Your in depth game for bows and arrows is the same i have been talking about for years....FFXI.The game that set the standard for depth of game design well beyond what most other developers are doing.Then add in a sub class and you have a lot of versatility. How is this for a just a VERY small sample size...
Elemental arrows,Sleep arrows,accy arrows ,piercing/blunt arrows,poison arrows etc etc Then you have bolts/crossbow,with Holy Bolts/light based/Undead damage,Drain bolts to drain hp,Sleep /Stun bolts,status bolts etc etc.
Then you can even choose to use a gun,slower ,more powerful with all sorts of bullet types.
Everything can be crafted and is too expensive to buy so you or somebody has to craft it.
You know what i see in many games,they don't even have ammo slots,just some lame looking repeating Bow that fires as fast as a minigun.Class versatility,pretty much endless from kiting to spike damage,to slow stuns as well can also melee decently.Ranger can also use Stealth and be a solid puller for a group.
Instead of me always talking about FFXI,why can't a developer DO BETTER?Look at a really solid design and improve upon it,why is it all these developers are giving us is second rate effort?Honestly i'll be shocked if this teams system/class designer puts at minimum the same depth as FFXI Ranger class has.If they do i would be all in because one thing i look for is a solid effort by the developers teams.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I remember how proud I was when a high level crafter made a powerful bow for my ranger in EQ 1 out of rare and expensive materials I spent months collecting.
Of course, the crafter could just as well have made me a high level umbrella stand for all the real good it did me.
Please make the bow useful.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I think Vanguard Ranger was the best Ranger class i've played in any mmo to date imo. When you think about what a ranger is supposed to do, go out into the wild for weeks on end and be self sufficient. You live off the land and make your own arrows and poisons plus food, foraging, snares, you could do all this in Vanguard.
Then you had an offensive fighter in both melee and ranged plus evade and parry skills, animal charming, the list goes on.
Then you had an offensive fighter in both melee and ranged plus evade and parry skills, animal charming and snares, the list goes on.
This discussion has gotten me thinking. Is the idea of a Ranger as a Warrior/Druid hybrid not really what we expect today? I feel like if anything the Ranger is a Rogue/Druid hybrid. Does anyone still see the Ranger as part Warrior? Historically, it definitely has not been on par with the Paladin or Shadow Knights in terms of their Warrior side.
That's a good comparison. I suppose with good enough skill system, players should be able to customize their Ranger to be more Rogue or Warrior focused.
Then you had an offensive fighter in both melee and ranged plus evade and parry skills, animal charming and snares, the list goes on.
This discussion has gotten me thinking. Is the idea of a Ranger as a Warrior/Druid hybrid not really what we expect today? I feel like if anything the Ranger is a Rogue/Druid hybrid. Does anyone still see the Ranger as part Warrior? Historically, it definitely has not been on par with the Paladin or Shadow Knights in terms of their Warrior side.
Well, AD&D saw the ranger as more of a warrior than than a druid/warrior hybrid, especially around 2nd edition with the player handbook options.
Hmm, i think we get mixed up with Scouts & Rangers, kind of like the difference from Legolas and Aragorn in LOTR.
Both were rangers, only with very different fighting styles. Might be nice to have classes that are allowed to focus more on one style over the other for the flavor and variety. Specialization paths can add a lot of both to a class and allow more types of players to enjoy the same class with different focuses.
So my original outline was clearly more of the Legolas-style
Scout. No real magical ability, but a
deep understanding of the wilderness and how to survive in it. Stealthy and fast, like a quintessential
puller/glass-cannon.
The Ranger based on Aragorn seems to be a bit harder to pin
down in the MMO sense. Their original
AD&D form was different but equal to a Paladin. They could wear any armor type and got
bonuses for not using a shield, although some skills required them to use light
armor. They were more in tune with
nature, and able to communicate with animals.
The idea of an offensive tank sounds closer to a Shadow
Knight from an EQ perspective (or perhaps a Berserker, but I had left EQ before
they were really implemented). It
actually looks similar to the original EQ1 Ranger, but that class lacked the
survivability needed to effectively tank.
