez

08-29-2010, 11:34 AM

<cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... YesIn order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps. That means that we will see a 5% increase to our overall dps, but in order to offset this you are giving assassins flurry and aoe auto on their offhand weapon? NO, you are not understanding the bow fix.Who wants to bet that will give assassins more than a 5% increase? They will see more than 5%</blockquote>The bow fix is going to bring the AUTO ATTACK portion of that 20% - 30% parse closer, by about 2-4k. What we will be gaining is about 2k-4k AUTO ATTACK ext dps only,depending on the fight and the +mod differances (which really should be simiular @ high end).They will see imo a higher than 5% increase to their Auto Attack dps with the off hand getting flurry,procs,ae, etc. But it is supposed to equal out with us getting the same on our bows. And in the end we should be near the same auto attack dps.What we are NOT getting is a +20% increase to overall dps, which is what a very large % of players are talking about in chat,tells, forums. This is ONLY effecting the AUTO ATTACK portion of EVERYONES parse. We Rangers should see a slightly higher total dps increase, just because we use bows exclusivly. And by slightly I mean 2k - 4k with the numbers that are being posted on the parse threads.

FearDiadh

08-29-2010, 12:12 PM

<cite>Venez@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... YesIn order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps. That means that we will see a 5% increase to our overall dps, but in order to offset this you are giving assassins flurry and aoe auto on their offhand weapon? NO, you are not understanding the bow fix.Who wants to bet that will give assassins more than a 5% increase? They will see more than 5%</blockquote>The bow fix is going to bring the AUTO ATTACK portion of that 20% - 30% parse closer, by about 2-4k. What we will be gaining is about 2k-4k AUTO ATTACK ext dps only,depending on the fight and the +mod differances (which really should be simiular @ high end).They will see imo a higher than 5% increase to their Auto Attack dps with the off hand getting flurry,procs,ae, etc. But it is supposed to equal out with us getting the same on our bows. And in the end we should be near the same auto attack dps.What we are NOT getting is a +20% increase to overall dps, which is what a very large % of players are talking about in chat,tells, forums. This is ONLY effecting the AUTO ATTACK portion of EVERYONES parse. We Rangers should see a slightly higher total dps increase, just because we use bows exclusivly. And by slightly I mean 2k - 4k with the numbers that are being posted on the parse threads. </blockquote>I understand the bow fix, quite clearly. It is going to up our auto attack dps (which is about 20% of our parse) by about 25% (maybe 30% according to some posts) 20% of 50k is about 10k. So we are going to up that 10k by 2500 to 3000. Gotcha. So 52-53k vs 50k. That should really get us close to the 70k. Next week we will get aoe auto and flurry. I am not sure how much that will add but I doubt it adds a ton. 5-10k if you are really decked out in t3 and in a multi mob encounter? Overall, rough guess.. we add 5k zw. That brings us up to 57k maybe. Meanwile the 70k we were trying to reach just went to 75k. So yeah. Nice change on the auto attack but we told SOE our auto attack was crap before SF got out of beta. 8 months late on that. I am jaded I guess, but I just don't understand why you are moving other scouts dps farther up when you are trying to get ours to match. It defeats the purpose. Is it so our parses are equal? They are not equal. We have different mechanics and that is fine as long as the mechanics have us lower, but not ok if it has one thing lower on the other scouts? If our combat arts did as much as assassins and if our cast speeds were as fast as assassins, then I would get it. I don't get it right now. You see, it does not matter if their aoe auto and flurry do as much as ours. The classes are not homogeneous, they are supposed to be different. I don't understand why they are wasting their time equalizing another class to us in one small area when they feel no need to make out combat arts equivelent to theirs. I think it is a shell game. Give us something but give them something too, so nothing really changes. Every bump they give you is negated by the bump they give others.

