Rangers shafted in RoK
_Capster_
for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
You've got to be kidding me right??
All rangers out there need to let verant know that this is
totally bullshit. Apparently there will be no new ranger
specific weapons in the game as well.
Just my 2 cents.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bashugud
<chrisco...@uq.net.au.invalid> wrote:
>If all you rangers out there haven't checked out the 50+ spells
>for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
>really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
>50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
>sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
>You've got to be kidding me right??
Yep it's a bloody joke. I've stopped playing my ranger completely
now in the mid 40's, because 50 to 60 is just total crap for a ranger.
Back to my necro.
Nofrly
knew Brad was a Ranger... so go figure.
I'm glad you're getting your shots now. Too bad the Druids aren't.
"_Capster_" <chrisco...@uq.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:1c28d8ee...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> If all you rangers out there haven't checked out the 50+ spells
> for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
> really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
> 50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
> sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
> You've got to be kidding me right??
>
nordmaar
Malvolin
_Capster_ <chrisco...@uq.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:1c28d8ee...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> If all you rangers out there haven't checked out the 50+ spells
> for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
> really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
> 50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
> sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
> You've got to be kidding me right??
>
Whatever.
Lawless
regardless of what spell list you've seen or whether you've checked
out the data file, the expansion isn't out, and they can change
anything in it. Hell, none of those spells could even be in the
expansion at all.
_Capster_ wrote:
>
> If all you rangers out there haven't checked out the 50+ spells
> for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
> really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
> 50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
> sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
> You've got to be kidding me right??
>
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Rangers ruled for the first 6 months when EQ came out in '99.
Hardly. Like the rest of the fighting classes, Rangers have been second-
rate at best. I've played a Ranger from Day One; there's never been a time
when Rangers enjoyed anything like the power of the casting classes.
As for Kunark, the Ranger spell list is a joke in bad taste. The Ranger
community had hoped that this meant we would receive some worthwhile upgrades
in fighting ability but it has since been revealed that hybrid classes get no
new skills in Kunark, just spells. We're getting stuck with the following:
L51: Ensnare -- totally worthless spell, inferior to Snare
L52: Combust -- inferior to Call of Flames, does LESS DAMAGE than you can
do in melee in the time it takes to cast
Extinguish Fatigue -- worthless, you don't care if you run out of
fatigue, and even if you do Invigor is all you
need
L53: Storm Strength -- it's a stat buff; 'nuff said
L54: Drones of Doom -- wow, finally a spell Rangers might bother to cast!
Of course it won't stack with what the rest of your
party is casting.
L54: Skin Like Diamond -- better than nothing, but too little, too late
L55: Regeneration -- likewise; should be Chloroplast if you're even going
to notice it (N.B. supposedly this has been changed
to Chloro.)
L56: Chill Sight -- ultravision is not worth a post-50 spell slot
L56: Greater Wolf Form -- cute parlor trick at best
L57: Greater Heal -- OK, this is decent
L58: Nullify Magic -- bleah, maybe useful for soloing (at this level?????)
L58: Shield of Spikes -- damage shields are nice, be nicer if it wasn't an
L29 spell
L59: Flamestrike -- basically the same problems as Combust; if you've got
Call of Flame you'll never cast this
L60: Enveloping Roots -- you've got to be kidding me, a freaking ROOT
spell???? Prima facie evidence that whoever
wrote this list never played a Ranger
L60: Thorncoat -- basically an AC buff with weak damage shield; anti-
climactic for our last spell but it's hard to say no
to extra AC that stacks with pretty much everything
So, we're looking at six spells that are total losses, and the rest are
just "eh". Paladins are getting 90% EP ressurections, SK's are getting
high-level Necro pets...there's nothing with that kind of power on the Ranger
list. I couldn't even point to spells on the Ranger list that they could
THINK were that powerful.
Basically we're screwed.
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
Olaf
viable for a melee class, but since it isnt, they need to start getting much
more powerful druid spells, or some all new spells that help them contribute to
the group. What is the reason for having a Ranger around in the expansion?
Their tracking is worse than bards/druids. They are outdamaged easily by 3
other melee classes, they tank worse than perhaps all of the melee classes.and
their spells, aside from snare, have almost no practical application in a group.
olaf
_Capster_ <chrisco...@uq.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:1c28d8ee...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
Lokari
>Apparently there will be no new ranger
>specific weapons in the game as well.
Wow, you have the ability to see into the future and know everything
that Verant is going to do with the game? Amazing.
>Just my 2 cents.
You're overcharging.
--
www.enteract.com/~lokari
"No one of consequence"
Olaf
news:u3i6fsgm4qj8fmi9j...@4ax.com...
>
> L51: Ensnare -- totally worthless spell, inferior to Snare
This one is amazing. WTF
> L52: Combust -- inferior to Call of Flames, does LESS DAMAGE than you can
> do in melee in the time it takes to cast
> Extinguish Fatigue -- worthless, you don't care if you run out of
> fatigue, and even if you do Invigor is all you
> need
> L53: Storm Strength -- it's a stat buff; 'nuff said
Agree.
> L54: Drones of Doom -- wow, finally a spell Rangers might bother to cast!
> Of course it won't stack with what the rest of your
> party is casting.
It will stack unless you have a Druid. A decent spell. L54 though?
> L54: Skin Like Diamond -- better than nothing, but too little, too late
This should be SLN, moved back to L56 maybe.
> L55: Regeneration -- likewise; should be Chloroplast if you're even going
> to notice it (N.B. supposedly this has been changed
> to Chloro.)
I heard chloro now, this is the best spell they get, IMO.
> L56: Chill Sight -- ultravision is not worth a post-50 spell slot
LOL. Especially when the level THIRTY eyes of the cat used to be ultravision!
> L56: Greater Wolf Form -- cute parlor trick at best
Agreed, still, an ok spell.
> L57: Greater Heal -- OK, this is decent
Second best spell in the lineup
> L58: Nullify Magic -- bleah, maybe useful for soloing (at this level?????)
Useful, but not a L58 spell. No way.
> L58: Shield of Spikes -- damage shields are nice, be nicer if it wasn't an
> L29 spell
I say give them the L49 druid version. Hell it is level 58.
> L59: Flamestrike -- basically the same problems as Combust; if you've got
> Call of Flame you'll never cast this
Agree.
> L60: Enveloping Roots -- you've got to be kidding me, a freaking ROOT
> spell???? Prima facie evidence that whoever
> wrote this list never played a Ranger
Supposedly, this is being fixed this patch, ie. making the root effect actually
work sometimes. Not a L60 spell though.
> L60: Thorncoat -- basically an AC buff with weak damage shield; anti-
> climactic for our last spell but it's hard to say no
> to extra AC that stacks with pretty much everything
Good self buff for melee class, L60 though?
> Paladins are getting 90% EP ressurections, SK's are getting
> high-level Necro pets...there's nothing with that kind of power on the Ranger
> list. I couldn't even point to spells on the Ranger list that they could
> THINK were that powerful.
The other hybrid spells are much, much better. Rangers have been taking it in
the ass for a while now, relative to the other melees. I dont know why that is.
olaf
JackiePrice
>
> This one is amazing. WTF
No, it sucks. Ensnare breaks, like root, randomly, greater chance of
breaking if the target takes damage. What makes snare good is a set,
predictable duration, that has ZERO chance of breaking.
> > Paladins are getting 90% EP ressurections, SK's are getting
> > high-level Necro pets...there's nothing with that kind of power on the
Ranger
> > list. I couldn't even point to spells on the Ranger list that they
could
> > THINK were that powerful.
Paladins are getting 40% exp resurections. Its the level 39 spell they are
getting, not the 49.
Kin
This is no class balance! Rangers never get any good stuff beside maybe the
"track" skill....wow......
"JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:u5OI4.18848$2D6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
JackiePrice
Olaf. I've only noted what I disagree with. The rest I was in complete
agreement on.
> > L52: Combust -- inferior to Call of Flames, does LESS DAMAGE than you
can
> > do in melee in the time it takes to cast
Not a chance you do 182 damage in the 1.5 seconds of combat you miss
casting this spell. Yes, 1.5 seconds, not 3.5. Timing is everything while
casting spells while meleeing. 3.5 seconds is the cast time, but if you
start that immediately after attacking, you won't be missing much combat
time. Secondly, you wouldn't do 182 damage in 3.5 seconds either, barring a
flux axe proc. And you can bet rangers WILL use this spell, for two
reasons.
1) if you are like me, and haven't gotten Call of the Flames yet, there is
no bloody way you will do that ridiculous quest knowing you get this spell,
which has a slightly better mana ratio anyway, in just a few more levels.
Why camp for another bloody wak if you don't have to?
2) Even if you have call of the flames, the recast time is 18 seconds. You
could nuke in the meantime and do more damage than you will in melee. With
both of these spells, a ranger could nuke constantly until out of mana and
then switch to melee, having done substantially more damage than they would
have in melee during that time.
> > L53: Storm Strength -- it's a stat buff; 'nuff said
>
Yeah, but I was hoping for it. Trouble is, its not enough on its own.
> > L54: Drones of Doom -- wow, finally a spell Rangers might bother to
cast!
