R
revminster
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
I've duelled some wardens and won most (all? can't remember.)fights. Not using any RA's that is. But I'm definetly up for some more testing. 
S
sjaakievos
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
Lol , Celtic Dual , hahahaha .. Celtic Dual hehehehehe ... omfg lmgfao .. hehe funny guys Mythic ..
F
Falcon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
Celtic dual is crap up to the other two realms duel weild specs but speccing in it still gives you about 600 more damage in a fight than not speccing it...
S
scarffs
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
Love your theory and I'm a believer
I'm a hunter specced 44 spear 42lb 32bc 33 stealth
Gonna respec to 50 spear 42lb 32bc stealthrest but who cares with see hidden.
I would take bow lower but we hunters dont have options, beastcraft sucks and stealth is useless imo, 25 + something is enough.
I'm a hunter specced 44 spear 42lb 32bc 33 stealth
Gonna respec to 50 spear 42lb 32bc stealthrest but who cares with see hidden.
I would take bow lower but we hunters dont have options, beastcraft sucks and stealth is useless imo, 25 + something is enough.
O
old.SadonTheGrey
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
I don't like this bit:
uke:
uke:
F
Falcon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
Well when we hit, we hit. The problem is hitting with bladeturn, evade, block, parry. I'd more than happily see a reduction in damage for a chance to break BT, bypass block and not have our arrows evaded
O
old.Glendower
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
interesting
Good analysis.
The reason you aren't getting variance is probably the same reason variance for casters after a certain point cease to be an issue...once you go over 2/3 of your level in a spec line (and you mentioned some RR bonuses and the like), you variance is almost nil. the fact that you have a similar effect to your damage progression with spec increase that we (as a warden and druid for instance) get with a heal spell is supportive of this idea.
Anyway, thanks for doing the work.
Good analysis.
The reason you aren't getting variance is probably the same reason variance for casters after a certain point cease to be an issue...once you go over 2/3 of your level in a spec line (and you mentioned some RR bonuses and the like), you variance is almost nil. the fact that you have a similar effect to your damage progression with spec increase that we (as a warden and druid for instance) get with a heal spell is supportive of this idea.
Anyway, thanks for doing the work.
S
SoulFly Amarok
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
and get flamed, yaaay.
From decent comments, you usually get flamed to hell.
Good post Xest, right there
A
alisdair
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
Thanks for the interesting post Xest, your new spec looks very similar to my planned end template.
planned 50 spec atm :
stealth: 29
cd: 30
pierce/blades: 39
bow: 35
pf: 36
However have you considered pierce rather than blades?
I am blade specced celt atm, I went for the bonus against leather figuring I'd face mostly assassins and cloth wearers in melee.
I am considering a respec though since I have read great things about Diamondback (25 pierce style) which has a stun (5s I think). Also I thought that the extra speed of pierce might prove better against BT etc.
The deciding issue here as far as I can see is that by speccing to only 39 blades you get the two style chain off Fireblade (use anytime), opposed to having to spec to 44 pierce to get a 2 style chain off Diamondback (use after evade).
Another reason I am considering pierce over blades is that with so many more debuffs in the game than when I started, a spec line based on two stats rather than one could actually be considered a benefit.
I don't have any realm abilities yet for the ranger, but I have been told putting some points into dodger makes diamondback really effective. Not sure if this would hold so true for a celt though. I would be interested to hear from anyone with experience of pierce/diamondback/dodger combo etc.
Anyway thanks again for the post, very interesting. I am now seriosuly considering dropping bow even more.
/edit speeling and tpyos!!!1
planned 50 spec atm :
stealth: 29
cd: 30
pierce/blades: 39
bow: 35
pf: 36
However have you considered pierce rather than blades?
I am blade specced celt atm, I went for the bonus against leather figuring I'd face mostly assassins and cloth wearers in melee.
I am considering a respec though since I have read great things about Diamondback (25 pierce style) which has a stun (5s I think). Also I thought that the extra speed of pierce might prove better against BT etc.
