Ranger GU 61

[Uryu]

<p>I would like this form to be about rangers and gu 61, but what are rangers getting out of this update? I see that there was a spell taken, cool.Will we be getting something inr eturn or will rangers be left in the dark? Would not be surprise if they were, just thought i would ask. A useful utility group spell would be nice if you do decided to give rangers some love or something that could benifit the raid. Like a Unlimited untill canceled hawlk attack would be a nice start, or what ever you think is best. Just would like to see this in the channels this GU, Recruiting memmbers for raid Ranger,warden, and gaurd pst. Notice something you almost never see in channels? yeah the word ranger. Btw if we are suppose to be just t1 dps, cool, i like that, but why is it so easy for an assassins to out dps most classes without lifting a finger and get a awsome hate transfer? I'm a assassin atm please give me some good news so i can betray back to ranger. =)</p>

[Nevao]

<p>[edit] Double posted for me and errored out. See below.</p>

[Landiin]

<div><p>Something needs to be done about ammo that is for sure. Forcing rangers to be the only class to have to pay plat for their DPS is discriminating. Being it is the ONLY thing that ranger can bring to the table it shouldn't cost them plat to their only job. A job that they are not even the best at even though it cost them plat.</p><p>What *feed back* is a censored word? For real?</p></div>

[Landiin]

<p>blah</p>

[Landiin]

<p>blah!</p><p>I hope you fix your forum software when you do the eq2player updates...</p>

[Nevao]

<p>As things currently stand Rangers are actually making out alright in GU61, though mostly due to Weapon Stats overcaps. Focus Aim will provide a healthy boost to hitting overcap tiers for DPS and Haste and will give you 2+% to your minimal combat art damage while it's up. Even more importantly if you take all the Focus Aim AAs (and have the FA Focus effect) then you'll be able to provide the melee in your group with an almost 4% increase in minimum CA damage for 20 seconds every minute or so. So that's not bad there, but again very dependent on the weapon stat curves staying as-is. Enough to make people say, hey give me the Ranger!? Probably not, but it's a start in the right direction. To get that to happen (i.e. be attractive to people looking for DPS and hate utility) I think we're going to need something more tangible like having the Hawk up full time (with maybe a lower %) with some form of AoE Protection, but I honestly wouldn't expect that to happen (if it does) until the Expansion. If Xelgad wants to prove me wrong though I'll gladly admit I was the naysayer <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>In terms of the effect of the AA changes made so for by not requiring webbing we are finally able to drop the Fettering and Defensive Stance AAs without losing access to the endlines. For me personally that allows access to the Hawk AA without losing something meaningful(ish) and to throw some points into Escape just becuase (I'm don't PVP so I don't need some of the other tools). As for losing Befriend Animal, I would not expect anything to be added as it was dropped to make sure we only had 4 "Expertise" abilities. That's the standard number they want everyone to have and since we already had 5, one had to go. I'd much rather lose that one than the others.</p><p>I would like to see our Double Arrow AA tweaked though. Due to new levels of attainable Multi-Attack 8 is drop in the bucket, one Fabled Adorn basically. Eight was a significant number when it was put in but it's not nearly as critical on the new scale, especially now that the overcap curve is so steep. Perhaps either scale it by level or come up with some long reuse style ability like Manaburn, Lifeburn or Focused Casting that provides burst DPS. Not entirely sure what would be appropriate, but I have a really hard time believing that when comparing DPS contribution that 8 multi-attack is anywhere near the same level as three abilities.</p>

[Bremer]

