Tam
Full Member
Posts: 170
|
Post by Tam on Feb 16, 2004 23:05:04 GMT -5
Once upon a time, in the far off land of JediMUD, the ranger was created. No, this class had no skills and nobody could even select one to play with.... save one person - Doc. Yes, Doc had a ranger when there were none. You could do a who and see a nice little "R" by his name.
Then one day, Rangers were created as the 2nd remort class. Woowoo. Rangers were the ultimate tanks. They took warriors and kicked them in the codpiece not once, but repeatedly. Rangers could not only use some of the best warrior gear, but they could use things like slick gloves and the essence of music, to add to their might.
As time went on, rangers took piles of criticism for their power. Some blamed special interest groups. Some blamed Puff. Others blamed Hale-Bopp. Rangers eventually were hunted down by Warrior-conspirators and neutered, resulting in the pansy variety of gutless pet-factories that they are today.
I'm sincerely hoping that rangers grow some furballs. Quite honestly, walking pet factories is an insult to everything rangers ever stood for in any fantasy setting. I can see it now:
Frodo: Strider! Ringwraiths! I'm too much of a pansy to fight them!
Strider: Me too Frodo! Let's call several hundred tigers and have them give their lives to save our sorry asses while we hide in the corner and cuddle!
No.
Jane: Tarzan! We're screwed! Send the forest after him so that they can give their lives so that we may run away!
Tarzan: Mentha, my faithful chimp, it was nice knowing you but it's time for you to go die so that I may live. Now go! And bring the forest animals with you to fight off the mighty lumberjacks!
No.
Ladies and gentlemen, Rangers can use a bolt for a reason. In many fantasy stories they can dual-wield for the same reason. To beat the living hell out of an opponent. Rangers are and forever should be a fighter class. If you want some pansy pet-summoner that bravely hides behind a rubble pile while his faithful pets are slaughtered, pick mage. Those guttless vermin and their lack of physique are perfect for the job.
Grin.... let the ranger flames begin. -Tam
|
|
|
Post by pixie on Feb 19, 2004 16:43:36 GMT -5
ROFL thats funny! Take away animal calls then, I think it would be a good idea anyhow. I know rangers have an affinity to nature, but as you said, wholesale slaughter of their woodland buddies isnt an affinty.... In place maybe give them some mob specific skills, as i recall in d&d 1st eddition, rangers got to pick a monster type of choice and did extra damage to them, maybe something along those lines, a limited wk sorta skill... anyhow, that was a fun read -Pix
|
|
|
Post by RNBL Charis on Mar 2, 2004 13:51:31 GMT -5
Suggestions, as warped as my thought process might be: - Beef up the Animal call beasties a bit (increase the HPs, maybe d-hit on the AC2s, triple-hit for the AC3s?), yet restrict the summoning of said beasties to a max of TWO for all summoning spells with 18+ Cha, and only 1 for Cha under 18. - The stat generator should be massively evaluated and revamped. On average, the ranger rerolls are absolutely horrible. To my knowledge, the 'key' stats for a ranger are supposed to be Dex and Wis... and speaking from experience, Wis is usually one of the LOWEST skillpoints rolled for Rangers (along with Int). - A la the dual-wield tangent (which I don't see happening anytime soon, but it'd be great to have): Give rangers d-hit, to compensate for reduction of pet spam^H^H^H^H companions. - Farb's archer idea is fantastic, imho, but it's totally dependant upon throw/fire skills actually functioning properly. Get those fixed and that opens the floodgates for a variety of new weapons for all classes, such as bows, crossbows, varieties of arrows, and reviving the long-lost throwing star. Maybe even the occasional sink ;-) - Did I mention that the stat generator really, really, really REALLY needs to be addressed? - Pixie's preferred enemy suggestion is also do-able to a degree, requiring similar flags for that paladin skill against undead (it's name escapes me). Although, actually having the selection to choose the enemy presents the main obstacle and would then require extra aliases added to mobs to compensate... - While fumble is a fantabulous skill, it probably needs to be dropped a couple of levels (maybe level 25ish?). Or, possibly, some sort of 'concentration/resist entropy' skill with a medium success rate (unlike the defend slam skill for ninjas, which I don't think I've EVER seen visibly fail, short of entropy delays). - Could the XP table (along with Bards) possibly be balanced across the levels a bit better, please? 80mil XP total, 50% of which is in the final two levels alone. EEEEEEEEK!! That's it from me for now. Must go pretend to work for the last few hours of my day... ;-)
|
|
Marg
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by Marg on Mar 13, 2004 13:02:10 GMT -5
I would love to see the pet system redone but then the whole class needs to be overhauled. Usually bards get better rerolls, some of the mobs they charm are far more dangereous than ranger pets, and their eq is better. You might claim that Rangers can make great eq with skins but that requires great stats (that we don't have until many remorts) and they can't be rented. I know that I am a new ranger but if the mob shifts from my pets to me, I am in real trouble. The mobs hit me far harder than my level 23 warrior and I hit like a whimp compared to my jedi, thief, and warrior. Rangers can run lots of cash and get eq but only by throwing tons of pets to their deaths. I like the idea of fewer/stronger pets a lot but not if the ranger isn't going to hit better and get hit less.
