I have played a ranger, assasin, and swashbuckler, and I would have to say I have a great desire for one of my rangers to be more of an archer than a sneak. The master strike, and a lot of others, must be deployed on the opponents back (it is ironic that the devious swashie can just convince the opponent to look the other way, and thereby knife them in the back without sneaking!). Even some of the ranged attacks must be done in stealth. Why? Even if it was done with AA's, it would be nice to have a bold upstanding archer, that certainly could not go toe-to-toe with the melee like a knight can, but doesn't HAVE to sneak, and stab people in the back. Did Strider knife people in the back? No.
Brook wrote: AKA Aragon, the young king in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And for the OP, I don't really agree with your assessment. EQ2 Scouts, particularly the dps class scouts, are based around using the Stealth skill on some level. At least you're not in a Brigand's boat where almost all of your worthwhile attacks have a rear positional requirement.
Dareena@Lucan DLere wrote: Sucks to be a brigand, I'd say! Having stealth is a wonderful thing for a scout, but WHY do so many of the attacks REQUIRE it, if you just want to be an archer (like Legolas, for instance). An archer is an incredibly important class in the history of warfare, why can't our rangers have the ability to become more like THAT? Did the English bowmen at Agincourt and Crecy turn invisible before they could deliver their most powerful shot? No! Did the Ancient Egyptians defeat the Sea Peoples by having to rely on standing behind them? No! Did the Parthians annihilate the Romans at Carrhae by doing anything other than shooting vast amounts of arrows at them? Yes! They were also on horses!
Out of curiosity, what level is your ranger? Most of the ranged abilities come into play as you progress. If you're only level 15 (for example) then you are going to have far fewer archery-type buttons to push than if you were 50.
Jaremai@Guk wrote: Actually, i find that to be another problem with the ranger! My highest is 40, and needs to have four hotbars open to fight, more than any other class I have. I really don't want more buttons, I want to be able to shoot as many arrows as fast as possible, before the other guy can get to me! Or, if I'm in a group, to just lay down as much dps as possible. Other dps classes don't seem to need to go invisible to deliver death from a distance!
I don't think we need "less sneaky rangers," more like a few new classes, one of them being a straight up archer. I know the game has a lot of classes, but many of them fill the same role with a different flair, which don't get me wrong is awesome, but there's some gaps that could be filled in where none of the classes really touch on. I mean I could probably think of 2 classes for each type that plays completely differently than any existing class. A real physical ranged class is one of them. I think rangers already have their place though, and it makes sense for them to remain sneaky.
Sanati wrote: the only thing rangers do have is ranged to separate them from other scouts. Making a pure archer class would be redundant. Would be a different story if rangers depended heavily on using a pet like a Hunter, which I am most definitely not in favor of. Right now out of roughly my 9 top performing CA's, 5 of them are melee attacks. My worst attacks besides ones both preds get are ranged CA's. Doesn't seem quite right for a ranged class. If it's such a balance concern there are several ways to balance out ranged CA's other than just making their DPS performance sub-par. I still think they should convert some of the ranger melee attacks into ranged variations, or possibly provide alternatives that share the same timer. If they never plan on doing something to give rangers more 'ranged' it makes me wonder exactly how long I will be using the scout MPS charm. Last thing we need is more classes, what is need is to make the 24 we have more distinct. Making ranger's more ranged based in terms of CA's would most definitely do that.
Neiloch@Kithicor wrote: I really don't want to lose any melee ability! Archers have to fight sometimes, too, you know! But I'd really like to not NEED to be in stealth to use some of my best ranged attacks (in particular). It would also be nice if that hard-won master strike was not a stab in the back, too, but another ranged attack, or something you can do to their face! I don't think we really NEED another class of archer, less requirements for stealth merely makes the ranger more distinct from other scouts, which is a good thing. But my main beef is the sneaky ranged attacks. They do nothing but waste your time for no real benefit (unless there was a ranged attack you could do and remain in stealth).
I made a ranger and then deleted her just because I found it extremely tedious to have to put on sneak and then shoot the arrow. I just wanted to shoot arrows a la EQ1 ranger. Oh well, back to my bruiser I guess! Xiu
Since the thread has been moved into the black hole (aka ranger forum), you might as well send your wishes up to the stars cause no dev will read them now. There aren't so many stealth attacks to make it a horrible horrible nuisance. It makes some sense that the bigger bangs require stealth. First, you're a scout base, and stealth is the big thing for scouts in general. Second, if you want to apply a little tiny bit of realistic thought to this.. you're an archer and you're wanting to strike at a very specific spot on your target's body (to inflict the massive damage) - it requires a bit more effort and, usually, your target being unaware of you aiming a pointy stick at them. If you're just running about wildly shooting arrows, you don't have time to aim for their jugular or crotch or wherever does the mega damage you want to do. The extra time to slip into stealth makes up for that concentrated effort, while ignoring that you're able to even disappear right before someone's eyes in an open field... *shrug* I would agree with making Master Strike into a ranged attack for rangers, buuuut.. it's currently the same attack for all scouts, which is why it's a backstab type thingy. The other three archetypes get their own version. If they were to revamp it down to the subclass-level, then definately rangers should get a special bow shot that hits their target in that oh-so-special spot that does big damage for that creature type.
I do not agree that Rangers should not have a sneak aspect to some of thier abilities. To me Rangers are adept at sneaking around and making the most to gain advantages over their enemies. However I do not see Rangers as assassins who sneak around and kill for money. What Rangers need is more ranged abilities and abilities to keep targets at range (more snares/roots). Sure they should have up close abilities, because it's not always going to be a ranged fight. But the bulk of their abilities, IMO, should be ranged. Probably 75% ranged and the rest Melee. Now given the current mechanics of the game, this may not be possible. But that is what I would like to see.
Xiucoatli@Unrest wrote: You must have not gotten past level 20. Rangers have about 3-4 attacks out of about 12-15 that require stealth. Sniper, veil, blue aoe (all the range ones that take stealth). Ember stricke and ranger's blade are the melee ones that take stealth. I might have missed a couple of but my point is you made an erroneous decision based on limited facts.
Ranja wrote: For me there was definitely no point in getting to 20 as I found game play stilted by the stealth requirements. Shouldn't the 1st 20 lvls be an enjoyable prelude to what is to come as your character matures? I certainly have found that the 1st 20's of bruiser or fury or shadowknight to be just fine!
Xiucoatli@Unrest wrote: I still don't understand whhy you are saying stealth requirements. Yes we have stealth attacks but at that level it is only 1 or 2 and you dont even need to use them. Back at the beginning of the game, Assassins and Rangers shared abilities to level 20. So fo the ranger, no you do not get a good prelude of the character until you are out of your 20s since you don't get all your ranger abilities until post 20. It's okay that you don't like the class. I have no problems with it. I just want to clarify your stealth remarks. You can play a ranger without ever going into stealth (or very minimal) yet you seem to intimate that every CA we have requires stealth.
They need to give shorter recast timers on the ranged CA's and make a couple of the melee CA's that do a lot of DPS ranged. If we always had something ranged to cast, we wouldn't need to use melee.
Jaremai@Guk wrote: Apparently that is not true, the head moderator told me that ranger devs certainly DO read the ranger forum, so you got me upset for nothing! My swashie, who is an annoying yet charming character, is a devious little git, and when he wants to stab you in the back with his master strike, he just asks you to look the other way. Yet my poor upstanding ranger does not have that ability. They are about the same level (40 - although the ranger has almost twice as many AA's now), and the swashie's much easier to play, and never goes stealth unless he is really trying to avoid someone (probably someone he owes money to).