The deciding issue here as far as I can see is that by speccing to only 39 blades you get the two style chain off Fireblade (use anytime), opposed to having to spec to 44 pierce to get a 2 style chain off Diamondback (use after evade).
Another reason I am considering pierce over blades is that with so many more debuffs in the game than when I started, a spec line based on two stats rather than one could actually be considered a benefit.
I don't have any realm abilities yet for the ranger, but I have been told putting some points into dodger makes diamondback really effective. Not sure if this would hold so true for a celt though. I would be interested to hear from anyone with experience of pierce/diamondback/dodger combo etc.
Anyway thanks again for the post, very interesting. I am now seriosuly considering dropping bow even more.
/edit speeling and tpyos!!!1
F
Falcon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
Those near me know I went for blades for one main reason. That reason is that I've always been focussed towards assassin hunting, if I went peirce I'd suffer negatives vs SBs and Infs, going slash I get positive and neutral respectively. The same goes vs Hunters and Scouts which I also run into in the stealth wars all too often
I guess it depends what you want to fight, but with all the screams of thrust damage being stealth nerfed last patch I'd be even more worried about taking that route as a precaution more than anything.
On the other hand however, there's people like Revminster who have gone peirce and still do very, very well.
SBs will become harder with peirce spec tho, they're bound to, you'll be caught up in a negative armour vs negative armour fight when you could be having negative armour vs their positive armour - that's a 20% difference compared to a 0% difference, I think in the assassin hunting game that's too much to ignore.
I guess it depends what you want to fight, but with all the screams of thrust damage being stealth nerfed last patch I'd be even more worried about taking that route as a precaution more than anything.
On the other hand however, there's people like Revminster who have gone peirce and still do very, very well.
SBs will become harder with peirce spec tho, they're bound to, you'll be caught up in a negative armour vs negative armour fight when you could be having negative armour vs their positive armour - that's a 20% difference compared to a 0% difference, I think in the assassin hunting game that's too much to ignore.
F
Faeldawn
Guest
- Thread starter
- #41
Ranger stealth under 35 wont save you from an assassin, im told that high stelath still works well as very few assassins go for stealth over 40 (base).
Low bow spec will reduce the only decent damage you are capable of
High melee helps a lot, but rangers arent a melee class, no parry, if they dont use a sheild they cant even block, if they do use a sheild, it makes cd worthless, no protect if they do. No guard/intercept/engage, poor evade (be honest, ranger evade is pretty crappy). In rvr shoot things that wave their hands around, dont try to melee, too much work for yer healers/rezzers who have other tanks to deal with.
Pathfinding dmg adder is gonna be nerfed (so im unreliably told)
Rangers are really messed up atm, we deffo need a lil mythic lovin, although in a group, we aint the first class to get bolted or charged down by a tank, so have a lil time to do some good damage, drop a caster/healer or 2 which can help win a battle for the group.
Im afraid i must agree with censi (god, did i just say that?)
Low bow spec will reduce the only decent damage you are capable of
High melee helps a lot, but rangers arent a melee class, no parry, if they dont use a sheild they cant even block, if they do use a sheild, it makes cd worthless, no protect if they do. No guard/intercept/engage, poor evade (be honest, ranger evade is pretty crappy). In rvr shoot things that wave their hands around, dont try to melee, too much work for yer healers/rezzers who have other tanks to deal with.
Pathfinding dmg adder is gonna be nerfed (so im unreliably told
)Rangers are really messed up atm, we deffo need a lil mythic lovin, although in a group, we aint the first class to get bolted or charged down by a tank, so have a lil time to do some good damage, drop a caster/healer or 2 which can help win a battle for the group.
Im afraid i must agree with censi (god, did i just say that?
)
K
kxn
Guest
- Thread starter
- #42
err u get 332 points over if u spec like that Falcon..
