Discriminatory Game Mechanics

glowsintheda · 02-05-2010, 06:15 PM

Flurry and AOE auto attack are both currently descriminatory against rangers as neither of these abilities works with ranged autoattack. With the increase in the availability of both of these effects in SF Rangers will continue to fall further and further behind the other scout classes in DPS. Make Ranged Flurry and Ranged AOE auto attack a reality before the ranger class is further harmed.

Yimway · 02-05-2010, 06:45 PM

What exact distance are you suggesting you can range aoe autoattack? 180 degree conal arc out to max arrow range?

When I envision the number of mobs possible to be in range of an aoe autoattack, I can't fathom that attack being balanced for rangers if they had it.

Geothe · 02-05-2010, 06:50 PM

Isee no reason why flurry shouldn't apply to rangers.AE autoattack doesn't quite make sense though honestly.

glowsintheda · 02-05-2010, 07:15 PM

honestly I would be fine if ranged AE auto was just 5m radius around the mob you currently have targeted, as long as it is something, or failing a true aoe auto attack, maybe a proc that does some decent amount of damage on mobs around your target, could limit number of targets and damage that way, but at least it would be something. Rangers don't offer anything besided DPS and to with hold these abilities from rangers is detremintal to the class.

jjlo69 · 02-05-2010, 07:31 PM

not only will it put us behind but when rangers in beta pushed the subject we got brushed off as it was a coding issue yet gear has modifiers for this machanic

UNcle

Sydares · 02-05-2010, 07:43 PM

With the introduction of AE attack and Flurry on to more and more pieces of gear and buffs in Sentinel's Fate, it's becoming the worst time ever to be a Ranger.

People, I'm sure, will be tempted to say that we can already do both of these things if we decide to pull out our sword and just get up in the monster's grill - the fact of the matter is, we have to be up in the mob's grill already in order to use all of our melee CAs or our parses fall to the utterly abysmal due to the high recast timers on our ranged combat arts. In addition, when using swords, two of our major damage contributors (Makeshift Arrows and our offensive stance buff) do not function. Using melee is out of the question.

So, that boils down to the fact that using it on our swords is out of the question, so let's move past that argument before it starts.

Sydares · 02-05-2010, 07:48 PM

Atan@Unrest wrote:

What exact distance are you suggesting you can range aoe autoattack? 180 degree conal arc out to max arrow range?
When I envision the number of mobs possible to be in range of an aoe autoattack, I can't fathom that attack being balanced for rangers if they had it.

In order to prevent rangers from pulling the entire room with every auto-attack, it would be fine to just limit us to the same distance that your average scout can attain.

As for Flurry, there's literally no reason why it can't function for ranged attacks. The mere fact that double-attack and procs all function correctly from ranged means that Flurry can be toggled on for Ranged attacks... they're just choosing not to. What ends up happening because of this is that:

We lose out on Battlecry and other buffs because we can't use certain components of it,

We lose all chances at gear with it as an effect lest we be seen as loot [Removed for Content] for wanting an item with an effect we can't use

We can't benefit from any of the new adornments with the ability, and we can't benefit from any of the items with the ability innately attached.

This is every bit as true for Ranged AE Attack, and with rangers already historically undesired in raids due to their complete and utter lack of utility, this really feels like being kicked while you're already down.

Azrael_888 · 02-05-2010, 07:52 PM

Sydares wrote:

With the introduction of AE attack and Flurry on to more and more pieces of gear and buffs in Sentinel's Fate, it's becoming the worst time ever to be a Ranger.
People, I'm sure, will be tempted to say that we can already do both of these things if we decide to pull out our sword and just get up in the monster's grill - the fact of the matter is, we have to be up in the mob's grill already in order to use all of our melee CAs or our parses fall to the utterly abysmal due to the high recast timers on our ranged combat arts. In addition, when using swords, two of our major damage contributors (Makeshift Arrows and our offensive stance buff) do not function. Using melee is out of the question.
So, that boils down to the fact that using it on our swords is out of the question, so let's move past that argument before it starts.

