Archery Skill? Specials? Melee? Wth?

Discussion in 'Ranger' started by ARCHIVED-blitz, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    Oh my gosh, I love this game. You guys. YOU GUYS! hah. I swear I'm not drunk (but I maintain that my girlfriend is a stripper and I get paid to hax0r).

    Ok, here's the thing; With arts, which apparently do damage independant of weapon damage rating AND weapon skill...And with a proliferation of arts that make it almost possible to chain them continually...What is the Archery skill FOR? Archery doesn't hit that hard, it's like a weenie skill now, isn't it? (if my statements here are off base, well, I'm not surprised, this entire paragraph is gleaned from other forum posts. I'm only repeating the stupid I hear. ;))

    I mean, what can a bow hit for? 10? 20? 30 maybe? There's no reason to use Ranged Attack ever, is there?
  2. ARCHIVED-damrath Guest

    IN beta i was hitting for around 140 ish at level 21 with backshot although that depends if they put the bow damage back to what it was.
  3. ARCHIVED-Archanis Guest

    Used ranged attack for pulling if you want -- other than that, only use your ranged combat arts -- otherwise you're wasting arrows and potential DPS.
  4. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    Awesome. Thanks Arcanis. so not combat arts is really just wasted melee time between the combat arts. nice
  5. ARCHIVED-Squidwalker Guest

    I recently got a bow, and I'm only 12 predetor. I would say don't really bother with ranged combat other then pulling until you actually hit ranger and start getting some ranged special combat arts. The damage is considerable more per "autoattack hit" then melee. My low level quest bow is rated at 15-50 (compared to longsword of 3-9) but with a 7 second delay. Longsword has 1.5 second dealy. So yea, it will hit harder, I have hit from 45 points on autofire with my bow, average is about 15. But arrows are expensive as heck, and with out the special yet, ranged is a waiste. I did it to try it out, and to help get my archery skill up. But I hear your skill goes up enough by itself from leveling, it's not that big a deal.
  6. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    Why are you using a longsword instead of dual wielding? If it's for the defense bonus of a shield, you should try dual wielding. Remember, our class is pure damage. Imagine the ranger, spinning through ranks of enemies, lashing out with a whip and a thin bladed knife, an unstoppable force. Ignorant of the possibility of being harmed, moving like the wind of death.

    Now apply that same image, with a shield and a longsword. Hmmmm...Well, if you like it that's cool, but it just doesn't work for me. ;)

    it's not cohesive with my cenception of the class, if you will.

    -blitz
  7. ARCHIVED-Branix Guest

    Hmmmm. I'm going to be a Ranger but I'm not going to be a stealthy Elf hiding behind a willow tree who can shoot four arrows into each eye of his target and drop the target 20 yards from my feet.

    I'm going to be the Barbarian Ranger who climbs cliff walls, drops out of trees and sinks a foot into the ground from the impact. I'm going to be the Ranger who culls the beasts of the forest, who eats raw meat as a journey snack, and a Ranger who is a super survivalist.

    After putting a few arrows into my target I'm going to put away my little twig shooter and draw my steel talons. I'm going to smile at my opponent and crouch so that my head is only two feet above theirs.

    When they reach me they are going to step into the fierce and bloody claws of a grisly Grizzley bear. One who not only gets pissed off that someone dares to stand up to him but one that has a really really bad attitude and enjoys taking it out of opponents flesh... chunk by bloody chunk.