> > Of course it won't stack with what the rest
of your
> > party is casting.
Yes it will. Rangers and druids don't normally group together. Put in a
druid, you need another melee fighter, but put in a ranger, and get a
shaman, and who needs a bloody druid?
> > L55: Regeneration -- likewise; should be Chloroplast if you're even
going
> > to notice it (N.B. supposedly this has been
changed
> > to Chloro.)
It is Chloro now, which is GREAT.
> > L56: Chill Sight -- ultravision is not worth a post-50 spell slot
I'll take it.
> > L56: Greater Wolf Form -- cute parlor trick at best
>
Wrong. Greater wolf form makes melee combat a LOT more effective. I've
tested pack wolf form thoroughly with my 48 monk. We are talking overall a
10% or greater increase in melee damage.
> > L58: Shield of Spikes -- damage shields are nice, be nicer if it wasn't
an
> > L29 spell
>
Could be better, but its a very nice spell all in all. Big AC boost too.
> > L59: Flamestrike -- basically the same problems as Combust; if you've
got
> > Call of Flame you'll never cast this
302 DD is nothing to sneeze at. Sure, its 4.6 second cast time means it
isn't as nice as Call of the Flame, but think about the recast time of COF!
Ranger opens up with a snare, then COF, then Firestrike, then Combust, then
firestrike, then Combust, melee some while you're at about half mana until
COF refreshes, repeat. Rangers will be doing a LOT of damage. Way more
than monks...
while I like this spell, I was kinda hoping for the starfire/ice combo
instead.
> > L60: Enveloping Roots -- you've got to be kidding me, a freaking ROOT
> > spell???? Prima facie evidence that
whoever
> > wrote this list never played a Ranger
One thing I like about this spell, have you ever looked at it? Hard root
as good as the current BEST wizard root, 2.5 second cast time, 100 mana,
and...
160 DD.
I can guarantee we WILL be using this spell to soften up opponents before
combat in limited space. Root-160 (always full damage), nuke (COF-206DD)
nuke (Firestrike-302DD) nuke (Combust-180DD), Root breaks, melee, and the
level 45 mob is 20% dead already.
> > L60: Thorncoat -- basically an AC buff with weak damage shield; anti-
> > climactic for our last spell but it's hard to say
no
> > to extra AC that stacks with pretty much
everything
I like this spell, but we need more at level 60. Still, not only does the
AC stack with everything, but so does the damage shield (think its 5 damage,
stacking with magician or druid d-shields.)
> > Paladins are getting 90% EP ressurections,
This appears to have been changed recently on casters realm. Early on, they
were supposed to be getting the level 39 resuscitate. What gives here?
> >SK's are getting
> > high-level Necro pets...there's nothing with that kind of power on the
Ranger
> > list. I couldn't even point to spells on the Ranger list that they
could
> > THINK were that powerful.
Here is what I would have changed.
Moved Greater Healing back to replace Ensnare at 51.
Add Scale of Wolf in place of extinguish fatigue at 52.
Add Skin Like Nature in place of Skin Like Diamond at 54.
Add Plainsight in place of chill sight at 56.
Add Ice in place of Nullify Magic at 58.
Add Sheild of Thorns in place of Shield of Spikes at 58.
Add Starfire in place of Firestrike at 59.
With those few, it would have been balanced. As it is, you are right that
ranger spells seem inferior for the most part to the other hybrids.
eguad
> > Paladins are getting 90% EP ressurections, SK's are getting
> > high-level Necro pets...there's nothing with that kind of power on the
Ranger
> > list.
>
You have no idea how funny it sounds to hear someone jealous over the SK
pet. Trust
me, our pet will always be worthless. If it ever became useful, it would be
nerfed! We'd
get back that ventrilloquism spell instead, or Eye of Zomm or something.
It's part of the
SK vision I think.
Eric
JackiePrice
are
> getting, not the 49.
>
My mistake on this, Casters realm has changed it. This seems a little
unbalanced. They were slotted to get Resuscitate before...
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|You have no idea how funny it sounds to hear someone jealous over the SK
|pet. Trust
|me, our pet will always be worthless.
The pets you are getting post-50 will be able to solo mobs that give you
EP at the level you get those pets.
Mr Foo Bar
just starts to address the problem, shame its only at 50+.
_Capster_ <chrisco...@uq.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:1c28d8ee...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> If all you rangers out there haven't checked out the 50+ spells
> for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
> really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
> 50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
> sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
> You've got to be kidding me right??
>
> All rangers out there need to let verant know that this is
> totally bullshit. Apparently there will be no new ranger
> specific weapons in the game as well.
>
Mr Foo Bar
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:u5OI4.18848$2D6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > L51: Ensnare -- totally worthless spell, inferior to Snare
> >
> > This one is amazing. WTF
>
> No, it sucks. Ensnare breaks, like root, randomly, greater chance of
> breaking if the target takes damage. What makes snare good is a set,
> predictable duration, that has ZERO chance of breaking.
Translation: What makes snare overpowered etc etc.
Snare should be fixed to break like root, and if creatures are clever enough
to turn round and fight cos they aren't moving due root they should do the
same with snare. Snare is too good, should be a level 40+ spell for druids
as is.
Mr Foo Bar
(Bards don't count they can't tank). That was never balanced. Just because
their pre-eminence isn't being maintained beyond 50 does not mean they are
being shafted.
Besides, who cares if Paladins get any exp res 50+, would you really go
anywhere 50+ without a cleric - in which what value the Pally's res ?
Kin <gun...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZsOI4.14342$Ja5....@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com...
> Still, the spells they are giving to rangers in the expansion are craps!
> This is no class balance! Rangers never get any good stuff beside maybe
the
> "track" skill....wow......
Hmm and snare and sow and ivy armour and damage shields and dual wield and
kick and and and it goes on and on.
>
>
> "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
> news:u5OI4.18848$2D6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > L51: Ensnare -- totally worthless spell, inferior to Snare
> > >
> > > This one is amazing. WTF
> >
> > No, it sucks. Ensnare breaks, like root, randomly, greater chance of
> > breaking if the target takes damage. What makes snare good is a set,
> > predictable duration, that has ZERO chance of breaking.
> >
> > > > Paladins are getting 90% EP ressurections, SK's are getting
> > > > high-level Necro pets...there's nothing with that kind of power on
the
> > Ranger
> > > > list. I couldn't even point to spells on the Ranger list that they
> > could
> > > > THINK were that powerful.
> >
JackiePrice
"Mr Foo Bar" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:955528320.28390.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> LOL about time.Rangers have it far too easy compared to SK and Pallys,
this
> just starts to address the problem, shame its only at 50+.
Bullshit. Ranger spells have never been quite as good as paladin or
shadowknight spells.
JackiePrice
>
> Snare should be fixed to break like root, and if creatures are clever
enough
> to turn round and fight cos they aren't moving due root they should do the
> same with snare. Snare is too good, should be a level 40+ spell for druids
> as is.
No, snare is not overpowered. Other root type spells are underpowered. All
roots should have a minimum duration if they stick, and that duration should
be firmly predictable, even if its only ten seconds.
No mobs get "stuck" with snare, they simply get too weak to fight both the
snare and move at the same time. They still feel like they can move, so
they try to.
Olaf
olaf
Brian Evans
When I see spells on my spell list as a paladin I think of the situations
in which they can be used to good effect not about the situations in
which they can't. ANYBODY can come up with situations in which
spells are weak. It takes effort to find where and when they are strong.
You have to keep in mind that all casters only get 8 spells slots and
mana has to be managed as a group. Also most of the time it is
NOT worth the mana to have the top buffs of the pure casters. For
example you don't need Naltron all the time so the Paladin's
Pinzarm is fine and saves the clerics some mana. Same goes for
ranger's DS spells, a ranger can keep up a DS on the main
tanks and save the druids some mana and some spell slot
swapping. Rangers can pull with a DD which can keep the
monster from jumping a medding caster when it comes.
The difference between a good ranger and a very good ranger is
in how they use thier skills and spells. And no just leveling to 50
gives you no special insight into this.
Noslom
Olaf wrote in message ...
>I would agree. The spell line up they have would be excellent if soloing
were
>viable for a melee class, but since it isnt, they need to start getting
much
>more powerful druid spells, or some all new spells that help them
contribute to
>the group. What is the reason for having a Ranger around in the expansion?
>Their tracking is worse than bards/druids. They are outdamaged easily by 3
>other melee classes, they tank worse than perhaps all of the melee
classes.and
>their spells, aside from snare, have almost no practical application in a
group.
>
>olaf
>
Olaf
at 52. At 52, stuff that is 39 will be the lowest blue. No way IN HELL a
L33skel is soloing a L39 mob.
At L58, the SK gets Cackling Bones, which summons a maxmimum L37 skel. Again,
no way in hell this skel will be soloing things that are blue at 58.
olaf
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:0pi7fs0gqd1j0tj93...@4ax.com...
Brian Evans
Rangers do have the best spells because they have widest selection.
I don't buy any of the canned arguements as to why ranger spells
are weak. More variety = more situations in which at least some
spells are useful.
Things to remember.