^^^This

If I wanted to bust out a sword and get all melee on a mob they already have a class for that ..o wait in fact they already have 3 classes for that...Assasin, Brigand, Swashbuckler...

hell are dirges/troubs gonna be getting flurry too? I swear to god if I get outparsed by a dirge I am done.

jjlo69 · 02-05-2010, 07:58 PM

Azrael_888 wrote:

Sydares wrote:
With the introduction of AE attack and Flurry on to more and more pieces of gear and buffs in Sentinel's Fate, it's becoming the worst time ever to be a Ranger.
People, I'm sure, will be tempted to say that we can already do both of these things if we decide to pull out our sword and just get up in the monster's grill - the fact of the matter is, we have to be up in the mob's grill already in order to use all of our melee CAs or our parses fall to the utterly abysmal due to the high recast timers on our ranged combat arts. In addition, when using swords, two of our major damage contributors (Makeshift Arrows and our offensive stance buff) do not function. Using melee is out of the question.
So, that boils down to the fact that using it on our swords is out of the question, so let's move past that argument before it starts.
^^^This
If I wanted to bust out a sword and get all melee on a mob they already have a class for that ..o wait in fact they already have 3 classes for that...Assasin, Brigand, Swashbuckler...
hell are dirges/troubs gonna be getting flurry too? I swear to god if I get outparsed by a dirge I am done.

dirges will be able to battle cry themselves next exp thus they can flurry now as well

Uncle

Sydares · 02-05-2010, 08:01 PM

Any class that uses melee autoattack (instead of ranged autoattack) is capable of flurrying.

kartikeya · 02-05-2010, 08:05 PM

I've been pretty noisy on the beta boards, but I'll repeat myself in short here:

It is desperately important, essential in fact, that these issues are looked at and addressed ASAP. If this goes live as it is currently, rangers will not even have a pity slot in raids. They won't be second choice, they will simply not be a choice at all. Any other class whatsoever will be able to fill that slot with more benefit toward the raid if rangers fall as far as they seem to have in the DPS ranks on beta, and that was before all this itemization stuff started being pushed to the servers. Please, please, please take a look at this.

Azrael_888 · 02-05-2010, 08:17 PM

YAY moved to ranger forum...now the dev's will be all over this as they ALWAYS COME HERE to post replies on what we think about our class!

THANKS KIARA!

/sarcasm off

edited so that enlish language readers can understand it better.

glowsintheda · 02-05-2010, 08:17 PM

This either needs to be fixed to work for rangers or all of the aoe aa and flurry effects on items and spells need to be removed (those few that are already in the game can be grandfathered in I guess)

FearDiadh · 02-05-2010, 08:45 PM

I didn't participate in beta but checked the changes out on test yesterday. For me, ranged auto attack was considerably lower than melee auto attack. As a ranger my melee auto did about 35% more damage than my bow. That was a mythical vs two lower end t8 fabled weapons. I posted it elsewhere but it has thus far been ignored. So, it appears to me that our ranged auto attack will do 30-50% less than melee auto attacks, our combat arts do considerably less than assassins, and we will lack flurries and aoe attacks that other scouts get. Even if we quit using ranged and begin using melee weapons, out offensive procs won't trigger on melee like those other classes.

I've been playing since launch and I think I have a fairly solid idea of the class. To me, it looks like we will be a total joke at 90.

Striikor · 02-05-2010, 08:55 PM

Wait till you see the proc gear that does us no good!

kcirrot · 02-05-2010, 10:27 PM

Discriminatory not Desciminatory

Sorry to be a spelling fascist, but it was bothering me.

glowsintheda · 02-05-2010, 10:32 PM

didn't think it looked right

kartikeya · 02-05-2010, 10:36 PM

Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:

I didn't participate in beta but checked the changes out on test yesterday. For me, ranged auto attack was considerably lower than melee auto attack. As a ranger my melee auto did about 35% more damage than my bow. That was a mythical vs two lower end t8 fabled weapons. I posted it elsewhere but it has thus far been ignored. So, it appears to me that our ranged auto attack will do 30-50% less than melee auto attacks, our combat arts do considerably less than assassins, and we will lack flurries and aoe attacks that other scouts get. Even if we quit using ranged and begin using melee weapons, out offensive procs won't trigger on melee like those other classes.
I've been playing since launch and I think I have a fairly solid idea of the class. To me, it looks like we will be a total joke at 90.

Many, many, many posts referencing and proving that ranged auto attack with our mythical now does equal or less DPS than melee auto attack with perfectly ordinary fabled/legendy weapons were done on beta. This was never addressed. SMILEY

FearDiadh · 02-05-2010, 10:45 PM

kartikeya wrote:

Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:
I didn't participate in beta but checked the changes out on test yesterday. For me, ranged auto attack was considerably lower than melee auto attack. As a ranger my melee auto did about 35% more damage than my bow. That was a mythical vs two lower end t8 fabled weapons. I posted it elsewhere but it has thus far been ignored. So, it appears to me that our ranged auto attack will do 30-50% less than melee auto attacks, our combat arts do considerably less than assassins, and we will lack flurries and aoe attacks that other scouts get. Even if we quit using ranged and begin using melee weapons, out offensive procs won't trigger on melee like those other classes.
I've been playing since launch and I think I have a fairly solid idea of the class. To me, it looks like we will be a total joke at 90.
Many, many, many posts referencing and proving that ranged auto attack with our mythical now does equal or less DPS than melee auto attack with perfectly ordinary fabled/legendy weapons were done on beta. This was never addressed.

