[p]Right now rangers are enjoying a nice benifit that other scouts can't (or rarely) use. Our bows have procs from ranged autoattack, don't forget that. If you have a bow that procs, AND you have a weapon AND a shield that proc...that's three items with proc potential. The melee classes only have a weapon and a shield.[/p][p]For the sake of fairness and consitency, they should not allow melee weapons to proc off ranged autoattack, but should allow shields to continue to proc from ranged autoattack. That way all scouts will be equal (one weapon and one shield proc.)[/p][p]OR...[/p][p]Allow ranged weapons to proc off melee attacks. That way all of us are allowed 3 proc items (one ranged weapon, one melee weapon and one shield.) But this would be silly. Imagine how popular the Rain Caller would be if that were the case [/p][p] [/p]
Of course adornments for the primary and secondary slots don't benefit Rangers, where an adornments for bows or thrown weapons (+10 dps) do affect melee classes...
[p]While I dont agree with this, this has nothing to do with melee weapons proc'n off ranged. This is an adornment issue more then anything else and shouldnt be used as part are of some sort of "justification" to keep melee weapons the way they are.[/p][p] [/p]
Agreed. It is an adornment issue. If they fixed this issue at the same time the fixed Kilij, it would at least say they were looking at the whole thing. (And I'm assuming that when you said "While I dont' agree with this" meant that you didn't agree with the current adornment selection. )
[p]That would be correct. I dont agree with the fact that adding +10 dps to a ranged weapon, that will hardly be used by most classes, gives them a perma +10 dps while still being able to get procs off their main form fo combat while we lose out on the proc due to the way we fight.[/p][p]They could give the +10 dps adornment to melee weapons (problem I see with this is stacking well above the intended designs) while offering us more choices for adornment procs on our bows.[/p][p]They could move the +10 dps adornments (both of them) to rings or wrists (so that everyone get the same benifits we have now). I personally like the idea for rings more then wrists. I'd still like to see more adornments for our bows though.[/p]
ok so your losing the kilji, 628 and ice forge sai. BIG WOOP. go into your next raid zone and use 2 DW weapons with no range proc, its not a big deal. i did this and still toped the parse as SOE cant nurf Ranjas PERIOD . buckler of the howler and warning? bleh im over 120 dps mod in raid settup anyways who cares :/. but again its not that big of a deal guys and yes i agree it was prolly never intended just let go for so long and now its being fixed. Bows should proc off ranged only, melee weapons should proc off melee only and CA should proc off CA only imo.
The fact that they are taking it away kind of makes sense because think about it.. why would my dagger.. which im doing nothing with at the moment... proc when I'm shooting something with a bow? BUT, it makes me very sad that i've spent all this time and energy to up my raid DPS and get the weapons that proc just to have it all taken away. I hope this means we'll be getting better bow procs :/
[p]Yes Reilena, I agree it makes total sense why they are taking it away but they haven't given anything back in return. Bows that proc off of a ranged attack are few and far between. On top of that, items with ranger helpful procs ( +crits, +rangec, etc, etc) are also few and far between. While there is an abundance of melee and dmg spell proccing items in game, ranged continuously gets the shaft. [/p][p] [/p][p]Oaklin - 70 Ranger[/p][p]Co-Founder/Recruiting Officer[/p][p]Melloneamin - Antonia Bayle[/p]
Using logic to validate an opinion in a fantasy game, I love that. How does your logic allow an ogre ranger to use the same gear as a ratonga ranger? I should be able to dual wield his 2 handers. How about this, it makes sense that the proc on my sword doesn't apply to my ranged attack, but the +str on the sword does apply? Come on, please stop with the "it makes sense" stuff. They should just get it over with and take away the ranged slot and make us put our bows in our primary hand. Do that and let us use bows in melee range and it could be interesting. I'm tired of fighting in cramped quarters where getting into bow range could aggro a mob, mages don't have a minimum range, do they. The pendulum is swinging back on us. We will get knocked down a bit, but we will adapt and get back to the top.