|
|
|
Post by siolfir on Mar 15, 2004 18:29:36 GMT -5
Actually, ranger is one of those classes that I don't play because it's boring. There's a huge amount of exp required, and it's slow going...kinda like slogging through the lag on these web boards after getting used to 3Mbps downloads ;D. My suggestion to Marg is to invest in a couple of runed staffs, a couple of Ras, and a green dragonscale shirt. Then try skinning, and you'll find that even with horrible stats, you can get a set of +3dam skins in much less time than, say, getting a single bardic signet ring to load. It certainly didn't take me very long with my ranger(s). With that said...ranger stats suck. The hp gains have a nice maximum, but like many classes with a nice maximum (*cough*ninja*cough*) the average just isn't there usually. These have been addressed somewhat in the past (by raising the maximums, actually), but maybe a look could be taken at allowing them another roll? Dodge is good...uses up a few moves, but for the most part works well. Extra hit is crap, it uses more moves than berserk with a longer delay for absolutely no reason - if I'm fighting a single mob, I'll berserk instead. If there was any one skill or spell that I miss as a ranger, it would be rejuvenate: when almost all of your skills use moves up, it would be nice to get them back without a cleric handy, and there is a point where "just get regen eq" becomes a horrible joke, since you then have to have 4 or 5 sets of eq. As a revamp from the ground up...well, D&D rangers were dual-wielding (but lightly armored) damage-dealers, with a few spells late in life. Sure, they could get "followers"...but this is at the same level a warrior could build a keep and attract an army. Do you see warriors walking around with elite guardsmen all the time? No...but you see rangers walking around with mammoths and sabertoothed tigers a lot. I think it was already mentioned about having a racial enemy - it was giants and goblins in first edition if I'm remembering correctly, and those already have the keywords listed...it would be less a matter of "how to choose it" as much as people complaining about having to be that. Also, aren't rangers supposed to be good aligned?
|
|
|
Post by Arizhel on Mar 16, 2004 1:32:15 GMT -5
Rangers do not have to be good aligned. They simply have to be 'any non-lawful'. Actually, here's the quote, directly from 3rd edition D&D. " Alignment: Rangers can be of any alignment. Most are good, and they are protectors of the wild areas. In this role, a ranger seeks out and destroys or drives off evil creatures that threaten the wilderness. Good rangers also protect those who travel through the wilderness, serving sometimes as guides and sometimes as unseen guardians. Rangers are also mostly chaotic, preferring to follow the ebb and flow of nature or of their own hearts instead of rigid rules. Evil rangers, although rare, are much to be feared. They revel in nature's thoughtless cruelty, and seek to emulate her most fearsome predators. They gain divine spells, just as good rangers do, for nature herself is indifferent to good and evil." With his woods threatened by logging, for example, the good ranger would be content to either parley with the loggers, or drive them off. The evil ranger would simply kill them outright, stalking and picking them off one at a time until such time that a) there were no loggers left, or b) the loggers fled in terror, running for their very lives. There's a much bigger list of racial enemies now, including things like elf and human. *shiver* I'm with you on some of the skills. I think dual wield would be a nice addition, and something -definitely- needs to be done about the calling and throwing away of boatloads of pets. Nature would frown upon the wholesale slaughter of her children, after all!