It would be great if Pantheon includes specialization in
classes to customize your Ranger one way or the other. Most of the utility could essentially be the
same, but the differences could stem from the weapons and armor skill the user
chooses (e.g. Leather and Bow vs. Chain and Dual Wield).
However, this would be some extreme specialization. It is essentially 2 different classes. One Ranger-Tank on par with Paladins and SKs,
and the other Ranger-Rogue on par with Monks.
Specialization would need to be mutually exclusive and not changeable on
a whim or by switching out gear sets.
And to have this level of depth to just the Ranger class would
inevitably mean other classes would be looking for a similar level of
customization. It could get complicated
quickly.
I’d be happy with only having the Ranger class
go one way or the other (I would play it either way), but it can’t make the
same mistake of the original EQ Ranger. Outside
of Tracking, there was nothing another class couldn’t do better, including
being versatile. If the strength of a
hybrid comes from versatility, the Ranger didn’t even have that. Like I said before, instead of a
jack-of-all-trades they were just a master-of-none.
In my mind I see three trees. One a warrior tree (Aragorn). One an archer tree (Legolas). And one a woodsman tree from which both can borrow (enhanced tracking, snares, traps, enhanced foraging, night vision, natural heals, animal taming, etc).
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I remember how proud I was when a high level crafter made a powerful bow for my ranger in EQ 1 out of rare and expensive materials I spent months collecting.
Of course, the crafter could just as well have made me a high level umbrella stand for all the real good it did me.
Please make the bow useful.
Yes i enjoyed crafting in EQ but as always there is just too much room for improvement and we deserve it and the games deserve it.
There should be multiple ways to craft your weapon and ammo.Their should be REASON to craft multiple ways ,example the mobs need to have various damage resistances and it all needs to be meaningful in combat so your not seeing 5 dmg or 4 dmg differences. Geesh if a system/game designer actually uses some creativity,they could do something like certain mobs heal if you use poison on them or heal if using Fire dmg on them,that is why i said multiple type of resistances.
Then you have TYPE of dmg so again mobs needs to have type of dmg resistance ,example blunt.piercing.slashing etc etc.Once again it needs to be meaningful so players make wise decisions,it can't be one type does 33 dmg and another does 32,that would be meaningless.
Then you add in semi damage and added effects.Example a Fire based mob might be really strong versus Fire but only semi defensive versus say acid/poison or anything resembling close to burning or fire.
Then so numbers do not seem generic and repeating,system designers need to use rng and arc ,so you might have 200-250 dmg with max,100-150 semi damage,25-50 partial resists and of course 0 damage to possibly healing your enemy or even boosting their dmg output because you made a bad decision in choice of weapon and damage.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If Pantheons ranger is not a magic user I might actually play it, otherwise no. Casting spells just doesn't do it for me in MMORPGs. I could never get into it and it's not from lack of trying. All ranged damage should come from arrows as well as roots and snares with moderate melee dps and ability to tank in a pinch for short periods of time in a medium armor. I would def try that type of ranger.
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
I remember how proud I was when a high level crafter made a powerful bow for my ranger in EQ 1 out of rare and expensive materials I spent months collecting.
Of course, the crafter could just as well have made me a high level umbrella stand for all the real good it did me.
Please make the bow useful.
Yes i enjoyed crafting in EQ but as always there is just too much room for improvement and we deserve it and the games deserve it.
There should be multiple ways to craft your weapon and ammo.Their should be REASON to craft multiple ways ,example the mobs need to have various damage resistances and it all needs to be meaningful in combat so your not seeing 5 dmg or 4 dmg differences. ...
Ya, crafting in EQ actually became pretty good towards Velious. Many people probably aren't even familiar with all of the rare component crafted armor sets that they introduced for just about every class between Kunark and the end of Velious, but they are actually quite nice. Some of the pieces were even better than planar.