F
Falcon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #43
No offence Faeldawn but that post is one of the most un-researched, ill written mis-conceptions of the ranger class I've ever read. Remember I have played both as a full bow, semi-bow and full melee ranger. Let me address:
Censi is merely another person who's decided to spout off without any research or testing of a melee ranger, or perhaps he just wasted his respec on going full bow then felt he was gimped? Who knows, but either way he clearly knows nothing at all about what ranger melee is capable of. His post really isn't even worth the read unless he provides some kind of proof that all the melee only wins from armsman to shadowblades, and thanes to clerics were just a dream.
Assassins may go under 40 base but they'll sure as hell get 50 or at least very close with items. With See Hidden, and Detect Hidden to a lesser extent assassins will find you anyway, no matter if your stealth is below 35 or over 35, the only difference is, if it's over 35 you stance less chance of a win vs the assassins because you've taken points out of melee to get it.
By a miniscule, damn near irrelevant amount - read the original post.
Rangers may as well be a melee class if specced melee, they're on the same damage table as assassins, just don't get the front loaded styles, but DO get a damage add. No ranger in his right mind would use a sheild, and you're right, we do have less defence without it, but also more damage - enough damage to kill an opponent fast enough for the loss in defence to not even matter. Ranger evade is not poor either, it's good, and with Dodger 2, you can hit the 50% evade cap and thus have as good evade as any assassin ever can. I generally melee things in group combat, because it's too east to be interrupted with bow, and if you are you're dogs meat to everything and anyone. If you get into the thick of the fight you can rip up mages and healers with your massive melee damage output as well as interrupting them, not only that but if anything you can get to the mages/healers easier than any other class, if you use your speed shout to charge and stealth if you see someone heading or aiming for you, unstealth when they break off to carry on a speed shouted charge you will be first to get in there and wreak havoc upon their support, other times if I feel the situations right, I use that method to get behind them however, sneak behind a tree or corner and rip up their support with a short recruve instead however. With reinforced armour being strong to slash and most opponents using slash, and scale being weak to slash, you're no more of a drain to a healer than any other tank really, some fighter classes are even swapping to reinforced for the slash strength.
Already has, the nerf was irrellevant in RvR and is just something else for the whiners to make a big deal of.
Only with bow, we suffer the same problems with bow as general archer classes, that is, the difficulty to hit things with it. In melee however, we're overpowered. This hints towards the fact that it's largely bow-oriented rangers that complain of being gimped, whereas the melee ones have a hell of a time. If you spec heavily in melee as a ranger there is no way in hell you're gimped.
Censi is merely another person who's decided to spout off without any research or testing of a melee ranger, or perhaps he just wasted his respec on going full bow then felt he was gimped? Who knows, but either way he clearly knows nothing at all about what ranger melee is capable of. His post really isn't even worth the read unless he provides some kind of proof that all the melee only wins from armsman to shadowblades, and thanes to clerics were just a dream.
R
revminster
Guest
- Thread starter
- #44
I have to agree with Xest here. Sure, we could use some loving when it comes to bow spec-line. But that goes for all archer classes. Other than that, I think Rangers are a well balanced class that are definetly able to stand their ground in melee.
C
censi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #45
39 blade (55)
36 path
33 stealth (49)
42 bow (58)
11 cd (27)
Theres no better spec imo.. We are identical in melee. You are over speccing CD, you wont find the styles usefull but will have a small chance more (5%) or summin of swinging left.
Whereas I will shoot a significant amount more damage per arrow...
and the key thing is the weapon skill of the bow... you will find you are evaded a lot more and blocked a lot more.
Never sacrafice bow for mellee, even though you may think that difference in bow damage is small... the bow is your weapon of choice specc it low at your peral m8y, or may as well roll a BM.
36 path
33 stealth (49)
42 bow (58)
11 cd (27)
Theres no better spec imo.. We are identical in melee. You are over speccing CD, you wont find the styles usefull but will have a small chance more (5%) or summin of swinging left.
Whereas I will shoot a significant amount more damage per arrow...
and the key thing is the weapon skill of the bow... you will find you are evaded a lot more and blocked a lot more.
