Thread to discuss Archery improvements!

[mithridatis :)]

Give archers some king of instant shoot. A shoot that will deals like a 75% of base damage every 10 secs

Give the ability to stealth more effective and i mean against agroed pets. IT is fucking annoying having to run for miles and miles having a pet class noob after u

Give an ability like focushed shot something like the difference of rapid fire. The more u aim at target the more damage u deal ignoring bladeturns- shields-brittles or guards-engages, After all if u want to intant kill someone he should not stand still and wait for the grim reaper

Also give some love to us scouts and give us some chance VS melee stealthers, melee scouts for example will never overdamage a ranger or hunter

We may think many suggestions about range advancements but the real question is: Will Goa ever give a fuck about less op classes???

 

[Thlauni]

5) Range

Now this one gonna hurt Archers, but you have to offer something in return. Every other class complains about archer range, so ok, switch archers to the caster range dynamic where terrain doesnt apply. Archers retain their range advantage however from elevated positions the range advantage isnt excessive (which is the complaint now, even though the reverse occurs when an archer is shooting uphill!)

Why? I don't see any other classes having to offer something in return?

However another possible suggestion could be to reintroduce quickness as an important ability for casting.

Right now magic casting is based solely on dex, whereas bow is based damage wise on dex and speed wise on quickness.

This hurts us in two ways. 1. We shoot loads faster, 2. We need to spend template points getting quickness adjusted (admitted only to 250 but thats still typically 40 or 50 points)

 

[Gethin]

Why? I don't see any other classes having to offer something in return?

Firstly go back through the posts here and then check vnboards, people hate archers having extreme range from stealth, not longer range. Some have even said remove archers from the game. Yes, some people are joking, but alot aren't. With that sort of hatred of a class we arent going to get anything meaningful unless we give\show people we are looking to improve the game as a whole and not turn us into the FOTM classes we were in the beginning of DAOC. Mythic has already stated they dont want range fighters having stealth in future games so do you think they will improve us in any shape or form without compromise.

I'd rather see bow specced archers change from being 1 dimensional tower humpers to an awkward opponent in open field rvr who can still excel in standoff situations. To do this we need to improve our damage, interruptability and effectiveness and the only way we are going to get anything like that is to offer the carrot of what people hate the most which is our extreme range (albeit very situational). I honestly believe a change in range isnt actually a bad thing as it would improve us as a class.

Another problem is archer melee (especially so ranger) is extremely overpowered and needs to be reigned back in line. Melee Rangers tear me to shreds in melee and then proceed to shoot me for the same sort of damage as im capable of at range and they have a quarter of my bow spec.
That is a problem in my book!

Archers also get access to some serious RA (IP, PD are the main 2) which in some cases pretty much decide the fight before its even started.

 

[Gethin]

However another possible suggestion could be to reintroduce quickness as an important ability for casting.

Right now magic casting is based solely on dex, whereas bow is based damage wise on dex and speed wise on quickness.

Mythic has stated they arent not going to fundamentely alter any class in the game, and a change of casting speed from dex to quick ISNT going to happen. It doesnt affect one class, it affects every single casting class in the game!

 

[Nosufer]

Another problem is archer melee (especially so ranger) is extremely overpowered and needs to be reigned back in line. Melee Rangers tear me to shreds in melee

Thats because your are sniper specced, they will have put 12 points in bow, you will have 45-50. You will be wearing gsv/msg and other bow enhancing items, the ranger will be wearing gov/champ wep offhand, malice main hand, possibly scalars capping all melee bonuses and trying to cram as many hits/con into the temp as possible. You will have bow related RA's (FE, Aug dex, trueshot etc), the melee ranger will spec for ip/purge/pd/mop. That is the reason they tear you to shreds in melee.

and then proceed to shoot me for the same sort of damage as im capable of at range and they have a quarter of my bow spec.

The damage isn't the same, its not even close, the difference between 12 and 45-50 bow is definately noticeable.

 

[Eeben]

stealthers, melee scouts for example will never overdamage a ranger or hunter

not really, for some reason the easyest target for me atm on my rr3l7 scout is rangers since they are pretty much all fotm blade spec, pd an lw weps > rangers but vs assains the ws debuff is just to high, really anoying getting 90% of your attacks evadet an then you get the hamstring chain in your face also the nice slam crit short thing doesnt worth either because pretty much every assain has purge 3
Casters ? LOL like we have a chance. i was 35 bow when i first startet out but found out its was useless pretty much, chance for landing critshort is like 2% because you have to stand still for 4 sec or something an the target has to also an alot of target not in view shit all the time so after few days where the only thing i could use my bow for was leeching i respect to 18 bow an went 50 thrust not like it helpt on my damage much but the higher ws helps vs assains

 

[Gethin]

Thats because your are sniper specced, they will have put 12 points in bow, you will have 45-50. You will be wearing gsv/msg and other bow enhancing items, the ranger will be wearing gov/champ wep offhand, malice main hand, possibly scalars capping all melee bonuses and trying to cram as many hits/con into the temp as possible. You will have bow related RA's (FE, Aug dex, trueshot etc), the melee ranger will spec for ip/purge/pd/mop. That is the reason they tear you to shreds in melee.