I can accept a lot of ideas but if i see a Ranger class done like GW2,i will threw rotten tomatoes at it.Whatever KIDS they have working on GW2 know absolutely nothing about game design. No ammo,bows that shoot like repeating guns,even the bow sounds are NOTHING like a bow would sound.
Yes i care about all those little things,when i see game design that looks like some little kids made it,i am not happy at all.Whomever made the Ranger class in GW2 would get immediately fired and a rating of 0/10. So Pantheon beware don't be making any of that silly nonsense.
Somersaults??If i see somersaults i'm going to Pantheons offices and firing Brad myself lmao.
Luckily i have some confidence in Brad to make decent decisions,so i suspect the Ranger class will be decent but likely not as good as i want it to be because i love playing a Ranger class.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well, what I think depends on how they approach design. If it is
class to content balance, than I think it looks good, but if it is class
vs class balance, it then depends on if the other DPS classes also have
a very large amount of utility.
Isnt that the PvE vs PvP approach ?
I would be surprised if Pantheon would be designed like a PvP game.
I hope that however Pantheon does this, classes will be like in Vanguard - certain aspects important to other classes might be completely irrelevant to other classes.
If Pantheons ranger is not a magic user I might actually play it, otherwise no. Casting spells just doesn't do it for me in MMORPGs. I could never get into it and it's not from lack of trying. All
ranged damage should come from arrows as well as roots and snares with
moderate melee dps and ability to tank in a pinch for short periods of
time in a medium armor. I would def try that type of ranger.
So on one hand you dont want magic but then you demand roots and snares ... ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
If Pantheons ranger is not a magic user I might actually play it, otherwise no. Casting spells just doesn't do it for me in MMORPGs. I could never get into it and it's not from lack of trying. All
ranged damage should come from arrows as well as roots and snares with
moderate melee dps and ability to tank in a pinch for short periods of
time in a medium armor. I would def try that type of ranger.
So on one hand you dont want magic but then you demand roots and snares ... ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I see 6 too many ?s and 7 too many !s, you must be very confused.
Someone somewhere took an arrow to the knie, and got ensnared. A single arrow to Achilles's heel temporary rooted Achilles before it killed him. Then someone somewhere yelled "Weeee magic firebaaall !" right after he ignited the oil on the tip of his arrow.
Well, what I think depends on how they approach design. If it is
class to content balance, than I think it looks good, but if it is class
vs class balance, it then depends on if the other DPS classes also have
a very large amount of utility.
Isnt that the PvE vs PvP approach ?
I would be surprised if Pantheon would be designed like a PvP game.
I hope that however Pantheon does this, classes will be like in Vanguard - certain aspects important to other classes might be completely irrelevant to other classes.
No, that is not what I mean. I discussed this previously in the class thread.
Basically, Class vs Content balance is where they are concerned with making classes viable to the content, insuring there is use to the class in the content specifically without concern to other classes other than maybe uniqueness (ie paladins with special undead abilities), rangers with special abilities (favored enemy, tracking, etc..)
Class vs Class balance is concerned about "tit for tat" balance between each class so all classes are useful and equally balanced according to each other (Class A tanking vs class B tanking, one classes healing to another, etc...). Class vs Class balance is the base for homogenized class design.
See, in this example if the Ranger is balanced via class vs class design, then to have all these utilities, functions, and abilities and then being balanced tit for tat with another DPS class that may not have such utility, it becomes a problem.
The Class vs Content focus solves this because it is not concerned about one class being equal in DPS, only that each class provides a unique and viable solution to obstacles in content. If that is balanced properly, all classes have a valid use regardless of their "vs" comparison.
The Ranger class to me has always been at the crossroads of immersion and utility.
On the one hand, most people see the class as featuring special abilities in the outdoors and in the forest. Those type of abilities are what make the class unique and for many appealing, just as for example siphoning life usually makes a necromancer unique.