1. Mana has to be managed group wide.
2. We all have only 8 spell slots.
3. The top buffs are not worth the mana in a lot of situations.
4. Takes effort to find where/when/how spells are usefull
A ranger putting a DS on the one or two main tanks saves the druid/mage
some mana and a LOT of spell slot swapping while contributing a fair
bit of damage for the effort. All three melee hybrids have this strength
and can take some of the load off the pure casters. Enchanters get a
damage shield but rarely use it because they can rarely afford the spell
slot for it
Noslom
Sammy Gordon
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:03:42 -0500, "Olaf" <ol...@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
Trickle
>Just look at the AC the damage shield gives you. Nuff said
With a defence cap of 200, AC will become fairly irrelevant to a
ranger. Hes going to be so far under the sweat spot required to stand
in front of a 55th+ level mob it's going to be untrue.
A druid can wear AC gear instead of maxed wis gear and make some
difference to the damage he takes at 50, but its not enough to be
viable. Thats what a ranger's going to look like in front of that 55th
level mob - like a current 50th druid in front of a 50th mob.
''A ranger's not a tank'', you say. Then i say....
>''Just look at the AC the damage shield gives you.''
irrelevant cast on himself.
Useful to cast on a proper tank in the unlikely event no dr00d is
about to cast something better on him.
Everyone gets buffed with tha same shit on raids anyway. If the party
deemed that a ranger would need an AC buff to tank, he would get one.
Ranger self AC buffs are irreleveant.
Trickle
>
>
>_Capster_ <chrisco...@uq.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1c28d8ee...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
>> If all you rangers out there haven't checked out the 50+ spells
>> for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
>> really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
>> 50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
>> sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
>> You've got to be kidding me right??
>>
>
>Whatever.
Its a little bit more significant to someone who has spent time making
50 with a character he currently likes. The people who slag off
wingers often turn round and start whining themselves when bad things
happen to their cherished class.
Start another character people say. Nope - simply not a solution to
most people as they do not have that kind of spare time. Quitting
would be the only viable solution for me, I think........ be a shame
to shell out for the expansion (especially living in Oz) just to find
your class went down the shitter.
Olaf
almost no practical utility. Sure you can think of places where you would use
them, but in most cases, except for 3 or so, they have no application.
Anyone who would use a Ranger DS while having access to a Druid or Mage
equivalent to _save_ mana is a complete and hopeless dumbfuck. The DS is about
the most mana efficient form of damage there is and the difference between the
best Ranger DS and the Druid/Mage equivalent at a similar level is 100% more
damage usually.
olaf
Brian Evans @promaxis.com> <brian<nospam543> wrote in message
news:V91J4.4890$9o.89...@news.magma.ca...
> >_Capster_ <chrisco...@uq.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:1c28d8ee...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com...
> >> If all you rangers out there haven't checked out the 50+ spells
> >> for the expansion, please do so. Someone in the verant office
> >> really has it in for us rangers. We get totally crap spell post
> >> 50th level compared to some real kick ass spells for pallies and
> >> sk's. Our crowning spell at level 60 is a damn damage shield.
> >> You've got to be kidding me right??
> >>
Olaf
spells rather trivially, dont you?
olaf
Brian Evans @promaxis.com> <brian<nospam543> wrote in message
news:9p1J4.4899$9o.89...@news.magma.ca...
Morgan
> news:9p1J4.4899$9o.89...@news.magma.ca...
>
> > Enchanters get a
> > damage shield but rarely use it because they can rarely afford the spell
> > slot for it
Olaf wrote:
>
> Man you keep bringing up the spell slot thing. You do know that you can swap
> spells rather trivially, dont you?
>
> olaf
Yes, and I swap spells constantly during combat. However, it does slow down
casting because you have to use the mouse and many spells have to recharge
after you mem them.
The Enchanter damage shield, Feedback, has a 6 second hold time, so it is
really too slow to swap in and out. Any spell with a five or six second
hold time is probably not an option for combat swapping.
--
Morgan
Xymarra, High Elf Enchanter on E'Ci
(crossposting all posts to rec.games.computer.everquest)
Olaf
wasnt even my point though. The point is that no one is going to compromise on
a shit Ranger spell when a superior spell is available within the party, simply
because of there only being 8 slots available per caster.
olaf
Morgan <mor...@misleading.com> wrote in message
news:38F4DD3D...@misleading.com...
guess away
wrote:
>> > L59: Flamestrike -- basically the same problems as Combust; if you've
>got
>> > Call of Flame you'll never cast this
>
>302 DD is nothing to sneeze at. Sure, its 4.6 second cast time means it
>isn't as nice as Call of the Flame, but think about the recast time of COF!
>
>Ranger opens up with a snare, then COF, then Firestrike, then Combust, then
>firestrike, then Combust, melee some while you're at about half mana until
>COF refreshes, repeat. Rangers will be doing a LOT of damage. Way more
>than monks...
>
>while I like this spell, I was kinda hoping for the starfire/ice combo
>instead.
That would be current monks, not monks at 59. Monks at 59 will still
walk all over rangers in terms of damage output. We're getting some
damned fine enhancements of our own in the expansion that will ramp us
up as much as if not more than hybrids. And that's just monks.
Warriors are going to make current tanks look like pulpy red tissue
paper shields compared to red painted, 6 inch titanium alloy shields.
I bet they also get some megataunts to boot. The expansion looks good
from all angles, though.
guess away
boost to your melee output. The 44 necro pet hits for mid-40s. Has
dual wield and double attack which go off far more often than a 44
melee class.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:18:34 -0500, "Olaf" <ol...@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
JackiePrice
Please tell me some of these "damned fine enhancements" you are talking
about...I've heard nothing.
JackiePrice
adequate primary tanks in ANY situation. They are not the BEST tanks, in
fact there are 3 classes that will always outdo them as tanks, but that
doesn't mean they can't do it. That won't change.
George Ruof
>while I like this spell, I was kinda hoping for the starfire/ice combo
>instead.
Ice is pretty crappy overall.
It's all or nothing and dual purpose so it is resisted quite a bit, the
debuff overwrites Malosi, and if you have a level 49 & 50 druid the
level 49 druid can't use ice because he can't overwrite the level 50
druids debuff so the spell is completely wasted.
--
George Ruof
gr...@pacificnet.net
JackiePrice
>
> It's all or nothing and dual purpose so it is resisted quite a bit, the
> debuff overwrites Malosi, and if you have a level 49 & 50 druid the
> level 49 druid can't use ice because he can't overwrite the level 50
> druids debuff so the spell is completely wasted.
Ice isn't designed as a main DD. Ice is designed to make extremely fire
resistant mobs susceptible to your starfire spell. In this roll, it does
its job very well. You just have to know when to use it. If you are
getting partial, or regular total resists of fire based spells, cast ice and
they'll all get through no problem. Even the extremely fire resistant mobs
of the Solusek Dungeons are totally beaten by this...one ice spell that gets
through, makes goblins or fire giants or even Nagafen take full damage from
almost each and every starfire you cast. If wizards had a similar spell,
fire based, to decrease cold resistance, Ice Comet would suddenly become the
deadly spell it was meant to be.
John Doe
more then that and its not worth the mana nor casting time.
Saying that however, if you have 3 or 4 tanks, one of which is a ranger then
they can put their lesser dmg shield on all the tanks.
Ranger mana = who gives a $@%@#$%, so if they blow it all on dmg shielding
the tanks, no big deal.
Get the druid to DS everyone and then have then say oom when you ask for a
heal, is a rather larger deal. though rather an extreme case 8)
Olaf <ol...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5C717DD9E1F99326.6C1C40D9...@lp.airnews.net...
JackiePrice
"John Doe" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:_vbJ4.15$E4...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Billy Shields
: Druids get group damage shield now.
That goes to the top of the "spells I will never cast" list (speaking
sa a L50 druid).
JackiePrice
who DOESN'T make a habit of casting damage shield on me before every fight
without asking is going to be the last one I consider inviting into a group
next time. I suspect the cost in mana will be similar to casting your best
damage shield twice, and since usually tanks aren't the only ones to get
agroed on, and most groups should have at least 2 tanks, I don't know why
you wouldn't...
"Billy Shields" <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38f56a56$0$28...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
bmc...@no.spam.ca
>: Druids get group damage shield now.
>
>That goes to the top of the "spells I will never cast" list (speaking
>sa a L50 druid).
>
mana...
- Boone
Paul V
(I've had froggies in lower guk resist snare 8 times in a row). And it
is also cancelled by every other root spell out there.
In article <LrZI4.20369$2D6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Edward James Kilsdonk
I thought that if you damage-shield a caster it becomes much
harder to taunt things off them. But I am not sure exactly how
damage shield damage affects the hate list.
Ted K.
--
Edward J. Kilsdonk Look, ytte is written in Olde. It muste
Graduate Student, History bee fromme before they invented fpelling.
Univerfity of Virginia
Red...@Virginia.EDU http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ejk4e
Paul V
I want casted on me. Why? Because if a mob goes aggro on a caster with
a damage shield, it would just make it harder for the tanks to taunt
because the caster is still doing damage. You don't want to make a mob
more pissed off at a caster when he goes aggro on him or her.
