Ranger: leather, Mystic/Defiler: cloth, Berserker: chainmail. Wouldn't be better?

[sargonnath]

<p>Hello,</p><p>When I figure myself these classes, I think I would find them more realistic if:- Rangers were wearing only Leather armor.- Mystics and Defilers Cloth armor only.- and Berserkers, Chainmail.</p><p>Do you agree?Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p>

[Vitriol]

<p>no.</p>

[Revman]

<p>Would lead to even more catastrophic itemization.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>Not sure...Leather armor already offers AGI and STR variants (for monks) and could be immediately used by rangers with no changes.Chain armor have also all the required bonuses to caracteristics for a Berserker.For Cloth for Mystics and Defilers, there's already two kinds of cloth armor available. The tranquil and the other one (don't remember its specific name if it has one).- The tranquil offers INT and STA and is good for mages, - and the other one today offers INT, WIS and STA but having the three bonuses at the same time is no more useful today for any class. If this last armor had only WIS and STA it would be fine for Defilers and Mystics.</p><p>Sargonnath.</p>

[The_Cheeseman]

<p>While I agree that the Everquest franchise's history of putting stealthy classes in chainmail armor is odd, I really don't see why you'd want to put mystics and defilers in cloth. What is the purpose of that change? As for Berserkers in chain, it wouldn't work well since they are designed to be the "evil" counterpart to Guardians.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>It's the way I see these professions.</p><p>Shamans that explorers have met in real life (in tribes or elsewhere) were never wearing leather, chainmail or plate armor. While history has shown priests in plate during crusades, and it is common to imagine druids in leather... since D&D I think, even if they could also be wearing cloth too!</p><p>Berserkers come from nordic tales, and in my mind, were only depicted in chainmail.</p><p>Rangers, as Archers, I see them really better in leather armor than in chainmail.</p><p>But it's just a matter of realism.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p>

[Xalmat]

<p>Rangers and Shaman in EQ1 wore chain, and so they kept it. Berserkers in EQ2 became the offensive equivalent to Guardians and so wear Plate. And Bards in EQ2 were turned into chain wearing scouts.</p><p>There's no reason to change it now.</p>

[katalmach]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's the way I see these professions.</p><p>Shamans that explorers have met in real life (in tribes or elsewhere) were never wearing leather, chainmail or plate armor. While history has shown priests in plate during crusades, and it is common to imagine druids in leather... since D&D I think, even if they could also be wearing cloth too!</p><p>Berserkers come from nordic tales, and in my mind, were only depicted in chainmail.</p><p>Rangers, as Archers, I see them really better in leather armor than in chainmail.</p><p>But it's just a matter of realism.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>Do you want realism or what you "see in your mind"? Because in reality, most berserkers would likely have worn woollen garments, ie cloth or possibly leather. Only the richest and highest-ranking of the era wore any kind of mail. In reality, druids are most often depicted (and documented in literature) as wearing white robes, ie cloth. In reality, shamans wear all manner of things as there are shamans in many different cultures, but in my country they would likely wear animal hides, ie leather.</p><p>So, for EQ2 to be realistic it would look like this:</p><p>Druids wear cloth. Berserkers wear cloth or leather, except for the most elite/richest berserkers on each server, who can unlock chain. Shaman wear whatever they want, depending on their culture.</p><p>But for EQ2 to remain somewhat practical and sensible, let's just keep things the way they are.</p>

[MrWolfie]

<p>No.</p><p>I'm not even going to take your "suggestion" seriously. If you want realism, step away from the computer and go outside. And next time, do some research before you spout off, since your conclusions are based on flimsy knowledge of fantasy books and, of course, the bible (every bit as accurate) of swords n sorcery: D&D.</p>

[Novusod]

<p>It is too late in the game to make these kind of changes to Eq2 but for EQ Next it would be a decent idea.</p>

[Chakos]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Not sure...Leather armor already offers AGI and STR variants (for monks) and could be immediately used by rangers with no changes.Chain armor have also all the required bonuses to caracteristics for a Berserker.For Cloth for Mystics and Defilers, there's already two kinds of cloth armor available. The tranquil and the other one (don't remember its specific name if it has one).- The tranquil offers INT and STA and is good for mages, - and the other one today offers INT, WIS and STA but having the three bonuses at the same time is no more useful today for any class. If this last armor had only WIS and STA it would be fine for Defilers and Mystics.</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>This is no longer true, since GU61 -- the agi/str leather (dextrous) is now exactly the same as the normal str/sta leather armor... same goes for the others, no more str on chain or wis on cloth, unless something was overlooked by the update.</p>

[Talathion]