That is messed up.

Sydares · 02-05-2010, 11:15 PM

Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:

That is messed up.

Yes. Yes, it is. We racked up more than 4 times as many posts than any other scout, and nearly 9 times as many as assassins, and really all we got out of it was a change to makeshift arrows. Certainly an appreciated one, but nowhere near the overhaul we were hoping for.

Toughone · 02-06-2010, 04:09 AM

Yah if things dont get fixed im probably gonna quit the game too, sick of nothing being done to fix us.

Noob1974 · 02-06-2010, 06:39 AM

The problem is right now, we dont know how many have these foci and how much % AA EE and flurry rogues and assasins getting which means sometime in the middle of teh expansion those classes getting 20,30,40% and than parses start to look different than now.

I cant see devs adjust that, look like a completetly broken expansion for rangers thanks to xelgad, timetraveller (items) and co.

kartikeya · 02-06-2010, 08:21 AM

Noob1974 wrote:

The problem is right now, we dont know how many have these foci and how much % AA EE and flurry rogues and assasins getting which means sometime in the middle of teh expansion those classes getting 20,30,40% and than parses start to look different than now.
I cant see devs adjust that, look like a completetly broken expansion for rangers thanks to xelgad, timetraveller (items) and co.

In Xelgad's defense, he really has been working the best he can, given he just had an extremely behind schedule expansion dropped into his lap during the ninth inning. I don't blame Xelgad for the current state of rangers on beta, I blame a certain departed predecessor of his, coupled with a general team-wide lack of understanding of the ranger class and current state. The groundwork for ranger issues on beta was laid quite some time ago, in some instances years back. Remember, we were due for an overhaul back during RoK, and instead we got the 'fix' that fixed mechanics and then nerfed us so that we couldn't benefit from the change. And Xelgad hasn't been in his current position long enough to have truly influenced the design of T9 class content.

The itemization really pisses me off, of course. But again, surrounding attacks has never worked for rangers, and that's from KoS, and flurry not working for rangers is over a year old. It's just now the development team has decided to slap flurry and AE auto attack on a considerable number of items.

Rangers need an overhaul along the lines that were given to coercers and SKs. Sadly, a complete class overhaul is somewhat out of the question when you're also trying to push out an expansion that is considerably behind schedule. And unfortunately that means T9 is looking to be extremely frustrating and painful for us.

Noob1974 · 02-06-2010, 09:43 AM

kartikeya wrote:

Noob1974 wrote:
The problem is right now, we dont know how many have these foci and how much % AA EE and flurry rogues and assasins getting which means sometime in the middle of teh expansion those classes getting 20,30,40% and than parses start to look different than now.
I cant see devs adjust that, look like a completetly broken expansion for rangers thanks to xelgad, timetraveller (items) and co.
In Xelgad's defense, he really has been working the best he can, given he just had an extremely behind schedule expansion dropped into his lap during the ninth inning. I don't blame Xelgad for the current state of rangers on beta, I blame a certain departed predecessor of his, coupled with a general team-wide lack of understanding of the ranger class and current state. The groundwork for ranger issues on beta was laid quite some time ago, in some instances years back. Remember, we were due for an overhaul back during RoK, and instead we got the 'fix' that fixed mechanics and then nerfed us so that we couldn't benefit from the change. And Xelgad hasn't been in his current position long enough to have truly influenced the design of T9 class content.
The itemization really pisses me off, of course. But again, surrounding attacks has never worked for rangers, and that's from KoS, and flurry not working for rangers is over a year old. It's just now the development team has decided to slap flurry and AE auto attack on a considerable number of items.
Rangers need an overhaul along the lines that were given to coercers and SKs. Sadly, a complete class overhaul is somewhat out of the question when you're also trying to push out an expansion that is considerably behind schedule. And unfortunately that means T9 is looking to be extremely frustrating and painful for us.

Thats whyi advocate, knowing its not the best option marketing wise, take off such items and adorments untill they come up with something for ranger .

Striikor · 02-06-2010, 10:16 AM

kartikeya wrote:

In Xelgad's defense, he really has been working the best he can, given he just had an extremely behind schedule expansion dropped into his lap during the ninth inning. I don't blame Xelgad for the current state of rangers on beta, I blame a certain departed predecessor of his, coupled with a general team-wide lack of understanding of the ranger class and current state. The groundwork for ranger issues on beta was laid quite some time ago, in some instances years back. Remember, we were due for an overhaul back during RoK, and instead we got the 'fix' that fixed mechanics and then nerfed us so that we couldn't benefit from the change. And Xelgad hasn't been in his current position long enough to have truly influenced the design of T9 class content.