In article <38f5e20b....@news.mbnet.mb.ca>,
bmc...@no.spam.ca wrote:
> >JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
> >: Druids get group damage shield now.
> >
> >That goes to the top of the "spells I will never cast" list (speaking
> >sa a L50 druid).
> >
> Curious as to why? It would seem to me to be a pretty decent use of
> mana...
>
> - Boone
bmc...@no.spam.ca
>I want casted on me. Why? Because if a mob goes aggro on a caster with
>a damage shield, it would just make it harder for the tanks to taunt
>because the caster is still doing damage. You don't want to make a mob
>more pissed off at a caster when he goes aggro on him or her.
>
least 3 tanks (2 and a pet) and an Enchanter. I know in those big
furballs, it gets confusing to try and keep a dmg shield up on the
tanks - group DS would be much easier to keep track of but I do see
your point :-)
- Boone
Dennis Francis Heffernan
Kilsdonk) wrote:
|I thought that if you damage-shield a caster it becomes much
|harder to taunt things off them. But I am not sure exactly how
|damage shield damage affects the hate list.
Very simple: it doesn't.
Damage shield damage is credited to no one.
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Uh, If I played a caster class a damage shield would be the last thing
|I want casted on me. Why? Because if a mob goes aggro on a caster with
|a damage shield, it would just make it harder for the tanks to taunt
|because the caster is still doing damage. You don't want to make a mob
|more pissed off at a caster when he goes aggro on him or her.
You might think that, but you would be wrong.
Trickle
>A ranger IS a tank, always has been, and always will be. At 50, they are
>adequate primary tanks in ANY situation. They are not the BEST tanks, in
>fact there are 3 classes that will always outdo them as tanks, but that
>doesn't mean they can't do it. That won't change.
My low level ranger tanks pretty well in his mid twenties with all AC
orientated gear. I enjoy playing him. I've tried a couple of other
classes (shaman and bard), but I came back to my ranger. As its not
certain I'll ever make it past 50, then I'm happy to continue playing
him - so this isn't a huge moan - I just like to keep abrest of ranger
news.
But I am high level now enough to realise that my level 25 ranger's
pretty reasonable tanking ability primerily comes from a) his defence
skill and b) good equiptment choice. So I rekon the partity between
the 250 Warrior post expansion defence cap, compaired with the
Ranger's 200 cap, would make the two classes look similar to a 30th
ranger Vs 40th ranger in terms of tanking ability at level 60. At
least that is what I rekon.
That wasnt really very clear :( I'm trying to say that the ranger
basically sees no improvement in tanking ability from 50 -> 60 because
of the defence skill cap - and also lesser dodge, parry caps too.
They will get no equipment improvements either. Have you seen the
'Test of Defence' cloak that they've just found, Jackie? It is 6AC
with 5 charges of regen. I think 7 dex + Stam too. Goes well with the
necklace, don't you think?
I would sooner use my Ice bear cloak......
George Ruof
>Ice isn't designed as a main DD. Ice is designed to make extremely fire
>resistant mobs susceptible to your starfire spell. In this roll, it does
>its job very well. You just have to know when to use it. If you are
>getting partial, or regular total resists of fire based spells, cast ice and
>they'll all get through no problem. Even the extremely fire resistant mobs
>of the Solusek Dungeons are totally beaten by this...one ice spell that gets
>through, makes goblins or fire giants or even Nagafen take full damage from
>almost each and every starfire you cast. If wizards had a similar spell,
>fire based, to decrease cold resistance, Ice Comet would suddenly become the
>deadly spell it was meant to be.
Ice will not make Starfire hit a fire giant. I've tried it at least 20
times and always been fully resisted. It definitely helps against some
mobs and not much at all on others.
I'm not saying it's not useful, but it has problems. The main ones
being that it overwrites malosi and a lower level druid cannot use it
while a higher level druid is because the debuff can't be overwritten.
This makes it very useless in multiple group situations like fire giants
or efreeti boots unless all your druids are the same level.
--
George Ruof
gr...@pacificnet.net
George Ruof
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:53:23 GMT, Paul V <pau...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>|Uh, If I played a caster class a damage shield would be the last thing
>|I want casted on me. Why? Because if a mob goes aggro on a caster with
>|a damage shield, it would just make it harder for the tanks to taunt
>|because the caster is still doing damage. You don't want to make a mob
>|more pissed off at a caster when he goes aggro on him or her.
>
> You might think that, but you would be wrong.
I agree with Dennis. I regularly have a 29 point damage shield up and
have never had someone not able to taunt something from me quickly and
easily because of it. The exception would be when the mob is attacking
me because I just nuked it for 600 points and have an 800 point dot on
it, and I'm chain healing somone, but that really has nothing to do with
the damage shield.
I will gladly use the group damage shields since they will save me time
and mana.
--
George Ruof
gr...@pacificnet.net
JackiePrice
mob. In fact, they aren't even counted for experience purposes. If you
have a 24 point damage shield and just stand their taunting a mob, letting
it hit you, and some guy comes along and hits it once for 1 damage point
with his sword, then backs off, and nobody else hits it, it just keeps
impaling itself on your damage shield, when it dies, the guy who hit it once
gets the experience.
"Paul V" <pau...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8d4qha$l5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
JackiePrice
Brad, I forget which.
We've all assumed that skill is the primary method of determining how good
you are at something. While this is true in the sense that skill level is
at least 50% of the difference, there is something else that affects your
abilities almost as much, if not equally, and that is your actual level. A
level 50 ranger will have better defensive abilities with a defense of 200,
than a level 40 ranger will with a defense of 200. He will also parry,
dodge, and riposte more, despite having the same skill caps. He will have
better offensive ability.
Secondly, I am curious about the skill cap information you showed. The
original time that was posted, warriors did NOT get much of a defense cap
increase. Monks have always been and always are supposed to have higher
offense and defense caps than warriors. Soooo...I am curious, since in the
expansion skill cap list I saw, monks and warriors did not have their caps
increase, and now I am seeing warriors with a cap of 250 for defense, where
did you see this? And if its true, did monks also get an increase from
their current cap of 230?
The posted skill caps are not accurate, in any event. Brad McQuaid said
recently that in expansion, rangers would have the HIGHEST archery cap of
any of the classes, yet that was clearly not the case on the skill cap list
I saw.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>Man you keep bringing up the spell slot thing. You do know that you can swap
>spells rather trivially, dont you?
Yeah, but *finding* the damn spell in your spellbook is a real pain in
the ass. :-)
(Yes, I know I need to sit down one day and spend an hour or so
rearrganing my spells....just never seem to find the time).
-- Sang.
guess away
to upgrade. The rate hasn't been announced yet, but I believe it will
be every other level if not every level given the xp tables. We're
getting 8 disciplines, and possibly some new special attacks. Offense
and weapon skills will all go up to 252.
A monk at 60 if all this is correct will have an average damage of 57
(max 114) a punch, and will be getting triples and quads most of the
time. Delay of 25 natural. Add in special attacks and disciplines. Add
in a ton more hp (all classes are getting this, and warriors even
more). I'd be willing to lay odds a monk at 60 can very nearly solo
the frenzied ghoul or lord.
Time will tell.
Cassiopeia
That must be the most mana-efficent spell in the game.
Morgan
>
> On 13 Apr 2000 15:25:13 GMT, ej...@node1.unix.Virginia.EDU (Edward James
> Kilsdonk) wrote:
>
> |I thought that if you damage-shield a caster it becomes much
> |harder to taunt things off them. But I am not sure exactly how
> |damage shield damage affects the hate list.
>
> Very simple: it doesn't.
>
> Damage shield damage is credited to no one.
Nobody is given kill credit, but they still might accrue hate.
--
Morgan
JackiePrice
information being posted as news rather than combing the forum for it. I
have all the forum searching I can handle right here, and I much prefer my
newsreader to a browser based forum anyway.
"guess away" <n...@here.org> wrote in message
news:38f6474f...@news.uswest.net...
Billy Shields
: "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
The more I think about it the more it occurs to me what a hack
Verant's spell stacking code is. Its ridiculous. The
justification for changing SLN to a damage shield instead of
regen was that certain DoTs would overwrite it. Hello?
Couldn't you make the damage and regen effects sum (eg if you
had a 20/tick DoT and SLN you'd take 18/tick damage)?
Also some effects should be overwritable by anyone because
theres utterly no difference (like Ice where the FR resist
is the same in all cases).
And spells with a level dependant duration should be able
to be overwritten if the new spell has the same effect of
the old one and will last longer (because of the old one's
elapsed duration). This would greatly help the water
breathing fiasco that currently exists in Kedge (and the
reason why having a fishbone is the only viable way of
hunting there on an extended basis).
Billy Shields
: Up to you how you use your mana, but playing two melee characters, any druid
: who DOESN'T make a habit of casting damage shield on me before every fight
: without asking is going to be the last one I consider inviting into a group
: next time. I suspect the cost in mana will be similar to casting your best
: damage shield twice, and since usually tanks aren't the only ones to get
: agroed on, and most groups should have at least 2 tanks, I don't know why
: you wouldn't...