Never sacrafice bow for mellee, even though you may think that difference in bow damage is small... the bow is your weapon of choice specc it low at your peral m8y, or may as well roll a BM.
D
Dook_Pug
Guest
- Thread starter
- #46
You didn't bother to read Xest's original post at all did you?
F
Falcon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #47
Censi, with my spec (35 +15 celtic dual) I will weild out an extra 20% more damage than you in melee and that's before taking damage add into account, with self damage add included on that that's quite a lot indeed. As for celtic dual styles, there
However, with your 58 bow, you're doing a mere 6.4% dmg more than me on a crit shot (and that's even taking into account you're one realm rank higher, not taking that into account would be 6.1% dmg more). The other point is the overkill factor, you have to remember that if you crit on someone for your cap, chances are they're poorly kitted out and that my 975 would've killed them as well as your 1041, and if it hadn't done so, we've both have had to have taken two shots to make the kill, only you'd have end up with more "wasted" damage. Obviously there are situations in between but not terribly common. I also don't know if you've noticed when using a bow, but the first two shots are the easy ones to get off, the first one hits, they then react, however as your bows already redrawn before they react it'll still count as a crit, therefore I wont fail a double crit unless they were already moving when I nocked my second arrow. You can then extend the argument to the damage done on two arrows, but lets face it, if we're hitting something that has over 1500 HPs it's a tank and thus that voids that argument entirely too due to their absorb, heavily focussed melee resists and so on. Now look at melee, where it's not a case of overkilling, thus losing hundreds of points of damage, it's a case of getting as many small damage figures out and built up as possible, therefore the extra damage in melee is FAR more useful, if you overkill in melee, it wont be for anything much over than 100dmg max.
Now then, weapon skill of bow, you have to remember that I have been 64 recurve at one point myself, also 47 recurve, and now 40 recurve. Over the period of my specs, I haven't noticed ANY change to evade/miss/fumble/block, if I had, I wouldn't have dropped from 37 to 27 spec. Not only this but it's a little known fact that +skill items and RR bonuses give more weapskill per point than actual spec does, thus meaning on two equal chars, with one having 50 recurve spec, one 40 +10 recurve spec the 40 +10 recurve spec will actually have a fair bit higher weapskill. On top of that, I think at 27 +13 recurve, can't remember my dex, I have around 1500 weapskill with bow anyway, which is plenty high enough.
Maybe, just maybe, bow would be worth it, if you got a snare/root/stun shot and quickshot like a mages quickcast, or didn't get interrupted so rediculously easy, or didn't get bladeturned etc. etc. but right now, having arrows bladeturned doesn't scare the enemy an awful lot.
However, with your 58 bow, you're doing a mere 6.4% dmg more than me on a crit shot (and that's even taking into account you're one realm rank higher, not taking that into account would be 6.1% dmg more). The other point is the overkill factor, you have to remember that if you crit on someone for your cap, chances are they're poorly kitted out and that my 975 would've killed them as well as your 1041, and if it hadn't done so, we've both have had to have taken two shots to make the kill, only you'd have end up with more "wasted" damage. Obviously there are situations in between but not terribly common. I also don't know if you've noticed when using a bow, but the first two shots are the easy ones to get off, the first one hits, they then react, however as your bows already redrawn before they react it'll still count as a crit, therefore I wont fail a double crit unless they were already moving when I nocked my second arrow. You can then extend the argument to the damage done on two arrows, but lets face it, if we're hitting something that has over 1500 HPs it's a tank and thus that voids that argument entirely too due to their absorb, heavily focussed melee resists and so on. Now look at melee, where it's not a case of overkilling, thus losing hundreds of points of damage, it's a case of getting as many small damage figures out and built up as possible, therefore the extra damage in melee is FAR more useful, if you overkill in melee, it wont be for anything much over than 100dmg max.
