Rangers OP or Just Right? Split from RAT

[Armaddict]

While your post is well thought out, some points I take issue with:

With that established, I think the reason that rangers seem OP is because they're extremely versitile. In a combat-focused clan they're just about as good of fighters as warriors, and are indispensable when your unit leaves the gates. In a merchant clan... I don't even need to finish this sentence. As an indy, a knowledgeable ranger will never have to spend a cent on food or water. There's always a need for a good ranger. More-so than any other class in the game, probably.

This is pretty much what I was addressing.  People are talking in terms of leaving gates, where there is one and only dominant guild.  The ranger.  Warriors are a close second.  Warriors -can- skin, just not as well, but well enough to make a very decent living off of.  If anything, the thing holding both rangers and warriors back as far as 'survival' with their skinning skill isn't skinning, it's cooking.  However, my point is that this is not a case of 'Rangers are so much better than everything else', it's a case of people including outdoor activity as a mainstay of the game.  If going outside the gates is a large part of the game for you, of -course- you will like rangers more, and I'm completely okay with that and it does not mean the game needs tuning to making everything else more outdoor-viable as well.

I alternate between characters that spend all their time outside, all their time inside, and varying degrees between, which makes my mundane class/subclass combinations vary.

y comparison warriors are the bread and butter of most clans, but they don't really stand out. They're good at guarding, but they can't scan or listen for sneakys. They're good at killing critters, but they can't skin. They can't ride very well. They can't poison, brew, or hunt. Unless their opponent is willing to stand still for them, they can't PvP too well outside of apartments. Since they can't craft or hunt, they don't have as easy a time getting food, water, and money.

Good at guarding, excellent.  Can't scan or listen or sneakies?  Well, they can if they plan on specializing against sneakies, in which case they can use subguilds to implement that.  However, I would note that guarding against sneakies does not make them the aggressor, it makes them the protector.  Sneakies will have to plan and coordinate if they expect there to be strong warriors present protecting their target.  I went over this before;  Strong warriors are possibly the scariest thing for sneakies to be told 'Hey, deal with this guy.'  For an assassin?  It makes it so that if their preliminary plan slips up, they are in some serious shit.  Likewise, if they are going after a target with warrior guards, the moment they try to succeed is also the moment that they expose themselves as a threat.  The Guard is not the uber-pvper, it is the protector.  More on this below, but this is what makes the Warrior special.  They really do own the room they're in, as far as mundanes (granting further discussion below on why all these approaches are actually flawed arguments).

Outside of the rinth and noble aiding, assassins aren't too useful. They stick out like a sore thumb in the rank and file of any clan (which is where you'll spend all your time because being your boss's sneaky right hand is probably a far-off dream at best). They can't stand toe-to-toe with either ranger or warrior in the sparring ring, at any amount of time played. Poison and backstab should make up for this, but since all the poison is in the desert (your kryptonite), and backstab is basically impossible to train if you're being subtle about it at all... you won't be able to rely on these. So you're the least self-reliant of the three, and clans don't have much use for a low level assassin.

This sounds logical, but is actually very inaccurate to a large degree.  Both for IC reasons that I can't discuss, and for the assertion that everyone will be on equal ground.

The big problem with where you're coming from is that you're assuming that:
1) The vast majority of players will meet their skill caps.
2) The vast majority of pvp is between people of equal skill and/or playing time.
3) Everyone should play their classes the same way as a warrior.

In reality:
1) The vast majority of characters, even the incredibly long lived ones, do not hit their maximums in all these determinant skills.  I have played 100+ day characters with apprentice weapon skills.  Thus, speaking in absolutes about skill caps as if they matter is entirely misleading, because the caps will only be reached if that is your sole goal and will -still- take a good amount of time.  (Note:  This is not to say I don't understand that caps = potential, but I -am- saying that make judgments and changes based off potentiality that is rarely reached is problematic.) This leads to the next bit:
2) If you play a long lived assassin, the majority of people you fight, even warriors, will not fight as well as you.  If you end up fighting one, you will lose the straight combat, but are given a variety of tools to deal with those situations.  Long-lived anything, by and large, will generally be surrounded by less long-lived people.  There are exceptions and swings to this, but trying to equivocate changes in the game based off of scenarios that are very uncommon is not a healthy design tool.  This is akin to saying that since you made a new ranger, and he doesn't fight as well as the other guy in the Byn who joined at the same time, that the game is in need of modification, which is plainly not true.  That is intentional.
3) I have played very deadly burglars.  I played one pickpocket who was also known for his fingers, but moreso for his ruthlessness in the alleys.  As long as comparisons are weighted towards 'If you try to make them try to do the things a ranger does, they suck', then you're filtering your data in an inefficient manner.  Burglars, pickpockets, assassins, warriors...they are all very powerful in their own way, as long as you take into account what way that is.  I really do get rather flabbergasted when I see things like 'Warriors do okay in PvP...if you get them in a locked room.'  Such is like you're lazy about how you want to do it.  Particularly with subguilds, they all get rather deadly in ways that you get to customize...and that's only if your goal is to make them deadly, rather than 'just useful'.