<p>Back then Plate Armor wasn't around and chain armor was extreamly rare, Berserkers would of worn plate if it was during there time period.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>I would like to see at least Rangers with leather armor.</p><p>For the other classes, of course, mystics should really be in clothes, but well if you don't want...Maybe I should send a <em>/feedback</em> about Rangers. It is the way to follow to submit an idea to SOE staff or devs, isn't it?</p>

[SisterTheresa]

<p>And you do realize some shamans and zerkers went naked?</p>

[Writer Cal]

<p>It's fine as is.  Itemization is already broken enough as it is.  We really don't need things to be changed all around just for some arbitrary "flavor" request that will nerf a bunch of classes that are just fine in the armor they currently can use.</p>

[Vlahkmaak]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I would like to see at least Rangers in leather armor.</p><p>For the other classes, of course, mystics should really be in clothes, but well if you don't want...Maybe I should send a <em>/feedback</em> about Rangers. It is the way to follow to submit an idea to SOE staff or devs, isn't it?</p></blockquote><p>Strider wore chainmain armor at Helms Deep, he was a ranger, would you like them to remake that movie as well?</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>Itemization is pearphs a bit broken but it will be repaired soon.They need ideas for GU 62 or 63, and this one (leather for rangers) seems to me worth to study.I submit it. Let see what will happen!</p>

[Vlahkmaak]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Itemization is pearphs a bit broken but it will be repaired soon.They need ideas for GU 62 or 63, and this one (leather for rangers) seems to me worth to study.I submit it. Let see what will happen!</p></blockquote><p>Why is it worth study?  Bezerkers are tanks and need to be in plate.  It seems like you just logged in, spent zero effort tryint to determine what each class is designed to do, and decided you should be allowed to re-itemize class gear.  Rangers, and all other scouts, need chainmail because they are up close next to big nasty raid mobs.  Chain mail affords them greater mitigation protection values than does leather.  brawlers ahve special AA which brings their leather armor in line with chain as well as ungodly avoidance.  I do not see how your idea has any merit to improve the game mechanics at hand.</p>

[Felshades]

<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>While I agree that the Everquest franchise's history of putting stealthy classes in chainmail armor is odd, I really don't see why you'd want to put mystics and defilers in cloth. What is the purpose of that change? As for Berserkers in chain, it wouldn't work well since they are designed to be the "evil" counterpart to Guardians.</p></blockquote><p>Berserkers and Guardians were always, and always will be, neutral.</p><p>The "evil" tanks were shadowknight and bruiser, and the "good" tanks were paladin and monk.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p><cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Rangers, and all other scouts, need chainmail because they are up close next to big nasty raid mobs.  Chain mail affords them greater mitigation protection values than does leather.</p></blockquote><p>I don't agree. Rangers should stay away from mobs, firing from a distance.Monks who are fighting mobs in front of them are in leather armor and they do not die, so leather armor is a good enough armor already.Leather armor for rangers would justify their running speed and their mastery at bow.</p>

[Vlahkmaak]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Rangers, and all other scouts, need chainmail because they are up close next to big nasty raid mobs.  Chain mail affords them greater mitigation protection values than does leather.</p></blockquote><p>I don't agree. Rangers should stay away from mobs, firing from a distance.Monks who are fighting mobs in front of them are in leather armor and they do not die.Leather armor for ranger would justify their running speed and their mastery at bow.</p></blockquote><p>Rangers can in fact stay away from the mob and fire.  They just will just be useless if they do that since 3 of their highest parsing damage CA's are all melee based.</p>

[Writer Cal]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Rangers, and all other scouts, need chainmail because they are up close next to big nasty raid mobs.  Chain mail affords them greater mitigation protection values than does leather.</p></blockquote><p>I don't agree. Rangers should stay away from mobs, firing from a distance.Monks who are fighting mobs in front of them are in leather armor and they do not die.Leather armor for ranger would justify their running speed and their mastery at bow.</p></blockquote><p>That is not how the class works, though.  Any ranger staying at a distance will do faaaar less dps than a ranger standing close due to how the class works the and need to use the melee CAs.  They have chosen not to change those melee CAs to ranged CAs, so you are asking for the class to to be nerfed for flavor reasons.</p><p>Rangers do not have the AAs and buffs that allow brawlers to wear leather and have high survivability.</p><p>Rangers do not need to be nerfed for flavor reasons.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>I agree with mystics and defilers, falling from chainmail to cloth would reduce their survability too much.I agree for Berserkers too, it is a bit late to change them now, and they are tanks. But this is with regrets.</p><p>But for rangers, there is really nothing against the point that they could wear leather instead of chainmail. They are not tanks, they don't act as tanks and they do not fight like an assassin or a brigand. They do far enough damage with arrows to stay at range where they are really safe. What is that story that you don't do the good amount of damage at range with a ranger? Are you firing with a spoon?</p>

[The_Cheeseman]

