ranger's fighting warriors

[Gricker]

I have a simple question, well i had a ranger he was in a clan for two years, trained in fighting and had a month on him, a bran new warrior comes in and beats the shit out of him, should rangers be a little bit closer to warriors be able to kick, i mean its a ranger, why wouldn't a ranger be able to kick, or disarm there as fast as warriors, just warriors are skilled in fighting i mean 'rangers' should be atleatse a little less than warrior


What you think?

GrIcKer

[Grin Sandciwh]

Sounds like a good ide.  the last time I played a warrior i almost had a heart attack at the shier brutality with which he could kill players and animals alike

but really if you want to be as strong as a warrior, the answer is PURE LOGIC:  make a warrior.    in other words, not a ranger.  in general i would say rangers are for players who are alone (ie live in the desert) and prefer not to RP.

[Tamarin]

I would like to see rangers be really good against creatures, and warriors really good against humanoids.  But don't give rangers the warrior fight skills.  Bad idea.

[LauraMars]

in general i would say rangers are for players who are alone (ie live in the desert) and prefer not to RP.

That is a very ignorant thing to say, then.

[jcarter]

I would like to see rangers be really good against creatures, and warriors really good against humanoids.  But don't give rangers the warrior fight skills.  Bad idea.

In my opinion, the only guild that should be specialized against humanoids is the assassin guild, for obvious reasons.

Warriors are people simply focused on fighting. It doesn't specify animals nor humans in any of the files. Rangers, while certainly seeming focused on animals, could also be your average desert bandit, tribal fighter, or so forth.

[X-D]

Hhhhmmm, Odd.

I've had 30 day rangers before and they could take any warrior under 10days played, and most from 10-20days played. In melee. Though, that was not the prefered method.

Personaly, I see ranger and warrior as the two guilds in the game that really don't need much more, if any work.

[Desertman]

I would put a ranger up against a warrior any day. So long as you arent locking them in a one room square with no way to maneuver...The ranger if moderately equipped will beat the warrior...Assuming the player has a little experience under thier belt.

[Desertman]

in general i would say rangers are for players who are alone (ie live in the desert) and prefer not to RP.

That is a very ignorant thing to say, then.

I agree, very ignorant.

[Anonymous]

That is a very ignorant thing to say, then.

I agree, very ignorant.

I can't speak for GriCKERkr but it seemed to me when he said RP he meant 'socialize' which is entirely different.  I like the odd, anti-social PC.

As far as the original topic, however, I think you're making a lot of assumptions gRickEr.  Unless you know when the character was created you can't be sure that it was really a 'new' warrior.  On top of that I think that stats matter the most when your skills are the lowest.  So even though you may or may not have had more training the fact that the warrior might have had better attribute scores in this or that category that is key to combat is going to be more of a deciding factor.  On top of that warriors have combat skills from the get-go that rangers don't which can help give them the edge even more.

Rangers get a lot of awesome stuff that makes playing any other combat class painful for me.  I don't think they need kick on top of all that.

I mean, what good is kick to a warrior who is stuck in a sandstorm trying to find you?

[Wykydtronn]

Rangers can whoop any guild out in the wilds...

I remember at lest seeing one crazy looking ranger that would run into battle on kank back, swinging his blade wildly.

[bloodfromstone]

Rangers get so many skills and abilities, plus a few little perks that are completely unique to their class that you don't even have to work up as skills. A branched ranger skill list is sick. They're probably the more versatile, adept class in the game. Thank GOD that warriors can destroy them in head-to-head combat. That's the only thing a warrior can do. If rangers were any closer to warriors in melee combat, everyone would play rangers (more so than we already do).

[Nao]

I've had a 20 day ranger be barely any better in melee than a newbie warrior. That's a bit frutrating, yes, but that should also crush any objections of 'OMG, WARRIORS HAVE BEEN NERFED AND WILL NOT BE ANY BETTER THAN RANGERS' shit.

It's a bit much, but I don't think there's anythig wrong with it, and I play mainly rangers. And the whole ratio is supposed to go up once a ranger branches parry, even if I never got there

[Hymwen]

i would say rangers are for players who are alone (ie live in the desert) and prefer not to RP.

Yup, very ignorant, unless you meant something other than what it sounded like.

I've had 30 day rangers before and they could take any warrior under 10days played, and most from 10-20days played. In melee.

It depends on so many things. Does one have stats that go like very good/exceptional/above average/absolutely incredible versus an average/poor/below average/below average? Are they wearing comparable armor, or is one wearing coarse sandcloth and the other radical mekillot hide and a shield? Is one a combat-trained character in a high-population clan with sparring facilities and the other a tavern-sitter who occasionally kills a tregil?

You really can't compare it with "days played" like that. Your character's fighting capabilities are not determined by the amount of hours they have been logged in, it is what they have done, and which factors give them an advantage/disadvantage against their opponent.

[FightClub]

i would say rangers are for players who are alone (ie live in the desert) and prefer not to RP.

Yup, very ignorant, unless you meant something other than what it sounded like.

I've had 30 day rangers before and they could take any warrior under 10days played, and most from 10-20days played. In melee.

It depends on so many things. Does one have stats that go like very good/exceptional/above average/absolutely incredible versus an average/poor/below average/below average? Are they wearing comparable armor, or is one wearing coarse sandcloth and the other radical mekillot hide and a shield? Is one a combat-trained character in a high-population clan with sparring facilities and the other a tavern-sitter who occasionally kills a tregil?

You really can't compare it with "days played" like that. Your character's fighting capabilities are not determined by the amount of hours they have been logged in, it is what they have done, and which factors give them an advantage/disadvantage against their opponent.

And mudsexing, cannot forget the mudsexing, Mansa would not approve.