But how often does a ranger get a tell that says "Hey Ranger. We're going to go kill some animal in the forest because it drops epic loot?" Animals almost never drop anything but basic coin and maybe pelts. So you end up with class bonuses that are maladapted to dungeon fighting, in exchange for being able to track badgers through Sherwood Forest. Whee.
Alternatively, you have an opportunity cost, where even if a Ranger is "ok" in dungeon fighting, his extra class feature is not, as for many other classes, something useful in dungeons that make him or her better than merely "ok."
Rangers look awesome on paper (which is how I got roped into being one in EQ lol), but after a while you're like "waaaaaaait a minute. I think I got screwed here."
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I agree, the fact that Rangers (and Druids) draw their strength from nature is a double edged sword. In the wilds they might be slightly overpowered but in a dungeon they may be slightly the opposite. That may draw more players to outdoor zones to play to their strengths.
And the fact that animals almost never drop anything good, or aren't generally good for grinding experience, is really up to the developers. I think this is part of Class v. Content balance. If there are no locks to pick in a dungeon, a Rogues lockpicking skill is completely useless. If there are no undead to vanquish, Clerics and Paladins can't play to their strengths. If there is nothing valuable to find in outdoor zones, Ranger skills become obsolete.
The Ranger class to me has always been at the crossroads of immersion and utility.
On the one hand, most people see the class as featuring special abilities in the outdoors and in the forest. Those type of abilities are what make the class unique and for many appealing, just as for example siphoning life usually makes a necromancer unique.
But how often does a ranger get a tell that says "Hey Ranger. We're going to go kill some animal in the forest because it drops epic loot?" Animals almost never drop anything but basic coin and maybe pelts. So you end up with class bonuses that are maladapted to dungeon fighting, in exchange for being able to track badgers through Sherwood Forest. Whee.
Alternatively, you have an opportunity cost, where even if a Ranger is "ok" in dungeon fighting, his extra class feature is not, as for many other classes, something useful in dungeons that make him or her better than merely "ok."
Rangers look awesome on paper (which is how I got roped into being one in EQ lol), but after a while you're like "waaaaaaait a minute. I think I got screwed here."
Class vs content balance would solve that issue. There were several dungeons in EQ that were still outdoor in nature allowing special abilities of such by druids and rangers to be useful. Also, there is nothing that specifically states a ranger has to be limited in their abilities to mundane animals, certain knowledge and abilities could be extended to animal like races.
At the end of the day though, not every class should be equal in every environment unless you are trying to balance class vs class (which as I said is a path to class homogenization). If you want to give meaning to choice of a class, then there has to be times where other classes will shine in certain content. This is what creates that interdependence and achieves the choice and consequence of class selections. Everyone loves to have spells like SoW, Harmony, etc... due to the power they give in play, but then don't like that that benefit is a trade off as they may not be usable in every situation.
Im like OP in that I always gear towards the bow class. Unfortunately im not very fond of pets and it seems Pantheon will be going in that direction, judging from their small description. Not sure how EQ1 or EQ2 did it but my favorite "bowman" class so far has been the LotRO Hunter. Glass canon style high DPS, handful of melee (finishers/CC), traps, and absolutely no pets to deal with.
I agree, give me no pets and in trade give me more DPS
*Also going to throw this in: If Pantheon is going the route of Rangers having pets I really hope its an option to not have a pet and trade off the pet tank abilities for better bow abilities.
If there's an AA tree or whatever I really hope the options are in place to be more of a DPS bow ranger and avoid taking a pet.
Comments
How is this for a just a VERY small sample size...
Elemental arrows,Sleep arrows,accy arrows ,piercing/blunt arrows,poison arrows etc etc
Then you have bolts/crossbow,with Holy Bolts/light based/Undead damage,Drain bolts to drain hp,Sleep /Stun bolts,status bolts etc etc.
Then you can even choose to use a gun,slower ,more powerful with all sorts of bullet types.
Everything can be crafted and is too expensive to buy so you or somebody has to craft it.