<p><cite>Nadirah@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Berserkers and Guardians were always, and always will be, neutral.</p><p>The "evil" tanks were shadowknight and bruiser, and the "good" tanks were paladin and monk.</p></blockquote><p>I am aware that the warrior subclasses were never alignment restricted, but it seems fairly obvious that the two classes were originally designed along the same good-evil axis as every other subclass pair in the game. Just because they could be played by either alignment doesn't mean that they don't have a stronger thematic association with one than the other.</p>

[Kaszan]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I agree with mystics and defilers, falling from chainmail to cloth would reduce their survability too much.I agree for Berserkers too, it is a bit late to change them now, and they are tanks. But this is with regrets.</p><p>But for rangers, there is really nothing against the point that they could wear leather instead of chainmail. They are not tanks, they don't act as tanks and they do not fight like an assassin or a brigand. They do far enough damage with arrows to stay at range where they are really safe. What is that story that you don't do the good amount of damage at range with a ranger? Are you firing with a spoon?</p></blockquote><p>just lol</p>

[Writer Cal]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I agree with mystics and defilers, falling from chainmail to cloth would reduce their survability too much.I agree for Berserkers too, it is a bit late to change them now, and they are tanks. But this is with regrets.</p><p>But for rangers, there is really nothing against the point that they could wear leather instead of chainmail. They are not tanks, they don't act as tanks and they do not fight like an assassin or a brigand. They do far enough damage with arrows to stay at range where they are really safe. What is that story that you don't do the good amount of damage at range with a ranger? Are you firing with a spoon?</p></blockquote><p>Okay, I see there is a lack of understanding of how the Ranger class works going on here.  Perhaps try the Ranger forums for the abundant information on how the class works.</p>

[Aneova]

<p>Classic D&D rule set, scouts all wore leather and recieved penalties while in chain without special skills and training and even then still had restrictions. As for Shamans, they were chain wearing healers druids were restricted, as are they here to leather and clothe. Zerkers wore what the heck they wanted to (are you really going to tell someone with crazy anger issues what not to wear?)</p>

[Kimber]

<p>/facepalm</p><p>Wow is all I can say</p>

[sick720]

<p>as far as lore outside of everquest, berzerkers would often roll into to battle wearing no armour, and practically naked cause they didnt give a crap. how would you itemise that? lol</p>

[ccarro]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I agree with mystics and defilers, falling from chainmail to cloth would reduce their survability too much.I agree for Berserkers too, it is a bit late to change them now, and they are tanks. But this is with regrets.</p><p>But for rangers, there is really nothing against the point that they could wear leather instead of chainmail. They are not tanks, they don't act as tanks and they do not fight like an assassin or a brigand. They do far enough damage with arrows to stay at range where they are really safe. What is that story that you don't do the good amount of damage at range with a ranger? Are you firing with a spoon?</p></blockquote><p>Try to learn something about the class before asking for changes to said class. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about judging from this post (and other before it).</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>Well, it's only a small change.I don't think that changing from chainmail to leather would cause to much troubles to a ranger, who is an archer.</p>

[Writer Cal]

<p>If only they had appearance slots so people who want their characters to wear a lesser type of armor could look like they were...</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>Sorry, I didn't mention it.</p><p>I would like rangers to wear leather for best armor in order to reduce their mitigation a bit.As they are archers it would have a sense. It will be a good counterpart for their abilities to attack at range. For PvP, for example, they would be more balanced. "<em>You are strong at range, but beware if we are able to come in front of you.</em>". It would force the player to quickly find a way to go backward.</p><p>I think that many rangers players attempt to go backward already when they are in front of a mob. With this new armor, we could be quite sure they would do so more willingly and stay at range the most they can. This way, they would really act as archers. For me, If they stay in contact with the mobs they are not rangers.</p><p>This is why I think leather armor for rangers would be benefical.</p><p>Sargonnath.</p>

[Finora]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Well, it's only a small change.I don't think that changing from chainmail to leather would cause to much troubles to a ranger, who is an archer.</p></blockquote><p>Its a pretty huge change actually and rangers aren't 100% archers. I know I've never played mine that way (created day one of the game). And with the changes to ranged weapon range its easier than ever to used ranged & melee interchangably.</p><p>Not to even mention the very long history of chainmail wearing rangers in Norrath, they wore chain for most of their levels in Eq1 starting back what 12 - 13 years ago?</p><p>Its not like Eq2 is the only game out there with rangers in chain armor. Most ranger like classes in most MMOs I've played use chain armor. Even table top D&D rangers could use chain shirts if I recall correctly.</p><p>Like Daenee said, if you don't like how it LOOKS, just wear whatever kind of appearance armor tickles your fancy to cover up what you are really wearing. Most people do that anyway. My shaman currently looks like she's wearing plate armor. My assassin looks like she is in dark leathers. My battlemage warlock looks like she has on plate armor and until recently was wielding an axe.</p><p> Oh, and for goodness sake don't try to balance all rangers around what you think would be good for PVP. PVP was tacked on as an afterthought in Eq2 and changing the core game around what's good for PVP is a good way for SOE to really p&ss off their PVE playerbase.</p>