<p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you'll be able to provide the melee in your group with an almost 4% increase in minimum CA damage for 20 seconds every minute or so. So that's not bad there</p></blockquote><p>Ok, stupid question: Crit damage is between (max damage + 1) and whatever max damage * (gear crit bonus + innate crit bonus) is. So how does increasing the min damage help, when the crit damage depends on the max value?</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Bremer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you'll be able to provide the melee in your group with an almost 4% increase in minimum CA damage for 20 seconds every minute or so. So that's not bad there</p></blockquote><p>Ok, stupid question: Crit damage is between (max damage + 1) and whatever max damage * (gear crit bonus + innate crit bonus) is. So how does increasing the min damage help, when the crit damage depends on the max value?</p></blockquote><p>There was actually a big discussion on this on the site that shall not be linked to, but the short story is that you only trigger "Max +1" if your damage roll is less than the max hit. By shrinking the range of the spell, but leaving the max level where it is you increase your chance of getting above that threshold.</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>Bremer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you'll be able to provide the melee in your group with an almost 4% increase in minimum CA damage for 20 seconds every minute or so. So that's not bad there</p></blockquote><p>Ok, stupid question: Crit damage is between (max damage + 1) and whatever max damage * (gear crit bonus + innate crit bonus) is. So how does increasing the min damage help, when the crit damage depends on the max value?</p></blockquote><p>With the amount of crit bonus in the game no one currently at level 90 in dov gear should ever hit for max+1 again. The Min value should be pushed beyond the max+1 limit, which means ny increase in min value will simply add to your damage unless you roll a hit above that value.</p>

[Geothe]

<p><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>With the amount of crit bonus in the game no one currently at level 90 in dov gear should ever hit for max+1 again. The Min value should be pushed beyond the max+1 limit, which means ny increase in min value will simply add to your damage unless you roll a hit above that value.</p></blockquote><p>You forget about autoattack.Weapons have a 5.6 fold spread so to never hit for max+1 your crit bonus would need to be at 510 (plus your innate 50%).</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bremer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you'll be able to provide the melee in your group with an almost 4% increase in minimum CA damage for 20 seconds every minute or so. So that's not bad there</p></blockquote><p>Ok, stupid question: Crit damage is between (max damage + 1) and whatever max damage * (gear crit bonus + innate crit bonus) is. So how does increasing the min damage help, when the crit damage depends on the max value?</p></blockquote><p>With the amount of crit bonus in the game no one currently at level 90 in dov gear should ever hit for max+1 again. The Min value should be pushed beyond the max+1 limit, which means ny increase in min value will simply add to your damage unless you roll a hit above that value.</p></blockquote><p>I thought the check was made against the base damage range before the Crit Modifier was applied.</p>

[Uryu]

<p>I wonder if Devs have looked at this post.If so could we get a response. =P</p>

[Alenna]

<p><cite>Uryu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I wonder if GM's have looked at this post.If so could we get a response. =P</p></blockquote><p>You mean the Devs don't you.</p>

[Bremer]

Would definitely be interesting to get on official word on the actual mechanic.

[Gungo]

<p><cite>Geothe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>With the amount of crit bonus in the game no one currently at level 90 in dov gear should ever hit for max+1 again. The Min value should be pushed beyond the max+1 limit, which means ny increase in min value will simply add to your damage unless you roll a hit above that value.</p></blockquote><p>You forget about autoattack.Weapons have a 5.6 fold spread so to never hit for max+1 your crit bonus would need to be at 510 (plus your innate 50%).</p></blockquote><p>well the melee skills would still add to the damage since in effect it reduces that spread range. Meaning you will hit for max+1 less if you happen to be low on crit bonus.</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Bremer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you'll be able to provide the melee in your group with an almost 4% increase in minimum CA damage for 20 seconds every minute or so. So that's not bad there</p></blockquote><p>Ok, stupid question: Crit damage is between (max damage + 1) and whatever max damage * (gear crit bonus + innate crit bonus) is. So how does increasing the min damage help, when the crit damage depends on the max value?</p></blockquote><p>With the amount of crit bonus in the game no one currently at level 90 in dov gear should ever hit for max+1 again. The Min value should be pushed beyond the max+1 limit, which means ny increase in min value will simply add to your damage unless you roll a hit above that value.</p></blockquote><p>I thought the check was made against the base damage range before the Crit Modifier was applied.</p></blockquote><p>It should be but it still wont change the fact that the damage would go up once the crit modifer is applied and prevent less hits hitting for lower amounts.</p>

[Nevao]