Actually that was when i was melee specced (44 slash, 50 shield) and melee template to match with 380 hits, 3 x HoT and 50% melee resists. I had PD4 , IP1, Purge1, MOS4, MOB2 and toughness realm abilities.

Melee rangers are silly overpowered so please dont try and justify them.
You are starting to sound like how warlocks sounded before the nerf "we arent overpowered, we just kill things easily".

The damage isn't the same, its not even close, the difference between 12 and 45-50 bow is definately noticeable.

Yes i have seen a difference, however, even hitting a opponent for reasonable damage with a gimp bow spec is overpowered when you haven't made any effort to points into it. Some melee ranger recently claimed to crit for 800 damage with 12 bow spec, wtf, he should be hitting for like 250 damage when crit shotting with that spec at best imho.

 

[Nosufer]

Actually that was when i was melee specced (44 slash, 50 shield) and melee template to match with 380 hits, 3 x HoT and 50% melee resists. I had PD4 , IP1, Purge1, MOS4, MOB2 and toughness realm abilities.

3xHoT? did you use GoV/Scalars? did you make an anywep temp for shades and rangers who are resistant to slash damage so you can swop to cold damage? 44 slash? why not go 50 slash for diamond slash chain?

IP1 is useless, purge1 is almost useless, melee specced at rr6l4 and you had mos4? why not mos3 and get ip2? why not PD3 and get purge2? there are huuuge flaws in your RA choices for a "melee" spec, and i would be interested to know what your template was like. Did it use gov/scalars/any wep?/+26 str? capped melee damage/speed/style?

Melee rangers are silly overpowered so please dont try and justify them.
You are starting to sound like how warlocks sounded before the nerf "we arent overpowered, we just kill things easily".

What a well thought out argument "they are overpowered because i said so". Rangers are the strongest archer at the moment because at this point in the game the bow line is almost useless, therefore people spec melee which the ranger has the advantage in. I am sure you remember the release of NF, when these boards were filled full of scout whines, how scout range was OP, how having shields in siege was OP, because the majority of the rvr at the time was based around keeps. The whines went on for months and you were here defending scouts siege bonuses to the hilt. Now the game has moved to favour melee more where the ranger shines you come about moaning about rangers.

Yes i have seen a difference, however, even hitting a opponent for reasonable damage with a gimp bow spec is overpowered when you haven't made any effort to points into it. Some melee ranger recently claimed to crit for 800 damage with 12 bow spec, wtf, he should be hitting for like 250 damage when crit shotting with that spec at best imho.

800 damage critshot on a caster is possible with 12 bow, shields were most likely down and no BT (or else critshot wouldn't have landed clearly), where as a 50 bow ranger will cap out at 1200+ using champ wep. Crit shots aren't where the biggest difference is seen, its the normal shots, with 12 bow the damage is horrible in comparison to 50 bow.

 

[Aiteal]

Actually that was when i was melee specced (44 slash, 50 shield) and melee template to match with 380 hits, 3 x HoT and 50% melee resists. I had PD4 , IP1, Purge1, MOS4, MOB2 and toughness realm abilities.

Melee rangers are silly overpowered so please dont try and justify them.
You are starting to sound like how warlocks sounded before the nerf "we arent overpowered, we just kill things easily".

Nonsense, comparing melee rangers to pre nerf warlocks is silly.
One dumped chambers killing anything in sight, the other could wear down assassins once every 15 minutes by dumping realm abilities and ML's and taking advantage of heaters against leather bonuses.
Those armour bonuses are now nerfed to 5%, and 99% of stealthers have CL resists.
I can rememeber when I was melee specced killing a RR10 shadowblade (I was RR5) when I had WH up and my SoM procced like crazy, having to use purge 2 and IP 2 and thinking cool.
3 mins later a RR2 Inf handed me my ass after I got dragonfanged and he walked away on 90% hits.
If it was as easy as you claim the Inf would be dead and I would have walked away with 90% hits.

Yes i have seen a difference, however, even hitting a opponent for reasonable damage with a gimp bow spec is overpowered when you haven't made any effort to points into it. Some melee ranger recently claimed to crit for 800 damage with 12 bow spec, wtf, he should be hitting for like 250 damage when crit shotting with that spec at best imho.

Then he just shot a rezz sick caster who didnt put his abs shield up.