Now then, weapon skill of bow, you have to remember that I have been 64 recurve at one point myself, also 47 recurve, and now 40 recurve. Over the period of my specs, I haven't noticed ANY change to evade/miss/fumble/block, if I had, I wouldn't have dropped from 37 to 27 spec. Not only this but it's a little known fact that +skill items and RR bonuses give more weapskill per point than actual spec does, thus meaning on two equal chars, with one having 50 recurve spec, one 40 +10 recurve spec the 40 +10 recurve spec will actually have a fair bit higher weapskill. On top of that, I think at 27 +13 recurve, can't remember my dex, I have around 1500 weapskill with bow anyway, which is plenty high enough.
And finally... In todays RvR the game has changed a lot, rangers can't hit and run anymore, we can be caught before we're even hit, if we're hit with a snare poison we're forced into combat, but speccing high melee we can win this combat, by neglecting it we'll lose for sure. I'm much happier being able to floor any solo assassin that tries to stop me taking a crit shot on a lone mage than I ever was, or ever will be, trying to take that pot shot, getting interrupted by the assassin and getting killed or having to run away. Melee spec rangers can still solo, choose their targets, stalk their targets and kill their targets even if they get intercepted by a lone assassin. Bow spec rangers, spend their lives searching then trying to escape. I know all too well what it's like playing both and as I say I know which I prefer. I'll take 20% more melee over 6.1% more bow any day.
Maybe, just maybe, bow would be worth it, if you got a snare/root/stun shot and quickshot like a mages quickcast, or didn't get interrupted so rediculously easy, or didn't get bladeturned etc. etc. but right now, having arrows bladeturned doesn't scare the enemy an awful lot.
S
Sortia
Guest
- Thread starter
- #48
Have to agree with Xest here too, I have actually had 2 seperate rangers, 1st one elf sniperish spec, 2nd one celt bladespec, thats 96 levels as a RANGER. Yes it is nice to see other peoples comments and thoughts on this but please don't reply 'you are WRONG' if you have not played a RANGER much. Note I am highlighting the word ranger to seperate it from the other archer classes. Both Xest and Rev respecced to higher melee and are happy with it, I rerolled completly as I wanted a celt class and I am also happy with it.
Bowspec used to be great, but now all you get is BT, Block, Interupt Nearsight blah blah. Double critshots do help against mages provided you are fast and yes when they land the damage is high >800 damage. As Xest pointed out the damage cap is not lowered that much, the varience does not apparently increase and there are no benefits speccing past 27. So you still do roughly the same amount of damage as a 50 spec sniper but with the added bonus of melee backup when your shots are BT'd, Blocked, Interupted, Nearsighted etc.
CD is laughable yes, but rumors are afoot about it being changed.
Bowspec used to be great, but now all you get is BT, Block, Interupt Nearsight blah blah. Double critshots do help against mages provided you are fast and yes when they land the damage is high >800 damage. As Xest pointed out the damage cap is not lowered that much, the varience does not apparently increase and there are no benefits speccing past 27. So you still do roughly the same amount of damage as a 50 spec sniper but with the added bonus of melee backup when your shots are BT'd, Blocked, Interupted, Nearsighted etc.
CD is laughable yes, but rumors are afoot about it being changed.
V
VidX
Guest
- Thread starter
- #49
39 blades
29 cd
36 PF
42 stealth
27 bow (autotrained to lvl 48 then 48-50 spec points put in it)
Final spec.
Argue what you want, I find it's the best.
Stealth at 42 due to not wanting to waste SC on stealth, bow at 27 cause any more is pointless (currently spec lies on 27+12 with SC template and current RR) and will do capped damage most of the time. Blades for Spectrum Blade, current spec has it at 39+12. 36 PF for the 2nd last damage add, no point going higher.
CD... well I have tested it thoroughly, 29 cd swings more or less the same as 1 cd. Gimped.
Oh, and I tested it on Gorre where I had free respecs and lvl 5 weapons so a bard can basically run health regen and not get any damage for 500 swings.