[Writer Cal]

<p>Yes, this is a nice idea and all if rangers worked the way you think/wish they worked.  However, they do not work the way you seem to think/wish.  Many, many people have asked for rangers to be able to do max damage at full range.  The devs have chosen to not allow this.  Any person who has done even a tiny bit of research into how the class works understands why rangers do far less damage at range than they do in melee.</p><p>Full ranged rangers may do fine damage in casual settings, but any ranger trying to raid or group at the high end understands that they absolutely must be close range to perform at the max level.  If you are standing max range as a ranger in anything but a solo setting, you are cheating your group or raid.</p><p>And why Rangers?  Why shouldn't bards be in cloth as fancy performers?  Why not assassins in quiet leather instead of noisy chain?  Why swashies in chain but not fancy cloth outfits?  Or brigands in whatever leathers they can find?</p>

[Kimber]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry, I didn't mention it.</p><p>I would like rangers to wear leather for best armor in order to reduce their mitigation a bit.As they are archers it would have a sense. It will be a good counterpart for their abilities to attack at range. <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>For PvP, for example, they would be more balanced. "<em>You are strong at range, but beware if we are able to come in front of you.</em>". It would force the player to quickly find a way to go backward.</strong></span></p><p>I think that many rangers players attempt to go backward already when they are in front of a mob. With this new armor, we could be quite sure they would do so more willingly and stay at range the most they can. This way, they would really act as archers. For me, If they stay in contact with the mobs they are not rangers.</p><p>This is why I think leather armor for rangers would be benefical.</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>If I had to guess you got owned by a ranger 1 to many times.  They are squishy in PvP so long as you are in same same gear but if they got better gear it will be a long fight unless you are not very good or in PvE gear.</p><p>No need for this change at all just buy some app gear as someone else said and have fun.</p>

[Tylia]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry, I didn't mention it.</p><p>I would like rangers to wear leather for best armor in order to reduce their mitigation a bit.As they are archers it would have a sense. It will be a good counterpart for their abilities to attack at range. For PvP, for example, they would be more balanced. "<em>You are strong at range, but beware if we are able to come in front of you.</em>". It would force the player to quickly find a way to go backward.</p><p>I think that many rangers players attempt to go backward already when they are in front of a mob. With this new armor, we could be quite sure they would do so more willingly and stay at range the most they can. This way, they would really act as archers. For me, If they stay in contact with the mobs they are not rangers.</p><p>This is why I think leather armor for rangers would be benefical.</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>No.  My little ranger likes wearing chain.  It increases her survivability when a mob makes it past her arrows and she has to melee.  Do you play a ranger?  (I'm guessing not)  Maybe you should try one, and only dress it in leather and see how that works out for you.  <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[feldon30]

OP wants to change (oh God another revamp) EQ2 to suit his/her taste instead of playing the game as-designed.

[GussJr]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Well, it's only a small change.I don't think that changing from chainmail to leather would cause to much troubles to a ranger, who is an archer.</p></blockquote><p>It would be a huge change when you take into account the time and plat it would take to re-gear a lvl 90 ranger. This thread = silly.</p>

[Gilasil]

<p>The op's suggestions have a lot to say for themselves on the basis of realism.   </p><p>The historical berserkers didn't even wear chain.  They went into battle naked.  They were all offense, no defense.  Most likely they had exceptionally short lifespans.  Obviously SoE had absolutely no clue when they designed the berserker class and made it a tank of all things.  This being a family game they'd have to put on SOMETHING, but a berserker wearing plate makes no sense whatsoever in a historical perspective, and is a major reason I could never bring myself to roll a berserker.    If they wanted the berserker to have some sort of nodding acknowledgement of history they should be a cloth wearing DPS class.  Boy did SoE miss that one.</p><p>The other suggestions make sense too -- from a realism point of view.</p><p>Unfortunately it's FAR too late to make changes that major.  For better or worse the classes are designed the way they are and it would be a disaster to change them now.</p><p>My suggestion to the op is to make these suggestions on one of the threads devoted to ideas for EQ Next.</p>

[Vlahkmaak]

