Rangers OP or Just Right? Split from RAT

[hyzhenhok]

There's nothing new about the sentiment that rangers get far more than the other classes. This is not the topic's first turn on the GDB hate wheel.

I'm not so sure about the sentiment that warriors are completely worthless compared to rangers, but the points about combat maneuvers being largely useless are true. I think the warrior's main problem, though, is a separate issue: the fact that combat skills are so difficult to raise hits the warrior by far the hardest. If you fixed the way defense and weapon skills advance so they could be reasonably, reliably mastered in the normal course of play (read: sparring & regular hunting), you fix 99% of what's wrong with the warrior.

Well not really, as it doesn't matter if it says master or not, or if it's the coded cap. If they're higher than basically every other PC, which they are and will be, they'll still be just as warriory. Why's the focus always on maxing out?

You don't have to be focused on maxing out to realize that no, when everyone gets stuck around apprentice/journeyman on their weapon skills, warriors do not actually commonly get their weapon skills better than everyone else.

Tons of guilds have no or few weapon skills.

Maybe everybody is ranger? I mean shit, I got a PC to branch a weapon skill through a minimum amount of fighting just this year

I can play the anecdote game too: I have never branched a weapon skill on a warrior, included on a long-lived Byn half-elf with exceptional wisdom during a time when my play times were probably higher than any other point in my Arming career.

Warriors are supposed to be better at weapons than every guild, including rangers. See help warrior. But right now, saying warriors have the potential to be the best at weapons is like saying every PC has the potential to manifest magickal powers or learn sorcery. Theoretically true, but good luck with that.

[Delirium]

Well yeah, weapon skills need fixing but that's not a ranger's fault.

[Dresan]

After more thought:

I still think warriors should get hand free ride.  However everyone except rangers (and those with greater rapport with animals) should lose trample.


Trample is a neat little skill but it was really only first destined for the ranger before tons of negative feedback on the loss of the old version of the charge skill. Current  sub-guilds like nomad, caravan guide and mercenary with ride would get the Trample skill to go along with their hand free ride. Grebber would get trample and charge(if they don't already) to compliment the ride they get. This is so that there is still reason for warriors to take these sub-guilds along with just about anyone else.

[Delirium]

Everyone gets hands free ride now if they are agile enough and good at riding. I had hands free ride as an assassin. Stop using agility as a dump stat I guess.

A cavalry subguild could be cool. Master ride, charge, trample, direction sense and a few other perks.

[Riev]

Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat

From the helpfiles.

"Some moderate skill with weapons" means, in this case, "exactly as good with weapons as a non-branched warrior".

[wizturbo]

This all seems so straight forward and simple to me, I'm sort of surprised there's so much debate here.

Rangers - the BEST at riding, archery, skinning, and a whole slew of desert survival skills.  All of these skills are extremely useful in everyday play, and readily attainable.

Warriors - the BEST at combat and weapon skills, in theory...  But in practice, it's so damn difficult to attain these areas where they have mastery that it's almost never seen.  This would be like taking away Ranger's archery skills and making them branch off reaching master piercing weapons.  Why are these 'advanced' weapon types so ridiculously hard to get?  Are they extremely overpowered?  I'm guessing they aren't, but the people who manage to branch them have survived so long that their skills are near max and they'd be lethal with a stone fork.

Make a Warrior's core skills attainable from the start, or branch in a more reasonable time frame, and the disparity between the two rival classes will lessen significantly.

This is an easy fix, that doesn't require updating entire areas of combat code, reworking entire combat skills, or pissing off a bunch of people by nerfing Rangers down to levels where there isn't such a perceived disparity between them and warriors.

[Delirium]

This all seems so straight forward and simple to me, I'm sort of surprised there's so much debate here.

Rangers - the BEST at riding, archery, skinning, and a whole slew of desert survival skills.  All of these skills are extremely useful in everyday play, and readily attainable.

Warriors - the BEST at combat and weapon skills, in theory...  But in practice, it's so damn difficult to attain these areas where they have mastery that it's almost never seen.  This would be like taking away Ranger's archery skills and making them branch off reaching master piercing weapons.  Why are these 'advanced' weapon types so ridiculously hard to get?  Are they extremely overpowered?  I'm guessing they aren't, but the people who manage to branch them have survived so long that their skills are near max and they'd be lethal with a stone fork.

Make a Warrior's core skills attainable from the start, or branch in a more reasonable time frame, and the disparity between the two rival classes will lessen significantly.

This is an easy fix, that doesn't require updating entire areas of combat code, reworking entire combat skills, or pissing off a bunch of people by nerfing Rangers down to levels where there isn't such a perceived disparity between them and warriors.

Well said. And with the patience and clarity I wish I'd summoned.

[Armaddict]

The reason why there's so much debate is because this thread was used as a throwaway thread to just toss in a bunch of random wants as far as classes and skills go, all under the name of 'But they're not rangers yet.'

What you've just said was established as the desired, correct course of action back in the weapon skill thread, where even those of us who wanted no changes to weapon skill progression agreed that warriors should be branching their weapon skills earlier.