    Typical Ranger? I think so.
  8. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    Hah! That's awesome! Great mental imagery! :D
  9. ARCHIVED-asphyxia. Guest

    saw a lvl 17 pred hitting for 100's with his bow, also... once you get to ranger, all your specials are ranged.. so obviously you will be mostly ranged support.. doing high end damage
  10. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    Yeah, with Backshot I've hit for everything from 56 - 104, but it's usally between 80 - 104. And that's App I
  11. ARCHIVED-PrometheusO Guest

    I'm a level 14 predator and quite a few times have hit for 65, 70, 49, 54. I usually average in the lower 20's. I use my bow alot to increase my skill which in turn has allowed me to hit for higher damage more consistently because I tend to hit my attack more often. I'm at 51/70 at the moment in my range skill. But it can be costly when you continue to buy Iron type arrows at about 5c a piece. But I enjoy it. I just constantly back-peddle to keep the range I need until the mob is dead.
  12. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    make sure to use Ensnare too. It makes things a little easier. :)

    and you can use it while running
    Message Edited by blitz on 11-19-2004 08:12 AM
  13. ARCHIVED-NightFalcon Guest

    seems like they changes alot from beta and real game
  14. ARCHIVED-Omegawolf Guest

    Where oh where did the image of a dual-wielding ranger come from? If you remember correctly Aragorn was the 'original' Ranger. He didn't dual-wield anything, he used a hand and a half **ZOMG** sword, or whatever else came ot hand. And this isn't based on the movies either, look at any of the original artwork. He was also an amazing shot with a bow, elven trained and all. A ranger is supposed to be (in it's original intent), the crafty forest stalker who could shoot a bow like nobody's business and then fade away into the forest without a trace. He was a survivalist, the only one who could live in uncivilized areas for a long period of time.
    Now I love Drizzt as much as the next person, but I believe that he is where this misconception of the ranger being the dual-wielding 'wind of death' that you originally wrote about. If this is case then you have to remember one thing, Drizzt is primarily a fighter class (remember D&D here where multi-classing is available), and he hails from an area and culture where dual-wielding is normal, where even the preistesses dual-wielded maces.
    Now I know he has created one image of the ranger class, which is the image you invoked in your post. But what about the others? What about the one I mentioned? What about the Barbarian the othe rposter mentioned? Or the grizzeled mountain warrior with a 2 handed greataxe slung across his back and a crossbow at his side, and a large grizzly bear following him into battle? Just some food for though.
  15. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    The image I think has to take into account the race. If you're an elf, there is a certain expectation of fluidity. The elves of tolkien and others are often a very musical people, that sort of cultural grace is best reflected in a non-abrasive combat style. What did bruce lee say? "You put water in a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water in your hand, it becomes the hand, you put water on the ground, it becomes the ground. Be water." The idea of a combat style evolved around a dancing race does not leave room for standing ground with a shield or wielding a **ZOMG** sword, it simply doesn't. My idea of a ranger is definitely not evolved from "drizzt" school, as he was never a ranger, he was most certainly a fighter. My idea of a ranger is evolved from the works of Tolkien, from the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, but not necessarily from the human perspective that JRR most often took. Also, my idea of a ranger takes some of its underpinnings from EQ1, where the ranger was a combination of a warrior and a druid. The idea of cohesion between violent combat and the subtle beauty of nature is what evolved my conception, this is not to at the exclusion of other "types" of rangers, simply my own style. Though he was not a ranger, but a prince, I was also influenced by Legolas (from the books, not the movies). Reading about his wonderment, his mixture of child like delight and great and ancient wisdom, his compassion and fierceness, shaped my view of the elven persona. Striders singlemindedness and loyalty, his ability to survive and willingness to die for his friends, shaped my view of loyalty. They were forged on a crucible of imagination and what came out is perhaps not a unique view of Ranger-dom, but definitely a very flavorful and well defined one, rich with depth and emotion.

    I play a ranger because the arrow is true, because the grass will always part for me, because the wind in the willow sings the song of my battles. When it comes down to it, theres nothing else I could ever be.

    I say all that to say these things; I was certainly not influenced in my view by the character of drizzt, thought I did read 2 of the books which address him.
    The view of the "dual wielding ranger" is something that came from within, and developed over time, from many sources, with a great deal of tenderness and care.

