Curse

TheZoologist · May 12, 2005, 02:36 PM // 14:36

I started off thinking I'd take a different path and not put points into marksmanship and instead focus on beastmastery. The pet can be fun at times, but it comes with some serious handicaps that probably outweigh the benefits of spending points on the skill. First and foremost, you have to give up two skill slots just to have the pet present at your side. This is one skill for the pet's simple existence (charm animal) and one skill to bring the pet back if it dies, since allied healers cannot resurrect it (comfort or revive animal). But just having the pet present hardly justifies the use of these skill slots. Since the pet has no inherent skills, without the use of further beastmastery skills, it is nothing but a low-level DOT effect, one which can prove a significant liability (death, aggro, etc.) and which is worthless if you are not also dealing a significant amount of damage (which you won't be if you have no points in marksmanship). Why can't Comfort Animal or Revive Animal be tied to the pets continued presence? Why can't allies resurrect your pet?

Now your pet can be made into a fairly effective fighter through additional beastmastery skills, but these skills take up alot of space. Think of it this way: if you go with your pet as a weapon, you will have to use 4 skill slots just to have access to two simple attack skills, skills which are typically less powerful than player attack skills. Basically, to make your pet the equivalent of a single basic warrior attack skill (i.e. PC warrior of the same level repeatdly using on attack skill), you need to use at least 4 skill slots on your bar (charm, resurrect, a buff and an attack skill), if not 5. When you combine this with the complete lack of control over your pet and the pet's rather abyssmal AI, why in the name of god would you choose to invest points here?

Needless to say, I dropped the pet and put the points into marksmanship. Despite its problems, my bow never gets stuck on the terrain.

I think one way to improve the Ranger class would be to add some weapon alternatives. For example, why not have a spear tied to wilderness survival or a whip tied to beastmastery? Pure warrior weapons would still be more effective damage dealers, but you could allow rangers to break away from the bow and explore some of the other attributes as specializations? Casters all have weapon options that are tied to different specializations (i.e. an "air" staff, a "domination" cane, etc.).

I am yet to see any argument in favor of the flexibility of Rangers to invest points in attributes instead of Marksmanship or Expertise that would not be an even stronger argument in favor of taking Ranger as a secondary class.

Mountain Man · May 12, 2005, 03:03 PM // 15:03

I'd love to see ArenaNet overhaul the pet system. I love having a pet at my side, but not when it's a liability. Sadly, this is the case for most games (Diablo 2 is the rare exception; the Druid's animal companions are extremely effective!).

Granamyr · May 12, 2005, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Ranger works well as a secondary when you use a caster class to address energy needs. This is a workaround solution though to an issue that has a much easier solution than creating new attribute lines: Expertise-based bows.

There were plenty of rumors flying around that this would make it into the game but I still haven't seen one. This would save attribute points by not forcing rangers to specialize in both Expertise AND Marksmanship. Every other class has their weapons available across at least 2 different attributes....usually more.

The most abused and pigeon-holed class though is definitely the monk. Anyone who goes primary monk has to be a healer and to do so, has to specialize Divine Favor. Expertise pales in comparison to how Divine Favor has narrowly defined the monk.

Dwiggit · May 12, 2005, 04:23 PM // 16:23

I agree that the ranger could use some tweaking. I have a few suggestions:

1) Increase the base energy for Rangers to 30. This would reduce the need for so many skill points in Expertise. Alternatively, increase the effectiveness of Expertise to reduce energy costs 6-8% per level.

2) Reduce the number of skill slots required to maintain a pet. Just having "Charm Animal" on a skill slot sucks, you NEVER click it! Then you add "Comfort Animal" to heal him. It would be nice if placing only "Comfort Animal" automatically brought your pet with you, so you can leave "Charm Animal" at home until you want to go out seeking a new pet.

By the way, do pets get better the longer you use them? Or are they just tied to your current level?

Also, has anyone with an Ithas Bow have a problem where the damage delivered is only minimal until you un-equip and re-equip it? (Yes, my marksmanship is above 10.)

Dwig

Arrow Whisper · May 12, 2005, 04:36 PM // 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

I'd love to see ArenaNet overhaul the pet system. I love having a pet at my side, but not when it's a liability. Sadly, this is the case for most games (Diablo 2 is the rare exception; the Druid's animal companions are extremely effective!).

Actually my beastlord pet in EQ1 with his buffs, focus, & rune he'd often times outlast me. Throw in some AA's at level 70 to make him put out some damage and I'd say you had quite the affective companion.