|
|
|
Post by siolfir on Mar 16, 2004 14:36:31 GMT -5
Didn't have the 3rd edition rules handy, I was going by first and second edition rangers (which if I recall right, were required to be good aligned but unlike paladins could be any good alignment). In second edition you could select -any- racial enemy you wanted, it was only limited in first ed. Since I haven't played any D&D since before 3rd edition was released, I don't know what's changed, and quite honestly, it's the idea of what the class means on the mud over anything in D&D (regardless of edition) anyway, I was just pointing out that if we're going by the D&D definition, then it's still a bit fudged.
|
|
Ciara
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by Ciara on Mar 16, 2004 15:58:30 GMT -5
Definitely something to keep in mind is the fact that we're not necessarily using the AD&D rules or definitions on Jedi. Everything really is still up to our own interpretation and implementation...
Discussion about what happens in 2nd ed or 3rd ed or whatever is great, but it's not necessarily set in stone.
|
|
|
Post by pixie on Mar 16, 2004 18:48:48 GMT -5
About ranger pet spam. Coundnt you limit rangers to x pets per day? say 12? Kinda hard to pet spam if you only get 8 per day, also, make an alignment penalty and hp loss etc (see find familiar) for people who spam, say 5-10% of your hp per pet you either ungroup, or dies would be cool same with align, nature wouldnt like it much, so hey -100 align per pet who dies/ungrouped...
|
|
|
Post by Aneyou on Mar 16, 2004 20:09:21 GMT -5
Wait, Pixie, you're trying to imply that rangers on Jedimud need to be limited more than they already are?..limit pets? Why do such a thing? The only advantage rangers have over other classes is fumble. I used to do quit a it of damage with monsum three pets(mage pets) They hit really hard. Right now, I dont think taking away from Rangers is actually a good idea. But we will see what happens when changes come in. Anthony
|
|
Pink
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by Pink on Mar 17, 2004 1:27:21 GMT -5
I'm sure I'm not the first person to say this, but giving a ranger pets the ability to swim would help a ton! Sure, you can toss rafts on them (we'll leave the reality of that to other people) and figure I could make myself a set of 6 happy AC3s who will help me as I run from Ravenna to the High Tower on my search for whatever I'm doing. Most of the pets I discard are because they can't travel back home with me unless I throw them in a canoe! I know I've talked to people who say rangers should be able to skin rafts but swimming makes sense to me... or a spell?
Hey, if I can summon them in the dragon sea, why should I torture them and leave them hanging by the tempest when they could serve me well as I search for scoundrels or whatever in sanc city just 7 rooms away?
I didn't mind the idea you could only summon them in "woody areas", the thing that sucked was the "city" areas you'd have to cross water to get them in with you.
|
|
|
Post by pixie on Mar 25, 2004 18:10:46 GMT -5
Where I m in great agreement on your cleric and warrior posts, i disagree with a couple points on this one. 1st remove pet xp, pet spam classes aready get xp so fast slaughtering their comerades, why reward them for it? If it was a player they would soak xp, so should pets imho.
love the !skin own pets idea. Bout I would like to extend it to all pets, ranger or not, yours or not, otherwise people will just log in their pet factory ranger or mage with monsum one.
increasing skin stats per mob stats would be very cool, onivel skin shield should be way more potent on its worst day than goblin slave shield.
I also like the idea of limiting the number of pets a ranger gets more, and buffing them slightly, although I would like to see them 1 per call like cleric gates, if improved, so you couldnt call over and over till you had a 3 animal call for last to put over limit, or just make pets beyond cha wander instantly
Also like the idea of area specific pets with area specific skills, though i would like to pose a bad? idea.
Limit number of some really cool mobs, like say griffons, to 1, if someone successfully calls one and there is one in, the one in, if not in combat wanders to the new owner, keeping current hp effects eq etc.
lastly rangers: make skins ml of skinner, r30 skined em, need r30 to wear em.
|
|
Wamphryi
New Member
The blood is the Life.