<p><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The op's suggestions have a lot to say for themselves on the basis of realism.   </p><p>The historical berserkers didn't even wear chain.  They went into battle naked.  They were all offense, no defense.  Most likely they had exceptionally short lifespans.  Obviously SoE had absolutely no clue when they designed the berserker class and made it a tank of all things.  This being a family game they'd have to put on SOMETHING, but a berserker wearing plate makes no sense whatsoever in a historical perspective, and is a major reason I could never bring myself to roll a berserker.    If they wanted the berserker to have some sort of nodding acknowledgement of history they should be a cloth wearing DPS class.  Boy did SoE miss that one.</p><p>The other suggestions make sense too -- from a realism point of view.</p><p>Unfortunately it's FAR too late to make changes that major.  For better or worse the classes are designed the way they are and it would be a disaster to change them now.</p><p>My suggestion to the op is to make these suggestions on one of the threads devoted to ideas for EQ Next.</p></blockquote><p>Where on the box does one find the enticer:  "Come explore the historical simulator of the New Norrath."</p><p>Should we delve into historical "reality" we would have to change many other things about Norrath.  Magic would have to go.  Dragons would have to go.  Almost everything except bears, bugs, and snakes would have to go.  Flying griffons just got solved by this brain trust too.  Nagafen will generally be happy with that but we'd all be doing hard time for murder.   Also, my toon has not dropped the kids off at the pool in eight years or so.  Thats a serious blockage waiting to burst.  Injured in battle - just go down to your local emergacare in the US (with coverage fo course) or take a number in any of the many countries participating in socialized medicine and your wounds will be tended to sometime in the next 6 years.  Priests do not heal of course- they just molester children and ask for a tithing due to the new rules of historical reality.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p>Sure, it would make sense for all scouts to wear leather at heaviest but I don't see any changes happening to that in EQ2 for a multitude of reasons.</p>

[thewarriorpoet]

<p><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>While I agree that the Everquest franchise's history of putting stealthy classes in chainmail armor is odd, I really don't see why you'd want to put mystics and defilers in cloth. What is the purpose of that change? As for Berserkers in chain, it wouldn't work well since they are designed to be the "evil" counterpart to Guardians.</p></blockquote><p>Trust me, on this one, armor of any kind makes a lot of noise. Leather armor creaks constantly, and loudly. In a non-combat situation it would be heard clearly.</p>

[Talathion]

<p>They had almost NO ARMOR at all during that time period...</p><p>I'm sure if Berserkers had armor back then, they would have wore it and been complete monsters!</p>

[Gungo]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sure, it would make sense for all scouts to wear leather at heaviest but I don't see any changes happening to that in EQ2 for a multitude of reasons.</p></blockquote><p>It probably would be easier for the devs to itemize fighters plate, healers chain, scouts leather, casters cloth.But going that route now would likely cause a loss of way to much individuality.</p>

[Alenna]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry, I didn't mention it.</p><p>I would like rangers to wear leather for best armor in order to reduce their mitigation a bit.As they are archers it would have a sense. It will be a good counterpart for their abilities to attack at range. <strong>For PvP, for example, they would be more balanced. "<em>You are strong at range, but beware if we are able to come in front of you.</em>".</strong> It would force the player to quickly find a way to go backward.</p><p>I think that many rangers players attempt to go backward already when they are in front of a mob. With this new armor, we could be quite sure they would do so more willingly and stay at range the most they can. This way, they would really act as archers. For me, If they stay in contact with the mobs they are not rangers.</p><p>This is why I think leather armor for rangers would be benefical.</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>Until they change the combat mechanics to make Rangers do their best dps at range instead of where their melee and ranged arts can be used as it is now this would be in essence nerfing Rangers NO THANK YOU</p><p><em>edited to add: </em></p><p>oh didn't notice you want to change My PvE game so that you dont' have to worry about being owned by a Ranger in PvP we've had enough nerfs happen becuase of the PvP crowd which was not supposed to happen and you want more happening of it becuase Rangers can still handle themselves very well in PvP? no more nerfs to Rangers in PvE because of PvP thank you very much</p>

[sargonnath]

<p><cite>Alenna@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> no more nerfs to Rangers in PvE because of PvP thank you very much</p></blockquote><p>Why the behavior of a class in PvP couldn't be a good reason to change it a bit?</p>

[feldon30]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Alenna@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> no more nerfs to Rangers in PvE because of PvP thank you very much</p></blockquote><p>Why the behavior of a class in PvP couldn't be a good reason to change it a bit?</p></blockquote><p>PvP should not affect PvE. Period.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>Ranger in PvP is only one of the good reasons to make him wear leather.It's for its general behavior in fights that it would be more interesting. In PvE too.</p><p>Rangers would be a little bit more touchy to handle, and more enjoyable I think.</p>

[Liandra]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Alenna@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> no more nerfs to Rangers in PvE because of PvP thank you very much</p></blockquote><p>Why the behavior of a class in PvP couldn't be a good reason to change it a bit?</p></blockquote><p>Because EQ2 is primarily a PvE game.  PvP was bolted on as an afterthought just to try and pander to a vocal minority.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>Of course, putting ranger in leather in order to incite him to stay at range can be done provided his skills at range are a bit more improved while his hand-to-hand skills would be reduced.</p>

