What's this all about? (bow changes)

Discussion in 'Ranger' started by ARCHIVED-Neiloch, Aug 16, 2010.

  1. ARCHIVED-Darchon6 Guest

    Xelgad wrote:
    Thanks for the update -- while two T9 dual wield weapons have a slightly lower damage rating than a comparable bow, our increased number of guaranteed proc triggers (CoB, VC, deity blessings, etc) should cover the difference in terms of maximum damage output.
    However, would you consider boosting the maximum range of melee auto-attack slightly to compensate for the nearly identical damage values? Like I said before, melee classes (scouts and fighters alike) tend to lose thousands of dps when a target suddenly moves due to a combination of a small "target is too far away" threshhold and poor synchronization between the client and server. Boosting the max range from 2 to 5 meters in PVE would make a world of difference for us. Also, tell Kander to design T9 raid items with enhancements to maximum attack range :p
  2. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    Xelgad wrote:
    If you're going to make this change, you should consider re balancing the Assassin myth's passive 15% flurry. Maybe make it 60% ammo conserve. Or move it to the ennervated version of their weapon.
  3. ARCHIVED-Darchon6 Guest

    Sydares wrote:
    Sorcerers are currently ahead of the curve by a small margin -- even more so when you take uncontested avoidance into account. Perhaps you should ask for additional enhancements to the ranger class instead. There's no need to call forth the nerf bat on another class.
  4. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    Darchon6 wrote:
    Which is exactly what I just did in demonstrating the sickening imbalance in our mythical effects.
  5. ARCHIVED-Ballads Guest

    Xelgad wrote:
    So wait, your boosting all melee now? I understand rangers have an issue bu tto UP all meleers makes no sense to me. If your assassins can't keep up with your sorcs now, get better assassins.
    Can mages get AoE spell cast ? How about spell flurry? Upping all melee with out adjusting casters as well is a terrible solution to fixing rangers.
  6. ARCHIVED-Gaige Guest

    kartikeya wrote:
    My main problem was always with increasing bow damage. Flurry/AE are simple mechanics fixes.
  7. ARCHIVED-kartikeya Guest

    Darchon6 wrote:
    You are severely overestimating the effect this change is going to have on rangers. I would love if it would be a massive DPS boost, because we need it, but it really isn't. And as Xelgad just stated, the goal is to make autoattack come out DPS even. This means that we'll do the same autoattack DPS than assassins do, in theory, (instead of less as it is now), and we'll still have incredibly weak CAs that need looking over.
    Seriously, just do a simple comparison between ranger CAs, Assassin CAs, and our mythical buffs. The disparity is, as another poster just put, sickening. Flurry, AE autoattack, and the removal of that stupid flat nerf to our bow damage is extremely needed, but we're not suddenly going to be challenging assassins on the parse (but this SHOULD be the end goal), especially since assassins are getting a small offhand boost now as well. Settle down.
  8. ARCHIVED-Gungo Guest

    Darchon6 wrote:
    I am all for making auto atk 5m, but mostly because it makes NO sense how melee combat arts are 5m and auto atk is less ~2-3m. Its not intuitive AT ALL for new players. Combat arts would be the ideal way to show melee players they are in range of melee.
  9. ARCHIVED-kartikeya Guest

    Gaige wrote:
    As I understand it, this is simply removing that stupid invisible nerf that Aeralik put in when he fixed arrow mechanics. This is something that we should have had in RoK. If somehow that makes bow damage too much, I guarantee they will nerf it, but I highly highly doubt that it will. It has the effect of making bows do the kind of damage they SHOULD be doing ANYWAY, but haven't because Aeralik couldn't stand the thought of a ranger focused fix actually helping rangers (no I'm not still bitter, nooo).
  10. ARCHIVED-Gaige Guest

    Ballads wrote:
    You have spell double attack, last I checked CA double attack doesn't exist.
  11. ARCHIVED-Neiloch Guest