Your suggestions (and sorry, I'm not a web forum format advanced or even apprentice; I am a novice):

Warriors:
  - I can get behind them having a higher ride cap, but not the charge.  I believe it was a topic of discussion some years back about how Zalanthan cavalry was never meant to be a mainstay or that advanced.  I would, however, like to see them able to reliably serve as actual caravan guards, rather than that being the realm of the ranger.
  - No to scan and listen unless they choose a subguild for it.  I appreciate what you're saying about keeping it low, but low scan doesn't really help with anything, and all it will result in is the demand for it to be lifted to higher levels later.  I'd rather they just get into their head that they want to be good at it, and invest in it.
  - No to climb (or very very low cap on it), but yes to additions that point to assisted climbing.  Honestly, if this is taking you an hour to deal with a 1 room climb, you're doing it wrong.  Use nosave, roleplay assisted climbing, and you're done in ten minutes, which seems realistic for a sudden scaling to be an obstacle to an average military unit.  If it's a bigger obstacle than that, you probably needed a more specialized group selected for that mission rather than trying to make it an all inclusive thing just because.

Assassins:
  - I'm okay with everything you said.  The poison/brew thing is pretty wonky, and is not how it used to be (I'm not sure whose idea that was).  I agree with backstab changes, though I don't find them absolutely necessary, but I like the idea of it being more dependent on other factors than skill, because twinking backstab is one of those things that makes me shake my head when I see it.
  - I stand by assassins already being pretty amazing as city-based rangers.  They fight on par with rangers up until 15-20 days playing time (I don't know where you get the impression that two classes with the same skills perform them differently prior to hitting caps), where they hit the level that their methods of fighting become painfully different anyway.

Rangers:
  - In your D&D comparison, you left out how the warrior/ranger comparison is intrinsically flawed.  They even define the roles as inherently different.  Rangers are meant as strikers and damage dealers.  Warriors are meant as tanks and controllers.  You say the difference is feats and brush it off, but there is a major disparity between the two in defensive capability via armor proficiency and that greater access to feats.  This is currently well-emulated in the game.  However, I did agree with the point someone made about throw; I'm not sure why rangers get such a high throwing skill.  I don't see them using throwing knives over arrows, and I don't see them being as good at throwing spears/javelins as warriors.  As a matter of fact, this would be an area I'd like to see warriors improved in, with some sort of passive ability to throw their weapon -during- combat, or somesuch, while seeing ranger ability cut back in it.


And finally...

I do not disagree with your need for some things in terms of the warrior.  I just always saw it as a new class that was between assassin and warrior.  Less developed in close combat, but more developed in acquisition/hunting of the criminal element.  I wanted to call it the City Guard class or something similar, where they had lower combat caps and fewer combat skills, but picked up very capable scan, listen, and city hunt, amid other things, but that would require more discussion.


Edit:  And to clarify, because I think it comes across the wrong way.  I'm not saying skill caps don't matter because no one reaches them, I'm saying the level of buff/nerf that some people are approaching are flawed approaches since they're talking about it being an edge to one class or another in a place that is very seldom reached.  Ranger having more parry than assassin so seldom becomes relevant in the game, due to how assassins operate, that using it as the justification for combat changes is jumping the gun a bit.

[Riev]

Tough to come in after two amazing posts like that, but I did want to add in something that reiterates what I said before:

Warriors, as guards and stuff are GREAT, but their helpfile would suggest they're employable as great fighters and etc etc. There's not enough humanoid vs humanoid combat to make a warrior a good choice, if fighting is what you want to do. Bash is based more on height than anything else. Kick is on the same progression as weapon skills. Even at a decent level of guard that you get just for being a warrior, how often do PCs need PC guardsmen? And how often does it even work in the first place?

I used to play warriors, a lot. Through twinking, I've even branched a couple advanced weapon skills. But I never PvP'd anyone because bash was NEVER reliable, throw isn't high enough to be useful, and you're almost always in a city where you'd just end up fighting/killing soldiers and pissing off the Templars anyways.