Posts: 31
|
Post by Wamphryi on Mar 28, 2004 10:57:01 GMT -5
The idea of having less but more powerful pets is a cool idea. Also having pets be sort of like conjure elementals are is also intriguing. Have some more resistant, some more powerfull. One thing that would be a thought would be having possibly all or maybe just a select type of ranger pet not let the mob switch to hitting the master. You throw a wooly mamoth at the mob and the mob isnt going to just walk around him to start hitting you. Maybe if rangers cant get more then say 4-6 buffed pets at one time then having the mob not switch to the master is a intresting idea. Would definately make me want to bust out a ranger for something other then spamming.
|
|
|
Post by Dank on Mar 31, 2004 15:16:29 GMT -5
i thought i'd add a creative element to this super technical class discussion...
the solution to the ranger issue is pretty simple, as tam states in his initial post... there is simply one standard that you should hold the whole darned class to:
would aragorn* do it?
or, put another way
would aragorn* need a pet to do it?
'nuff said. don't impress us with endlessly branching binary dependency trees. put a halt to the tolkien coffin spin. restore the dignity to the namesakes of aragorn, or die. *strider
|
|
|
Post by Dank on Apr 1, 2004 16:16:00 GMT -5
|
|
Saviour
New Member
The only thing I ever ask of you, gotta promise not to stop when I say when...
Posts: 30
|
Post by Saviour on Jul 11, 2004 13:48:57 GMT -5
Let's see if I can touch on all the points that were presented that feel I can intelligently input my 2 cents:
Pets: My main ranger is Maccyx. He is not my first ranger, and unless the horrid ranger stat generator is given a huge overhaul, probably my last. I like the idea of fewer pets, but making them more buff. This will, however, not stop the buff, well-equipped rangers from being able to run 90% of the mobs that most rangers are already able to solo with the assistance of pet spam. Then again, I guess that is the eventual goal, anyway. The only mobs that do come to mind as being next to impossible with that sort of change are Narre and most every big mob in Aralu, certain statues, Celfivl, Grand Master, and a few select others. People who happen upon my path when I am running Maccyx solo usually find me fighting alongside of my pets. Yes, I run a predominately damage ranger(sans skins...a point I'll cover in a bit), but it's just as easy for me, if not easier, to call up a few meatwalls and do the largest part of the damage from the back of the room. I employ a similar strategy when running mage, but that is beside the point. Limiting the number of pets, which has already been done once, will not 'ruin' the playability of the class, it will just force people to reconsider their equipment/strategies. But without significantly upping the mana requirements per call, I don't see how this idea can be easily accomplished.
Skins: This is the one proverbial straw that has me reconsidering my ambitions to run Maccyx to perfect stats. With uptimes being, well, inconsistent, I find it hard to justify the time that has to be put in to skinning a decent set of skins. If you are EXTREMELY lucky, you can pull together 6 or 7 dam skins in 2-3 hours time...that's IF you are at least r26, and I've had skinning sessions where I have gotten 1, or less, skins in that same frame of mind. Yes, you can have a cleric the rejuving your moves, but that requires someone willing to stand around and do nothing for a period of a couple hours. There are few people around willing to do so, and I am not about to ask/grovel for someone to do me that favor. We all know that superior stats should generally equate to better skins. I've also been told that quality skins are NOT dependent on level. Show me a ranger who's run a few remorts and skinned at every level who says otherwise, and I'll show you someone who's holding a smoldering crack pipe in their back pocket. I could probably count on one hand, with several fingers to spare, the number of decent damage skins I've gotten with a sub R26. Not that this is a point that others have brought up in previous points, but if skins are truly dependent on stats, then I don't see why level should come into play, unless of course levels are stacked from remort to remort. But then again...I sincerely doubt that would ever happen. The cost of skins is pretty ridiculous when couple with the success rate, or lack thereof. Employing a cost of 25-35moves per skin would be a little more appealing, at least to me. Then again, I expect people to scream loudly that this is way too small a price to pay for a 3 dam skin. But since you have to go through generally 50-100 skins before you even see a damage skin, I don't see the big deal in lowering the cost. Another issue is the fact that on the occassion that you completely fubar a skin, which happens at least 10% of the time, and as much as 25% of the time depending on the day, a Ranger is still charged the full 75 moves as if he had been successful. Other classes get a return of 50% for a fubar'd spell. Why is it that Rangers are not afforded this luxury? One way to easily negate most of these points is to toss the rangers a bone and give em a rejuv spell/skill. This was brought up in a previous post, but it doesn't hurt to rehash. Again, not likely to occur, but it is a nice idea nonetheless.