Sorry I don't buy this. First some of the corrections are easy. Second we have been complaining for 2 years .... more. Alll this was pointed out. As soon as I saw the predator tree I knew that all that effort fell on deaf ears. And opening volley? Holy crap. They rarely listen and when they do they fail to understand. Take our wonderful Makeshift Arrows, quickly done and totally ignored our input. Or look at the fix for attack hawk, take our lame group buff and change it to a positional drop for us! That will get us into groups! Gave workable AoE's they turned around and gave it to every other melee through itemization.

Fail

Rothgar · 02-06-2010, 10:37 AM

I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do.

Noob1974 · 02-06-2010, 10:43 AM

Rothgar wrote:

I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do.

Rothgar with all the respect...... as much as im happy about this statement im concerned.... main reason is you asking us for time ,meaning buying and xpansion and monthly subs in hope something will be done.

Let me make something clear we had to wait between T7 to T8 5months into expansion till the " arrow" issue was fixed.

Now you come again ask for time ? How often do we as a ranger community have to wait till things are being done on time time.?

For me this is not acceptable......

Rothgar · 02-06-2010, 10:46 AM

Noob1974 wrote:

Rothgar wrote:
I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do.
Rothgar with all the respect...... as much as im happy about this statement im concerned.... main reason is you asking us for time ,meaning buying and xpansion and monthly subs in hope something will be done.
Let me make something clear we had to wait between T7 to T8 5months into expansion till the " arrow" issue was fixed.
Now you come again ask for time ? How often do we as a ranger community have to wait till things are being done on time time.?
For me this is not acceptable......

I'm not asking you for anything. Xelgad and I discussed this today so I'm merely trying to communicate with you guys about it. Take it for what it's worth and in the end you decide where you want to put your dollars.

Striikor · 02-06-2010, 10:54 AM

Thank you, sincerely it is so good to hear a direct statement from you.

But that just keeps us from falling further behind.

It does not fix grouping logic or put us back in the T1 bracket. We have held on by our fingernails for a long time now. There is a better class for everything we can provide in group or raid. We have lost our role and function with what little utility we did have given better elswhere and what DPS we brought overshadowed. Likely the gap is to large to bridge and the perfect opportunity lost.

If you put a group together to take on a tough mob at range you take a mage for DPS. If it is melee you take an assasin or a Swashy or even a tank. You don't take a Ranger. DPS was already a problem and inspite of the complaints the gap was made even wider. Find a single post in beta where a group was looking for a ranger. Find one guild looking for a Ranger. Accuracy is is going to help classes we already fall behind on and many times redundant in the groups we will get. We need too much (re;buff [Removed for Content]) to justify our inclusion for DPS anymore, and even then we will not be the top parsers.

Ranger is a fail class.

Noob1974 · 02-06-2010, 11:02 AM

Rothgar wrote:

Noob1974 wrote:
Rothgar wrote:
I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do.
Rothgar with all the respect...... as much as im happy about this statement im concerned.... main reason is you asking us for time ,meaning buying and xpansion and monthly subs in hope something will be done.
Let me make something clear we had to wait between T7 to T8 5months into expansion till the " arrow" issue was fixed.
Now you come again ask for time ? How often do we as a ranger community have to wait till things are being done on time time.?
For me this is not acceptable......
I'm not asking you for anything. Xelgad and I discussed this today so I'm merely trying to communicate with you guys about it. Take it for what it's worth and in the end you decide where you want to put your dollars.

It may sounds strange to you but your response to my response showed that there maybe some hope at the horizon and you try your best.

The only thing i want to do you have is sort of schedule that you guys have in mind, not to pressurize you.

But some ranger are looking for raidforces and it would be good to know for them.