[p]Nerfing procs off of weapons is kinda stupid if you ask me. Why not nerf proc's off of gloves or earrings while they are at it.[/p]
Tako@Vox wrote: [p]Or they could leave the melee proc as is, and fix bows to proc off melee. Most of you that are upset with this change have already said that this would put you further behind on DPS then you currently are. However, if you flipped it around and gave everyone the same opportunity for procs melee off ranged and ranged off melee, wouldnt it do the same thing?[/p][p]And for gods sakes, please stop calling it a nerf. It was broke. Its being fixed.[/p][p]And items procs, while funtionally the same, are quite different then weapon procs. You dont ever take a swing with your rings, earrings, belts, helms and what not. [/p]
[p]Removing it because it makes sense? You want realism?[/p][p]Then remove melee proc off ranged...[/p][p]remove jewlery procs..[/p][p]remove +stats on equipment.. [/p][p]remove the floating castle in Freeport..[/p][p]remove casters and magic..[/p][p]remove hoovering carpets..[/p][p]remove good trolls..[/p][p]OK so we kill all fun in this game because someone wanted realism in eq2?[/p][p] [/p][p]Bottom line, melee procing of ranged is not that far fetched considering what else we got in the game..[/p]
Nesse@Oasis wrote: [p] Actually, this is part of the "problem".[/p][p]When SoE nerfs something, particularly a skill or game mechanic, presumably they test the outcome of the nerf prior to implementation. And they adjust the nerf based on testing and/or the in-game outcome to achieve the desired end result.[/p][p] For example, when rangers were heavily nerfed going into KoS, SoE had examined the current game mechanics and determined that rangers would be too powerful given the skills forthcoming in KoS. So they nerfed the way procs worked (among other things). But they did this in conjunction with other changes. SoE had a target dps in mind for rangers and nerfed to achieve that target. As we know, the changes they put in undershot their target...and "fixes" were later made in EoF. None of us had a problem with this.[/p][p]A "bug fix", on the other hand, does not necessarily receive the same level of attention before or after the "fix". The outcome is less knowable and the ramifications more uncertain.[/p][p]The fact is that fixing this bug will lower rangers' dps.[/p][p]The only questions are:[/p][p]1) Does SoE realize they are lowering ranger dps? If so, is that their intent? If so, do they realize by how much? If so, have they adjusted their dps models to incorporate the lowering of ranger dps? Are they factoring the lowered dps into their plans for the future?[/p][p]2) If SoE is intentionally lowering ranger dps, have they anticipated the in-game dynamics of making rangers even less "needed" in raids than they currently are?[/p][p] [/p][p]DPS is all we bring to the table. Lowering our dps via this bug-fix without a corresponding dps increase elsewhere or some real utility to offset the loss is not a good thing for rangers.[/p]
[p]You can say its not a bug fix all you like Bal, but we all know that when they changed the weapon procs way back when, they left out Iceforged Sais and the Kilij. Seems a few more made it in with EoF.[/p][p]True, DPS is all that we bring, however.... if 50-100 DPS ZW is going to hurt you that badly, then the problem is somewhere else, not if the fact they are fixing a few weapons that got over looked.[/p][p]Again, I disagree with you. In KoS rangers could hit that "target" you claim they set. The only thing that hurt rangers so bad in KoS was the fact that getting Bazkul or Sarnak was like winning the lottery. The KoS problem had more to do with bad itemization and flakey RNGs then it did rangers being sub-par DPS. And thats a fact.[/p][p] [/p][p]Roxxer, Im glad that you think its okay that melee weapons proc off ranged, but you seemed to just avoid my previous post. How do you feel about giving melee classes the same benefits? Ranged procing off melee? Im extremely interested in knowing how you would feel if they were able to get 50-100 more dps zonewide from a weapon they rarely (if ever) pulled out. Honestly, if it works one way, it should work the other way as well. However, if that were allowed to happen, Im sure that bows would become very coveted items, meaning you might just lose that kick **** bow to a bard or a guard. It works both ways, it they up everyone elses DPS while leaving yours the same, you still fall further down the ladder (that is the complaint right? you all cant compete now and this will only further compound the problem, yes?)[/p]
Nesse@Oasis wrote: [p]Look, my point is simply that this bug fix will lower our dps. And as of now, there is no offsetting game change to restore what is being reduced. And that this could pose varying degrees of problems for Rangers game wide given that our sole utility is our dps.[/p][p]Unless SoE believes our dps is too high (which as I said I have a problem with since our current dps is not that much higher than many utility classes) then the responsible thing for SoE to do is give that dps back to us via some other means. For example, raising our self haste buff percentage...or increasing the rate of our double attack AA. [/p]
The thing that annoys me when I talk one on one with a GM asking "is this a bug or is this intended" - and the response is intended, I think ok I have a use for claymore.. But with the upcomming nerf there will no reason to touch sod/claymore anymore thats my issue.. As for them actually nerfing the procs, its fine with me I can see there reasoning.