 

[Gethin]

3xHoT? did you use GoV/Scalars? did you make an anywep temp for shades and rangers who are resistant to slash damage so you can swop to cold damage? 44 slash? why not go 50 slash for diamond slash chain?

I used to prefer enrage\sapphire slash for reduced end, Scouts dont exactly kill quickly in melee and brutalise is pretty lethal is it sticks. Unfortunately i couldnt find a MP LGN Cold slasher at the time so i didnt bother going with one, which i agree is a potential weakness.

As for items i used ML10 vest, MSG (for the arrows) instead of the ones you stated.

IP1 is useless, purge1 is almost useless, melee specced at rr6l4 and you had mos4? why not mos3 and get ip2? why not PD3 and get purge2? there are huuuge flaws in your RA choices for a "melee" spec, and i would be interested to know what your template was like. Did it use gov/scalars/any wep?/+26 str? capped melee damage/speed/style?

Unlike rangers who have the best offensive in dual wield, scouts need attrition to beat opponents so thats why I went MOS4. I did that so i could put an arrow into opponents before they saw me + i didnt really want to stumble into a high RR assassin as they pretty much all hand me my arse.

As for template, i had +15 str +14 dex cap. I also had 10 Melee combat speed, 4% melee damage and 4% style damage.

I based my whole fighting style around attrition which any 1h melee pretty much has to do as they wont output anywhere near the damage a dual wielder does.

Purge1 is just as useful as purge2 if you know how to use it and 10 points cheaper.

What a well thought out argument "they are overpowered because i said so". Rangers are the strongest archer at the moment because at this point in the game the bow line is almost useless, therefore people spec melee which the ranger has the advantage in. I am sure you remember the release of NF, when these boards were filled full of scout whines, how scout range was OP, how having shields in siege was OP, because the majority of the rvr at the time was based around keeps. The whines went on for months and you were here defending scouts siege bonuses to the hilt. Now the game has moved to favour melee more where the ranger shines you come about moaning about rangers.

Firstly lets talk about range, rangers cant really complain only being 100 units less than scouts! 2ndly rangers now get access to the best bow in the game in the 5.7 speed 100% quality (lets emphasise that 5.7!) bow (scout version is only 5.6 and we are supposed to be primary archer!).

Rangers have been #1 archer for alot longer than NF has been around, its been accentuated now due to DW vs shield dynamic and Arrows vs Small Shield.

You convienently forget that rangers also benefitted by the release of NF as they can shoot arrows aswell!

800 damage critshot on a caster is possible with 12 bow, shields were most likely down and no BT (or else critshot wouldn't have landed clearly), where as a 50 bow ranger will cap out at 1200+ using champ wep. Crit shots aren't where the biggest difference is seen, its the normal shots, with 12 bow the damage is horrible in comparison to 50 bow.

800 damage from a 12 spec bow archer is obscene due to the fact you havent levelled it in any way, even if that is only a one off. I spec 38 levels more than that and i only crit for an extra 50% max if crit lands and thats a big if, that doesnt add up in my book. Normal arrows always suffer for huge variances for some unknown reason, the fact your 12 bow should mean you suffer those far more than a lev 50 bow specced archer, which isn't the case.

Lastly, if i remember rightly, hasn't your TL also said melee rangers are an abomination that came about by accident rather than design!

 

[Gethin]

Nonsense, comparing melee rangers to pre nerf warlocks is silly.

Aye i admit that was OTT, sorry, i couldnt resist.

Then he just shot a rezz sick caster who didnt put his abs shield up.

That doesn't make up for the fact it was 800 damage from a weapon style that has had no training.

 

[Eeben]

getin get pd an those rangers wont do any damage to you since 95% of them all are blade spec !!!!

 

[Gethin]

getin get pd an those rangers wont do any damage to you since 95% of them all are blade spec !!!!

I had PD4 but thx for the suggestion. Being brutally honest i just plain sucked at melee as i was too used to playing my scout in the sniper style and couldnt really adjust to it.

Im back as a sniper scout now. I also have a brand new 'Time to irritate Casters' template inc very soon which i just know is going to make their day

 

[Aiteal]

Aye i admit that was OTT, sorry, i couldnt resist.


That doesn't make up for the fact it was 800 damage from a weapon style that has had no training.

Bow variance is a little silly yes

In fairness
It's freakish capped damage on a target with no ABS whatsoever
probably took 6-7 secs to line up that critshot at that bow spec (autotrained)
and all the caster had to do was move to stop it happening

Its not a common occurance

 

[Nosufer]

I used to prefer enrage\sapphire slash for reduced end, Scouts dont exactly kill quickly in melee and brutalise is pretty lethal is it sticks. Unfortunately i couldnt find a MP LGN Cold slasher at the time so i didnt bother going with one, which i agree is a potential weakness.