    Well I see what you mean now Boise/Gungo. Basically the same problem we have now with maybe the gap being a little smaller.
    I really don't expect this to fix our DPS as no one should. Its just ground work to try and even out auto attack. Once they do that they can see what kind of CA adjustment we need. Our auto attack mechanics were always handicapped, and trying to fix both auto attack and CA's at the same time would be a huge fuster cluck. So it makes sense to first balance our auto attack then adjust CA's as needed so we don't have this constant BS burden of having a auto attack with weird rules.
    Adjusting caster DPS will probably be included with any CA adjustments as well. Casters are just currently being left out of this stage since they don't really use auto attack as a major source of DPS.
    Really looking forward to trying this all out on test though.
  12. ARCHIVED-Gungo Guest

    Gaige wrote:
    I dont think there is ANYONE in this game but you that thinks rangers will be outparsing assassins after this change.
    The fact of the matter is if bow auto atk ends up better then melee auto atk (which after this current change from xelgad I doubt) An assassin still can just end up using a bow in the "sweet spot".

    Bottom line is after all these proposed changes you end up with asassins making better use of 100% raidwide/group wide proc buffs. Assassins having a higher chance at flurry and aoe auto atk.
    The only thing rangers benefit from these changes is specialized bows made specifically for them with higher damage ratings. And Bow ammo which has increased accuracy and damage.
  13. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    If this does equal out all methods of autoattack to be similar (possible, I suppose), then they do need to actually follow through and go back and reevaluate class-specific buffs to flurry and AE auto, as well as the base CA damage. For everyone capable of doing any of the above.
    Particularly with flurry, you're tinkering with the mechanics of a thing that certain classes have a much greater chance of actually having in large quantities vs. almost no access to.
  14. ARCHIVED-Boise Guest

    Gungo wrote:
    I do not see rangers and assassins "getting" closer dpswise. In fact, I see assassins pulling away even more because they will reap the benefit of the changes 1) increase bow damage rating 2) AE Auto-Ataack 2) Flurry
    Xelgad is just balancing the weapons and not really giving rangers any chance to compete at the high end. Rangers have no utility and not much dps in comparison to assassins and other top tier clasees.
  15. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    In a nutshell, this isn't the Ranger fix we were hoping for. It's a mechanics change, nothing more and nothing less.
  16. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    Although, it still get us out of the Intoxication line, so thank god for that.
  17. ARCHIVED-Boise Guest

    Gungo wrote:
    Frankly, rangers will get nothing new to close the gap. Bow ammo is used by all and not just rangers. As for ranger specialized bows, there is only one bow made for rangers only and that bow will never see a ranger's hand until next expansion. Do you honestly think rangers will see that bow this expansion anytime soon?
  18. ARCHIVED-Darchon6 Guest

    Ballads wrote:
    Name one scout who can break 74k dps on Aereon, 149k on Ernax Heridion + surrounding adds, 70k on 3-rune roehn theer, and 200k+ on groups of trash in Underfoot Depths? I thought so.
    Sorcerers have a definite advantage over scouts against single targets which parry / block a portion of melee attacks and encounters containing multiple targets. The only advantage an assassin has over a sorcerer is against single targets which don't parry attacks from behind and don't include surrounding adds -- even then, sorcerers (especially wizards) are dangerously close. There's only a few NPCs in this expansion which fit that criteria, tbh. This change is needed without the compensation of sorcerers.
  19. ARCHIVED-Boise Guest

    Darchon6 wrote:
    I personally don't care about how "bad" assassins have it vs. Mages. This is a ranger forum where ranger issues are posted. Personally, you should be happy Xelgad is doing this. Assassins will reap this benefit while rangers simply fall behind.
  20. ARCHIVED-Gaige Guest

    Gungo wrote:
    It drops off Yael, so I doubt very many rangers will ever see it.

Share This Page