I think what makes rangers seem OP, other than their utility, is the fact that a lot of combat takes place outside the realm of the law, which is to say the city as a whole. Not all, just a lot. So, their skillset seems superior because chances are you're always in their backyard. The chances of being in a warrior's backyard means you're in a controlled area like the Arena or a sparring ring, or behind a locked door they can't escape from.


* - all this said, warrior bash is so powerful goddamn one time I counted and it was like 30seconds before the other person could move and I pooped myself in excitement

[RogueGunslinger]

Bash is tied to height to an incredibly stupid degree. It's bad enough that elves and half-giants have a hard time failing a bash. And poort stumps might as well not even bother trying the skill.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Thank you for the thorough response Armaddict. I fully acknowledge that there are practical flaws in the way I argued some of my points, and I agree with almost all of the holes you've poked in them.

The reason I argued classes based on their (rarely met) skill caps and ignored sub-guilds is because the title says "Rangers OP". I wanted to argue the class itself, at its full potential. If you add in subguilds, variable skill levels, stats, environment, etc. there's way too many variables at play. We could argue compositions like that all day long and not get anywhere. But if you talk about classes at their highest potential, without subguilds, I think we get a much better picture of the class - if not a very realistic one.

As far as the D&D comparisons, I brought them in because Armageddon is a (highly evolved) Diku MUD, and Diku MUD was developed to emulate AD&D. This is probably another flawed argument because who can say, really, how much influence AD&D and the original diku codebase had on the Arm classes as they exist now. To me it was the only reason I could come up with why rangers would be almost just as good as warriors in terms of combat skill caps, while assassins ("urban rangers") trail significantly behind both. Though, I don't really agree with the whole Striker/Controller/Tank argument. That nonsense was introduced in 4e where they pigeon holed incredibly flexible classes down into condensed garbage that all played exactly the same. Plus, Armageddon rangers don't have a hard limit on how armored they can be. If you have the strength to wear horror shell without encumbering yourself, there's absolutely no reason not to. (I hate this mechanic, but there it is.)

[Riev]

Bash is tied to height to an incredibly stupid degree. It's bad enough that elves and half-giants have a hard time failing a bash. And poort stumps might as well not even bother trying the skill.

I had a warrior with Master bash once, who still failed regularly because of size. Its supposedly one of the Warrior's bread and butter skills.

Ranger has no bread-and-butter skills that fail against other people on size, unless you're a half-giant trying to sneak in the woods and even then, it doesn't have the ramifications on failure like bash does.

[RogueGunslinger]

I know this is just repeating what Reiv just said, but It's a great point. All the skills warriors get, they never really get to use. There are just so few instances when they're useful, and if they're not mastered(and apparently even when some are) they become a huge liability.

I mostly play warriors. Like, 80% of my character are warriors. The fact is, you're usually on a mount and outside the gates. And very, very seldom does combat take place in cities.

I have never, not once used Bash effectively in a real combat situation.
I have never, not even a single time, had Kick be helpful in a real combat situation.

I have however used Disarm in PvP(against someone I was clobbering anyways). And... they just pulled another blade from their inventory like it was no big thing(npc's do this too). It was never worth the risk of fumbling and dropping your weapon in an actually dangerous situation, because you get all the delay, and they get nothing.

What does a warrior have that actually sees use and is helpful? Rescue is good. Subdue is good. Shield-use and parry are strong. And honestly, that's really it, and they're incredibly inflexible skills that can only be used in very specific circumstances.

Possible solutions:

Disarm needs to apply a delay to the person getting disarmed, so they can't just immediately pull out another one.

Kick needs to be "strike", and be targetable with different effects for where you hit(stamina loss to legs, stun to head/body, attack delay to arms, that sort've thing).

Bash needs to be effective and not so dependent on height, and you should be able to bash doors down(and get crimflagged).

Guard should be more effective, especially against hidden enemies and you should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

[WanderingOoze]

quote author=RogueGunslinger link=topic=50287.msg919749#msg919749 Possible solutions:

Disarm needs to apply a delay to the person getting disarmed, so they can't just immediately pull out another one.

Kick needs to be "strike", and be targetable with different effects for where you hit(stamina loss to legs, stun to head/body, attack delay to arms, that sort've thing).

Bash needs to be effective and not so dependent on height, and you should be able to bash doors down(and get crimflagged).

Guard should be more effective, especially against hidden enemies and you should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

Fuck it.... I keep screwing up when I try editing the quote....

I like all of these ideas, especially the door bashing. I made a topic about it once when I first started forum-ing and only managed to get
"Wish up and you might get some love" .