[Gilasil]

<p><cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Where on the box does one find the enticer:  "Come explore the historical simulator of the New Norrath."</p><p>Should we delve into historical "reality" we would have to change many other things about Norrath.  Magic would have to go.  <span style="color: #00ccff;">blah blah blah</span></p></blockquote><p>I have no problem with adding stuff, but if you're going to use a class whose name is taken directly from history I think it reasonable it have at least a nodding acquintance with that history.  Otherwise they should have just made up a name for the class with which I'd have had  no problem.</p><p>If you're going to create something new that's fine.  Make up a name and go with it.  But if you're going to use an existing name stick to it's existing usage.</p><p>This game is thick with real world references.  We use hammers, swords and bows for fighting and all those impliments appear and are used much like their historical counterparts.  People wear plate, chain, and leather armor.  We ride horses (plus many fantastic creatures of course, with which I have no problem -- I usually ride a griffon, but even in EQ2 oftentimes the first mount a newbie gets is a horse).  There are several NPCs in the world with "General" in their name who are at least in theory commanding troops.  We rent apartments in cities.  We swim rivers.  Most of us have to hold our breath when we go underwater or we drown i.e. die (unless we have some sort of assist or are of one of a few fantastic races).</p><p>This and every other fantasy game are filled with real world referneces including historical references. They give context and make it easier to suspend disbelief.  Sure, fantasy elements are added but the basic context is rooted in the real world.  It makes the entire game seem much more believable.</p><p>Except for this particular historical reference which is horribly mangled.</p><p>In short, just because it's fantasy doesn't give the game designer the right to mangle real world references.  If anything he needs to respect them all the more to build a solid foundation for his fantasy elements.</p><p>This is my last post on this subject as I'm not going to keep arguing with people who see nothing wrong with mangling historical references.  Think what you like.  But I'll probably never roll a berserker either.</p>

[Vlahkmaak]

<p>Please provide a peer reviewed bibliographical reference for "rangers" as history. </p>

[gatrm]

<p><span >Sargonnath, what you are asking for is not realism.  </span></p><p>What you are asking for is to totally change the design of classes in a game that is 7 years old, and a world that is 13 years old. </p><p>I hate to let you know but, realism for Norrath is that scouts and shaman wear chain, beserkers wear plate, etc.  And really, that is the only "realism" that really matters.  There is a set of world-rules based upon lore and random changes to what classes can wear what type of armor infringes upon those rules of reality for Norrath.  In Norrath, magic is a piece of that reality. </p><p>If you are arguing for reality based upon Earth history, then there's a lot more to change than simply armor types of certain classes. </p><p>It seems to me that you are taking other games that you are familiar with and enjoyed and trying to make EQ2 more "logical" based upon the lore of those other games.   Your suggestions certainly do not go along with what you would have found from the classic "Archer" in Earth History. </p><p>For example, in the 14th Century, you would likely find that Archers would wear chainmail coverings over their thickly padded cloth, probably wool.  Another common armor type was the use of brigandine leather, which is leather armor with metal studs imbedded, which would be worn over a chainmail shirt. </p><p>EQ2 and other GAMES cannot be accused of allowing reality to shape character class design.  If it is something you are really interested in though, I would encourage you to try to work with someone who is designing a new game.  Who knows, maybe realism would be a popular niche.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>From LUs to GUs Everquest 2 is always changing. What was the game at its beginning can (almost) no more be found.The earliest versions were allowing the monks to equip a shield, for example. And it has ended.There is no reason to declare: EQ 2 is now a crystal because 7 years, because 13 years.You want no more extensions? No more GUs? If you allow change to come, sometimes one will be benefical and sometimes troublesome, forcing you to change your way of playing. And for ranger, that I see as Archers, this is what I am looking for.</p><p>The change I am suggesting is one that can really be studied.Not especially forbidden, not needing "<em>for god sake!</em>" sentences or the so many: "<em>don't touch anything.</em>" I've red.What are we fearing and who are we? Frozen players? Players of the past? Shall we return to EQ 2 of 2004 year or can the game change again in GU 62, 63 and others?Of course, it would be more easier for me to ask: "<em>Please, put again that AA that gaves 60% of critical chance for rangers.</em>": it would be popular. I would have a lot of replies "<em>Yes.</em>", "<em>I agree.</em>". It would lead to only Assassin classes, with quite no challenge at the end.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p>