[Asche]

While we're on the topic of improving guilds, I'd just like to reiterate the point that adding skills that can only realistically be reached through twinking and then expecting the playerbase not to twink is a failure for both players and admins. Its not the city elf warrior's fault that he has to wear tons of bags of rocks because he wants to rock razors. Ah, who am I kidding? No one plays city elf warriors. #buffagility2016

[RogueGunslinger]

Everyone gets hands free ride now if they are agile enough and good at riding. I had hands free ride as an assassin. Stop using agility as a dump stat I guess.

A cavalry subguild could be cool. Master ride, charge, trample, direction sense and a few other perks.

How could you possibly know this is tied to agility? I don't at all think a warrior being able to use the only fucking thing he's good at, -melee-, while riding is a bad idea.

[Dresan]

I've had assassins with extremely good and another with exceptional agility and I've never gotten hands free ride, even with gear.I dunno, it is not the first time I've heard of this agility rumor but I've never actually seen it once in game. 


Not to mention I would find it incredibly silly to have to roll insane agility just to be able to do what you are good at. Stats already matter too much as it is for some characters.

[hyzhenhok]

There are enough subguilds (and a race) that give bonuses to ride that I don't think warriors need to start with it. We're not talking about a skill like climb where you have very few options if you want it.

This is again kind of a side issue--the problem is fighting mounted has never come with the proper penalties (the help files used to say it did, but those references seem to have been cleared out), and foot soldiers have no way to deal with a mounted adversary like they would realistically.

I would address this as part of improving the combat techniques. Add the command unseat, a buffed bash (tied to your bash skill) for use exclusively against mounted opponents. Failure only gives you a delay instead of making you fall down, and you get big bonuses to it if you are on foot wielding a spear, pike or polearm.

[Armaddict]

...just to do what you're good at?

Choose a subguild with ride, or the class that rides, otherwise it's not what you're good at.  Nothing in the game equals cavalry, even rangers, due to nuances with how the mounted combat skills work (it works, just not well).  The best we do is mounted archers, which is indeed ranger-y.

Again, cavalry was ruled a very primitive thing in Zalanthas, with a large part of that coming from the lack of stirrups which makes it harder for the armored down to lean and stay stable.  I'm assuming this is where agility comes in, but I have never seen this occur with the state of mind where I knew what that person's class was.

However.  I think it's odd that the demand for hands-free riding is there when the 'dismount for combat' rule has been in place for this long.  This almost seems like an argument for convenience.

...

Most of this seems like arguments for convenience.  That's what I'm calling rangers now.  The convenient guild.

[Patuk]

I won't buy the argument that Zalanthan cavalry is 'supposed' to be primitive when it by no practical means is. When people can ride all the way across the world without giving a damn and actually fight better in the saddle than they do on foot, you're either wrong about cavalry being primitive in Zalanthas, or it hasn't ever actually been implemented.

If Zalanthan cavalry isn't meant to be primitive, ride is fine and buffing warrior ride isn't a bad idea.

If Zalanthan cavalry is meant to be primitive, the answer to the thread's question is 'yes' and we can nerf rangers by proxy simply by making ride less strong than it is.

[Case]

Branch the weapon skills earlier some I guess, that'd make things tons more interesting.

Anti mounted combat stuff would be interesting and nice. But I'd be in favour of small end costs for riding in the wilderness that are lower or don't exist for rangers. It'd adjust threat and risk out there, especially if spears and unseating people did some anti cavalrying. It's not like people have to travel very far any more.

[Armaddict]

Eh, no.  Because you're talking about making entire units of people better at it just because.

A ranger fighting better on the mount that he rides across the known is being used as justification for -everyone- to be able to ride better from the saddle even if they spend most of their time in a brown aba fighting in a sparring ring.  That doesn't mesh.

When cavalry is talked about, you're talking about the cavalry charge.  Which does not exist in game.  Multiple rangers using charge and trample doesn't work well.  Hence why cavalry, as an in-game entity, does not exist.

Now you can argue that three rangers using their ability to fight better from the saddle is acting as cavalry, except that they generally still lose to the equivalent skilled warrior who is dismounted solely due to it still being melee prowess, the realm of the warrior.  That has, from what I've seen, remained the case.

So again, it goes back to the mounted archer.  That is viable, and it works, but requires coordination.

Now you can argue about the distances people go while mounted...but this is not currently a ranger-only symptom, so I'm unsure what relevance it has.  Warriors can still ride, and ride well enough to not have problems, even...they just don't generally fight mounted.


Also...the negatives to combat while mounted used to be incredibly heavy.  So much so that there was a complaint that at least rangers should be able to fight mounted as primitive cavalry.  I'm sure if you searched for the threads, you'd find them.  The way things are is pretty much the result of how players wanted it.  I don't think anyone suffers as badly as everyone did back at that time, it was pretty brutal.

[Majikal]

Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat

From the helpfiles.

"Some moderate skill with weapons" means, in this case, "exactly as good with weapons as a non-branched warrior".