Other: I have to cut this post a bit short, unfortunately, but I did want to lend my support to the idea of giving rangers the ability to double hit. We all know that dual wield will never, never, NEVER happen. But since rangers are a warrior hybrid, why not give em something other than kick and bash? And please don't potificate upon the virtues of extra hit. As someone pointed out in a previous post on rangers, extra hit is about as useful as air conditioner in an Artic igloo in mid winter. It's just another skill that requires move points to use, and is hardly as effective as the infamously poopty dodge skill that all rangers have come to be ridiculed for. If rangers are going to once again have their collective wings clipped, you have to toss us a couple bones. Ranger is already a somewhat tedious class to play, not nearly as bas as say, ninja, but still not the easiest class to run. This desire to make things more difficult, while noble, also gets away from the main reason why people come to jedi and continue to come back: for the fun. I understand the need to make things more challenging, but slowly but surely, if things keep getting taken away with something added to take it's place, you are gonna find people less willing to log in and spend time at jedi when they can just turn on the PS2 or whatever and kill their time doing that.
|
|
|
Post by DaHart85 on Jul 14, 2004 14:33:24 GMT -5
While I agree that 9 pets was a few too many to have, reducing the ac3's at their current power to max 2 per call at 60mana cost each just flat out sucked. When those two changes went in I saw a good third of the mud (at least) go from using remort characters to non-remort characters. They didn't even go to bard for the most part. There is a reason you don't see as many on as you used to. They aren't as fun to play. You want to talk realism? Bye Cleric, Bye Mage, Bye Sohei, Bye Jedi, Bye Paladin, Bye Apal. We now have a Damage Ranger, Warrior, Ninja MUD. Have fun with that realism. Pets are a fun tool of the rangers. If that is such a problem switch their name to summoners or something stupid like that so you can't quit arguing over whether we are emulating D&D's ranger concept or a certain movie's concept or whatever. I honestly don't really care what D&D says rangers are, I want to hear what YOU think rangers should be able to do.
Pets are fun to use when playing this game. Just because some of you people have a woot hitting an alias that runs to a mob, WoDs it and then dies and then rinse and repeat, doesn't mean that is what most people find fun. At least rangers require a remote amount of skill, not just fingers and a computer hooked up to the internet. I have access to mage squad but i only really use it as the preferred method to kill something for 1 mob, Onivel. For anything else, I'd prefer to use a ranger, bard, jedi, or cleric. Those are a million times more fun to play than a bare ass piece of crap with a spell. Rangers require skills for both pet management, finding mobs, and killing them without getting hit or dying. You want mind-numbing simplicity? Delete all characters except mage squads. You want realism? Either play a warrior or a different game.
This game isn't realistic or simple, it is just that A GAME. It is for FUN. It doesn't have to be any more realistic than we want it to be, like it was said earlier almost anything happens can be applied because nothing is set in stone. Try thinking outside of your D&D rules, since this isn't D&D.
|
|
|
Post by Arizhel on Jul 17, 2004 13:37:01 GMT -5
There's some decent ideas to be had in this post. Just try to work a little on your presentation.
|
|
guts
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by guts on Sept 21, 2007 13:12:26 GMT -5
I thought that applying a move bonuses to multiple remort rangers very appealing. I thought of this after I had the idea that Paladins should have the same, at the very least have a stat affect the moves gained. This can easily get out of hand... Seeing a ranger with 450+ moves would be pretty insane. But I would like to see modest increases for multiple remorts. Lets say at 3, 5 and 7 remorts add a side to the die.
Skins? Lets get a coder to fix crashes first. I bet we change our mind about skins...
Pets: WHY in the world does a pet reflect 100% backstab? Wouldn't the same effect be achieved at 10%? There would be no continual abuse, since after 3-4 pets the ranger would die. Yet, it would be an option for killing them. It seems extremely harsh and punitive for a side effect of raising their level so Sohei wouldnt abuse them anymore.