    And finally; I am all for any other view of the ranger character. In fact, nothing is more interesting to me on these forums than seeing why people play what they play, reading the story of their characters, coming to understand their inner strengths and the magnitude of the development their rangers have undergone, internally. When I say that I don't see how it works, or how you could conceptualize that roleplaying person, it's not a putdown, it's a request for more. I believe I responded very positively to the reply I received, I hope it didn't come across as a negative. Sometimes I'm not very good with words.
  16. ARCHIVED-Branix Guest

    That's the great thing about Rangers. There are many stereotypes and we can be any of them that we want. I personally think of my guy as a combination of Conan + Erol Flynn+ Sinbad + a splash of John Wayne and a jigger of Clint Eastwood.

    Oh, almost forgot to add a dash of The Hulk. (Hulk Smash!!) haha. Gotta love him for his single minded (discounting Banner) pursuit of happiness.
  17. ARCHIVED-Omegawolf Guest

    Blitz, I apologize if I thought you were being narrow-minded about the class and it's concept and imagry. I am more than happy that you cleared up my misconception of your views :smileyhappy:. My image of the ranger does cover your view as well as many others.

    My Kerran Ranger-to-be is one of the ranger types that will definetly follow your vision more than any other vision. He will be stealthy and strike from the tall grass at his enemies then close in and dispatch his enemies with a fluid grace. He will stand by the honor and truth of Qeynos 150%, and defend the memories of the great rangers of the past by preserving their ways and following their traditions. He sees that nature must be protected from the encroaching evils that would leave such natural beauty a blasted and scorched wasteland. But that just fits a Kerran Ranger best in my view.

    The other views are all viable as you said yourself. A human ranger could be that gruff mountain man I described. An Erudite ranger could be a ranger that outthinks his opponents and learns as much about his enemy as possible, to make it easier to dispatch them, and then dispatches them from a distance rather than in up close personal combat. A barbarian ranger could be very much like the one described above. An Iksar could use a spear and net to fight his enemies and would rely on brute strength and natural cunning to see him through. Well you get the idea :smileywink:.

    I guess my main complaint is that most RPG games (not just MMOs) have this view that rangers MUST use two swords and a longbow, and thus disallow for any other type of ranger. I see that the dual-wielding, bow using ranger is the most common nowadays, and I have at least oen character I have played that way, ok two, my wood elf ranger in EQ 1, and my first D&D character. But now it seems that the view of the ranger does not allow for any modifications through the game itself. Why can't my human ranger use a two-handed axe and have a grizzly bear pet? So if I wanted that vision of the gruff mountain man ranger in this game it's not possible?

    The devs of EQII said that character personalization was very important to them, but I have yet to see it in this game, or any other for that matter. So I guess my main complaint isn't against your view Blitz but against those game companies that shove a specific image of a class down our throats. Having a company say that they are making game based on imagination and then taking that imagination away bothers me somewhat. But I'll play it as it is and enjoy what I can from it, because in all honesty all games do this including the grand-daddy of them all D&D, although at least there you can change things to suit your view if need be. I understand that a programmer can only do so much, but they could at least allow us different weapons to use so that we can use different concepts and views of a very diverse class. Just my two copper on a subject that ha sbeen a sore spot with me for many years.

    Anyway in parting again I apologize Blitz, good hunting to you and if you have a character on Antonia Bayle or Lucan D'Lere feel free to look me up. Valisia or Ssirinis on Antonia, and Akelis or Elenial on Lucan. If not then I wish happy hunting to you, and may Tunare's breeze bless your aim.
  18. ARCHIVED-Omegawolf Guest

    Double-post sorry
    Message Edited by Omegawolf on 11-19-2004 03:21 PM
  19. ARCHIVED-blitz Guest

    I agree with 100% of your post. I'd LOVE to see more diverse character personalization, I never even thought of it to that extent, you really have me excited now. And the stuff isn't even possible. Hah! Man. Maybe, some day. ;)

    I'm gonna reread your post when I'm not at work and reply a little more in depth :D