As for items i used ML10 vest, MSG (for the arrows) instead of the ones you stated.

So no scalars, no gov for the af/dot procs style/melee damage, your template was at a flaw from the start, no offence.

Brutalize is nice, but the amy and diamond slash chain is great, but as you admitted you didn't use a cold wep so you are instantly facing 10% from armor tables 5% CL resists and possibly PD. Then there is also the fact that you admit you suck in melee which stacked with the other problems in your templates/ra selection might just give you the thought that rangers are grossly OP.

Unlike rangers who have the best offensive in dual wield, scouts need attrition to beat opponents so thats why I went MOS4. I did that so i could put an arrow into opponents before they saw me + i didnt really want to stumble into a high RR assassin as they pretty much all hand me my arse.

As for template, i had +15 str +14 dex cap. I also had 10 Melee combat speed, 4% melee damage and 4% style damage.

You didn't cap your +str either for slash damage, didn't cap your melee/style damage, alot of flaws so far.

I based my whole fighting style around attrition which any 1h melee pretty much has to do as they wont output anywhere near the damage a dual wielder does.

Purge1 is just as useful as purge2 if you know how to use it and 10 points cheaper.

Sure you won't do as much melee damage as a dual wielder, but you get an anytime 9 second stun and you get to block every single arrow i fire at you, which of course isn't as good but is a huge advantage.

Purge 2 is far superior to purge 1,

Firstly lets talk about range, rangers cant really complain only being 100 units less than scouts! 2ndly rangers now get access to the best bow in the game in the 5.7 speed 100% quality (lets emphasise that 5.7!) bow (scout version is only 5.6 and we are supposed to be primary archer!).

That 100 units at the start of NF was a big difference, it allowed scouts to reach from one bridge tower to another, hitting people anywhere on it, where as a ranger can only just get across ( i don't think hunters can). It also allows scouts to fire at people on top of a lv10 tower, a ranger can only just get to the top stood right next to it, again i believe a hunter can't reach the top.

I agree that now rangers have the best bow for >sniping< now, but artifact wise scouts still have better bows with braggarts being the best all round bow and its been that way since ToA release which was 3 years ago?

Rangers have been #1 archer for alot longer than NF has been around, its been accentuated now due to DW vs shield dynamic and Arrows vs Small Shield.

You convienently forget that rangers also benefitted by the release of NF as they can shoot arrows aswell!

Scouts at NF release when everything was based around keeps/towers for the first 2 months were by far the best archer due to the mechanics of the game, in siege scouts shine. You shoot at a scout from a keep, he walks away blocking you and then stealths.

800 damage from a 12 spec bow archer is obscene due to the fact you havent levelled it in any way, even if that is only a one off. I spec 38 levels more than that and i only crit for an extra 50% max if crit lands and thats a big if, that doesnt add up in my book. Normal arrows always suffer for huge variances for some unknown reason, the fact your 12 bow should mean you suffer those far more than a lev 50 bow specced archer, which isn't the case.

As i said, he capped out on a caster with 0 abs and no AF, normal shots with 12 bow are almost useless, the damage is appauling if they actually manage to hit. Miss rates are high and overall DPS is very low. The difference as i said before between 12 and 50 bow is huge, looking at an isolated incident of a crit shot landing on a caster with no shields up isn't the best way to go about things.

Lastly, if i remember rightly, hasn't your TL also said melee rangers are an abomination that came about by accident rather than design!

No he stated that rangers power lies in the artifacts they were given access to in ToA.

 

[Gethin]

So no scalars, no gov for the af/dot procs style/melee damage, your template was at a flaw from the start, no offence.

Brutalize is nice, but the amy and diamond slash chain is great, but as you admitted you didn't use a cold wep so you are instantly facing 10% from armor tables 5% CL resists and possibly PD. Then there is also the fact that you admit you suck in melee which stacked with the other problems in your templates/ra selection might just give you the thought that rangers are grossly OP.

You didn't cap your +str either for slash damage, didn't cap your melee/style damage, alot of flaws so far.

What you have said above is all semantics, an extra 10 str here and 6% melee damage there makes very little difference in the grand picture. The artis you mention aren't that great either, one never procs and the other only increases AF marginally.

What does matter is the Dual Wield vs Small shield dynamic which is unfair on small shield users, but thats another story, which i wont go into. It has been covered to death.

Sure you won't do as much melee damage as a dual wielder, but you get an anytime 9 second stun and you get to block every single arrow i fire at you, which of course isn't as good but is a huge advantage. Purge 2 is far superior to purge 1,

I really cant be arsed to start going over SLAM or no SLAM argument, Jeez how many times has this been covered on these and the VNboards. You have your opinion and i have mine, we can argue the toss for hours on end with no winners.