Extra-Hit would rock if it didnt cost so much and have such a humongous delay. Maybe it should be affected by the number of remorts?
|
|
|
Post by Maranta on Sept 21, 2007 13:38:15 GMT -5
Well aside from making skinning a hell of a lot easier and letting them run longer, I don't see a major downside to extra moves. At least nothing that can't already be accomplished with a simple rejuv wand or the actual spell.
As for pets, I won't even try to guess at what brought that lunacy on. Rangers have been stabbing their own pets since the class went in. Why it was only changed now and in such a harsh way, I cannot say. However despite all the claims of realistic animal behaviour and all that, one -massive- fact has been either overlooked or intentionally ignored: Willpower. If my ranger can summon a bunch of gigantic, woolly mammoths from the deep arctic while I'm in the darkest pits of the Abyss, my will obviously overpowers theirs and my word is law to them. If I tell them to lie down and die, how is that any different from me sending them against a bat-winged Abishai or some other ranger ordering them to attack a blue dragon that would EAT THEM? Its not. These animals heed the calls of rangers, regardless of where they are in the world and where their masters are even if it leads them to an environment that would be certain death, regardless of what they're being called to do. Think about that when you want some realism in a fantasy world of magic.
|
|
|
Post by Dank on Sept 21, 2007 19:16:55 GMT -5
LOL Maranta. Damn you're funny. And absolutely f'ing correct, of course.
After languishing at R29 with Kant for the last couple of months, and with 19m xp to go until 30, not to mention another 40m xp to 1-TNL, I'm at a loss for why an elegant remort class need labor so to remort.
I'd say reduce the xp targets somewhat. Wait, did I say that out loud? With so many insane remort rangers out there, and there are more than a few, there'd prolly be some outcry. But seriously, I would never consider remorting Kant under the current tiers. There's just so many hours in the day for the IRL stuff I have to do, let alone power leveling a ranger.
For a more accurate representation of the class as laid out by Tolkein, a quick fix might be to drop move cost for skinning and let the poor guys have their giant DAM sets in order to live the glory that is the ranger of J.R.R.'s interpretation. Nerfing a ranger into a glorified zoo keeper is silly in this light, as they have become casters rather than fighters in practice. Kant is a regen/mana ranger and I just f'ing know that Tolkien's Aragorn is rolling in his grave up on the Dunedain River.
And my favorite line of the day: Think about that when you want some realism in a fantasy world of magic.
Right on.
|
|
Mal
Full Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by Mal on May 27, 2009 12:52:10 GMT -5
I've mentioned this before somewhere...
I think stampede should be made to deal physical damage instead of magic damage. This means rangers could stampede mobs in !magic rooms and bypass reflect magic procs.
The reasoning is, well, stampede is a bunch of animals stampeding through trampling anything in their path. This to me is physical damage not magic damage.
Aaron
|
|
Rox
Full Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by Rox on May 27, 2009 12:54:17 GMT -5
Should stampede use up moves instead of mana then? Just throwing it out there...
|
|
|
Post by ching on May 27, 2009 13:15:19 GMT -5
I've mentioned this before somewhere... I think stampede should be made to deal physical damage instead of magic damage. This means rangers could stampede mobs in !magic rooms and bypass reflect magic procs. The reasoning is, well, stampede is a bunch of animals stampeding through trampling anything in their path. This to me is physical damage not magic damage. Aaron It appears to be that. But if that were true, you would have to update the code so that mobiles with the purge proc would be immune to stampede. I like to think of it as a mystical/magical call to the forces of nature. If it is changed to a physical attack, I would want the purge proc to make those mobs immune.
|
|
Mal
Full Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by Mal on May 27, 2009 16:15:43 GMT -5
Using moves or mana or both, good idea.
Summoning pets and sending them against a mob that purges still hit the mob before they get purged. Similarly stampede could work that way. I do not think mobs that purge would have to be immune to it.
If this introduces a loop hole in reseting eq group mobs then it would need to be addressed, perhaps as you suggest making mobs with the purge flag immune; however, I do not see this happening. Creating an army of rangers to stampede an eq group mob to death would take a lot of work and probably still require at least two people. A thief backstabbing with a cleric summoning would do more damage.
Aaron
|
|