[Seiffil]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>From LUs to GUs Everquest 2 is always changing. What was the game at its beginning can (almost) no more be found.The earliest versions were allowing the monks to equip a shield, for example. And it has ended.There is no reason to declare: EQ 2 is now a crystal because 7 years, because 13 years.You want no more extensions? No more GUs? If you allow change to come, sometimes one will be benefical and sometimes troublesome, forcing you to change your way of playing. And for ranger, that I see as Archers, this is what I am looking for.</p><p>The change I am suggesting is one that can really be studied.Not especially forbidden, not needing "<em>for god sake!</em>" sentences or the so many: "<em>don't touch anything.</em>" I've red.What are we fearing and who are we? Frozen players? Players of the past? Shall we return to EQ 2 of 2004 year or can the game change again in GU 62, 63 and others?Of course, it would be more easier for me to ask: "<em>Please, put again that AA that gaves 60% of critical chance for rangers.</em>": it would be popular. I would have a lot of replies "<em>Yes.</em>", "<em>I agree.</em>". It would lead to only Assassin classes, with quite no challenge at the end.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>Except what you don't seem to get is that you do not change how classes are worked just because one person thinks it would be a good idea.  It's not fear of change, it's why are we even bothering with talking about making an unnecessary change.</p><p>If you want to ask for small tweaks to a class that's one thing, but this isn't a small tweak, it's completely redesigning how a class works.  Another person also suggested some broad sweeping changes to the ranger class because he felt as you did regarding archers maybe a year or so ago, and as you can tell none of his ideas were taken.  Remember, personal preferences are one thing, but you're not only asking SOE to change a class to your preference, you're also forcing everyone who has learned how to play the class as it is now to accept your personal preference as the proper playstyle if they were to make any changes you have suggested.</p><p>No one wants people to suggest for something rediculous like as you suggested an AA which gives 60% more crit chance.  But suggestions made for the classes are generally made in ways that are more small tweaks, not a major and complete overhaul of the entire class.</p>

[Corwinus]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ranger in PvP is only one of the good reasons to make him wear leather.It's for its general behavior in fights that it would be more interesting. In PvE too.</p><p>Rangers would be a little bit more touchy to handle, and more enjoyable I think.</p></blockquote><p>Stop trying to touch or handle my Ranger you creep! Or I will pluck an arrow in your eye <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I find it quite interesting and enjoyable as it is !</p><p>Did you ever played one btw?</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Cor</p>

[Onorem]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>From LUs to GUs Everquest 2 is always changing. What was the game at its beginning can (almost) no more be found.The earliest versions were allowing the monks to equip a shield, for example. And it has ended.There is no reason to declare: EQ 2 is now a crystal because 7 years, because 13 years.You want no more extensions? No more GUs? If you allow change to come, sometimes one will be benefical and sometimes troublesome, forcing you to change your way of playing. And for ranger, that I see as Archers, this is what I am looking for.</p><p>The change I am suggesting is one that can really be studied.Not especially forbidden, not needing "<em>for god sake!</em>" sentences or the so many: "<em>don't touch anything.</em>" I've red.What are we fearing and who are we? Frozen players? Players of the past? Shall we return to EQ 2 of 2004 year or can the game change again in GU 62, 63 and others?Of course, it would be more easier for me to ask: "<em>Please, put again that AA that gaves 60% of critical chance for rangers.</em>": it would be popular. I would have a lot of replies "<em>Yes.</em>", "<em>I agree.</em>". It would lead to only Assassin classes, with quite no challenge at the end.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>The parts I can understand still make no sense.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p>Sometimes, when I am not able to find all my words in english or remember the grammar rules I see no other way than translating words directly from french to english, and the results are not always good...</p>

[Eugam]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sometimes, when I am not able to find all my words in english or remember the grammar rules I see no other way than translating words directly from french to english, and the results are not always good...</p></blockquote><p>I understand your posts, but it is unrealistic.</p><p>There a good points for a different itemization. But for a new game in development. In Ryzom for example power usage depended on the weight of items. It was possible to be a mage in plate, just mana went down in no time. With a similar system it would make sense that different classes wear a mix of chain, leather and cloth.  Realistically almost no one ever really fought in full plate. If someone in plate fell from his horse he was a dead duck on the ground, unable to get up on his own.</p><p>A mix would allow custom builds based on mitigation vs. power usage. But really, nothin of this will make it into EQ2. Its way to time consuming to change so many things of the core design. The appearance slots are the best trade-off available atm.</p>

[Twinbladed]

<p>Not trying to sound rude but out of all the bugs and items messed up atm, why is this even a concern?</p>

[Dragmar]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's the way I see these professions.</p><p>Shamans that explorers have met in real life (in tribes or elsewhere) were never wearing leather, chainmail or plate armor. While history has shown priests in plate during crusades, and it is common to imagine druids in leather... since D&D I think, even if they could also be wearing cloth too!</p><p>Berserkers come from nordic tales, and in my mind, were only depicted in chainmail.</p><p>Rangers, as Archers, I see them really better in leather armor than in chainmail.</p><p>But it's just a matter of realism.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p></blockquote><p>animal hides are leather .....im just saying</p>