[Cale_Knight]

It depends on so many things.

It does, but the point is that if you work at it, you can create a ranger who will be able to brutally whip the ass of 90% of the warrior PCs in the game, even in melee combat, despite what the help file says about their melee abilities.

[gfair]

There is no doubt that Rangers are powerful. I've seen a few Rangers one-shot an animal with an arrow or knife.

That said, keep in mind that a Ranger isn't as good as a Warrior, it's a class less focussed on combat, so in certain circumstances, a less experienced warrior could whoop a Ranger.

[Larrath]

Rangers have so many useful abilities that their initially poor combat ability, in comparison to warriors (they still beat up everyone else), looks pointless to me.  Warriors can bash, disarm, kick and generally fight considerably better than a ranger of comparable experience in melee.
Outside of melee, rangers can use archery better than warriors, can use hunt, hide, sneak and other commands to drop in and out of places better than warriors can.
Rangers are better with mounted combat from what I've heard.  Rangers are extremely good with skinning and foraging, and can even forage for food and water.  Both of these abilities mean it's extremely easy for them to make a living off of selling raw goods, as soon as their skin and forage abilities get good.

Rangers can navigate through sandstorms and tame mounts that other people would need to pay 500 or more 'sids for.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget brew - one hell of a skill to have, especially when it's easy to ride out and pick ingredients.  Plus there's the whole wilderness quit thing.

Warriors need more advantages over rangers, not less.  Once the ranger and the warrior hit the 40+ days played, they'll both be plenty strong to fight their way out of tight spots.

Warriors get a couple of useful skills that rangers don't, but those can be supplemented by a Subguild and really just pale in comparison in my eyes.

[LoD]

I've played a 45-day ranger and 100-day warrior.

Rangers are by far the most versatile class and their strength lay in mobility, range and efficiency.  They are the optimal choice for any character that will be spending no small amount of time outside the walls of a city, either independantly or part of a group.

Warriors are by far the strongest melee combatants and their strength lay in a single minded focus toward martial perfection.  They are the optimal choice for someone who wants to start at a slightly accelerated fighting ability and very quickly reach a comfortable level where they can serve as an effective guard, bodyguard, soldier or officer.

Warriors truly shine when they are embraced for what they are, a toe-to-toe fighting machine.  The role you select will greatly effect the degree to which you may "miss" the varied skills of a ranger.  If you go on long rides, hunts, travel through sandstorms, etc...you may find yourself frustrated with what the warrior class doesn't provide rather than appreciating what it does provide in the appropriate role.

Intelligent guards who are practiced and trained to defend can be almost unbeatable 1v1 or 2v1, especially now that stamina restrictions will discourage a warrior of lesser skill being able to kick their way to victory.  Having someone like this in a leadership position makes the rest of the group very comfortable.  I haven't seen many clans practice this, but if you have 4-5 trained warriors operating with the correct training, you can survive some pretty amazing things that likely wouldn't be as easy for the same group of rangers.

I wouldn't mind seeing warriors get a few more skills to discourage people even further from entering toe-to-toe combat with them, but they are a force to be reckoned with in the hands of a capable player and there are many roles available for which the warrior class is best suited.

-LoD

[jhunter]

I wouldn't mind seeing warriors get a few more skills to discourage people even further from entering toe-to-toe combat with them, but they are a force to be reckoned with in the hands of a capable player and there are many roles available for which the warrior class is best suited.

[jstorrie]

As much as I love rangers, I don't think they require any sort of melee buff. The theoretical difference between a ranger and a warrior is that a ranger has spent his pre-PC life learning about a zillion different survival skills and a smattering of self-defense. The warrior has been practicing his spear-katas or whatever, and nearly nothing else, since he was 8.

Rangers do have the theoretical capability to wtfpwn people in melee combat - burglars and assassins do, too. In fact, all three of those classes possess certain skills warriors don't which potentially make them equally or more dangerous than warriors in melee right out of the box. To 'pass' a warrior in pure haxandslashery, though, they first have to make up for the massive headstart a warrior has thanks to his background.

[Agent_137]

i think this thread reeks of info that's too IC or code related to be discussed.

[Xygax]

I don't think it has exposed anything that can't be learned elsewhere.

But...  the complaint that rangers should be able to hold their own toe-to-toe against warriors in any situation is a silly one.  Rangers are awesome for lots of things; beaten up warriors (even newbie warriors) ain't one of 'em.  The choices that go into defining your character (will I travel the wastes and scoff at storms, or will I be a sword-swinging brute that no one dares to face one-on-one?) are good ones.  We are not eliminating them by pushing the various classes closer together in what their various strengths happen to be, either by giving you subguilds that fill out your particular weaknesses, or by giving every guild the same overall abilities.

-- X

[Agent_137]

i was mostly concerned about how many days it takes an X to beat a Y at Z days.

I know there are tons of variables, but it's still something that's impossible not to judge a little on.

[moab]

Warriors should kick the SHIT out of any ranger.

Take a soldier from today's army and pit him against a hunter from Boonieville New York, and that hunter is going to have his ASS handed too him.

The hunter will, however, know his way around the back 40 far better than the soldier.

[Aldiel]

I have a simple question, well i had a ranger he was in a clan for two years, trained in fighting and had a month on him, a bran new warrior comes in and beats the shit out of him, should rangers be a little bit closer to warriors be able to kick, i mean its a ranger, why wouldn't a ranger be able to kick, or disarm there as fast as warriors, just warriors are skilled in fighting i mean 'rangers' should be atleatse a little less than warrior


What you think?

GrIcKer

I disagree.  Rangers have so many cool skills that warriors don't get.  The classes are equal, just not in combat, and I think that's how it should be.