<p>Ok, so after Gungo's comments I asked around about the check for "Max+1" (figured better just to ask) and it should be made after the CB has been applied. After running a quick scan through a few spreadsheets I had for prioritizing CAs it looks like the highest spread I've seen on CAs/Spells is 2.09 (granted that was just a handful of classes though). Most of the spreads I saw for CAs were far below that. Most of my Ranger CAs were around 1.6 and my Brigs were actually in the 1.3 range. My alt Monk was in the 1.7 range. Granted those sheets are old, but the scaling from potency/primary stat/ability mod should make that big a difference.</p><p>So provided I can do basic math (left to Google Sheets), that the formula for spreads is right (Max Examine Dmg/Min Examine Dmg) and I did not pick the classes with the lowest possible spreads, then to Gungo's point the only damage effectively affected by Weapon Skill over caps is going to be Auto Attack. The introductionary DoV legendary set alone will push people past their ability spreads. I think this is probably a discussion better served in it's own thread though.</p><p>So mea culpa on that one. Ranger's will be good at helping Auto Attack damage increase for the group, but that's going to have a much smaller overall impact than I intially expected.</p>

[Sydares]

<p>So, do wands require ammunition? Cool.</p><p>Didn't think so.</p>

[Uryu]

Dev's, look here.=}

[Noob1974]

<p>When Beastlords will be aplayable class things will become worse for ranger.</p><p>As a dev said the dps will be on par with Assasins and having ward pets and buffs could be the end for rangers in raids when they don't get any changes.</p>

[Uryu]

<p>Yeah, i agree. Why create a class you don't like, but expect the player to enjoy.</p>

[Noob1974]

<p>I have just seen the new mythical bow which is for "All Scouts" i can see drama happening when Bards think they need the bow over the ranger. Especially since ranged weapon procs can proc while meleeing.</p>

[Neiloch]

<p><cite>Noob1974 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>When Beastlords will be aplayable class things will become worse for ranger.</p><p>As a dev said the dps will be on par with Assasins and having ward pets and buffs could be the end for rangers in raids when they don't get any changes.</p></blockquote><p>I doubt Beastlords will get a bunch of buffs like in EQ1. that's why I always thought adding beastlords to EQ2 would be a stupid idea. No matter what the playerbase is told we are going to end up with a 'loud minority' that is mad that the EQ2 beastlords aren't a lot like EQ1 beastlords.</p><p>There is high potential for Beastlords to offer more in group/raid buffs though. Not because they are 'beastlords' but because we offer so little. they could give beastlords just one of the most most basic group buffs while doing the same DPS and they will already be contributing more.</p><p>Also I'm glad to hear ranged weapons will not require aumminition to work anymore as to not make the addition of wand auto attack a 'f u' to all rangers.</p><p>What's that? they <em>aren't</em> doing that?....</p>

[Onodi]

<p>not played my eq2 ranger in a while (year plus)... but I think since they dropped the useless charm animal AA its time to put in the old EQ1 "endless quiver AA / arrow conservation" in its place.  this will give rangers the option to decrease arrow consumption <span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">ultimately </span> resulting in no consumption on the 5th point. </p><p>while it hurts tradeskillers a bit with the ranger population no longer having to dump money in to arrows, it seems fair overall considering as stated other classes are not bound to a consumable for their DPS like rangers are.  other classes will still be buying arrows anyway for their needs.<span ><em></em></span></p>

[Uryu]

<p>I guess SOE lied when they said they would look in to rangers or maybe they just hate us. THey could be whiping up something cool. i doubt it though. i guess its kinda harsh to call them liars. maybe they look and said who cares if rangers don't have much to bring to the raids. Only if they would reply, then we would atleast know a lil something.</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Uryu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I guess SOE lied when they said they would look in to rangers or maybe they just hate us. THey could be whiping up something cool. i doubt it though. i guess its kinda harsh to call them liars. maybe they look and said who cares if rangers don't have much to bring to the raids. Only if they would reply, then we would atleast know a lil something.</p></blockquote><p>When did they say they would look at Rangers?</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok, so after Gungo's comments I asked around about the check for "Max+1" (figured better just to ask) and it should be made after the CB has been applied. After running a quick scan through a few spreadsheets I had for prioritizing CAs it looks like the highest spread I've seen on CAs/Spells is 2.09 (granted that was just a handful of classes though). Most of the spreads I saw for CAs were far below that. Most of my Ranger CAs were around 1.6 and my Brigs were actually in the 1.3 range. My alt Monk was in the 1.7 range. Granted those sheets are old, but the scaling from potency/primary stat/ability mod should make that big a difference.</p><p>So provided I can do basic math (left to Google Sheets), that the formula for spreads is right (Max Examine Dmg/Min Examine Dmg) and I did not pick the classes with the lowest possible spreads, then to Gungo's point the only damage effectively affected by Weapon Skill over caps is going to be Auto Attack. The introductionary DoV legendary set alone will push people past their ability spreads. I think this is probably a discussion better served in it's own thread though.</p><p>So mea culpa on that one. Ranger's will be good at helping Auto Attack damage increase for the group, but that's going to have a much smaller overall impact than I intially expected.</p></blockquote><p>bruisers actually have one of the highest spreads but yes with max +1 being calculated befor ecrit bonus you wont see much increase in Ca damage w weapon skills. And the more crit bonus you have the less wepaon skills you need. This of course all depends on the order of crit bonus and and max+1 calc.</p>