02-05-2010, 06:45 PM	#2
Yimway Loremaster Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 9,707	What exact distance are you suggesting you can range aoe autoattack? 180 degree conal arc out to max arrow range? When I envision the number of mobs possible to be in range of an aoe autoattack, I can't fathom that attack being balanced for rangers if they had it. __________________

02-05-2010, 06:50 PM	#3
Geothe Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,098	Isee no reason why flurry shouldn't apply to rangers.AE autoattack doesn't quite make sense though honestly. __________________ Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement. Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II. Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

02-05-2010, 07:48 PM	#7
Sydares Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 700	Atan@Unrest wrote: What exact distance are you suggesting you can range aoe autoattack? 180 degree conal arc out to max arrow range? When I envision the number of mobs possible to be in range of an aoe autoattack, I can't fathom that attack being balanced for rangers if they had it. In order to prevent rangers from pulling the entire room with every auto-attack, it would be fine to just limit us to the same distance that your average scout can attain. As for Flurry, there's literally no reason why it can't function for ranged attacks. The mere fact that double-attack and procs all function correctly from ranged means that Flurry can be toggled on for Ranged attacks... they're just choosing not to. What ends up happening because of this is that: We lose out on Battlecry and other buffs because we can't use certain components of it, We lose all chances at gear with it as an effect lest we be seen as loot [Removed for Content] for wanting an item with an effect we can't use We can't benefit from any of the new adornments with the ability, and we can't benefit from any of the items with the ability innately attached. This is every bit as true for Ranged AE Attack, and with rangers already historically undesired in raids due to their complete and utter lack of utility, this really feels like being kicked while you're already down.

02-05-2010, 07:52 PM	#8
Azrael_888 Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 77	Sydares wrote: With the introduction of AE attack and Flurry on to more and more pieces of gear and buffs in Sentinel's Fate, it's becoming the worst time ever to be a Ranger. People, I'm sure, will be tempted to say that we can already do both of these things if we decide to pull out our sword and just get up in the monster's grill - the fact of the matter is, we have to be up in the mob's grill already in order to use all of our melee CAs or our parses fall to the utterly abysmal due to the high recast timers on our ranged combat arts. In addition, when using swords, two of our major damage contributors (Makeshift Arrows and our offensive stance buff) do not function. Using melee is out of the question. So, that boils down to the fact that using it on our swords is out of the question, so let's move past that argument before it starts. ^^^This If I wanted to bust out a sword and get all melee on a mob they already have a class for that ..o wait in fact they already have 3 classes for that...Assasin, Brigand, Swashbuckler... hell are dirges/troubs gonna be getting flurry too? I swear to god if I get outparsed by a dirge I am done.

02-05-2010, 07:58 PM	#9
jjlo69 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 364	Azrael_888 wrote: Sydares wrote: With the introduction of AE attack and Flurry on to more and more pieces of gear and buffs in Sentinel's Fate, it's becoming the worst time ever to be a Ranger. People, I'm sure, will be tempted to say that we can already do both of these things if we decide to pull out our sword and just get up in the monster's grill - the fact of the matter is, we have to be up in the mob's grill already in order to use all of our melee CAs or our parses fall to the utterly abysmal due to the high recast timers on our ranged combat arts. In addition, when using swords, two of our major damage contributors (Makeshift Arrows and our offensive stance buff) do not function. Using melee is out of the question. So, that boils down to the fact that using it on our swords is out of the question, so let's move past that argument before it starts. ^^^This If I wanted to bust out a sword and get all melee on a mob they already have a class for that ..o wait in fact they already have 3 classes for that...Assasin, Brigand, Swashbuckler... hell are dirges/troubs gonna be getting flurry too? I swear to god if I get outparsed by a dirge I am done. dirges will be able to battle cry themselves next exp thus they can flurry now as well Uncle

02-05-2010, 06:15 PM	#1
glowsintheda General Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 448	Flurry and AOE auto attack are both currently descriminatory against rangers as neither of these abilities works with ranged autoattack. With the increase in the availability of both of these effects in SF Rangers will continue to fall further and further behind the other scout classes in DPS. Make Ranged Flurry and Ranged AOE auto attack a reality before the ranger class is further harmed.

02-05-2010, 07:15 PM	#4
glowsintheda General Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 448	honestly I would be fine if ranged AE auto was just 5m radius around the mob you currently have targeted, as long as it is something, or failing a true aoe auto attack, maybe a proc that does some decent amount of damage on mobs around your target, could limit number of targets and damage that way, but at least it would be something. Rangers don't offer anything besided DPS and to with hold these abilities from rangers is detremintal to the class.

02-05-2010, 07:31 PM	#5
jjlo69 Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 364	not only will it put us behind but when rangers in beta pushed the subject we got brushed off as it was a coding issue yet gear has modifiers for this machanic UNcle

02-05-2010, 07:43 PM	#6
Sydares Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 700	With the introduction of AE attack and Flurry on to more and more pieces of gear and buffs in Sentinel's Fate, it's becoming the worst time ever to be a Ranger. People, I'm sure, will be tempted to say that we can already do both of these things if we decide to pull out our sword and just get up in the monster's grill - the fact of the matter is, we have to be up in the mob's grill already in order to use all of our melee CAs or our parses fall to the utterly abysmal due to the high recast timers on our ranged combat arts. In addition, when using swords, two of our major damage contributors (Makeshift Arrows and our offensive stance buff) do not function. Using melee is out of the question. So, that boils down to the fact that using it on our swords is out of the question, so let's move past that argument before it starts.