Having the ability to raise a weapon skill to advanced vs master is a pretty big difference.

Being able to polearm people in the face is a gigantic different.

Vs animal and vs human is also a big difference.

Mount vs unmounted is also a big difference.

Rangers are not as melee capable as you think.

[hyzhenhok]

Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons and strategic retreat

From the helpfiles.

"Some moderate skill with weapons" means, in this case, "exactly as good with weapons as a non-branched warrior".

Having the ability to raise a weapon skill to advanced vs master is a pretty big difference.

Being able to polearm people in the face is a gigantic different.

Vs animal and vs human is also a big difference.

Mount vs unmounted is also a big difference.

Rangers are not as melee capable as you think.

The whole discussion of the last two pages is how while theoretically there is a big difference there, in practice it doesn't exist.

[Armaddict]

Rangers are not as melee capable as you think.

I do not know the exact science as to why, because numbers look similar, but in experience, this is very true.  It's being made out as if ranger vs warrior in melee is close.  And it's not.  Nowhere near it.

[Delirium]

In response to RGS: my high agility pcs have had a much easier time with riding than my non. Perhaps I'm wrong. Still. I think you all are making mountains out of molehills.

[Armaddict]

I think you all are making mountains out of molehills.

+1

[RogueGunslinger]

Change is coming. You can not stop it. So maybe try contributing to making the changes good, instead of casually dismissing any idea someone puts forward.

[Armaddict]

I'm not casually dismissing anything, I'm pointing out why the ideas presented, generally, are lacking in either insight or forethought.

But I will agree with you.  Non-rangers, indeed, are not rangers.

Edited to add:  And there have been several proposed changes that I've agreed with, as well.  Because I'm selective about it, and conservative, rather than gung-ho 'root out everything and make it all awesome' does not mean I'm casually dismissing change.
Edited again to add:

And I feel the need to reiterate again, but we'll try it in a different way.  If we were to suddenly have all the code done to switch to a classless system where you selected skills, I'm pretty certain there would be a huge rush of minor variations to the ranger class, as it currently is.  This is not because the other classes need buffing.  It is because the skillset is appealing to a broader set of players, because a large portion of the playerbase enjoys their time outside the city.  Trying to shuffle things around based off of the comparison that people have to enjoying their time outside the city more than inside the city is in fact not 'fixing' much of anything.  At most, I think some of the tweaks suggested in this thread do a pretty ample job of fixing things up.  It is some of the more drastic suggestions that I think not only don't fix anything since nothing is currently really 'broken', but is in fact a very good way of potentially mucking things up.

Do not try to 'fix' things that aren't broken (disclaimer:  Remember that I acknowledged some of the things that are broken), and accept the very evident fact that we like leaving the city because there is danger.  If you want the inside of the city to be more dangerous, then we need more people agreeing that the city is where to be for it.  When you see more assassins playing as assassins, more burglars playing as burglars, more pickpockets playing as pickpockets, instead of those classes being picked then being tossed into Byn-like surroundings because we have decided that combat is the end-all-be-all of success and enjoyment, then the city will be a richer place for it.  When we have more people crammed together fighting for interests rather than clans having to scramble to do everything outside the city, then the city will be a richer place for it.  When there are guard forces that make the requirement for stealth, the city will be a richer place for it.  When crime is able to effectively combat NPC law enforcement, the city will be a richer place for it.

I am completely okay with the PC population of the game leaning towards ranger.  It makes sense, when pretty much everything has been pushed towards being done outside the city.  We've cut down on in-city clans, we've cut down on in-city intrigue, we've run plots that constantly require travel.  The last several-month RPT was a peak of activity because it brought everyone close together, then threw a plot in the middle of it with in-city conflict that was amazing.  And then it just...went away.  So yes.  Ranger away, but stop asserting that because we've moved everything outside the city, the suffering of in-city classes is fixed by making them all more ranger.  This has a lot less to do with skillsets that can indeed use some tweaking, and a lot more to do with where the bulk of the game is lying right now.

[Dresan]

Its an interesting theory, but I don't agree.

Most shit happens outside of cities. This is not to say things don't happen inside the city, just that on a regular basis things happen outside of cities. Its been this way for years.

I think the idea that people are just playing rangers because things happen outside of cities is missing the point. Mostly people play rangers because you can pick certain extended sub-guilds, and be very useful and good in any situation, inside the city or out. Now that said, will you be as good as other city classes? No, not quite, but certainly still very good, and much better than any other class outside its specialization.

This means that if things reversed and more skill based action was occurring inside the city(as opposed to more social/political backstabbing which is much more common), people would still play rangers and get the best of both worlds.  

On a side note, while I don't see people brutally murdering each other hack and slash style in the streets, I think still plenty going on in the city right now. There is still a lot of visible crime, deaths, corruption and betrayal.  

[Case]

Making citystealth and wildstealth 4 separate skills would strengthen city sneaks while weakening superstealth rangers 'cause they have a thief subguild or whatever. It just means rangers would be as citystealthy as their subguild.