[Uryu]

<p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uryu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I guess SOE lied when they said they would look in to rangers or maybe they just hate us. THey could be whiping up something cool. i doubt it though. i guess its kinda harsh to call them liars. maybe they look and said who cares if rangers don't have much to bring to the raids. Only if they would reply, then we would atleast know a lil something.</p></blockquote><p>When did they say they would look at Rangers?</p></blockquote><p>Fan Fair. =)</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok, so after Gungo's comments I asked around about the check for "Max+1" (figured better just to ask) and it should be made after the CB has been applied. After running a quick scan through a few spreadsheets I had for prioritizing CAs it looks like the highest spread I've seen on CAs/Spells is 2.09 (granted that was just a handful of classes though). Most of the spreads I saw for CAs were far below that. Most of my Ranger CAs were around 1.6 and my Brigs were actually in the 1.3 range. My alt Monk was in the 1.7 range. Granted those sheets are old, but the scaling from potency/primary stat/ability mod should make that big a difference.</p><p>So provided I can do basic math (left to Google Sheets), that the formula for spreads is right (Max Examine Dmg/Min Examine Dmg) and I did not pick the classes with the lowest possible spreads, then to Gungo's point the only damage effectively affected by Weapon Skill over caps is going to be Auto Attack. The introductionary DoV legendary set alone will push people past their ability spreads. I think this is probably a discussion better served in it's own thread though.</p><p>So mea culpa on that one. Ranger's will be good at helping Auto Attack damage increase for the group, but that's going to have a much smaller overall impact than I intially expected.</p></blockquote><p>bruisers actually have one of the highest spreads but yes with max +1 being calculated befor ecrit bonus you wont see much increase in Ca damage w weapon skills. And the more crit bonus you have the less wepaon skills you need. This of course all depends on the order of crit bonus and and max+1 calc.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah. The other scenario that I thought of where it may help (if the check is after CB being applied) is where mobs debuff your crit chance or crit bonus. So it looks like it can have some effect, but like most "over caps" it's going to be a very small impact outside of the impact on Auto Attack.</p>

[Nevao]

<p><cite>Uryu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Nevao wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Uryu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I guess SOE lied when they said they would look in to rangers or maybe they just hate us. THey could be whiping up something cool. i doubt it though. i guess its kinda harsh to call them liars. maybe they look and said who cares if rangers don't have much to bring to the raids. Only if they would reply, then we would atleast know a lil something.</p></blockquote><p>When did they say they would look at Rangers?</p></blockquote><p>Fan Fair. =)</p></blockquote><p>Fair enough. I wouldn't get too worked up over promises made at Fan Faire though (at least not enough to call them liars). Unless they gave a specific time frame those "promises" are usually done, but not always in the immediate time frame. They have a LOT on their plate and from what I understand they are pretty happy with Rangers, at least DPS wise, at the moment.</p><p>That said my wish list for this GU:</p><ul><li><strong>Default Auto Attack preference (or some similar mechanic):</strong> Let's be honest the only way this will make it to the top of the list is other classes feeling Ranger's faulty macro pain. It looks like that may be the case with the addition of Spell Auto Attack and melee priests/mages. So there is a small chance it might happen this time, unless of course they just tell those "hybrids" to not equip a wand. This alone would make playing a Ranger less of a headache and is LOOOOONNNG overdue. </li><li><strong>Modification of the Double Arrow Expertise AA (and possibly Extension as well): </strong>Neither of these holdup well when compared to other T1 DPS classes Expertise abilities. They also are getting outdated with the current content mechanics, encounter designs and stats. Since they are in the process of reviewing AAs now would be a good time to do it, but if the Dev's really are happy with Ranger DPS I could see this staying as-is.</li><li><strong>The HAWK!: </strong>This is my long shot wish, but I would love to see Hawk made "until cancelled" with non-direct AE immunity even if it required AA to do so. If they did this they could then kill the whole "Ranger's provide no utility arguements buy giving us a hate mechanic that's visible. However, unless they see a way to tie this to the AA review I don't see this happening until the next exapansion (when they usually make individual class ability tweaks as opposed to cross the board style changes like they did in LU60) if at all.</li></ul>