The only thing that matters im my eyes is the flawed dual wield vs small shield dynamic.

That 100 units at the start of NF was a big difference, it allowed scouts to reach from one bridge tower to another, hitting people anywhere on it, where as a ranger can only just get across ( i don't think hunters can). It also allows scouts to fire at people on top of a lv10 tower, a ranger can only just get to the top stood right next to it, again i believe a hunter can't reach the top.

I agree that now rangers have the best bow for >sniping< now, but artifact wise scouts still have better bows with braggarts being the best all round bow and its been that way since ToA release which was 3 years ago?

You example is a bridge everywhere else it makes very little difference so we have the advantage in one area, omg you really want your cake and eat it. Scouts also have trouble shooting to the top of a level 10 tower aswell, i have to stand close to the tower also to be in range (and i have the max range possible). Hunters get the shit end of the stick in the range department imho which is a tad unfair, especially as they are supposed to be the melee archer, which everyone knows you excel at.

Scouts at NF release when everything was based around keeps/towers for the first 2 months were by far the best archer due to the mechanics of the game, in siege scouts shine. You shoot at a scout from a keep, he walks away blocking you and then stealths.

Scouts were supposed to have the best range and defense. Scouts are designed to be the best bow archer after all. With that label you would expect us to shine in keep fights and standoff situations, however, outside of a keep or melee you are just as capable if not more so.

No he stated that rangers power lies in the artifacts they were given access to in ToA.

He also called them an 'abomination' in the same post which he said was caused by combination of things including artifacts, RA and dual wield (which if i'm right was by accident).

Anyways i will say no more on melee rangers, Im far more interested in archery being fixed.

 

[Nosufer]

What you have said above is all semantics, an extra 10 str here and 6% melee damage there makes very little difference in the grand picture. The artis you mention aren't that great either, one never procs and the other only increases AF marginally.

What does matter is the Dual Wield vs Small shield dynamic which is unfair on small shield users, but thats another story, which i wont go into. It has been covered to death.

And its these scematics that give you the edge in a fight, 6% melee and 6% style and 10 extra strength do make a difference. Your template was severely flawed, and combined with your admittance that you suck at melee is a clear indication that you are not in the best position to label melee rangers OP on the basis that the eat you.

I really cant be arsed to start going over SLAM or no SLAM argument, Jeez how many times has this been covered on these and the VNboards. You have your opinion and i have mine, we can argue the toss for hours on end with no winners.

The only thing that matters im my eyes is the flawed dual wield vs small shield dynamic.

Well your almost immune to my primary methd of damage (bow), i guess it would only be fair to remove the penalty shields get vs DW so you are almost immune to my melee also. Thats real balance

If they removed the 50% dw penalty small shields faced against DW then i would expect them to implement the penalty onto your shield vs arrows.

You example is a bridge everywhere else it makes very little difference so we have the advantage in one area, omg you really want your cake and eat it.

No, i am pointing out that you have advantages with a bow where as we have advantages with melee.

Scouts also have trouble shooting to the top of a level 10 tower aswell, i have to stand close to the tower also to be in range (and i have the max range possible). Hunters get the shit end of the stick in the range department imho which is a tad unfair, especially as they are supposed to be the melee archer, which everyone knows you excel at.

Hunters are great in melee, a well equipped hunter can do some evil damage, especially if they get the rear stun off which some hunters are great at doing via walkthrough.

Scouts were supposed to have the best range and defense. Scouts are designed to be the best bow archer after all. With that label you would expect us to shine in keep fights and standoff situations, however, outside of a keep or melee you are just as capable if not more so.

You do shine in keep fights and standoff situations, you have the best range and best defence, outside of those situations you are right, you don't shine as much and rangers are better "in the field" that you. This is mainly beause the bow line is weak and ranger have superior melee. But no matter what, scouts will always have the advantage in keep/standoff situations.

He also called them an 'abomination' in the same post which he said was caused by combination of things including artifacts, RA and dual wield (which if i'm right was by accident).

If you can please link me to that, i didn't see that post and would like to read it, regarding artifacts we don't get anything different to the hunter and scout, except the hunter can't use malice but can use PHN.

Anyways i will say no more on melee rangers, Im far more interested in archery being fixed.

Me too.

 

[Matmardigan]

First of all.

mostly, all of us archers agree in the point that Bow line DYNAMICS need 2 be fixed. To much disturbing bugs and abilities got introduced since TOA which makes the use of Bow useless.

as you admitted you didn't use a cold wep so you are instantly facing 10% from armor tables 5% CL resists and possibly PD.

CL5, ML and PD doesnt have anything to do with the problem.
Most people have CL5 ML10 and most Archers have some PD.
Cold Weapon is a point.