TheZoologist · May 12, 2005, 05:10 PM // 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwiggit

I agree that the ranger could use some tweaking. I have a few suggestions:

1) Increase the base energy for Rangers to 30. This would reduce the need for so many skill points in Expertise. Alternatively, increase the effectiveness of Expertise to reduce energy costs 6-8% per level.

Actually, now that I think about it, the proper way to handle Expertise would be to have the % reduction scale with cost. It makes no sense that going from 44% to 48% cost exponentially more than going from 4% to 8% (20! points for the former, 2 points for the latter). Why does a 4% increase cost 10 times more at a higher level?

Quote:

2) Reduce the number of skill slots required to maintain a pet. Just having "Charm Animal" on a skill slot sucks, you NEVER click it! Then you add "Comfort Animal" to heal him. It would be nice if placing only "Comfort Animal" automatically brought your pet with you, so you can leave "Charm Animal" at home until you want to go out seeking a new pet.

By the way, do pets get better the longer you use them? Or are they just tied to your current level?

Pet level is tied to your current level. If they are behind your current, they will increase to your current level (lagging behind a half level if you are increasing). I'm fairly certain they are capped at 20 also.

nechronius · May 12, 2005, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwiggit

By the way, do pets get better the longer you use them? Or are they just tied to your current level?

My pet is 14th level. I'm 15th level. At one point early on my pet was actually a higher level than I was but it looks like I overtook its levelling.

Undertakr · May 12, 2005, 06:22 PM // 18:22

I totally disagree with the poster on this. I'm a W/R just for the record.

The reason I disagree is that the poster is trying to be good at EVERYTHING, which is totally against how this game is. That'd be like saying a Warrior needs points in Strength, Swords and Tactics to be any good and that leaves no stats for secondaries.

Or saying Elementalists suck because you can't have points in air, water and fire.

The way a ranger is is so that you HAVE to make choices. Making choices is what causes balance. If all you want to do is deal a ton of damage with your bow, put all your points in Marksmenship and Expertise and do that, but if you want to be an awesome damage dealer that way, you won't have good traps or pets. It's all a trade off.

The Ranger is the 'jack of all trades.' You could put even points in all 4 of your skills and you'd have a ton of functionality, but wouldn't be able to do massive damage in any. That's a trade off. I personally think that pets are totally under valued by most Rangers. Of course they suck if you put 1 point there. I think traps are awesome, especially in PVP where you can trap choke points all to hell and watch people run over them and get severely damaged. You don't need to do massive damage with your bow if your traps have already taken people down to 1/2 life.

Simply put, ALL of the professions force you to make choices. If you choose to be a damage dealer, you are gimping yourself in other areas. That's a choice. To me, people put too much value in doing 'maximum damage' builds because that isn't what teamwork is about. You could do average damage and play your class well and totally dominate.

Epinephrine · May 12, 2005, 06:36 PM // 18:36

I agree with the posters who say that the class is spread a bit thinly - but not horribly thinly either - they are more limited than a warrior, as a warrior can get away with a bit less in strength and still be an effective damage dealer, freeing up attribute points for elsewhere, while the ranger needs as much in expertise as they can get, due to the way the costs are reduced (for example, there is a 33% reduction in the cost of 5 energy spells going from 12-13 in expertise; that allows 1.5 times as many oof them to be used with a given energy supply, which is a huge bonus. The drop from 6 cost to 5 cost for a 10 energy skill at the 11-12 breakpoint is also nice, it's a 16.6% reduction in cost - the big reductions all occur late in the table, by the mechanism involved.).

This means that a ranger dramatically imporves his efficiency by pumping for the top few ranks of expertise, and marksmanship likewise needs a number of points to be useful. A Warrior on the other hand gets a flat bonus from strength, which while useful is not improving drastically with the upper ranks. It's not a huge difference, but it's enough to be noticeable, and I think that's the issue - a warrior can lose a rank or two in strength without seeing a huge reduction in his damage, freeing up attribute points for a secondary.

TheZoologist · May 12, 2005, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertakr

I totally disagree with the poster on this. I'm a W/R just for the record.

The reason I disagree is that the poster is trying to be good at EVERYTHING, which is totally against how this game is. That'd be like saying a Warrior needs points in Strength, Swords and Tactics to be any good and that leaves no stats for secondaries.

Or saying Elementalists suck because you can't have points in air, water and fire.

The way a ranger is is so that you HAVE to make choices. Making choices is what causes balance. If all you want to do is deal a ton of damage with your bow, put all your points in Marksmenship and Expertise and do that, but if you want to be an awesome damage dealer that way, you won't have good traps or pets. It's all a trade off.