Neiloch

08-29-2010, 12:29 PM

<cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>I understand the bow fix, quite clearly.</blockquote>No, no you don't. You keep referring to overall DPS and their discrepancies. These changes are NOT meant to get us caught up with overall assassin or any other classes DPS. These changes are MEANT to equalize AUTO ATTACK DPS ONLY.AUTOATTACKDPSEvery time you mention overall DPS and CA's is a testament to how much you don't understand what these AUTO ATTACK changes are for.<cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am jaded I guess, but I just don't understand why you are moving other scouts dps farther up when you are trying to get ours to match. It defeats the purpose. Is it so our parses are equal? They are not equal. We have different mechanics and that is fine as long as the mechanics have us lower, but not ok if it has one thing lower on the other scouts? </blockquote>It makes sense once you realize we are getting a bigger boost than other scouts. If assassins are 10 and rangers are 8, they can give them 2 and us 4 and we will be even. Making the scale balanced doesn't require the heavier side not be modified in any way.<cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>If our combat arts did as much as assassins and if our cast speeds were as fast as assassins, then I would get it. I don't get it right now. You see, it does not matter if their aoe auto and flurry do as much as ours. The classes are not homogeneous, they are supposed to be different. I don't understand why they are wasting their time equalizing another class to us in one small area when they feel no need to make out combat arts equivelent to theirs. I think it is a shell game. Give us something but give them something too, so nothing really changes. Every bump they give you is negated by the bump they give others.</blockquote>It would be a bad idea to tweak CA's and auto attack at the same time. It would make any DPS discrepancies harder to pin down. Auto attack is a large pillar in scout and fighter DPS, its good sense to try and even them out before working on a completely different pillar like CA's. The phrase "one problem at a time" comes to mind. They said at fanfaire they will be looking at CA's (and if they need to be tweaked) AFTER these changes. If people are so lazy they don't want to research the points they are debating I can dig that up as well.If you want to talk about problems with CA's i suggest making a new topic or replying to one of the numerous ones already on this board about that very issue.

Venez

08-29-2010, 01:38 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>I understand the bow fix, quite clearly.</blockquote>No, no you don't. You keep referring to overall DPS and their discrepancies. These changes are NOT meant to get us caught up with overall assassin or any other classes DPS. These changes are MEANT to equalize AUTO ATTACK DPS ONLY. AUTOATTACKDPSEvery time you mention overall DPS and CA's is a testament to how much you don't understand what these AUTO ATTACK changes are for. Yes this is why I thought you may not understand the Bow Change. It is and was never meant to be a Ranger fix. We just end up benefiting the most because of it. Yes our getting the most out of it was probably just a win/win for us and $oE imo.<cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am jaded I guess, but I just don't understand why you are moving other scouts dps farther up when you are trying to get ours to match. It defeats the purpose. Is it so our parses are equal? They are not equal. We have different mechanics and that is fine as long as the mechanics have us lower, but not ok if it has one thing lower on the other scouts? </blockquote>It makes sense once you realize we are getting a bigger boost than other scouts. If assassins are 10 and rangers are 8, they can give them 2 and us 4 and we will be even. Making the scale balanced doesn't require the heavier side not be modified in any way.<cite>Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>If our combat arts did as much as assassins and if our cast speeds were as fast as assassins, then I would get it. I don't get it right now. You see, it does not matter if their aoe auto and flurry do as much as ours. The classes are not homogeneous, they are supposed to be different. I don't understand why they are wasting their time equalizing another class to us in one small area when they feel no need to make out combat arts equivelent to theirs. I think it is a shell game. Give us something but give them something too, so nothing really changes. Every bump they give you is negated by the bump they give others.</blockquote>It would be a bad idea to tweak CA's and auto attack at the same time. It would make any DPS discrepancies harder to pin down. Auto attack is a large pillar in scout and fighter DPS, its good sense to try and even them out before working on a completely different pillar like CA's. The phrase "one problem at a time" comes to mind. They said at fanfaire they will be looking at CA's (and if they need to be tweaked) AFTER these changes. If people are so lazy they don't want to research the points they are debating I can dig that up as well.If you want to talk about problems with CA's i suggest making a new topic or replying to one of the numerous ones already on this board about that very issue.</blockquote>I said this in world chat a few times now. I am glad they are putting in the modifier change first and getting it tested. And the adding the flurry / ae mechanic for bows after. I would rather get changes in steady steps, as long as they are not drawn out over months and months. At least doing it in steady steps like this it has a chance to hit live servers and actually get tested in real encounters for a few weeks so we can actually not be OP'd and then nerfed back where we are now.The "mighty force" leads me to believe that we got this as a secondary fix, and this is probably really the only thing we can hope to gain in closeing the 50k Ranger vs 70k+ Assassin parses that are posted (high end raids). And I will probably continue to get PMs from the Mods about being mean to the Devs as a result.

Ballzz

08-29-2010, 02:56 PM

I understand what they are doing and why it needs to be done in steps. That makes good sense. What has me worried is whether they will actually follow through with any changes beyond AA and flurry/AE AA. I have a bad feeling they will wrongly assume whatever marginal gain Rangers net on other scouts from those initial changes will be sufficient and they won't tune our CA dmg after. I hope I'm wrong.