Then there is also the fact that you admit you suck in melee which stacked with the other problems in your templates/ra selection might just give you the thought that rangers are grossly OP.

I doesnt think rangers are OP.
They do alot more melee dmg than Scouts thats obvious and its ok because of their lack of diffence.

But i think Game Dynamics like strafing/run through which is part of the game and based on latency/internet connection/ping should be thought over by Mythic.

I think the possiblity to strafe/run through, the fact of bad ping/latency that u see ur opponent in game in front of u even though hes not, which lets u get "not in view" messages even if u use face, or if u walk back makes people angry and they start 2 scream, fuck this class its totaly OP.

Did it use gov/scalars/any wep?/+26 str? capped melee damage/speed/style? the amy and diamond slash chain is great

i've all of this.
And the right RA

But ur point isnt correct.

see below what Aiteal said. Scouts dmg never will be as good like Ranger Dmg.

It doesnt matter if i have the PERFECT Melee Scout template with all stats/skills/bonues caped.

Its a fact that Scouts doesnt perform as well against all other Stealther classes .
Scouts arent gimped in melee, they can do ok'ish dmg but by far the worst melee class between all stealthers.

Scouts have been told via the TL by mythic that they will get no melee loving, simply because they have mincers to group with, not what they wanted to hear but its what they got. The advantage that mincers give alb stealth groups is what keeps scout melee from being upped.

 

[Gethin]

Well your almost immune to my primary methd of damage (bow), i guess it would only be fair to remove the penalty shields get vs DW so you are almost immune to my melee also. Thats real balance

If they removed the 50% dw penalty small shields faced against DW then i would expect them to implement the penalty onto your shield vs arrows.

OMG, go read up about the arrow vs shield dynamic. There is a penalty for small shield users now if you have multiple attackers and has been for some time (at the insistence of larian and rangers in general). I spec 42 in shield to have it pretty much negated by dual wield and multiple attackers, that really sounds fair to me.

Hunters are great in melee, a well equipped hunter can do some evil damage, especially if they get the rear stun off which some hunters are great at doing via walkthrough.

Not as good as DW though.......Im betting hunters would give anything for dual wield over 2h.

If you can please link me to that, i didn't see that post and would like to read it, regarding artifacts we don't get anything different to the hunter and scout, except the hunter can't use malice but can use PHN.
Me too.

There ya go, scroll down a little and see what he says, ill rest my case here.

http://www.critshot.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12545

If you read his first summarised point he says the 'Abomination' known as melee rangers.

 

[Gethin]

First of all.mostly, all of us archers agree in the point that Bow line DYNAMICS need 2 be fixed. To much disturbing bugs and abilities got introduced since TOA which makes the use of Bow useless.

I couldnt agree more..

 

[Nosufer]

First of all.

mostly, all of us archers agree in the point that Bow line DYNAMICS need 2 be fixed. To much disturbing bugs and abilities got introduced since TOA which makes the use of Bow useless.

Agreed

CL5, ML and PD doesnt have anything to do with the problem.
Most people have CL5 ML10 and most Archers have some PD.
Cold Weapon is a point.

When CL5/PD is stacked with 10% armor tables it becomes extremely powerful.

I doesnt think rangers are OP.
They do alot more melee dmg than Scouts thats obvious and its ok because of their lack of diffence.

But i think Game Dynamics like strafing/run through which is part of the game and based on latency/internet connection/ping should be thought over by Mythic.

I think the possiblity to strafe/run through, the fact of bad ping/latency that u see ur opponent in game in front of u even though hes not, which lets u get "not in view" messages even if u use face, or if u walk back makes people angry and they start 2 scream, fuck this class its totaly OP.

Agreed 100%

i've all of this.
And the right RA

But ur point isnt correct.

see below what Aiteal said. Scouts dmg never will be as good like Ranger Dmg.

It doesnt matter if i have the PERFECT Melee Scout template with all stats/skills/bonues caped.

Its a fact that Scouts doesnt perform as well against all other Stealther classes .
Scouts arent gimped in melee, they can do ok'ish dmg but by far the worst melee class between all stealthers.

Scout damage won't ever be as good as ranger damage, you are correct, but that doesn't mean to say it can't be decent, VF was bragging the other day about some 2xx or possibly 3xx hit with his wep on his scout and he got a crit on top of that also, it was an impressive hit.

Fact of the matter is, his template and ra choice and even spec wasn't making the best of a melee scout. I am sure you will agree with me on that.

And i agree again, scouts are the worst melee class, but are by far the best class in siege/standoff situations. The only difference is that the game has evolved since NF's was released and people were crying about scouts being OP. The abilities to negate bow forced people into speccing melee which is where rangers shine.