[Onorem]

<p><cite>sargonnath wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sometimes, when I am not able to find all my words in english or remember the grammar rules I see no other way than translating words directly from french to english, and the results are not always good...</p></blockquote><p> My last post was too much troll and not enough explanation. Your English is certainly better than my French, and I shouldn't have taken a shot at your ability to express your ideas.</p><p>That said, I still really don't understand at all why you think this would be a good change to make in this game at this time. This would be a major change. People would have to completely regear their characters and SOE would have to majorly redesign how rangers actually perform within the game.</p><p>What's the benefit?</p>

[Arslan2000]

<p>Changing the armor of the rangers, (Which wore chain based in the Lord of the Rings series, as I recall.)  would necesitate changing the the range vs melee skills of the class, and change the way the ranger fights.  This is not EQ1, and you can not train a mob all over the zone here.  If you try to stay within range of the mob while not breaking the aggro, you will probably be in melee constantly.  (I am horrible at kiting, and if one of you says they can do it, so be it.  That does not mean it's viable though.)</p><p>Rangers would have to be able to fire their bows on the move, and use their CAs on the move. Thats is starting to get unbalanced right there.</p>

[Wyndaar]

<p>While I am all for reality (when oh when will my flying carpet fly and not just hover) in my mmorpgs... I gotta ask... isnt this the point of appearance gear? If you want your defiler to wear a dress, put em in a dress. Your ranger needs some leather? get em some chaps and be done with it. Your swashy needs a Membersonly jacket? check the marketplace Im sure that crap is there too.</p><p>There was a time when my fury wore mage gear (cloth) just for dps purposes, nothing is stopping you from wearing what you want except your preconceived notion of what 'should' be. Strap on that chain, be grateful you got a little more mitigation than those slobs in leather and cloth and put something fancy in your appearance gear, you dont HAVE to read the Chain designation if you dont want to, just look at the stats and if its not red text then slap it on and get to flinging arrows back with the mages and troubs, Ill take that dirge group up by the tank.</p><p>If its an upgrade Ill wear a burlap sack and fishnet stockings, or a formica laminate table from a 50s diner with a napkin dispenser for a weapon. I guess this is why the appearance gear sells so well and why the in game gear you earn is so very bland compared to previous expansions (kudos to the folks that did Kunark appearances, all were really nice). People seem wrapped up in appearance. Shocked, I am...</p><p>I kinda like the idea of bringing back the eq1 monk rules of weight, that made for some funny looking monks... it weights 0.1 Ill take it!!</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sure, it would make sense for all scouts to wear leather at heaviest but I don't see any changes happening to that in EQ2 for a multitude of reasons.</p></blockquote><p>It probably would be easier for the devs to itemize fighters plate, healers chain, scouts leather, casters cloth.But going that route now would likely cause a loss of way to much individuality.</p></blockquote><p>And because any time they change anything they manage to fail spectacularly.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>gatrm wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I hate to let you know but, realism for Norrath is that scouts and shaman wear chain, beserkers wear plate, etc.  And really, that is the only "realism" that really matters.  There is a set of world-rules based upon lore and random changes to what classes can wear what type of armor infringes upon those rules of reality for Norrath.  In Norrath, magic is a piece of that reality. </p></blockquote><p>I don't think it was ever stated in EQ lore that "scouts wear chain".</p><p><cite>gatrm wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>For example, in the 14th Century, you would likely find that Archers would wear chainmail coverings over their thickly padded cloth, probably wool.  Another common armor type was the use of brigandine leather, which is leather armor with metal studs imbedded, which would be worn over a chainmail shirt. </p><p>EQ2 and other GAMES cannot be accused of allowing reality to shape character class design.  If it is something you are really interested in though, I would encourage you to try to work with someone who is designing a new game.  Who knows, maybe realism would be a popular niche.</p></blockquote><p>Rangers are not the same as archers and EQ2 "chainmail" is actually more like a crappy plate armor / chain mix.</p>

[Vertix_EQ2]

<p>Am I really the only person who suspects the OP of trolling?</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Drakkiss@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Am I really the only person who suspects the OP of trolling?</p></blockquote><p>Not likely.</p>

[sargonnath]

<p><cite>Drakkiss@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Am I really the only person who suspects the OP of trolling?</p></blockquote><p>At least, try to explain where the troll starts or ends?Changing the armor of a class is trolling?Where do you see a troll here? I took many time to explain each reason why I wished the ranger class changes. And being talking about something you don't agree with is enough for you to say its a troll?</p><p>It's true that I am targeting a game just a bit harder. But no more.And you are declaring that such ideas cannot be expressed? Are you our prince to tell us what can be said and what cannot?</p><p>If you have a problem with any of my messages, please send an alert to the moderator using the proper link. But please stop you improper sentences.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Sargonnath.</p>