Read what I said: I said I'd never cast this particular spell
(group damage shield). I never said I wouldn't cast a single
target damage shield. Those I cast all the time.
Billy Shields
: Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote:
:>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:53:23 GMT, Paul V <pau...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:>
:>|Uh, If I played a caster class a damage shield would be the last thing
:>|I want casted on me. Why? Because if a mob goes aggro on a caster with
:>|a damage shield, it would just make it harder for the tanks to taunt
:>|because the caster is still doing damage. You don't want to make a mob
:>|more pissed off at a caster when he goes aggro on him or her.
:>
:> You might think that, but you would be wrong.
: I agree with Dennis. I regularly have a 29 point damage shield up and
: have never had someone not able to taunt something from me quickly and
: easily because of it. The exception would be when the mob is attacking
: me because I just nuked it for 600 points and have an 800 point dot on
: it, and I'm chain healing somone, but that really has nothing to do with
: the damage shield.
: I will gladly use the group damage shields since they will save me time
: and mana.
I disagree. I remember when I was hunting in Cazic Thule not using a
damage shield was death.
Example: Lizard justicar and 2 lizard fanatics are pulled and are
hitting the puller. The puller needs healing. You throw a greater
heal on him or her. If they had a damage shield then 9 times out
of 10 they'll keep hitting the puller. Without the ones the puller
hasn't been hitting will usually attack you.
I've seen this happen too many times to doubt the damage shield
damage doesn't factor into the hatelist somehow.
JackiePrice
separately on 2 or 3 tanks when group damage shield is likely comparable
mana to casting it individually on two tanks, and you get the added benefit
of doing damage to the mobs no matter WHO they hit? I can't see a negative
to that scenario...
guess away
good data there. You'll hear it there long before you hear it here.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 01:25:56 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca>
wrote:
Adar
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:eBqJ4.25287$2D6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> You are making a mistaken assumption, that has been corrected by Abashi or
> Brad, I forget which.
>
> We've all assumed that skill is the primary method of determining how good
> you are at something. While this is true in the sense that skill level
is
> at least 50% of the difference, there is something else that affects your
> abilities almost as much, if not equally, and that is your actual level.
A
> level 50 ranger will have better defensive abilities with a defense of
200,
> than a level 40 ranger will with a defense of 200. He will also parry,
> dodge, and riposte more, despite having the same skill caps. He will have
> better offensive ability.
>
Yeah, but it's not a LOT of difference, at least until the mobs turn green
(more modifiers.) Skill is drastically more important, from what I've seen.
> Secondly, I am curious about the skill cap information you showed. The
> original time that was posted, warriors did NOT get much of a defense cap
> increase. Monks have always been and always are supposed to have higher
> offense and defense caps than warriors. Soooo...I am curious, since in
the
> expansion skill cap list I saw, monks and warriors did not have their caps
> increase, and now I am seeing warriors with a cap of 250 for defense,
where
> did you see this? And if its true, did monks also get an increase from
> their current cap of 230?
>
The list ATM has warriors maxed at 250 in most major offensive skills.
Piercing is at 225, dodge/throwing/bind wound are at 200, etc., but all the
good ones are at 250.
Monks get screwed cap-wise; technically, they're still the leaders- at 252
offense/defense. (I suspect that 3 points is the cut-in where skill is
determined- a mob with 255 offense compared to a monk with 252 defense is a
lot better than it would be with a 252 offense, because it cons 'yellow'
instead of 'white' for skill purposes and gets some modifiers.) Apparently
they're getting a bunch of 1hb weapons to compensate, but the cap limit is a
problem.
> The posted skill caps are not accurate, in any event. Brad McQuaid said
> recently that in expansion, rangers would have the HIGHEST archery cap of
> any of the classes, yet that was clearly not the case on the skill cap
list
> I saw.
>
That was a typo, unless SK's are slated for 252 archery; they just switched
SK's and rangers around.
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
Billy Shields
: Yes...very good. Now why would you want to waste time and mana casting it
: separately on 2 or 3 tanks when group damage shield is likely comparable
: mana to casting it individually on two tanks, and you get the added benefit
: of doing damage to the mobs no matter WHO they hit? I can't see a negative
: to that scenario...
The negative is that a damage shield will taunt an attacker which
makes it harder to taunt that monster off a caster. If you are
a caster who finds himself attacked then what you generally want
to do is stand still, do nothing (not even attack) and wait for
a tank to come to a rescue. Damage shields just complicate that.
:> Read what I said: I said I'd never cast this particular spell
:>
Jeff Doolittle
>news:955528320.28390.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> LOL about time.Rangers have it far too easy compared to SK and Pallys,
>this
>> just starts to address the problem, shame its only at 50+.
>
>Bullshit. Ranger spells have never been quite as good as paladin or
>shadowknight spells.
Explain how you reached the conclusion that the Paladin list is better
than the Ranger list.
Paladin's have an invisibility spell that only works on some undead,
Rangers have Camo that works on anything.
Paladin's have the useless root spell, Rangers have the same useless
root spell and the much more useful snare.
Paladin's have no direct damage spells, only spells that harm undead
Rangers have direct damage spells and a dot or two.
Paladin's get greater heal at 39, Rangers get Sow at 39. Sow is
arguably the best spell in the game, more people need it than they are
going to need a Pally healing them.
Paladin's get no damage shields. Rangers have weak ones. Paladin
buffs are slightly better, and Rangers don't have a symbol spell.
Then you can bring up the nearly useless Revive spell a Paladin get's
at 49. How often do you suspect this really get's used? Any Paladin
hunting at that level is going to be in a group and if they are
relying on him to be the primary healer, it's not a group you want to
be in.
Hey Wolf form at 49 for a ranger is useless too, but I'll bet you it
get's cast ten times as much as that Revive does by the Pallie.
All the Hybrid's suck, but it's laughable to suggest that Rangers have
a worse spell list than the other two.
Jeff
JackiePrice
> Explain how you reached the conclusion that the Paladin list is better
> than the Ranger list.
Sure thing. Many of the ranger spells are very nice SOLOING, but virtually
useless in groups, because its inferior or copied by half the classes in the
game. I'll demonstrate:
>
> Paladin's have an invisibility spell that only works on some undead,
> Rangers have Camo that works on anything.
>
As long as you are outdoors. We gotta wait until 49 before we have an
actually useful camo, and by then there are few places you couldn't just
walk to taking out the greens on the way anyway. Usually the only places
that you would need camo for by that level can see through it anyway. So
basically, the use of this spell is to get to some camp that you've been
invited to in most cases, and in those cases, usually the ranger can't cast
it.
> Paladin's have the useless root spell, Rangers have the same useless
> root spell and the much more useful snare.
Snare is the one saving grace of the ranger's spellset. Awesome spell...but
what if you have a necro, druid, bard or SK in the group?
>
> Paladin's have no direct damage spells, only spells that harm undead
> Rangers have direct damage spells and a dot or two.
They currently don't use those spells, because they do more damage melee in
the amount of time it takes to cast, than they do from the spells. If
they're at a distance, hell, my bow does more damage than my DD's (and that
isn't saying much.) With an extremely difficult quest, a ranger can
actually get a useful DD spell...but we can't count it yet because we don't
know what the equivalent paladin spell is to compare.
>
> Paladin's get greater heal at 39, Rangers get Sow at 39. Sow is
> arguably the best spell in the game, more people need it than they are
> going to need a Pally healing them.
Not a chance. Very few high level groups are without a druid or a shaman,
and by the time you hit 39, odds are you do 99% of your fighting in a
dungeon anyway. A paladin can heal as well as a druid or shaman, with the
exception they have only 60% of the mana, so they make very good backup
healers. SoW is either duplicated or unuseable by rangers in most
situation. Again its a matter of convenience, which doesn't really help
when a paladin can beg sow from a passing level 9 shaman and get the same
result when travelling.
>
> Paladin's get no damage shields. Rangers have weak ones. Paladin
> buffs are slightly better, and Rangers don't have a symbol spell.
>
Again, rangers don't use their weak damage shields (except for the self only
one as an AC buff.) Why bother when any magician or druid can outdo it, and
the amount of damage is insignificant? Hell, you get almost as much bonus
from O'Keil's Radiation (2 damage wizard shield.)
> Then you can bring up the nearly useless Revive spell a Paladin get's
> at 49. How often do you suspect this really get's used? Any Paladin
> hunting at that level is going to be in a group and if they are
> relying on him to be the primary healer, it's not a group you want to
> be in.
>
Ever been to the planes? Especially sky? You'll find you'll use revive a
LOT.
> Hey Wolf form at 49 for a ranger is useless too, but I'll bet you it
> get's cast ten times as much as that Revive does by the Pallie.
>
Probably. I don't think wolf form is useless either though.
> All the Hybrid's suck, but it's laughable to suggest that Rangers have
> a worse spell list than the other two.
>
Ranger spell list is pretty much useless with a few exceptions. I still
prefer rangers to superior melee ability, but that's not what I was
discussing.
JackiePrice
> makes it harder to taunt that monster off a caster. If you are
> a caster who finds himself attacked then what you generally want
> to do is stand still, do nothing (not even attack) and wait for
> a tank to come to a rescue. Damage shields just complicate that.