You know what i see in many games,they don't even have ammo slots,just some lame looking repeating Bow that fires as fast as a minigun.Class versatility,pretty much endless from kiting to spike damage,to slow stuns as well can also melee decently.Ranger can also use Stealth and be a solid puller for a group.
Instead of me always talking about FFXI,why can't a developer DO BETTER?Look at a really solid design and improve upon it,why is it all these developers are giving us is second rate effort?Honestly i'll be shocked if this teams system/class designer puts at minimum the same depth as FFXI Ranger class has.If they do i would be all in because one thing i look for is a solid effort by the developers teams.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Of course, the crafter could just as well have made me a high level umbrella stand for all the real good it did me.
Please make the bow useful.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Then you had an offensive fighter in both melee and ranged plus evade and parry skills, animal charming, the list goes on.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Aragorn to Frodo in The Prancing Pony.
So my original outline was clearly more of the Legolas-style Scout. No real magical ability, but a deep understanding of the wilderness and how to survive in it. Stealthy and fast, like a quintessential puller/glass-cannon.
The Ranger based on Aragorn seems to be a bit harder to pin down in the MMO sense. Their original AD&D form was different but equal to a Paladin. They could wear any armor type and got bonuses for not using a shield, although some skills required them to use light armor. They were more in tune with nature, and able to communicate with animals.
The idea of an offensive tank sounds closer to a Shadow Knight from an EQ perspective (or perhaps a Berserker, but I had left EQ before they were really implemented). It actually looks similar to the original EQ1 Ranger, but that class lacked the survivability needed to effectively tank.
It would be great if Pantheon includes specialization in classes to customize your Ranger one way or the other. Most of the utility could essentially be the same, but the differences could stem from the weapons and armor skill the user chooses (e.g. Leather and Bow vs. Chain and Dual Wield).
However, this would be some extreme specialization. It is essentially 2 different classes. One Ranger-Tank on par with Paladins and SKs, and the other Ranger-Rogue on par with Monks. Specialization would need to be mutually exclusive and not changeable on a whim or by switching out gear sets. And to have this level of depth to just the Ranger class would inevitably mean other classes would be looking for a similar level of customization. It could get complicated quickly.
I’d be happy with only having the Ranger class go one way or the other (I would play it either way), but it can’t make the same mistake of the original EQ Ranger. Outside of Tracking, there was nothing another class couldn’t do better, including being versatile. If the strength of a hybrid comes from versatility, the Ranger didn’t even have that. Like I said before, instead of a jack-of-all-trades they were just a master-of-none.EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
There should be multiple ways to craft your weapon and ammo.Their should be REASON to craft multiple ways ,example the mobs need to have various damage resistances and it all needs to be meaningful in combat so your not seeing 5 dmg or 4 dmg differences.
Geesh if a system/game designer actually uses some creativity,they could do something like certain mobs heal if you use poison on them or heal if using Fire dmg on them,that is why i said multiple type of resistances.
Then you have TYPE of dmg so again mobs needs to have type of dmg resistance ,example blunt.piercing.slashing etc etc.Once again it needs to be meaningful so players make wise decisions,it can't be one type does 33 dmg and another does 32,that would be meaningless.
Then you add in semi damage and added effects.Example a Fire based mob might be really strong versus Fire but only semi defensive versus say acid/poison or anything resembling close to burning or fire.
Then so numbers do not seem generic and repeating,system designers need to use rng and arc ,so you might have 200-250 dmg with max,100-150 semi damage,25-50 partial resists and of course 0 damage to possibly healing your enemy or even boosting their dmg output because you made a bad decision in choice of weapon and damage.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Casting spells just doesn't do it for me in MMORPGs.
I could never get into it and it's not from lack of trying.
All ranged damage should come from arrows as well as roots and snares with moderate melee dps and ability to tank in a pinch for short periods of time in a medium armor.
I would def try that type of ranger.
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
No ammo,bows that shoot like repeating guns,even the bow sounds are NOTHING like a bow would sound.
Yes i care about all those little things,when i see game design that looks like some little kids made it,i am not happy at all.Whomever made the Ranger class in GW2 would get immediately fired and a rating of 0/10.