[p]The old way of thinking that allowed this, and all weapons that say "On a Succesful attack" or "On Any succcesful attack" was that equipping these weapons imbued you with the ability to proc that spell. [/p][p] People say "Oh well we aren't shooting our daggers at them" Well in response to that, Mages are sending down lightning bolts filled with that new hat they just got? Bruisers are throwing clawed basilisk boots at the mob?[/p][p] Point is they are wrong. They wil continue to be wrong until rangers are tier 3 dps. [/p][p] [/p][p]vadorn[/p]
Bal we are T1 dps, and we will continue to be T1 dps even after they fix the melee procs. Yes I understand that no one likes a reduction in thier dps, but it will not cripple the class. Thats pretty much my point. If we are still T1 DPS, and still able to compete with other T1 DPS classes, I fail to see where losing x amount of DPS and not getting anything in return is an issue. Feel free to look through your parse the next time you clear a zone. 50-100 zw dps is pretty accurate. Black Theres a huge different between an item proc and a weapon proc. As I already said, same basic principles, but as you also mentioned, we arent hitting them with boots and hoods. Thats why clawed basilisk boots say "When target uses a Combat Art", and other classes clearly have "Spell" in their descriptions. Hostile, Beneficial whatever. With a melee weapon, or a ranged for that matter, if it says "on successful attack" it means WITH THAT WEAPON! So no, a melee weapon worded as such shouldnt proc when you use a different weapon. Why would it? Wheres the logic in that?
[p]Nesse, hate to say it but I agree with ya 100%.[/p][p]Been following this thread and when the devs did there first set of trying to clear up how stuff is worded on items way back when. True it is worded in a way that would confuse us making us think we should be able to proc anything off our range with how its worded. But we also knew when they did that to expect the rest of the *bug* fix sometime in the future.[/p][p]I recall someone mentioning that earring you get for the collection quest though. I had it awhile ago and it proc'd on a successful spell attack. Funny thing bout how things is worded is what we take for granted. [/p][p]True a successful attack we would assume any weapon. [/p][p]A successful range attack would be our bows (range item).[/p][p]A successful melee attack would be our primary weapon (sword, piercer, club...whatever is your fancy).[/p][p]The problem really stems to how a item is worded cause its not always cut and dry. Sometimes I just wish they went to how eq1 procs worked and that was just on that weapon alone. Get rid of the wording all together. But then you run into those *items* that proc on spell or whatever to make them proc. Might be better to just make em into clickies then.[/p][p]I dont know, I guess I still have that eq1 mindset and try and not rely on one item to help with my dps like you all are doing. Granted I dont top any of the eqplayers to go wow look at him. Cause well I might raid once in a blue moon but mostly solo/group instead. I did all my raiding when I played eq1. I always get a chuckle being in that group where there is always someone doing a nonsense parse and he's ******** cause he's a healer or the non dps'r in the group *shrug*. [/p][p]I still dont know how all this must max parse out zw during every event ever got started. But to be honest if you are relying and complaining on one weapon to help your dps then I really hate to say it but you might want to reroll to something that doesnt require you to use a bow.[/p]
Nesse@Oasis wrote: [p] I have never suggested that we aren't T1 dps. Nor have I suggested that this bug fix will change that fact.[/p][p]What I am saying is that when all we bring to a raid/guild is dps, then any reduction in our dps will likely have negative consequences. And lastly, that I don't necessarily believe that SoE has thought through these consequences (nor can I blame them I suppose since I'm having trouble getting you to acknowledge the issue as well).[/p][p]I see it quite simply. When a raid leader/guild is putting together the roster, then they look at the way they can combine classes to maximize success. They look at "total utility" to the raid/guild, with for the purpose of this discussion, dps being a form of utility.[/p][p]Our "total utility" is comprised soley of our dps. Many other classes have "total utility" comprised of both dps utility and non-dps utility. A Character finds a place in a raid/guild when their "total utility" exceeds that of at least one of the other 24 people being assessed. By reducing rangers' total utility via reducing our dps, then rangers will have their desireability for raids/guilds reduced.[/p][p]Now is this going to be a significant problem? I don't know. Or rather, I suppose the more accurate answer is that "it depends". It depends on the raid/guild that a notional ranger is trying to find a place in. But when many classes have dps utility at 80%-90% of a rangers, plus have desireable non-dps utility as well, I foresee a problem. BTW, this problem is more likely now in particular, given the changes to AoE cures that have recently been made that give casters (and even Swashbucklers) greater non-dps utility than previously appreciated.[/p][p]I have long maintained that ranger dps is grossly too low and it either needs to be significantly raised or we have to be given some kind of vital utility. Because it is my opinion that with the way our skills currently are, unless our dps, currently our sole form of utility, greatly exceeds that of all other classes (which it doesn't), then any sane raid/guild leader will always choose a class other than a ranger to fill any open slot. Just being T1 dps doesn't cut it when a raid/guild leader is deciding who is "in" and who is "out". When there are a number of T1 classes that also have non-dps utility, why would anyone choose a ranger?[/p][p]That's why I believe this bug fix may be problematic, even if it's only a 100 dps reduction. And that's why I believe that SoE needs to provide some dps increasing offset to this change.[/p]