 

[Nosufer]

OMG, go read up about the arrow vs shield dynamic. There is a penalty for small shield users now if you have multiple attackers and has been for some time (at the insistence of larian and rangers in general). I spec 42 in shield to have it pretty much negated by dual wield and multiple attackers, that really sounds fair to me.

I am aware of the shield dynamics introduced vs multiple attackers but why bring multiple attackers vs your shield into it? when i alone shoot at you, your shield negates my entire primary damage line. Do you think removing the penalty your shield recieves to DW would be fair? so i now can't shoot you from range and when i get into melee you anytime stun me for 9 seconds then proceed to block the majority of my hits?

Again nice balace you have there.

Not as good as DW though.......Im betting hunters would give anything for dual wield over 2h.

Yes DW is the best of the 3 archers, i have no disagreement with that, but shield is also very good, if purge is down you have 9 seconds of free damage on me.

There ya go, scroll down a little and see what he says, ill rest my case here.

http://www.critshot.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12545

If you read his first summarised point he says the 'Abomination' known as melee rangers.

Thanks for the link, as i have stated many times, melee rangers were brought about due to the weakness of the bow line, but the only classes they strive against are other stealthers, mainly scouts and hunters. Larian has always been pro bow which is why he describes the melee ranger as an "abomination", he would be happy to see a archer melee reduction across the table if it increasd the possibility of bow love. Other than that he says exactly what we all know, bow has recieved nothing and melee has got alot.

 

[Gethin]

I am aware of the shield dynamics introduced vs multiple attackers but why bring multiple attackers vs your shield into it? when i alone shoot at you, your shield negates my entire primary damage line. Do you think removing the penalty your shield recieves to DW would be fair? so i now can't shoot you from range and when i get into melee you anytime stun me for 9 seconds then proceed to block the majority of my hits?

How many points do you have to spend to guarantee to half my defence and how many points to i have to spend to guarantee i block you?

 

[Nosufer]

How many points do you have to spend to guarantee to half my defence and how many points to i have to spend to guarantee i block you?

None for the ranger, 27 for the scout (7 spec shield for engage). So for no points i negate half of your defence line, for 27 points you can negate my entire primary damage line.

Yeah shield is really weak......

 

[Gethin]

Thanks for the link, as i have stated many times, melee rangers were brought about due to the weakness of the bow line, but the only classes they strive against are other stealthers, mainly scouts and hunters. Larian has always been pro bow which is why he describes the melee ranger as an "abomination", he would be happy to see a archer melee reduction across the table if it increasd the possibility of bow love. Other than that he says exactly what we all know, bow has recieved nothing and melee has got alot.

You took offence to me calling melee rangers overpowered and thus we started our little exchange of views here. Regardless, of whether its a change in game style or the introduction of new abilities, the link i posted shows that your 'OWN' TL has stated that melee rangers are overpowered and he even called them an 'abomination'.

Yes he is pro-bow spec, but, the fact still remains that he has highlighted such an obvious problem with your class (which you have failed to acknowledge) then in my eyes no more needs to be said.

Larian is a knowledgeable player and an excellent TL. He has done a considerable amount for archery in general and a hell of lot more to improve rangers. I wish the TL (cant remember his name but he hardly played his scout) between Oakleif and Vnimble was half as good as Larian.

Over and Out.

 

[Nosufer]

You took offence to me calling melee rangers overpowered and thus we started our little exchange of views here. Regardless, of whether its a change in game style or the introduction of new abilities, the link i posted shows that your 'OWN' TL has stated that melee rangers are overpowered and he even called them an 'abomination'.

I didn't take offence to you calling melee rangers extremely overpowered, i pointed out the flaws in your reasoning for them being overpowered, nothing of which you have been able to counter. I pointed out that your template/spec/ra's were all poor in regards to a "melee" scouts. I didn't get to edit my post in time but ill explain now, Larian calls them abominations simply becase he doesn't percieve them as being true archers, it's now how the archer classes should be (melee specced), that is his reasoning for calling them abominations.

I have read the link, he doesn't say they are overpowerd, just explains the reasons of why they have become favourable which most people here have already acknowledged. Again the original poster started the thread in regards to classic, which is where the majority of the ranger whine comes from and rightly so, on classic rangers and vamps need balancing.

If you have a link to him stating "yes the ranger class is overpowered and unfair" then please provide it, but if the whole basis of your argument has come down to an interpretation of word used by the tealm leader then sorry to say but it just doesn't count for much.

I think everyone is happy to agree melee rangers are powerful vs stealthers, mostly scouts and hunters (a good assasin will beat a melee ranger, unless all his tricks are up, even then they can still win)

If you have ever played a melee ranger, and have ever played an assasin you will clearly know the ease of which both kill. The melee ranger doesn't come close to the assasin in terms of killing ability and is extremely timer dependent unlike the assasin.