[Uryu]

<blockquote><blockquote><p>Fan Fair. =)</p></blockquote><p>Fair enough. I wouldn't get too worked up over promises made at Fan Faire though (at least not enough to call them liars). Unless they gave a specific time frame those "promises" are usually done, but not always in the immediate time frame. They have a LOT on their plate and from what I understand they are pretty happy with Rangers, at least DPS wise, at the moment.</p><p>That said my wish list for this GU:</p><ul><li><strong>Default Auto Attack preference (or some similar mechanic):</strong> Let's be honest the only way this will make it to the top of the list is other classes feeling Ranger's faulty macro pain. It looks like that may be the case with the addition of Spell Auto Attack and melee priests/mages. So there is a small chance it might happen this time, unless of course they just tell those "hybrids" to not equip a wand. This alone would make playing a Ranger less of a headache and is LOOOOONNNG overdue. </li><li><strong>Modification of the Double Arrow Expertise AA (and possibly Extension as well): </strong>Neither of these holdup well when compared to other T1 DPS classes Expertise abilities. They also are getting outdated with the current content mechanics, encounter designs and stats. Since they are in the process of reviewing AAs now would be a good time to do it, but if the Dev's really are happy with Ranger DPS I could see this staying as-is.</li><li><strong>The HAWK!: </strong>This is my long shot wish, but I would love to see Hawk made "until cancelled" with non-direct AE immunity even if it required AA to do so. If they did this they could then kill the whole "Ranger's provide no utility arguements buy giving us a hate mechanic that's visible. However, unless they see a way to tie this to the AA review I don't see this happening until the next exapansion (when they usually make individual class ability tweaks as opposed to cross the board style changes like they did in LU60) if at all.</li></ul></blockquote><p>I agree that would be nice. =)</p>

[Tokenki]

<p><cite>Uryu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p>Fan Fair. =)</p></blockquote><p>Fair enough. I wouldn't get too worked up over promises made at Fan Faire though (at least not enough to call them liars). Unless they gave a specific time frame those "promises" are usually done, but not always in the immediate time frame. They have a LOT on their plate and from what I understand they are pretty happy with Rangers, at least DPS wise, at the moment.</p><p>That said my wish list for this GU:</p><ul><li><strong>Default Auto Attack preference (or some similar mechanic):</strong> Let's be honest the only way this will make it to the top of the list is other classes feeling Ranger's faulty macro pain. It looks like that may be the case with the addition of Spell Auto Attack and melee priests/mages. So there is a small chance it might happen this time, unless of course they just tell those "hybrids" to not equip a wand. This alone would make playing a Ranger less of a headache and is LOOOOONNNG overdue. </li><li><strong>Modification of the Double Arrow Expertise AA (and possibly Extension as well): </strong>Neither of these holdup well when compared to other T1 DPS classes Expertise abilities. They also are getting outdated with the current content mechanics, encounter designs and stats. Since they are in the process of reviewing AAs now would be a good time to do it, but if the Dev's really are happy with Ranger DPS I could see this staying as-is.</li><li><strong>The HAWK!: </strong>This is my long shot wish, but I would love to see Hawk made "until cancelled" with non-direct AE immunity even if it required AA to do so. If they did this they could then kill the whole "Ranger's provide no utility arguements buy giving us a hate mechanic that's visible. However, unless they see a way to tie this to the AA review I don't see this happening until the next exapansion (when they usually make individual class ability tweaks as opposed to cross the board style changes like they did in LU60) if at all.</li></ul></blockquote><p>I agree that would be nice. =)</p></blockquote><p>In addition, would also like to see a poison fix...Poisons are all but obsolete now that they took the crit off of them.</p>