>
Damage shields add no taunt or extra agro of any type whatsoever, except
once...that once is on the caster of the shield if he does it after combat
starts.
Sergey Dashevskiy
nos...@NOSPAM.ca says...
> You are making a mistaken assumption, that has been corrected by Abashi or
> Brad, I forget which.
>
> We've all assumed that skill is the primary method of determining how good
> you are at something. While this is true in the sense that skill level is
> at least 50% of the difference, there is something else that affects your
> abilities almost as much, if not equally, and that is your actual level. A
> level 50 ranger will have better defensive abilities with a defense of 200,
> than a level 40 ranger will with a defense of 200.
I doubt it. First of all, skills over 180 progress very slowly. It's not
likely that at level 40, a ranger's defense skill will actually be at
200. Mine is at about 186 at level 41.
Besides, at level 50 a ranger will likely have better equipment than at
level 40.
But defense is not very easy to quantify. Offense, however, is. When
killing dino, I was hitting/missing with the same rate as a ranger in my
group. Ranger 50, me 41. Both have slashing and dual wield capped at
200.
> He will also parry,
> dodge, and riposte more, despite having the same skill caps. He will have
> better offensive ability.
>
> Secondly, I am curious about the skill cap information you showed. The
> original time that was posted, warriors did NOT get much of a defense cap
> increase. Monks have always been and always are supposed to have higher
> offense and defense caps than warriors. Soooo...I am curious, since in the
> expansion skill cap list I saw, monks and warriors did not have their caps
> increase, and now I am seeing warriors with a cap of 250 for defense, where
> did you see this? And if its true, did monks also get an increase from
> their current cap of 230?
>
> The posted skill caps are not accurate, in any event. Brad McQuaid said
> recently that in expansion, rangers would have the HIGHEST archery cap of
> any of the classes, yet that was clearly not the case on the skill cap list
> I saw.
>
>
> > But I am high level now enough to realise that my level 25 ranger's
> > pretty reasonable tanking ability primerily comes from a) his defence
> > skill and b) good equiptment choice. So I rekon the partity between
> > the 250 Warrior post expansion defence cap, compaired with the
> > Ranger's 200 cap, would make the two classes look similar to a 30th
> > ranger Vs 40th ranger in terms of tanking ability at level 60. At
> > least that is what I rekon.
> >
> > That wasnt really very clear :( I'm trying to say that the ranger
> > basically sees no improvement in tanking ability from 50 -> 60 because
> > of the defence skill cap - and also lesser dodge, parry caps too.
> >
> > They will get no equipment improvements either. Have you seen the
> > 'Test of Defence' cloak that they've just found, Jackie? It is 6AC
> > with 5 charges of regen. I think 7 dex + Stam too. Goes well with the
> > necklace, don't you think?
> >
> > I would sooner use my Ice bear cloak......
> >
>
>
>
--
Vedun, 26th tank mage
Xirin, 31st retired druid
Xirinia Gusl'ar, 41st tanking bard of Povar, guildless
Run fast, die often, leave a well dressed corpse.
Edward James Kilsdonk
I _perceive_ that when pulling in a multiple mob situation with
SoW and a long run back to my group, that something that hits
me and takes a point of damage from thorns is much more likely
to toddle all the way after me. If it was a swing and a miss
they might well forget about me.
But I have nothing other than perception to base this on
Ted K.
--
Edward J. Kilsdonk Look, ytte is written in Olde. It muste
Graduate Student, History bee fromme before they invented fpelling.
Univerfity of Virginia
Red...@Virginia.EDU http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ejk4e
Edward James Kilsdonk
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>Damage shields do not create any aggression toward you on the part of the
>mob. In fact, they aren't even counted for experience purposes. If you
>have a 24 point damage shield and just stand their taunting a mob, letting
>it hit you, and some guy comes along and hits it once for 1 damage point
>with his sword, then backs off, and nobody else hits it, it just keeps
>impaling itself on your damage shield, when it dies, the guy who hit it once
>gets the experience.
Try this without taunting.
One person walks up, with a damage shield, and lets it aggro on
him until visibly wounded
someone else then starts hitting it.
How long does it take for it to turn around.
If it turns instantly, then damage shields do not add hate.
If it takes a little while, then they do.
yes?
Ted K. - who has been know to assist with greenies by kicking
once, taunting and then standing there emoting insults while
the critter pricks itself on a damage shield and the person I
am assisting pounds on it from behind.
>"Paul V" <pau...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8d4qha$l5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Uh, If I played a caster class a damage shield would be the last thing
>> I want casted on me. Why? Because if a mob goes aggro on a caster with
>> a damage shield, it would just make it harder for the tanks to taunt
>> because the caster is still doing damage. You don't want to make a mob
>> more pissed off at a caster when he goes aggro on him or her.
>>
>
>
>
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|But defense is not very easy to quantify. Offense, however, is. When
Quite the reverse. Defense is very EASY to quantify, as it makes your AC
go up. A point of Defense is worth about 3 AC.
With Defense capped at 200, post-50 Rangers will be nothing but dead meat.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
Kilsdonk) wrote:
|If it turns instantly, then damage shields do not add hate.
|
|If it takes a little while, then they do.
|
|yes?
No.
Mobs don't 'turn instantly' very often. The algorithm is more complicated
than 'hit the guy on top of the list' (for a variety of good reasons). Ever
notice how hard it can be to get a mob to stop hitting an unconscious PC?
Hate list = EP list. We know that from the way the mem-blur type spells
work. If damage shields won't give you EP, then they're not taunting.
Sergey Dashevskiy
dfra...@email.com says...
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:39:25 -0400, Sergey Dashevskiy <xi...@tcimet.net>
> wrote:
>
> |But defense is not very easy to quantify. Offense, however, is. When
>
> Quite the reverse. Defense is very EASY to quantify, as it makes your AC
> go up.
That's not what I meant. The original poster claimed that a level 50
ranger will be defending better than a level 40 ranger, both with capped
defense skill, parry, riposte and dodge.
> A point of Defense is worth about 3 AC.
2.5 actually. I verified it after Alasdair told me that, and it was
correct
>
> With Defense capped at 200, post-50 Rangers will be nothing but dead meat.
I can believe that. I'd hope their defense goes up after 50. Or, they
can get better armor, which will achieve the same goal. Whichever way
you get to 900 ac (defense skill or worn armor) will achieve the same
thing
>
>
> Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
> Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
> "You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
> Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
>
--
Ed Bradley
sense for the Paladins and Shadow Knights to get better spells than Rangers.
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:u3i6fsgm4qj8fmi9j...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 08:54:44 -0600, "Nofrly" <Nospam> wrote:
>
> |Rangers ruled for the first 6 months when EQ came out in '99.
>
> Hardly. Like the rest of the fighting classes, Rangers have been second-
> rate at best. I've played a Ranger from Day One; there's never been a
time
> when Rangers enjoyed anything like the power of the casting classes.
>
> As for Kunark, the Ranger spell list is a joke in bad taste. The Ranger
> community had hoped that this meant we would receive some worthwhile
upgrades
> in fighting ability but it has since been revealed that hybrid classes get
no
> new skills in Kunark, just spells. We're getting stuck with the
following:
>
> L51: Ensnare -- totally worthless spell, inferior to Snare
> L52: Combust -- inferior to Call of Flames, does LESS DAMAGE than you can
> do in melee in the time it takes to cast
> Extinguish Fatigue -- worthless, you don't care if you run out of
> fatigue, and even if you do Invigor is all
you
> need
> L53: Storm Strength -- it's a stat buff; 'nuff said
> L54: Drones of Doom -- wow, finally a spell Rangers might bother to cast!
> Of course it won't stack with what the rest of
your
> party is casting.
> L54: Skin Like Diamond -- better than nothing, but too little, too late
> L55: Regeneration -- likewise; should be Chloroplast if you're even going
> to notice it (N.B. supposedly this has been
changed
> to Chloro.)
> L56: Chill Sight -- ultravision is not worth a post-50 spell slot
> L56: Greater Wolf Form -- cute parlor trick at best
> L57: Greater Heal -- OK, this is decent
> L58: Nullify Magic -- bleah, maybe useful for soloing (at this level?????)
> L58: Shield of Spikes -- damage shields are nice, be nicer if it wasn't an
> L29 spell
> L59: Flamestrike -- basically the same problems as Combust; if you've got
> Call of Flame you'll never cast this
> L60: Enveloping Roots -- you've got to be kidding me, a freaking ROOT
> spell???? Prima facie evidence that whoever
> wrote this list never played a Ranger
> L60: Thorncoat -- basically an AC buff with weak damage shield; anti-
> climactic for our last spell but it's hard to say no
> to extra AC that stacks with pretty much everything
>
>
> So, we're looking at six spells that are total losses, and the rest are
> just "eh". Paladins are getting 90% EP ressurections, SK's are getting
> high-level Necro pets...there's nothing with that kind of power on the
Ranger
> list. I couldn't even point to spells on the Ranger list that they could
> THINK were that powerful.
>
> Basically we're screwed.
Ed Bradley
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:NpZI4.20367$2D6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Ed Bradley
talking to.
Dont do it!