Yes, but a warrior does not have to have points in axe mastery in order to use skills in sword mastery, nor does an elementailist have to put points into fire to make his water skills effective. For example, for sword wielders there are only two sword attack skills located outside of the sword mastery (in tactics). For the Ranger, however, over half of your Expertise skills are tied directly to using a bow, as are 7 out of 24 Wilderness Survival skills. Beastmastery is the only skill set that really doesn't rest on you using a bow, but I've already detailed why a pet is really nothing more than an inferior ranged weapon.

Studio Ghibli · May 12, 2005, 06:47 PM // 18:47

I'm not sure if Undertaker read the entirety of this thread, but it was explicitly stated that the player wasn't trying to master everything--but that they NEEDED TO spread their points like that to actually be effective.

TheZoologist · May 12, 2005, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

I agree with the posters who say that the class is spread a bit thinly - but not horribly thinly either - they are more limited than a warrior, as a warrior can get away with a bit less in strength and still be an effective damage dealer, freeing up attribute points for elsewhere, while the ranger needs as much in expertise as they can get, due to the way the costs are reduced (for example, there is a 33% reduction in the cost of 5 energy spells going from 12-13 in expertise; that allows 1.5 times as many oof them to be used with a given energy supply, which is a huge bonus. The drop from 6 cost to 5 cost for a 10 energy skill at the 11-12 breakpoint is also nice, it's a 16.6% reduction in cost - the big reductions all occur late in the table, by the mechanism involved.)

The mechanism does not lead to bigger reductions later in the table. For example, going from rank 1 to 2 produces 2 1-point reductions, as does going from rank 10 to 11. Also, stating that going from 12-13 gives you a 33% reduction in the cost of 5-point skills is somewhat misleading, as going from 10 to 11 and 11 to 12 has no effect on 5-point skills. Benefits are linear, as with all other attribute increases.

Epinephrine · May 12, 2005, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheZoologist

The mechanism does not lead to bigger reductions later in the table. For example, going from rank 1 to 2 produces 2 1-point reductions, as does going from rank 10 to 11. Also, stating that going from 12-13 gives you a 33% reduction in the cost of 5-point skills is somewhat misleading, as going from 10 to 11 and 11 to 12 has no effect on 5-point skills. Benefits are linear, as with all other attribute increases.

No they aren't, the reduction is linear, but the benefit isn't.

Edit to clarify: If you look at the benefit as being the number of skills you can activate based on X energy, the benefit is non-linear. In fact, if extended, the table would eventually allow free skills. In that way the benefit is very non-linear. The reductions are linear at a glance, but because taking 1 from the cost of a 5 cost skill differs from taking 1 from the cost of a 4 cost skill there is a real difference in how effective expertise gets.

Undertakr · May 12, 2005, 09:50 PM // 21:50

But everyone spreads their points is my point. Spreading across 2 or 3 skills is common place. You don't HAVE to have points in Marksman/Expertise/Wilderness, just like a Warrior doesn't HAVE to have points in Tactics, Strength and Swords. Just because you can't use some of the skills you have doesn't mean you're gimped. If that was the case, the default PVP classes would all die instantly and I've only played default PVP classes and have been very successful.

Yes, rangers are heavily bow-centric. No doubt about that. If you want to be bow-centric uber damage, I don't think points in 3 skills is a big deal. You could still up a skill or two half-way decently in a secondary, but I still contend that it is not the rangers position to be a heavy damage dealer, a ranger is a secondary damage dealer and thus, if you think of it that way, you could use your points in a different manner and be extremely valuable. It's not all about who can get the biggest per-hit damage number like everyone makes it out to seem.

TheZoologist · May 12, 2005, 10:16 PM // 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epinephrine

No they aren't, the reduction is linear, but the benefit isn't.

Edit to clarify: If you look at the benefit as being the number of skills you can activate based on X energy, the benefit is non-linear. In fact, if extended, the table would eventually allow free skills. In that way the benefit is very non-linear. The reductions are linear at a glance, but because taking 1 from the cost of a 5 cost skill differs from taking 1 from the cost of a 4 cost skill there is a real difference in how effective expertise gets.

If reductions are linear, why did you say:

Quote:

big reductions all occur late in the table, by the mechanism involved

All attribute changes lead to linear increases in benefits, but the small numbers that are generally involved in energy reductions make this cumulative increase over time less apparent. Saying that this linear increase is somehow more significant with Expertise is disingenious. A cumulative, linear increase is just that, but you see more jumps when smaller, rounded numbers are used. The same can be seen in the increase for DOT spells that have changes calculated by small number multipliers, i.e. health degeneration of 2 vs health degeneration of 3. Furthermore, since energy reductions only apply to certain skills, the benefits have to be evaluated in relation to skills/classes unaffected by Expertise.