What's this all about? (bow changes)

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

  1. ARCHIVED-FearDiadh Guest

    Venez@Permafrost wrote:
    I understand the bow fix, quite clearly. It is going to up our auto attack dps (which is about 20% of our parse) by about 25% (maybe 30% according to some posts) 20% of 50k is about 10k. So we are going to up that 10k by 2500 to 3000. Gotcha. So 52-53k vs 50k. That should really get us close to the 70k.
    Next week we will get aoe auto and flurry. I am not sure how much that will add but I doubt it adds a ton. 5-10k if you are really decked out in t3 and in a multi mob encounter? Overall, rough guess.. we add 5k zw. That brings us up to 57k maybe. Meanwile the 70k we were trying to reach just went to 75k. So yeah.
    Nice change on the auto attack but we told SOE our auto attack was crap before SF got out of beta. 8 months late on that. I am jaded I guess, but I just don't understand why you are moving other scouts dps farther up when you are trying to get ours to match. It defeats the purpose. Is it so our parses are equal? They are not equal. We have different mechanics and that is fine as long as the mechanics have us lower, but not ok if it has one thing lower on the other scouts?
    If our combat arts did as much as assassins and if our cast speeds were as fast as assassins, then I would get it. I don't get it right now. You see, it does not matter if their aoe auto and flurry do as much as ours. The classes are not homogeneous, they are supposed to be different. I don't understand why they are wasting their time equalizing another class to us in one small area when they feel no need to make out combat arts equivelent to theirs.
    I think it is a shell game. Give us something but give them something too, so nothing really changes. Every bump they give you is negated by the bump they give others.
  2. ARCHIVED-Neiloch Guest

    Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:
    No, no you don't. You keep referring to overall DPS and their discrepancies. These changes are NOT meant to get us caught up with overall assassin or any other classes DPS. These changes are MEANT to equalize AUTO ATTACK DPS ONLY.
    Every time you mention overall DPS and CA's is a testament to how much you don't understand what these AUTO ATTACK changes are for.
    Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:
    It makes sense once you realize we are getting a bigger boost than other scouts. If assassins are 10 and rangers are 8, they can give them 2 and us 4 and we will be even. Making the scale balanced doesn't require the heavier side not be modified in any way.
    Jack@Lucan DLere wrote:
    It would be a bad idea to tweak CA's and auto attack at the same time. It would make any DPS discrepancies harder to pin down. Auto attack is a large pillar in scout and fighter DPS, its good sense to try and even them out before working on a completely different pillar like CA's. The phrase "one problem at a time" comes to mind. They said at fanfaire they will be looking at CA's (and if they need to be tweaked) AFTER these changes. If people are so lazy they don't want to research the points they are debating I can dig that up as well.
    If you want to talk about problems with CA's i suggest making a new topic or replying to one of the numerous ones already on this board about that very issue.
  3. ARCHIVED-Osp Guest

    Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:
    I said this in world chat a few times now. I am glad they are putting in the modifier change first and getting it tested. And the adding the flurry / ae mechanic for bows after. I would rather get changes in steady steps, as long as they are not drawn out over months and months. At least doing it in steady steps like this it has a chance to hit live servers and actually get tested in real encounters for a few weeks so we can actually not be OP'd and then nerfed back where we are now.
    The "mighty force" leads me to believe that we got this as a secondary fix, and this is probably really the only thing we can hope to gain in closeing the 50k Ranger vs 70k+ Assassin parses that are posted (high end raids). And I will probably continue to get PMs from the Mods about being mean to the Devs as a result.
  4. ARCHIVED-Ballzz Guest

    I understand what they are doing and why it needs to be done in steps. That makes good sense. What has me worried is whether they will actually follow through with any changes beyond AA and flurry/AE AA. I have a bad feeling they will wrongly assume whatever marginal gain Rangers net on other scouts from those initial changes will be sufficient and they won't tune our CA dmg after. I hope I'm wrong.
  5. ARCHIVED-Osp Guest

    Ballzz wrote:
    If Xelgad has access to the old parses, and balanceing (EoF era) he will see that we were balanced around massive auto attack damage that was much higher than melee auto, and thats why we had slower casting and longer reuse timers, not to mention that procs were NOT standardized and we had a much higher proc rate than melee ( that to has been nerfed) so we lost alot over the whole spectrum. Since all the mechanic changes from (EoF) we now do lower auto than melee (till this goes live) then we will do the same - not more, like we used to (pre EoF).
    So we will still be incorrectly balanced. And to bring us inline with Assassins (not higher) we still are in bad need of a CA and AA retune / rebalanceing. And after the auto attack fix and before the next Xpac, would be a good time to address them.
    If you look at the ext dps per CA of the two class's (parses are posted) you will see that we are indeed way behind in quite a few of them if not all.
  6. ARCHIVED-Corwinus Guest

    Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:
    I guess that I am less decked than you are Neil, I ended up with the following results on the epic dummy:
    4,699.63 crush 7,143,439 11,691.39 7,064 22,073

    6,235.75 crush 7,857,040 15,226.82 9,191 30,086
    ACT parses are in the in testing forum.
    So an increase of only 24.6% dps, meaning 30% increase is not a garantee, it can vary easily from 20 to 30 %.
  7. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    A lot of the variance is likely self-buffed dps mod.
  8. ARCHIVED--=Hoss=- Guest

    Corwin@Oasis wrote:
    Edit: I should have read the next page. But still, pretty much inline with what would be expected. 20-30 % (I wonder why yours is lower corwin, are you at 100% crit?). I assume everyone will be killing groups of training dummies next week when the rest goes in?
  9. ARCHIVED-Toball Tokor Guest

  10. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    Those figures, coupled with the now-grotesque difference in damage rating between 2Hers and Bows in PvP is a point of extreme irritation. This seems to be following the typical "Ranger Fix" pattern of buffing everyone --- just buffing us the least. Disappointing, to say the least.