02-05-2010, 08:01 PM	#10
Sydares Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 700	Any class that uses melee autoattack (instead of ranged autoattack) is capable of flurrying.

02-05-2010, 08:05 PM	#11
kartikeya Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 387	I've been pretty noisy on the beta boards, but I'll repeat myself in short here: It is desperately important, essential in fact, that these issues are looked at and addressed ASAP. If this goes live as it is currently, rangers will not even have a pity slot in raids. They won't be second choice, they will simply not be a choice at all. Any other class whatsoever will be able to fill that slot with more benefit toward the raid if rangers fall as far as they seem to have in the DPS ranks on beta, and that was before all this itemization stuff started being pushed to the servers. Please, please, please take a look at this. __________________

02-05-2010, 08:17 PM	#12
Azrael_888 Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 77	YAY moved to ranger forum...now the dev's will be all over this as they ALWAYS COME HERE to post replies on what we think about our class! THANKS KIARA! /sarcasm off edited so that enlish language readers can understand it better.

02-05-2010, 08:45 PM	#14
FearDiadh Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 231	I didn't participate in beta but checked the changes out on test yesterday. For me, ranged auto attack was considerably lower than melee auto attack. As a ranger my melee auto did about 35% more damage than my bow. That was a mythical vs two lower end t8 fabled weapons. I posted it elsewhere but it has thus far been ignored. So, it appears to me that our ranged auto attack will do 30-50% less than melee auto attacks, our combat arts do considerably less than assassins, and we will lack flurries and aoe attacks that other scouts get. Even if we quit using ranged and begin using melee weapons, out offensive procs won't trigger on melee like those other classes. I've been playing since launch and I think I have a fairly solid idea of the class. To me, it looks like we will be a total joke at 90. __________________

02-05-2010, 08:55 PM	#15
Striikor Server: Nektulos Guild: Purgatory Rank: Raid Team Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 480	Wait till you see the proc gear that does us no good! __________________ “The thirst for equality can express itself either as a desire to draw everyone down to one's level, or to raise oneself and everyone else up.” Friedrich Nietzsche “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it.” George Bernard Shaw

02-05-2010, 10:27 PM	#16
kcirrot Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 898	Discriminatory not Desciminatory Sorry to be a spelling fascist, but it was bothering me.

02-05-2010, 10:32 PM	#17
glowsintheda General Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 448	didn't think it looked right

02-05-2010, 10:36 PM	#18
kartikeya Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 387	Jack@Lucan DLere wrote: I didn't participate in beta but checked the changes out on test yesterday. For me, ranged auto attack was considerably lower than melee auto attack. As a ranger my melee auto did about 35% more damage than my bow. That was a mythical vs two lower end t8 fabled weapons. I posted it elsewhere but it has thus far been ignored. So, it appears to me that our ranged auto attack will do 30-50% less than melee auto attacks, our combat arts do considerably less than assassins, and we will lack flurries and aoe attacks that other scouts get. Even if we quit using ranged and begin using melee weapons, out offensive procs won't trigger on melee like those other classes. I've been playing since launch and I think I have a fairly solid idea of the class. To me, it looks like we will be a total joke at 90. Many, many, many posts referencing and proving that ranged auto attack with our mythical now does equal or less DPS than melee auto attack with perfectly ordinary fabled/legendy weapons were done on beta. This was never addressed. __________________

02-05-2010, 10:45 PM	#19
FearDiadh Loremaster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 231	kartikeya wrote: Jack@Lucan DLere wrote: I didn't participate in beta but checked the changes out on test yesterday. For me, ranged auto attack was considerably lower than melee auto attack. As a ranger my melee auto did about 35% more damage than my bow. That was a mythical vs two lower end t8 fabled weapons. I posted it elsewhere but it has thus far been ignored. So, it appears to me that our ranged auto attack will do 30-50% less than melee auto attacks, our combat arts do considerably less than assassins, and we will lack flurries and aoe attacks that other scouts get. Even if we quit using ranged and begin using melee weapons, out offensive procs won't trigger on melee like those other classes. I've been playing since launch and I think I have a fairly solid idea of the class. To me, it looks like we will be a total joke at 90. Many, many, many posts referencing and proving that ranged auto attack with our mythical now does equal or less DPS than melee auto attack with perfectly ordinary fabled/legendy weapons were done on beta. This was never addressed. That is messed up. __________________

02-05-2010, 11:15 PM	#20
Sydares Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 700	Jack@Lucan DLere wrote: That is messed up. Yes. Yes, it is. We racked up more than 4 times as many posts than any other scout, and nearly 9 times as many as assassins, and really all we got out of it was a change to makeshift arrows. Certainly an appreciated one, but nowhere near the overhaul we were hoping for.