Venez

08-29-2010, 06:32 PM

<cite>Ballzz wrote:</cite><blockquote>I understand what they are doing and why it needs to be done in steps. That makes good sense. What has me worried is whether they will actually follow through with any changes beyond AA and flurry/AE AA. I have a bad feeling they will wrongly assume whatever marginal gain Rangers net on other scouts from those initial changes will be sufficient and they won't tune our CA dmg after. I hope I'm wrong.</blockquote>If Xelgad has access to the old parses, and balanceing (EoF era) he will see that we were balanced around massive auto attack damage that was much higher than melee auto, and thats why we had slower casting and longer reuse timers, not to mention that procs were NOT standardized and we had a much higher proc rate than melee ( that to has been nerfed) so we lost alot over the whole spectrum. Since all the mechanic changes from (EoF) we now do lower auto than melee (till this goes live) then we will do the same - not more, like we used to (pre EoF).So we will still be incorrectly balanced. And to bring us inline with Assassins (not higher) we still are in bad need of a CA and AA retune / rebalanceing. And after the auto attack fix and before the next Xpac, would be a good time to address them.If you look at the ext dps per CA of the two class's (parses are posted) you will see that we are indeed way behind in quite a few of them if not all.

Corwinus

08-29-2010, 08:09 PM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Beat up some Epic dummies:LiveEXT DPS TYPE DAMAGE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT6,181.06 crush 7,590,335 14,853.88 7,364 25,968TestEXT DPS TYPE DAMAGE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT8,039.74 crush 8,192,490 19,552.48 9,584 34,061If you don't feel like doing the math this is a increase of 30.07%</blockquote>I guess that I am less decked than you are Neil, I ended up with the following results on the epic dummy:LiveEXT DPS TYPE DAMAGE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT4,699.63 crush 7,143,439 11,691.39 7,064 22,073TestEXT DPS TYPE DAMAGE AVERAGE MIN HIT MAX HIT6,235.75 crush 7,857,040 15,226.82 9,191 30,086ACT parses are in the in testing forum.So an increase of only 24.6% dps, meaning 30% increase is not a garantee, it can vary easily from 20 to 30 %.Cor

Sydares

08-29-2010, 11:02 PM

A lot of the variance is likely self-buffed dps mod.

-=Hoss=-

08-30-2010, 05:22 PM

<cite>Corwin@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>I started to put some data in a thread call Bow changes in Testing.So far On the same epic mob (12,360,000 hp), using the same char, AAs, equipment, buffs, bow (Wyrm Tendon), arrows (field point):On Live Crush did 7,143,439 dmg (4700dps), On Test, Crush did 7,857,040 dmg (6236 dps), so increase of dps for crush was like 25%. Now if you take the overall Auto attack including poisons, procs, ... on Live dps was 8124 and on test it was 9810 so the increase of dps on Auto attack only would be 17%. it gets even more diluted I think when we add our CAs which represent at least 2/3 of our overall dps (if not 3/4).Hope that helps.Cor</blockquote>Edit: I should have read the next page. But still, pretty much inline with what would be expected. 20-30 % (I wonder why yours is lower corwin, are you at 100% crit?). I assume everyone will be killing groups of training dummies next week when the rest goes in?

Striikor

08-31-2010, 09:55 AM

Sydares

08-31-2010, 02:29 PM

Those figures, coupled with the now-grotesque difference in damage rating between 2Hers and Bows in PvP is a point of extreme irritation. This seems to be following the typical "Ranger Fix" pattern of buffing everyone --- just buffing us the least. Disappointing, to say the least.Typical Ranged/2H introductory raid/pvp weapons compared:Nanthera's Bladed Yuri: 195.6 PvE / 168.2 PvPWyrm Tendon Longbow: 188.8 PvE / 109.2 PvPSeriously, what the hell is the rationale behind this?

Carpediem

08-31-2010, 08:09 PM

Hey Xelgad,Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.

Ademelo

08-31-2010, 08:20 PM

Corwinus

08-31-2010, 08:37 PM

<cite>Sydares wrote:</cite><blockquote>A lot of the variance is likely self-buffed dps mod.</blockquote>I think you are right, I was paying more attention on my dps buff refresh today and hit 28% more on crush instaed of 25%.Cor