    Typical Ranged/2H introductory raid/pvp weapons compared:

    Nanthera's Bladed Yuri: 195.6 PvE / 168.2 PvP
    Wyrm Tendon Longbow: 188.8 PvE / 109.2 PvP

    Seriously, what the hell is the rationale behind this?
  11. ARCHIVED-akaglty Guest

    Hey Xelgad,
    Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.
  12. ARCHIVED-Ademelo Guest

    akaglty wrote:
    LOL, beat me to it I see :)
  13. ARCHIVED-Corwinus Guest

    Sydares wrote:
    I think you are right, I was paying more attention on my dps buff refresh today and hit 28% more on crush instaed of 25%.
  14. ARCHIVED-Nevao Guest

    So playing around with ranged Auto AE Attack and found the following:
    • Surrounding attacks has been changed to say "affect multiple targets [up to 4] they are facing, who are with range of that weapon". And it does appear to do just that. I put two traning dummies far enough apart that I could not melee one from the other. I then went back to the other side of the room and faced in between them and started firing. I mangaged to hit both when the AoE auto attacks went off, so it really does appear to be based off the range of the bow (within whatever the "in front arc" consists of). Means we'll need to be careful in some heoric zones, but nothing we can't manage.
    • For some reason all my AoE Auto Attacks were registering as "Piercing" damage even though I'm using field points and my only melee weapon is a slashing weapon. I don't think this will be an issue (both should be using the Ranged Skill and I was getting similar hit %s) but it was odd and something that probably nees to be dug deeper into.
    • Damage for the AoE Auto Attack pros were consistent with bow damage. Looks like it was not modified down in any way.
    Still trying to get some numbers for Flurry (I only have a 2% chance since my dirges haven't copied over that I know of), but I'll post when I do get something.
    Update: Pulled off a few Flurry procs. Not enough to get meaningful data but I did notice that they were also registering as piercing damage.
  15. ARCHIVED-Toball Tokor Guest

    We keep viewing this as a Ranger fix. Please lets stop that! This is a a mechanical fix for all melee 2H, off-hand and bow (ranged?). As Rangers we are going to gain the most as compared to the rest because we tend to have the highest portion of our damage in autoattack. It may well be more than the ~5% net gain I foresee. I am not sure we can really know until it is live and get to see the effect in an actual raid.
    Again this is not about Ranger issues and certainly not specific to Rangers. It is an improvement it is not a fix. It is NOT going to balance us in the DPS vs UTILITY vs SURVIVABILITY sense. We are still (IMO) going to be in the bottom rung of DPS for the pure DPS classes. We are still going to have greatly less utility vs the other pure DPS classes. I personally think our survivability is just about right. If there is a Ranger fix in the works it had not been talked about by developers anywhere I can find. I can see them trying to pass this off as THE fix though.
    We are going to gain some ground and that is good but, please don't make the mistake or lead anyone to think this is a ranger fix. We have enough challenge getting our problems across without saying we view this a a fix attempt.
    I still keep hearing peeps say that we don't need to be top on DPS because we can attack from range. That is bunk if you are doing your job at 2-5 meters your survivability is not increased an iota over our brother predator. Our area of maximum opportunity is a 3 meter spot that many times is in constant motion. Too close is a fail too far is a fail. What other class has to put up with that? We have to be in the sweet a spot unlike casters, who can at leisure be right on the mob or 30+ meters away and do the same essential damage.
  16. ARCHIVED-akaglty Guest

    I wouldn't get any hopes up for more changes until the next expansion. Changing double arrow AA to flurry would be nice but, I have a feeling we'll have to wait on that too until Velious AA are decided on.
    Problem is, this is turning into a trend. They don't want to change our CA's because they don't want to have us overpowered when a expansion is coming, then after the expansion, they want to wait until they see what we can do with the new items and AA, then more changes to the game normally 6 months in and they want to see how we do from that, then next expansion is coming again. Rinse repeat...
    They need to sooner or later just get it over with.
  17. ARCHIVED-Gaige Guest

    akaglty wrote:
    No. No. No. No. No.
    If he does this he better be prepared to change AAs for every class that buff things that aren't needed anymore. I have 5 or 6 assassin ones in mind that we can change to buff potency, ae auto, flurry, crit bonus, etc.
    You can get flurry the same way all non-assassins do: buffs, adornments and gear.
  18. ARCHIVED-Neiloch Guest

    Gaige wrote:
    Why? they changed some Guardian AA's. So it's perfectly plausible to change a classes AA's without also changing or benefiting their counter part or any other classes for that matter.
    Balance won't be attained by adding equal amounts of things to classes that are uneven to begin with. It's like trying to make a 3 story building and a 5 story building the same height by adding 2 stories to both. Rangers WILL need to get more benefits in updates and expansions than assassin's if balance is to be achieved. Otherwise adding equal amounts just moves the gap, not close it. Even if they get one benefit each, said benefit being equal for both would only maintain inbalance, the benefit rangers get would have to be better than the one for assassins.
    If the two classes were balanced then demanding Assassin's get something every time a Ranger does would make sense, unfortunately that's not the case here.
  19. ARCHIVED-akaglty Guest

    I think 4% flurry on an endline AA tree is a reasonable request. Not even asking to match the 15% that assassins get Gaige, so I don't know what you're worked up about. Your class is already higher than ours in dps by a pretty fair amount and you have no problem with pointing that out every day.
  20. ARCHIVED-Gaige Guest

    Neiloch@Kithicor wrote:
    I don't care about guardians, I care about the predator classes.