[Armaddict]

Have there been changes to bash anytime recently?  I used to use shields on a dwarf and never fail bash.  I used to lose mul warriors to well-trained humans because of bash.

So when I hear that it fails this much, I know it's that way -early-, but it always hit a point for me where the irritating height thing wasn't that it wouldn't work.  It always worked for me.  It was that elves would counter my dwarf and mul bash with regularity.

Edited to add:  This is not to degrade your point.  I agree that it is ridiculously dependent on height, and it should not be.

[wizturbo]

I think a lot of ranger envy amongst warriors would disappear if warrior's started with advanced weapon skills, or branched them much earlier in their career.

Would make them the clear masters of melee combat, where they belong.

[Dresan]

I think most skills should branch much quicker. Perhaps when the skill hits advanced, instead of forcing people to grind for those extra fails up to master.

[whitt]

I think a lot of ranger envy amongst warriors would disappear if warrior's started with scan advanced weapon skills, or branched them much earlier in their career.

FTFY

[Armaddict]

you should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

Uhm.  I'm pretty sure it already works this way.  And I've told you before, I've had the encounters where shield-user is blocking 4 out of 5 (this is not an exact number, this is how it felt through the frustration of seeing the message that it was deflected by the shield over and and over again) of my ranged shots.  Granted, this could have been subject to changes.  This was during the time where shield use was common.  It's not anymore, despite it helping against these sorts of things and making bash better.

I think most skills should branch much quicker. Perhaps when the skill hits advanced, instead of forcing people to grind for those extra fails up to master.

I've never branched weapon skills on a warrior, so I need to ask this question when I think of this.  When you branch a weapon skill, does the new weapon skill work just like the old weapon skill?  Or do they build on each other?  I.e. Does a knife use both piercing and the knives skill?  Or just the knives skill?  If they build on each other, I'm very content with them being very difficult to branch.

If they start fresh as a brand new, stand alone weapon skill...I'd say let warriors branch that shit -early- in advanced.  Heh.

[Medivh]

They branch an entirely new weapon skill that you have to train all the way up from the bottom.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Yeah, warriors "combat superiority" is pretty underwhelming in reality.

Bash, as people have said, is incredibly dependent on height. Even the difference between a human and an elf is noticeable. I agree that height should have an effect, but think it should probably be scaled back. I do believe that a dwarf would have a hard time physically body checking an elf who's twice his height. And I love that HGs are flawless bashing machines because... they're huge. Maybe we need a trip skill also / instead? Bash also stands a good chance of fucking you over, instead of your opponent, which has always made me hesitant to use it in a close fight. If I could beat you with one hand tied behind my back, I'll bash you. If you're holding your own (the situation where I could most benefit from a bash), I probably won't. But that's just me. If you or your opponent are mounted it's useless.

Kick can be a pretty solid extra damage dealer, when you get it ground up. But it's useless when you or your opponent are mounted.

Disarm is nice, but most characters have at least a skinning knife they can pull as a backup. Also, since it stands a good chance of fucking you over instead, I've always shied away from using it when I really -need- something dead. I would agree that adding a draw delay to this would help a lot - that way you're all but guaranteed to get a few solid hits in while your enemy is fumbling to recover. Also, if your enemy is dual wielding, you'll have to land it until they run out of weapons before you get the huge combat bonus from it.

Advanced weapon skills should be awesome, but I very much doubt that they are. I've never branched one, so this will be mostly speculation. They're hard to branch both because weapon skills take such a long time to raise, and because as a warrior with advanced combat and weapon skills, you'll have a hard time getting in those all-too-important misses. You're basically only going to get them from other 20 day warriors at that point, but even then... Once you finally branch an advanced weapon skill, it starts very low. Probably low enough that you'll see a night and day difference between your sword skill and your razor skill, for instance. That being said, with high combat style skills and offense... you'll also have a hard time training your advanced weapon. You wouldn't be horrible with it because, at that point, you should be able to kill a half-giant with a dull spoon... but I doubt you will ever get your polearm skill high enough to make it more effective than your chopping. Speculation, but I feel pretty confident about it.

[Riev]

Its a lot of focus on warriors right now, and there are a lot of good points, and I'd just like to say that its there as a counterpoint to the Rangers being OP. While there are a lot of things about warriors I would like to see changed (and mine are minimal changes, to be honest), rangers just 'have it all'. And they should have a lot, because they are ranged outdoor specialists. Their skills are archery, and living off the land, and not NEEDING to engage in melee combat.