Nevao

09-01-2010, 12:27 AM

So playing around with ranged Auto AE Attack and found the following:<ul><li>Surrounding attacks has been changed to say "affect multiple targets [up to 4] they are facing, who are with range of that weapon". And it does appear to do just that. I put two traning dummies far enough apart that I could not melee one from the other. I then went back to the other side of the room and faced in between them and started firing. I mangaged to hit both when the AoE auto attacks went off, so it really does appear to be based off the range of the bow (within whatever the "in front arc" consists of). Means we'll need to be careful in some heoric zones, but nothing we can't manage.</li><li>For some reason all my AoE Auto Attacks were registering as "Piercing" damage even though I'm using field points and my only melee weapon is a slashing weapon. I don't think this will be an issue (both should be using the Ranged Skill and I was getting similar hit %s) but it was odd and something that probably nees to be dug deeper into.</li><li>Damage for the AoE Auto Attack pros were consistent with bow damage. Looks like it was not modified down in any way.</li></ul>Still trying to get some numbers for Flurry (I only have a 2% chance since my dirges haven't copied over that I know of), but I'll post when I do get something.Update: Pulled off a few Flurry procs. Not enough to get meaningful data but I did notice that they were also registering as piercing damage.

Striikor

09-02-2010, 09:15 AM

We keep viewing this as a Ranger fix. Please lets stop that! This is a a mechanical fix for all melee 2H, off-hand and bow (ranged?). As Rangers we are going to gain the most as compared to the rest because we tend to have the highest portion of our damage in autoattack. It may well be more than the ~5% net gain I foresee. I am not sure we can really know until it is live and get to see the effect in an actual raid.Again this is not about Ranger issues and certainly not specific to Rangers. It is an improvement it is not a fix. It is NOT going to balance us in the DPS vs UTILITY vs SURVIVABILITY sense. We are still (IMO) going to be in the bottom rung of DPS for the pure DPS classes. We are still going to have greatly less utility vs the other pure DPS classes. I personally think our survivability is just about right. If there is a Ranger fix in the works it had not been talked about by developers anywhere I can find. I can see them trying to pass this off as THE fix though. We are going to gain some ground and that is good but, please don't make the mistake or lead anyone to think this is a ranger fix. We have enough challenge getting our problems across without saying we view this a a fix attempt.I still keep hearing peeps say that we don't need to be top on DPS because we can attack from range. That is bunk if you are doing your job at 2-5 meters your survivability is not increased an iota over our brother predator. Our area of maximum opportunity is a 3 meter spot that many times is in constant motion. Too close is a fail too far is a fail. What other class has to put up with that? We have to be in the sweet a spot unlike casters, who can at leisure be right on the mob or 30+ meters away and do the same essential damage.

Carpediem

09-05-2010, 01:54 PM

I wouldn't get any hopes up for more changes until the next expansion. Changing double arrow AA to flurry would be nice but, I have a feeling we'll have to wait on that too until Velious AA are decided on.Problem is, this is turning into a trend. They don't want to change our CA's because they don't want to have us overpowered when a expansion is coming, then after the expansion, they want to wait until they see what we can do with the new items and AA, then more changes to the game normally 6 months in and they want to see how we do from that, then next expansion is coming again. Rinse repeat...They need to sooner or later just get it over with.

Gaige

09-05-2010, 04:45 PM

<cite>akaglty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey Xelgad,Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.</blockquote>No. No. No. No. No.If he does this he better be prepared to change AAs for every class that buff things that aren't needed anymore. I have 5 or 6 assassin ones in mind that we can change to buff potency, ae auto, flurry, crit bonus, etc.You can get flurry the same way all non-assassins do: buffs, adornments and gear.

Neiloch

09-05-2010, 05:40 PM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>akaglty wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey Xelgad,Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.</blockquote>No. No. No. No. No.If he does this he better be prepared to change AAs for every class that buff things that aren't needed anymore.</blockquote>Why? they changed some Guardian AA's. So it's perfectly plausible to change a classes AA's without also changing or benefiting their counter part or any other classes for that matter.Balance won't be attained by adding equal amounts of things to classes that are uneven to begin with. It's like trying to make a 3 story building and a 5 story building the same height by adding 2 stories to both. Rangers WILL need to get more benefits in updates and expansions than assassin's if balance is to be achieved. Otherwise adding equal amounts just moves the gap, not close it. Even if they get one benefit each, said benefit being equal for both would only maintain inbalance, the benefit rangers get would have to be better than the one for assassins.If the two classes were balanced then demanding Assassin's get something every time a Ranger does would make sense, unfortunately that's not the case here.

Carpediem

09-06-2010, 03:39 AM

I think 4% flurry on an endline AA tree is a reasonable request. Not even asking to match the 15% that assassins get Gaige, so I don't know what you're worked up about. Your class is already higher than ours in dps by a pretty fair amount and you have no problem with pointing that out every day.

Gaige

09-06-2010, 05:42 AM

<cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why? they changed some Guardian AA's.</blockquote>I don't care about guardians, I care about the predator classes.