02-06-2010, 04:09 AM	#21
Toughone Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 60	Yah if things dont get fixed im probably gonna quit the game too, sick of nothing being done to fix us. __________________

02-06-2010, 06:39 AM	#22
Noob1974 Loremaster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 240	The problem is right now, we dont know how many have these foci and how much % AA EE and flurry rogues and assasins getting which means sometime in the middle of teh expansion those classes getting 20,30,40% and than parses start to look different than now. I cant see devs adjust that, look like a completetly broken expansion for rangers thanks to xelgad, timetraveller (items) and co.

02-06-2010, 08:21 AM	#23
kartikeya Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 387	Noob1974 wrote: The problem is right now, we dont know how many have these foci and how much % AA EE and flurry rogues and assasins getting which means sometime in the middle of teh expansion those classes getting 20,30,40% and than parses start to look different than now. I cant see devs adjust that, look like a completetly broken expansion for rangers thanks to xelgad, timetraveller (items) and co. In Xelgad's defense, he really has been working the best he can, given he just had an extremely behind schedule expansion dropped into his lap during the ninth inning. I don't blame Xelgad for the current state of rangers on beta, I blame a certain departed predecessor of his, coupled with a general team-wide lack of understanding of the ranger class and current state. The groundwork for ranger issues on beta was laid quite some time ago, in some instances years back. Remember, we were due for an overhaul back during RoK, and instead we got the 'fix' that fixed mechanics and then nerfed us so that we couldn't benefit from the change. And Xelgad hasn't been in his current position long enough to have truly influenced the design of T9 class content. The itemization really pisses me off, of course. But again, surrounding attacks has never worked for rangers, and that's from KoS, and flurry not working for rangers is over a year old. It's just now the development team has decided to slap flurry and AE auto attack on a considerable number of items. Rangers need an overhaul along the lines that were given to coercers and SKs. Sadly, a complete class overhaul is somewhat out of the question when you're also trying to push out an expansion that is considerably behind schedule. And unfortunately that means T9 is looking to be extremely frustrating and painful for us. __________________

02-06-2010, 09:43 AM	#24
Noob1974 Loremaster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 240	kartikeya wrote: Noob1974 wrote: The problem is right now, we dont know how many have these foci and how much % AA EE and flurry rogues and assasins getting which means sometime in the middle of teh expansion those classes getting 20,30,40% and than parses start to look different than now. I cant see devs adjust that, look like a completetly broken expansion for rangers thanks to xelgad, timetraveller (items) and co. In Xelgad's defense, he really has been working the best he can, given he just had an extremely behind schedule expansion dropped into his lap during the ninth inning. I don't blame Xelgad for the current state of rangers on beta, I blame a certain departed predecessor of his, coupled with a general team-wide lack of understanding of the ranger class and current state. The groundwork for ranger issues on beta was laid quite some time ago, in some instances years back. Remember, we were due for an overhaul back during RoK, and instead we got the 'fix' that fixed mechanics and then nerfed us so that we couldn't benefit from the change. And Xelgad hasn't been in his current position long enough to have truly influenced the design of T9 class content. The itemization really pisses me off, of course. But again, surrounding attacks has never worked for rangers, and that's from KoS, and flurry not working for rangers is over a year old. It's just now the development team has decided to slap flurry and AE auto attack on a considerable number of items. Rangers need an overhaul along the lines that were given to coercers and SKs. Sadly, a complete class overhaul is somewhat out of the question when you're also trying to push out an expansion that is considerably behind schedule. And unfortunately that means T9 is looking to be extremely frustrating and painful for us. Thats whyi advocate, knowing its not the best option marketing wise, take off such items and adorments untill they come up with something for ranger .