So Pantheon beware don't be making any of that silly nonsense.
Somersaults??If i see somersaults i'm going to Pantheons offices and firing Brad myself lmao.
Luckily i have some confidence in Brad to make decent decisions,so i suspect the Ranger class will be decent but likely not as good as i want it to be because i love playing a Ranger class.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I would be surprised if Pantheon would be designed like a PvP game.
I hope that however Pantheon does this, classes will be like in Vanguard - certain aspects important to other classes might be completely irrelevant to other classes.
Someone somewhere took an arrow to the knie, and got ensnared.
A single arrow to Achilles's heel temporary rooted Achilles before it killed him.
Then someone somewhere yelled "Weeee magic firebaaall !" right after he ignited the oil on the tip of his arrow.
Spell casting Lego:
vs:
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
No, that is not what I mean. I discussed this previously in the class thread.
Basically, Class vs Content balance is where they are concerned with making classes viable to the content, insuring there is use to the class in the content specifically without concern to other classes other than maybe uniqueness (ie paladins with special undead abilities), rangers with special abilities (favored enemy, tracking, etc..)
Class vs Class balance is concerned about "tit for tat" balance between each class so all classes are useful and equally balanced according to each other (Class A tanking vs class B tanking, one classes healing to another, etc...). Class vs Class balance is the base for homogenized class design.
See, in this example if the Ranger is balanced via class vs class design, then to have all these utilities, functions, and abilities and then being balanced tit for tat with another DPS class that may not have such utility, it becomes a problem.
The Class vs Content focus solves this because it is not concerned about one class being equal in DPS, only that each class provides a unique and viable solution to obstacles in content. If that is balanced properly, all classes have a valid use regardless of their "vs" comparison.
On the one hand, most people see the class as featuring special abilities in the outdoors and in the forest. Those type of abilities are what make the class unique and for many appealing, just as for example siphoning life usually makes a necromancer unique.
But how often does a ranger get a tell that says "Hey Ranger. We're going to go kill some animal in the forest because it drops epic loot?" Animals almost never drop anything but basic coin and maybe pelts. So you end up with class bonuses that are maladapted to dungeon fighting, in exchange for being able to track badgers through Sherwood Forest. Whee.
Alternatively, you have an opportunity cost, where even if a Ranger is "ok" in dungeon fighting, his extra class feature is not, as for many other classes, something useful in dungeons that make him or her better than merely "ok."
Rangers look awesome on paper (which is how I got roped into being one in EQ lol), but after a while you're like "waaaaaaait a minute. I think I got screwed here."
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
And the fact that animals almost never drop anything good, or aren't generally good for grinding experience, is really up to the developers. I think this is part of Class v. Content balance. If there are no locks to pick in a dungeon, a Rogues lockpicking skill is completely useless. If there are no undead to vanquish, Clerics and Paladins can't play to their strengths. If there is nothing valuable to find in outdoor zones, Ranger skills become obsolete.
Class vs content balance would solve that issue. There were several dungeons in EQ that were still outdoor in nature allowing special abilities of such by druids and rangers to be useful. Also, there is nothing that specifically states a ranger has to be limited in their abilities to mundane animals, certain knowledge and abilities could be extended to animal like races.
At the end of the day though, not every class should be equal in every environment unless you are trying to balance class vs class (which as I said is a path to class homogenization). If you want to give meaning to choice of a class, then there has to be times where other classes will shine in certain content. This is what creates that interdependence and achieves the choice and consequence of class selections. Everyone loves to have spells like SoW, Harmony, etc... due to the power they give in play, but then don't like that that benefit is a trade off as they may not be usable in every situation.
*Also going to throw this in:
If Pantheon is going the route of Rangers having pets I really hope its an option to not have a pet and trade off the pet tank abilities for better bow abilities.
If there's an AA tree or whatever I really hope the options are in place to be more of a DPS bow ranger and avoid taking a pet.