Neiloch

09-06-2010, 08:40 AM

<cite>Gaige wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why? they changed some Guardian AA's.</blockquote>I don't care about guardians, I care about the predator classes.</blockquote>So do I. Asking that assassins get something in return for every ranger benefit doesn't make any logical sense when assassin's are already ahead.It's very simple. They aren't balanced, therefore rangers should be getting MORE than assassin's until they are balanced since rangers are currently behind. Once they are balanced then both classes deserve to get advantages in equal amounts. This can include giving them both some sort of update, just the ones ranger's get would have to be better to help further close the gap.In any event it's likely it will be going out as is. Technically it works fine, its just unfortunate game design aspects up to this point weren't made to accommodate flurry better. Ideally some sort of balancing would also go out with this change but I imagine we will just have to deal until the next GU possibly (if this isn't made part of it). More likely in the expansion where more high impact and new AA's can be introduced as well as overall adjustments to the game that could alleviate this problem.

Ballzz

09-06-2010, 09:18 AM

MacDaddy62

09-07-2010, 04:42 PM

The 15% flurry assassins get on their epic has historically been balanced, putting aside the issue of gimped auto bow for the last ~2.5 years (courtesy of Aeralik), with the 20% base auto attack rangers get on their epic. Having said that, the 15% assassin flurry is getting a free buff from the application of flurry to off-hands, in addition to bows, in the coming update. This free buff somewhat undermines one of the flurry fix's chief motives, namely balancing assassin and ranger overall dps, and also specifically unbalances the assassin flurry and ranger base auto epic buffs, in favor of the assassin flurry buff. Even independent of the foregoing considerations, the devs probably still need to do more beyond what is currently on test to truly balance rangers. Thus, asking that the ranger Double Arrow AA be converted from 8% DA to ~4% flurry is not unreasonable under the circumstances, especially in light of the similar change the devs are making to the similar guardian AA, and for a similarly beleaguered class.I would also say that, additionally, the assassin flurry epic buff should be lowered to half its current value to compensate for the fact that flurry will now apply to off-hands, in order to keep the ranger and assassin epic effects balanced against each other. Further, assuming that change were to occur, Double Arrow should regardless be changed to flurry to help compensate for the overall disparity, again in favor of assassins, between assassin and ranger AA's currently. To be clear, I think other changes to ranger AA's are also needed to address this disparity, for example a buff to Opening Volley, which is currently decidedly inferior to the assassin equivalent, Killing Fury. At first impression, these steps may seem to be a lot to some people, but frankly the current deficiency in ranger dps, as against both assassins and mages, is not insignificant, and I would once again remind those reading this that some of the changes on test will increase the dps of all scouts, not just rangers. Also remember that ~4% flurry by no means constitutes a large dps gain.I don't think making this change to Double Arrow would necessitate reviewing and revising every arguably outdated or obsolete AA, but along similar lines as the on-test guardian change and the proposed equivalent ranger change, I think another old AA involving DA that could be looked at is illusionist Illusory Arm.In summary, assassin flurry % from epic should be lowered to keep ranger and assassin epic buffs balanced, and ranger Double Arrow should be changed to flurry (similarly to the treatment of the similar guardian AA) to partially address both the overall disparity between ranger and assassin AA's and the overall deficiency of ranger dps.

boomerponc

11-16-2010, 06:13 PM

It should still be 8% flurry if it's going to be a noticable dps gain. 4% is still a percent, and a very, very low one at that.We don't know how much flurry is going to be on gear (if at all with the multi attack changes, and they just don't combine the two stats), plus assassins get 15% flurry. Half of 15 is 7.5, so 8% seems fair to me. PLUS, the ranger only attacks with one main weapon, It's possible that procs will be totally out of whack again.We don't know because we haven't tested it yet, and we can't really trust the devs with it, because they can't (don't want I guess? Because every time a new mechanic change is in order, it seems like they leave it up to the players to do all that for them) test it themselves. I'm guessing with surefire certainty that the new auto attack changes will not be balanced at all. We all know how every expansion works; There is always at least one major bug (HUGE, ala GU13, bow nerfs, proc nerfs, MAKING FIGHTER HEALS NOT CRIT, okay some of those came in the middle of an expansion, but they are still stupid fixes.) with the release.This company is known to totally destroy games from the inside out, and not just in one fell swoop either.If they don't bring up all the other classes to assassin/wizard/sk standards, then this game really is going to be another EQ wasteland, games like this are just a waste of time if the developers don't listen to the players that really know the game.Bold rocks!