CD 29 gets 392 swings out of 500 for left hand, CD of 1 gets 371. Wow, big difference. The only thing CD changes is the off-hand damage, bugger all else.
29 cd
36 PF
42 stealth
27 bow (autotrained to lvl 48 then 48-50 spec points put in it)
Final spec.
Argue what you want, I find it's the best.
Stealth at 42 due to not wanting to waste SC on stealth, bow at 27 cause any more is pointless (currently spec lies on 27+12 with SC template and current RR) and will do capped damage most of the time. Blades for Spectrum Blade, current spec has it at 39+12. 36 PF for the 2nd last damage add, no point going higher.
CD... well I have tested it thoroughly, 29 cd swings more or less the same as 1 cd. Gimped.
Oh, and I tested it on Gorre where I had free respecs and lvl 5 weapons so a bard can basically run health regen and not get any damage for 500 swings.
CD 29 gets 392 swings out of 500 for left hand, CD of 1 gets 371. Wow, big difference. The only thing CD changes is the off-hand damage, bugger all else.
S
Svartur
Guest
- Thread starter
- #50
Stealth at 42? rofl
C
Cush
Guest
- Thread starter
- #51
agree.. LOL@stealth 42? why? the assassins can see you even if you have 10000000 in stealth pretty waste of points imo put some in bow or melee insted
F
Falcon
Guest
- Thread starter
- #52
I've switched to my SC kit now so I've gone up about +6 CD, also I'm 10 CD higher than I was, so about 16 up so far, I definetely notice and increase in my double swing rate, it would've been around 30% swing when I was originally 16 spec, at 24 spec around 50% and now I'd estimate I'm swinging both around 75% of the time.
I do like high stealth but I still couldn't justify to myself taking it past the mid 30s, I think personally I'd rather take the minimal extra bow damage if I didn't like high CD, but when it comes to stealth it's really each to his own, some like to hit 50 stealth, some like 1 stealth.
I do like high stealth but I still couldn't justify to myself taking it past the mid 30s, I think personally I'd rather take the minimal extra bow damage if I didn't like high CD, but when it comes to stealth it's really each to his own, some like to hit 50 stealth, some like 1 stealth.
V
VidX
Guest
- Thread starter
- #53
I don't give a shit if assassins see me or not, I don't want non-assassins to. In fact, bring on the Infs and SB's, I'll have a laugh beating them to a pulp.
Plus, ever heard of camoflague?
And HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THIS THREAD????
I have said I see no point in putting points into bow past 27, CD is gimped, and there is no point putting more into PF 'cause all it will give me is an extra 5 damage average on the damage add. No point in putting more in Blade as I already have 50+ and I will not use the higher styles.
wtf you want me to do? Not spend the points?
Putting them into stealth, AS I HAVE SAID, will mean I don't need to bother with +stealth items or SC.
E
Edlina
Guest
- Thread starter
- #54
Actually, I belive CD works like this, you get 25% base chance, then an increase by 0.5% per lvl, so you have 50% base chance at lvl 50, with 1 spec (ie. no points) then it increases further by 0.5% per spec in CD so 40 CD (with + stats) would mean 70% chance to dual wield, I belive?
S
skile
Guest
- Thread starter
- #55
Bet ya SB's hurt more. Kind of pointless to be a melee hunter when u can be a SB, doh?
S
skile
Guest
- Thread starter
- #56
I see no reason in speccing low bow, esp as scout. Ditching bow and going melee & high stealth. Whats the point, you will just end up as a gimped assasin who can leech of zergs with bow.
Speccing high bow is the only way as archer. I'd recommend Longshot, Volley and RA's to get Heavy Longbow under 3s so u can do some dmg on hibbiegrps.
My current spec:
33 stealth
42 shield
46 bow
29 slash
My future spec:
50 bow
42 shield
30 stealth
25 thrust
Speccing high bow is the only way as archer. I'd recommend Longshot, Volley and RA's to get Heavy Longbow under 3s so u can do some dmg on hibbiegrps.