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38f6cb11$0$12...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
> : Yes...very good. Now why would you want to waste time and mana casting
it
> : separately on 2 or 3 tanks when group damage shield is likely comparable
> : mana to casting it individually on two tanks, and you get the added
benefit
> : of doing damage to the mobs no matter WHO they hit? I can't see a
negative
> : to that scenario...
>
> The negative is that a damage shield will taunt an attacker which
> makes it harder to taunt that monster off a caster. If you are
> a caster who finds himself attacked then what you generally want
> to do is stand still, do nothing (not even attack) and wait for
> a tank to come to a rescue. Damage shields just complicate that.
>
>
Ed Bradley
exact effect you describe too many times for DShields not to affect mob
hate.
Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:38f67a56$0$12...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> George Ruof <gr...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
> : Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>
> :>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:53:23 GMT, Paul V <pau...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> :>
> :>|Uh, If I played a caster class a damage shield would be the last thing
> :>|I want casted on me. Why? Because if a mob goes aggro on a caster with
> :>|a damage shield, it would just make it harder for the tanks to taunt
> :>|because the caster is still doing damage. You don't want to make a mob
> :>|more pissed off at a caster when he goes aggro on him or her.
Philth
>On 14 Apr 2000 13:48:36 GMT, ej...@node4.unix.Virginia.EDU (Edward James
>Kilsdonk) wrote:
>
>|If it turns instantly, then damage shields do not add hate.
>|
>|If it takes a little while, then they do.
>|
>|yes?
>
> No.
>
> Mobs don't 'turn instantly' very often. The algorithm is more
> complicated
>than 'hit the guy on top of the list' (for a variety of good reasons). Ever
>notice how hard it can be to get a mob to stop hitting an unconscious PC?
Wrong. If a MOB aggros on someone who does NOT hit back or agro it in the
group by casting a spell (heals or otherwise), then the creature
will turn on whoever hits it next, even if it is from another group. Spawns
are often split like this by having one group pull everything, and telling
them not to touch the other spawns that will come with, then they are simply
pulled off the original group by casting snare and whatnot on the creatures
the secondary group wants.
This has been the way the AI has worked since beta.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David
that underpowered to begin with? Pre-expansion, there have
been numerous posts on how they "own" shadowknights and paladins,
(due to surprisingly good ac, nearly comparable to paladins,
and dual wield which the other 2 hybrid tanks lack).
The fact that they are not recieving uberspells in the
expansion as well does not seem unbalanced to me. The fact
that shadowknights and paladins are finally getting some
useful spells seems to me more like er..balance.
Certainly all of the melee classes could use a boost, but
this at least is an attempt to equalize them somewhat.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|Rangers are the best meleers of the hybrids by a country mile.
Isn't that like being valedictorian at summer school?
In any case it just t'ain't so, especially post-50. Ranger skill caps are
ABYSMAL.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|LOL and Pal/SK melee has never been _anywhere near_ sa good as Ranger melee.
Up until L30, they're practically identical, as Dual Wield does not even
begin to outdamage 2HS until that point, meaning most Rangers are using the
same weapons as most Paladins.
After that and before the planes, a Paladin with the best weapon (Mithril
2H) will keep up with (if not surpass) a Ranger with the best weapons (dual
Ykesha/EBW's).
It is only when you start breaking out the really top-end stuff that
Rangers pull ahead...and then they die, because they can't take damage.
So basically, you're talking out of your ass.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
<triffid_9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
|Is this just me, or does it seem like Rangers really weren't
|that underpowered to begin with?
It's just you.
|Pre-expansion, there have
|been numerous posts on how they "own" shadowknights and paladins,
Too bad none of them were true.
|(due to surprisingly good ac, nearly comparable to paladins,
Paladins have always had better AC than Rangers; it's just that the plate
classes tend to be prom queens while Rangers will bust their humps for every
point of AC they can get.
|and dual wield which the other 2 hybrid tanks lack).
Which for thirty levels is not a factor.
|The fact that they are not recieving uberspells in the
|expansion as well does not seem unbalanced to me.
That's just because you're not the one on the block.
Go check out Ranger skill caps post-50 while you're at it. Revolting.
Sergey Dashevskiy
dfra...@email.com says...
> On 14 Apr 2000 13:48:36 GMT, ej...@node4.unix.Virginia.EDU (Edward James
> Kilsdonk) wrote:
>
> |If it turns instantly, then damage shields do not add hate.
> |
> |If it takes a little while, then they do.
> |
> |yes?
>
> No.
>
> Mobs don't 'turn instantly' very often. The algorithm is more complicated
> than 'hit the guy on top of the list' (for a variety of good reasons). Ever
> notice how hard it can be to get a mob to stop hitting an unconscious PC?
>
> work. If damage shields won't give you EP, then they're not taunting.
Hmm, that must be why I can powerlevel my friend with my bard by
taunting things off him while he's doing all the damage. Mob die while
still trying to hit me, and miraculously I don't get experience. By your
logic, my taunts don't give me experience, therefore they don't taunt
>
>
> Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
> Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
> "You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
> Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
>
--
Sergey Dashevskiy
> Anyone who DShields casters or healers in my groups gets a very stern
> talking to.
> Dont do it!
Hmm, So far, every single group I was in liked my damage shields, and
they are group only.
>
> Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:38f6cb11$0$12...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> > JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
> > : Yes...very good. Now why would you want to waste time and mana casting
> it
> > : separately on 2 or 3 tanks when group damage shield is likely comparable
> > : mana to casting it individually on two tanks, and you get the added
> benefit
> > : of doing damage to the mobs no matter WHO they hit? I can't see a
> negative
> > : to that scenario...
> >
> > The negative is that a damage shield will taunt an attacker which
> > makes it harder to taunt that monster off a caster. If you are
> > a caster who finds himself attacked then what you generally want
> > to do is stand still, do nothing (not even attack) and wait for
> > a tank to come to a rescue. Damage shields just complicate that.
> >
> >
> > :> Read what I said: I said I'd never cast this particular spell
> > :> (group damage shield). I never said I wouldn't cast a single
> > :> target damage shield. Those I cast all the time.
> > :>
> >
>
>
>
--
Morgan
>
> On 14 Apr 2000 13:48:36 GMT, ej...@node4.unix.Virginia.EDU (Edward James
> Kilsdonk) wrote:
>
> |If it turns instantly, then damage shields do not add hate.
> |
> |If it takes a little while, then they do.
> |
> |yes?
>
> No.
>
> Mobs don't 'turn instantly' very often. The algorithm is more complicated
> than 'hit the guy on top of the list' (for a variety of good reasons). Ever
> notice how hard it can be to get a mob to stop hitting an unconscious PC?
>
> Hate list = EP list. We know that from the way the mem-blur type spells
> work. If damage shields won't give you EP, then they're not taunting.
Heals taunt big but don't give experience. Remember when they did give
kill credit for a little while? I think that's when hate and exp got
split up. There is only one list, but hate and kill credit are stored
as separate values.
--
Morgan
Morgan
>
> In article <2veefs09gk1u4iukv...@4ax.com>,
> dfra...@email.com says...
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:39:25 -0400, Sergey Dashevskiy <xi...@tcimet.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > |But defense is not very easy to quantify. Offense, however, is. When
> >
> > Quite the reverse. Defense is very EASY to quantify, as it makes your AC
> > go up.
>
> That's not what I meant. The original poster claimed that a level 50
> ranger will be defending better than a level 40 ranger, both with capped
> defense skill, parry, riposte and dodge.
You'll be defending better against things that are the same level because
you will be higher level than them. Level figures directly into the hit
probability, which is why armor on mages isn't entirely foolish. ;)
--
Morgan
(crossposting all posts to rec.games.computer.everquest)
Trickle
>You are making a mistaken assumption, that has been corrected by Abashi or
>Brad, I forget which.
>
>We've all assumed that skill is the primary method of determining how good
>you are at something. While this is true in the sense that skill level is
>at least 50% of the difference, there is something else that affects your
>abilities almost as much, if not equally, and that is your actual level. A
>level 50 ranger will have better defensive abilities with a defense of 200,
>than a level 40 ranger will with a defense of 200. He will also parry,
>dodge, and riposte more, despite having the same skill caps. He will have
>better offensive ability.
Didnt know this.
>
>Secondly, I am curious about the skill cap information you showed. The
>original time that was posted, warriors did NOT get much of a defense cap
>increase.
It is a while since I saw that info, and I was going from memory. But
I seem to remember being surprised that Paladins got less defence
skill than a Warrior by exactly the same degree that rangers are
getting less 1HS and Offence compaired with warriors.
I.e. 230 for ranger's/pallies in only 1 half of deffence/attack, and
about 240 - 245 for warriors in both areas. Did I say 250? - I was
wrong, I don't think it was this high.
Piercing was 220 for rangers, whilst 1HB was 230 - all in all, some
very strange values in that set of leaked data that we saw.
> Monks have always been and always are supposed to have higher
>offense and defense caps than warriors. Soooo...I am curious, since in the
>expansion skill cap list I saw, monks and warriors did not have their caps
>increase, and now I am seeing warriors with a cap of 250 for defense, where
>did you see this? And if its true, did monks also get an increase from
>their current cap of 230?