02-06-2010, 10:16 AM	#25
Striikor Server: Nektulos Guild: Purgatory Rank: Raid Team Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 480	kartikeya wrote: In Xelgad's defense, he really has been working the best he can, given he just had an extremely behind schedule expansion dropped into his lap during the ninth inning. I don't blame Xelgad for the current state of rangers on beta, I blame a certain departed predecessor of his, coupled with a general team-wide lack of understanding of the ranger class and current state. The groundwork for ranger issues on beta was laid quite some time ago, in some instances years back. Remember, we were due for an overhaul back during RoK, and instead we got the 'fix' that fixed mechanics and then nerfed us so that we couldn't benefit from the change. And Xelgad hasn't been in his current position long enough to have truly influenced the design of T9 class content. Sorry I don't buy this. First some of the corrections are easy. Second we have been complaining for 2 years .... more. Alll this was pointed out. As soon as I saw the predator tree I knew that all that effort fell on deaf ears. And opening volley? Holy crap. They rarely listen and when they do they fail to understand. Take our wonderful Makeshift Arrows, quickly done and totally ignored our input. Or look at the fix for attack hawk, take our lame group buff and change it to a positional drop for us! That will get us into groups! Gave workable AoE's they turned around and gave it to every other melee through itemization. Fail __________________ “The thirst for equality can express itself either as a desire to draw everyone down to one's level, or to raise oneself and everyone else up.” Friedrich Nietzsche “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it.” George Bernard Shaw

02-06-2010, 10:37 AM	#26
Rothgar Developer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,273	I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do.

02-06-2010, 10:43 AM	#27
Noob1974 Loremaster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 240	Rothgar wrote: I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do. Rothgar with all the respect...... as much as im happy about this statement im concerned.... main reason is you asking us for time ,meaning buying and xpansion and monthly subs in hope something will be done. Let me make something clear we had to wait between T7 to T8 5months into expansion till the " arrow" issue was fixed. Now you come again ask for time ? How often do we as a ranger community have to wait till things are being done on time time.? For me this is not acceptable......

02-06-2010, 10:46 AM	#28
Rothgar Developer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,273	Noob1974 wrote: Rothgar wrote: I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do. Rothgar with all the respect...... as much as im happy about this statement im concerned.... main reason is you asking us for time ,meaning buying and xpansion and monthly subs in hope something will be done. Let me make something clear we had to wait between T7 to T8 5months into expansion till the " arrow" issue was fixed. Now you come again ask for time ? How often do we as a ranger community have to wait till things are being done on time time.? For me this is not acceptable...... I'm not asking you for anything. Xelgad and I discussed this today so I'm merely trying to communicate with you guys about it. Take it for what it's worth and in the end you decide where you want to put your dollars.

02-06-2010, 10:54 AM	#29
Striikor Server: Nektulos Guild: Purgatory Rank: Raid Team Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 480	Thank you, sincerely it is so good to hear a direct statement from you. But that just keeps us from falling further behind. It does not fix grouping logic or put us back in the T1 bracket. We have held on by our fingernails for a long time now. There is a better class for everything we can provide in group or raid. We have lost our role and function with what little utility we did have given better elswhere and what DPS we brought overshadowed. Likely the gap is to large to bridge and the perfect opportunity lost. If you put a group together to take on a tough mob at range you take a mage for DPS. If it is melee you take an assasin or a Swashy or even a tank. You don't take a Ranger. DPS was already a problem and inspite of the complaints the gap was made even wider. Find a single post in beta where a group was looking for a ranger. Find one guild looking for a Ranger. Accuracy is is going to help classes we already fall behind on and many times redundant in the groups we will get. We need too much (re;buff [Removed for Content]) to justify our inclusion for DPS anymore, and even then we will not be the top parsers. Ranger is a fail class. __________________ “The thirst for equality can express itself either as a desire to draw everyone down to one's level, or to raise oneself and everyone else up.” Friedrich Nietzsche “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it.” George Bernard Shaw

02-06-2010, 11:02 AM	#30
Noob1974 Loremaster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 240	Rothgar wrote: Noob1974 wrote: Rothgar wrote: I talked with Xelgad about these mechanics for Rangers and he agreed that something would need to be done. He already had some ideas for them as well. The biggest challenge we're facing is not enough time to do everything we'd like to do before the expansion. For changes such as these, to allow flurry and/or ae auto-attack to work with ranged attacks, it's going to require some code changes and testing. So we won't be able to make it before the expansion, but its definitely something we want to do. Rothgar with all the respect...... as much as im happy about this statement im concerned.... main reason is you asking us for time ,meaning buying and xpansion and monthly subs in hope something will be done. Let me make something clear we had to wait between T7 to T8 5months into expansion till the " arrow" issue was fixed. Now you come again ask for time ? How often do we as a ranger community have to wait till things are being done on time time.? For me this is not acceptable...... I'm not asking you for anything. Xelgad and I discussed this today so I'm merely trying to communicate with you guys about it. Take it for what it's worth and in the end you decide where you want to put your dollars. It may sounds strange to you but your response to my response showed that there maybe some hope at the horizon and you try your best. The only thing i want to do you have is sort of schedule that you guys have in mind, not to pressurize you. But some ranger are looking for raidforces and it would be good to know for them.