Of course, they do, because with the skills they have why WOULDN'T they? Why do rangers have all the weapon skills they have? Why are they so good at rescuing people in melee combat? Why can they poison, cure, forage food, shoot you from three rooms away (I know, this is less the case now), and have less lag from the archery shot as someone has from throwing a fucking pie?

Lets talk about THAT for a second. Throw has a relatively okay chance at doing something special, even at high levels of the skill. And the lag time between throws is like 7-8 seconds. For archery, its about half that time at 4 seconds. And I've seen an arrow do 80+ damage without any obvious special modifiers. AND THATS FINE. But why does someone who can do 80+ damage from range, also have equivalent melee skills as the person who is born and bred for melee combat? Why do rangers even GET parry? If this was DnD, sure. They're hunting goblins, and orcs, and 'creatures' that have weapons. But in Arm they're hunters, fighting jozhal and spiders and stuff.

[Dresan]

Merchants:

• Should start with bandage making and should branch bandage and brewing from that.
• Should get one weapon skill, preferably the weapon skill most common to the region. It should only go to journeyman at best

I don't think giving scan would change much, not in its current state. Scan isn't even that great on rangers after a certain point. I made this suggestion years ago, and it wasn't popular then, I don't expect it to be popular now but...

I think sneak/hide should be actually separated into its two distinct skills. Wilderness sneak/wilderness hide, and city sneak/city hide. Neither version should not work at all in the opposing environment.  Scan can then also be fully separated where rangers can only see only the wilderness version, and assassins can only see the other.  

Hide and sneak, particularly the city versions are really powerful and its too readily available to rangers without an investment in an extended guild. I think this would also be a large boon to assassins who again I feel should have the best eyes in the city.

[Saellyn]

They are two separate entities.

[Dresan]

They kinda are but there is a loop hole which I feel should be closed. Sorry. 

[Riev]

I might agree with Assassins getting a "city" scan per se. They'd certainly be the ones knowing who is trying " a bit too hard " to blend in with a crowd, or which shadows and alleys to look in.

And yeah, with a couple subguild choices you can turn a Ranger's skillset into almost any other guild with workable ease. Its not as easy to turn a merchant into a thief, or a warrior into a pickpocket.

[whitt]

Why do rangers have all the weapon skills they have? Why are they so good at rescuing people in melee combat? Why can they poison, cure, forage food, shoot you from three rooms away (I know, this is less the case now), and have less lag from the archery shot as someone has from throwing a fucking pie?

Lets talk about THAT for a second.

Agree on the weapons skills.  I would like to see Rangers made more of a hunter class.  Give them piercing and archery.  Leave block.   No Parry.  If you want bludgeoning or slashing get that as part of a sub-guild like fighters need to get their rangery skills as part of a sub-guild. 

The rest of the survival skills though?  I'd think they belong.

[Saellyn]

Well hold on now.

I think rangers should get bludgeoning weapons, because it would do the least damage to the hide.

[RogueGunslinger]

you should be able to jump in front of arrows/thrown items for a chance at blocking/deflecting them. Also, blocking arrows with a shield should probably be a little easier.

Uhm.  I'm pretty sure it already works this way.  And I've told you before, I've had the encounters where shield-user is blocking 4 out of 5 (this is not an exact number, this is how it felt through the frustration of seeing the message that it was deflected by the shield over and and over again) of my ranged shots.  Granted, this could have been subject to changes.  This was during the time where shield use was common.  It's not anymore, despite it helping against these sorts of things and making bash better.

You can block arrows from hitting the person you guard?

Today I learned.

Well hold on now.

I think rangers should get bludgeoning weapons, because it would do the least damage to the hide.

I agree. And they should get spears for shelled creatures. They should get piercing/blugeoning to journeyman and slashing to apprentice. And spears/daggers really should not be under the same skill. Not at all.

[Saellyn]

That's the second time somebody has agreed with me publicly.

[Dresan]

I agree with the blunt weapons too. I think weapon skills to journeyman or mid journeyman is good enough for someone who should be fighting from range anyways.  

Rangers should probably get chopping weapons instead of slashing weapons.

Since I think  axes feel more suited for hunting, skinning, or killing trees and swords are more suited for guards and soldiers. Not to say soldiers/guards can't use axes, but that should be a warriors preference.


Again I think assassin should branch slashing and chopping weapons too (at apprentice and max at journeyman) at some point in their career mostly for defensive purposes, like their help file says they become akin to warriors late in their career. I don't mind them being the second best fighter in the game next to warriors.

[Saellyn]

Spears and clubs are more for hunting. Rangers aren't exactly lumberjacks.