My current spec:
33 stealth
42 shield
46 bow
29 slash
My future spec:
50 bow
42 shield
30 stealth
25 thrust
V
VidX
Guest
- Thread starter
- #57
Yes, well try speccing with 5 lines with the same spec points, see how it works out there.
Also, there is no reason to spec melee as a scout, the lack of damage add and low damage from single weapon isn't worth it.
Whereas a Ranger has CD for 2 weapons (i.e. double hits) and also the damage add, so does have a reason to spec melee.
In regards to a melee archer being only an assassin with a bow, what's wrong with that?
Think about the damage a melee spec assassin does in a fight, then add in the damage add for a ranger, or pet for a hunter, then look at the damage. I can bet the archer actually outdamages the assassin due to the fact they can land 2 or 3 bow shots before needing to melee.
Also, there is no reason to spec melee as a scout, the lack of damage add and low damage from single weapon isn't worth it.
Whereas a Ranger has CD for 2 weapons (i.e. double hits) and also the damage add, so does have a reason to spec melee.
In regards to a melee archer being only an assassin with a bow, what's wrong with that?
Think about the damage a melee spec assassin does in a fight, then add in the damage add for a ranger, or pet for a hunter, then look at the damage. I can bet the archer actually outdamages the assassin due to the fact they can land 2 or 3 bow shots before needing to melee.
S
skile
Guest
- Thread starter
- #58
A nighshade is better in melee, only difference would be a extremly gimped nightshade with a bit of bow damage (a bit, not that much).
V
VidX
Guest
- Thread starter
- #59
Really?
Ok...
- Same damage table.
- NS must be either Luri or Elf, therefore lower con and str, and therefore less damage both taken and given compared to a Celt Ranger.
- Rangers wear reinforced with 19% absord, compared to 10% on NS, and RF is only crush weak (and please point out the number of crush users on the server who aren't Hibs, Friars or casters, there's not many left).
- Rangers have self-buffs, including AF buff, therefore increasing their armour ability, damage add which adds about 30%-50% damage per swing and cannot be resisted, unlike poisons.
Don't get me wrong, NS is a very good class, and, as always, at the end of the day the better player will win, just that on paper a high melee Ranger will outdamage a high melee NS.
Ok...
- Same damage table.
- NS must be either Luri or Elf, therefore lower con and str, and therefore less damage both taken and given compared to a Celt Ranger.
- Rangers wear reinforced with 19% absord, compared to 10% on NS, and RF is only crush weak (and please point out the number of crush users on the server who aren't Hibs, Friars or casters, there's not many left).
- Rangers have self-buffs, including AF buff, therefore increasing their armour ability, damage add which adds about 30%-50% damage per swing and cannot be resisted, unlike poisons.
Don't get me wrong, NS is a very good class, and, as always, at the end of the day the better player will win, just that on paper a high melee Ranger will outdamage a high melee NS.
V
VidX
Guest
- Thread starter
- #60
Also, I like the way people comment on other classes, or other classes in other realms, without actually having played them to an extent. Do you see me commenting on how a scout is compared to an inf?
I've only ever played a scout to level 13, and have not played an inf at all.
Ranger to level 43 so far, Shade to 29, and have played level 50 ones to a high extent in various specs. So I think I can give a fairly good comparioson between the 2 classes and their abilities and have a few logs of damage comparisons I have done.
Yes, I mightn't be the authority on either class, having not played them in proper RvR apart from BG's, but I do know their abilities and damage output.
Now, please come up with a few more opinions, and I'll gladly help you out.
I've only ever played a scout to level 13, and have not played an inf at all.
Ranger to level 43 so far, Shade to 29, and have played level 50 ones to a high extent in various specs. So I think I can give a fairly good comparioson between the 2 classes and their abilities and have a few logs of damage comparisons I have done.
Yes, I mightn't be the authority on either class, having not played them in proper RvR apart from BG's, but I do know their abilities and damage output.
Now, please come up with a few more opinions, and I'll gladly help you out.