Yes he is pro-bow spec, but, the fact still remains that he has highlighted such an obvious problem with your class (which you have failed to acknowledge) then in my eyes no more needs to be said.

I haven't failed to acknowledge the fact that melee rangers are the best of the archer class, what i have failed to acknowledge is your interpretation of them being "extremely overpowered", which they are not.

Larian is a knowledgeable player and an excellent TL. He has done a considerable amount for archery in general and a hell of lot more to improve rangers. I wish the TL (cant remember his name but he hardly played his scout) between Oakleif and Vnimble was half as good as Larian.

Over and Out.

You mean Andro, Andro was a good TL, problem was he just stopped reading critshot, stopped playing his class and went off to WoW, it was a few months later he decided to let everyone know.

 

[Puppet]

But ur point isnt correct.

see below what Aiteal said. Scouts dmg never will be as good like Ranger Dmg.

It doesnt matter if i have the PERFECT Melee Scout template with all stats/skills/bonues caped.

Good! I can never get the defense of a scout on my ranger. If you could have the offense of a ranger, I would like to have the defense of a scout. Thats what makes the characters different. Its just shit (for scouts) that offensive wins mostly over defensive (mostly, not always).

And people who claim scout defense sucks, well Im sorry but I dont agree. I had fights with melee-orientated scouts around my RR on my ranger, and the fights become quite close at times. Yes, he deals less damage per hit, however quite a few hits are blocked aswell, making the fight pretty equal. Against assassins however, scouts are severly penalized, I agree. Mostly due to the changes in RA's (Purge3 was the biggest nerf to scouts ever).

 

[Matmardigan]

to be honset, i doesnt want change the Thread topic into melee differences between archer classes.

Scout damage won't ever be as good as ranger damage, you are correct, but that doesn't mean to say it can't be decent, VF was bragging the other day about some 2xx or possibly 3xx hit with his wep on his scout and he got a crit on top of that also, it was an impressive hit.

correct, Scout melee can be decent. The combinition of rr, playstyle, skill and luck makes the melee Scouts the most challenging class between all stealthers.

Alot of people play assasins cause they want RULE, they want the FOTM stealther kind, like most people did as they rolled Scouts as NF got introduced, not looking 4 challange. It just have to be FOTM and RP's have 2 be farmed easy with it. They looking 4 easymode classes.

They confound "challenge" with playstyle and skill.

Edit:

Its a challange for me to fight assasins in melee, playstyle and skills are needed but the class differences between archer and assasin melee with their own abilities makes it a challenge 4 the archer. The advantage is on the assasins side.

Fact of the matter is, his template and ra choice and even spec wasn't making the best of a melee scout. I am sure you will agree with me on that.

ur right, his template and RA's wasnt made for pure melee.

And i agree again, scouts are the worst melee class, but are by far the best class in siege/standoff situations. The only difference is that the game has evolved since NF's was released and people were crying about scouts being OP. The abilities to negate bow forced people into speccing melee which is where rangers shine.

aye.

PS:

ill add that as ps cause its not a point i want give priority to.

When CL5/PD is stacked with 10% armor tables it becomes extremely powerful.

correct.

I compared it between Archers.

All archer classes have access to same abilities, so its a pat situation. He have CL5/ML10 and abit PD and me have CL5/ML10 and abit PD.

Theres just 1 Ability advantage between Archers, rr5 hunter ability is much better than scout or ranger 1. Hunters doesnt get Bow/melee penalty after useing rr5.

 

[Aiteal]

Theres just 1 Ability advantage between Archers, rr5 hunter ability is much better than scout or ranger 1. Hunters doesnt get Bow/melee penalty after useing rr5.

I'll keep the ranger one
300 free damage with a stun is a nice way to finish the fight
especially if you have astral blades or traitors mists up
and its bugged so that it don't disarm you alot of times if you use it as a deathblow

although the hunter one is aoe, thats kinda nice

 

[Vodkafairy]

Scout damage won't ever be as good as ranger damage, you are correct, but that doesn't mean to say it can't be decent, VF was bragging the other day about some 2xx or possibly 3xx hit with his wep on his scout and he got a crit on top of that also, it was an impressive hit.

well i wasn't quite serious. got a 300+150 hit on some animist, prolly forgot a buff or so. funny detail was that he "shitlisted" me after that fight, so he adds on sight!

anyways, i don't think scouts have the worst melee of stealthers at all. their dps is lowest, but defence can be very high to compensate.

bow is not attractive for me at all, i use it to pull people to more quiet spots or get killblows on runners. ~200-250 damage with 13+5 lb is fine for me. some utility would be nice i guess, but more damage, no need for me.