Monks got 255 iirc and Rogues got 252 - which I abslutely have to
believe was a typo on Verant's part when making this *test* server
info up. No doubt these values will have changed - but its the general
direction the ''Vision'' is taking rangers that I'm worried about.
>The posted skill caps are not accurate, in any event. Brad McQuaid said
>recently that in expansion, rangers would have the HIGHEST archery cap of
>any of the classes, yet that was clearly not the case on the skill cap list
>I saw.
Whilst that travesty of rogue defence could turn out being true, it
was quite clear Verant had mixed the SK and ranger archery skill
values up. SK's got 252 whilst rangers got 200 iirc
David
consider a trivial advantage.
If I recall correctly, logs proved that even with the
panultimate holy sword in the game, paladins are still
outdamaged by rangers dual wielding Yakeshas, which can be
obtained FAR more easily. How is it that a mithril 2h
is supposed to do better? Are you considering procs and
the fact that both classes are likely to be wearing
other haste items (eg. sash+possibly quickness spell)
at these levels?
2) while Ranger armor is not quite as good as Ro, it is
much easier to obtain, and as a result till high levels
Rangers are likely to have superior ac to paladins.
Granted, eventually Paladins get the advantage, but it
doesnt happen overnight, and doesnt seem to help all that
much (once you are over the critical ac "hump", adding
ac doesnt do that much for you)
As for skill caps, sure, I think Rangers could use a raise
but I still don't believe they deserve any "wow" spells
for the expansion. That would just perpetuate the class
imbalance IMO.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|You'll be defending better against things that are the same level because
|you will be higher level than them. Level figures directly into the hit
|probability, which is why armor on mages isn't entirely foolish. ;)
I don't believe that's true, at least not meaningfully. I don't get any
noticeable difference in how the mobs I killed at level X pound on me when I
reach level X+1, until my Defense starts climbing.
JackiePrice
> panultimate holy sword in the game, paladins are still
> outdamaged by rangers dual wielding Yakeshas, which can be
> obtained FAR more easily. How is it that a mithril 2h
> is supposed to do better? Are you considering procs and
> the fact that both classes are likely to be wearing
> other haste items (eg. sash+possibly quickness spell)
> at these levels?
>
Actually the logs show otherwise. The mithril 2 handed sword has a 25%
haste effect, making it a 21/30 weapon. Even using "Magic Number"
calculations, this makes the sword do marginally more damage than a pair of
Ykeshas coupled with an FBSS (which are essentially 8/21 weapons) on
average. The Ykesha's proc makes up about a 5% damage boost which pulls
them closer however, and if you have an enchanter around to cast haste
spells, which will cap the haste on either weapon choice anyway, the Ykeshas
far surpass the mithril 2 hander.
Another thing to keep in mind is that at level 50, dual weild percentage for
rangers and warriors is just over 40%. At level 30, dual weild percentage
is just over 25%. This is how often your second hand attacks every delay
period. Until you max your dual weild skill, the damage totals from the
mithril 2 hander FAR surpass any 1 handed, dual weildable weapon combo
available.
> 2) while Ranger armor is not quite as good as Ro, it is
> much easier to obtain, and as a result till high levels
> Rangers are likely to have superior ac to paladins.
> Granted, eventually Paladins get the advantage, but it
> doesnt happen overnight, and doesnt seem to help all that
> much (once you are over the critical ac "hump", adding
> ac doesnt do that much for you)
>
This is VERY true.
> As for skill caps, sure, I think Rangers could use a raise
> but I still don't believe they deserve any "wow" spells
> for the expansion. That would just perpetuate the class
> imbalance IMO.
>
They are not imbalanced with other hybrids, but they will be after the
expansion, with shadowknights and paladins surpassing them. I also do not
think they deserve any "wow" spells, but they do deserve a few more useful
ones.
JackiePrice
"Ed Bradley" <brad...@sdreams.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38F5...@sdreams.co.uk...
> Anyone who DShields casters or healers in my groups gets a very stern
> talking to.
> Dont do it!
>
JackiePrice
> exact effect you describe too many times for DShields not to affect mob
> hate.
You are DEAD wrong on this. There is no taunt value of damage shields
whatsoever. Test it...watch a mob beat a damage shielded character until
the mob is half dead, but do NOT have the shielded character attack him.
Now walk up with a warrior and taunt. ONCE. Do not attack.
Almost every single time the mob will change targets to the taunter, and
stay there. The damage shield has not affected its aggression or hate
factor whatsoever.
Sergey Dashevskiy
dfra...@email.com says...
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:19:22 +0100, "Ed Bradley" <brad...@sdreams.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> |LOL and Pal/SK melee has never been _anywhere near_ sa good as Ranger melee.
>
> Up until L30, they're practically identical, as Dual Wield does not even
> begin to outdamage 2HS until that point, meaning most Rangers are using the
> same weapons as most Paladins.
>
> After that and before the planes, a Paladin with the best weapon (Mithril
> 2H) will keep up with (if not surpass) a Ranger with the best weapons (dual
> Ykesha/EBW's).
And with FBSS? Mith 2hander is pretty much the highest end sword pallies
can get. At the point when they get it, rangers should have FBSS as
well. Besides, average ranger gets his full Ivy long before paladin gets
his full Ro armor. So potentially, a ranger will have higher AC
>
> It is only when you start breaking out the really top-end stuff that
> Rangers pull ahead...and then they die, because they can't take damage.
>
> So basically, you're talking out of your ass.
>
>
> Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
> Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
> "You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
> Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
>
--
Sergey Dashevskiy
says...
> "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
> >You are making a mistaken assumption, that has been corrected by Abashi or
> >Brad, I forget which.
> >
> >We've all assumed that skill is the primary method of determining how good
> >you are at something. While this is true in the sense that skill level is
> >at least 50% of the difference, there is something else that affects your
> >abilities almost as much, if not equally, and that is your actual level. A
> >level 50 ranger will have better defensive abilities with a defense of 200,
> >than a level 40 ranger will with a defense of 200. He will also parry,
> >dodge, and riposte more, despite having the same skill caps. He will have
> >better offensive ability.
>
> Didnt know this.
Depending on what Jackie meant by offensive ability. The magic number
(average hit) of a weapon does depend on your level. It goes up one
point every 3 levels. However, once your offense and weapon skill capped
at 200 you don't get any better with your weapons. My 41 bard has same
hit/miss ratio as a 50 ranger. The ranger, however, may have better
weapons at 50, as well as do extra 3 points per hit with primary weapon,
when compared to 40th ranger
--
Sammy Gordon
and see.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:28:32 GMT, Dennis Francis Heffernan
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 10:54:40 -0700, Morgan <mor...@misleading.com> wrote:
>
>|You'll be defending better against things that are the same level because
>|you will be higher level than them. Level figures directly into the hit
>|probability, which is why armor on mages isn't entirely foolish. ;)
>
> I don't believe that's true, at least not meaningfully. I don't get any
>noticeable difference in how the mobs I killed at level X pound on me when I
>reach level X+1, until my Defense starts climbing.
>
>
Sang K. Choe
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
> Hate list = EP list. We know that from the way the mem-blur type spells
>work. If damage shields won't give you EP, then they're not taunting.
Wrong.
If Hate list = EP list, enchanters whos mes breaks should never be on
that hate list, but they are almost always at the top even after
someone has damaged the mob (seen this too often to believe
otherwise).
Similarly, clerics casting heals on tanks should never be on that hate
list either, but a complete heal on a nearly dead 50th tank does more
"hate" than a full blown IC on the mob.
Hate list and EP list are two seperate lists. Mem-blur type spells
wipe both.
-- Sang.
JackiePrice
> (average hit) of a weapon does depend on your level. It goes up one
> point every 3 levels. However, once your offense and weapon skill capped
> at 200 you don't get any better with your weapons. My 41 bard has same
> hit/miss ratio as a 50 ranger. The ranger, however, may have better
> weapons at 50, as well as do extra 3 points per hit with primary weapon,
> when compared to 40th ranger
Hard to say. My monk's hit miss ratio has improved dramatically between 44
and 48, and my skills were almost all capped at 44. Even more dramatic is
defense. The higher level i get, despite my defense being capped long ago,
the less low blues/high greens can hit me at all. At 44 Froglok Wan Knights
would beat me down pretty good before I killed them. Now they can't hit me
at all.
Azmogeddon
Kilsdonk <ej...@node1.unix.Virginia.EDU> writes
>In article <38f5e20b....@news.mbnet.mb.ca>, <bmc...@no.spam.ca> wrote:
>>>JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>>>: Druids get group damage shield now.
>>>
>>>That goes to the top of the "spells I will never cast" list (speaking
>>>sa a L50 druid).
>>>
>>Curious as to why? It would seem to me to be a pretty decent use of
>>mana...
>
>I thought that if you damage-shield a caster it becomes much
>harder to taunt things off them. But I am not sure exactly how
>damage shield damage affects the hate list.
>
>Ted K.
Not sure what happens if the dmg shield is cast before the fight, but if
it's cast during the fight all the hate goes to the caster, not the
castee.
--
Azmogeddon