Ranger: Deepwood Stalker Changes

[Bannith]

I would skip the tree entirely, because it would be unbelievably annoying. I want to switch when I feel it is beneficial, not because I'm forced to switch because my ranged options are ridiculously limited for no good reason whatsoever. You're talking flavor; I'm talking actual balanced utility.

1. It'd most likely end up a toggle.
2. we already have a speed tree AA.
3. IT IS BENEFICIAL TO SWITCH IN CLOSE RANGE that just makes sense man... Shooting at something right in your freaken face with a bow no less is just ridiculous.
4. You wouldn't be forced to switch and the attack speed debuff might not even exist they could simply give u large damage boosts but total lack of alacrity from the tree.
5. The damage buff could also be solved by giving them mobility while using archers focus and allowing for larger increases in ranged power compared to the other faster firing tree.
6. Not everyone wants a speed shooter for their dps needs to be more viable slow powerful hitting characters just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not good for someone else.
7. Really? You don't want viable melee and range on a ranger assassin style tree? Being able to shift your fighting style to work on multiple fronts is in fact utility couple that with the decent healing you can pull outta this tree. Enough spell power and you can do a lot more than if you had to focus solely on speed shooting.
8. It is adding flavor but if the tree is built properly it will be viable flavor and any kinda flavor would be good for this game at this point...

Edit: It would be nice to drop in some extra crit ability or amplify the effectiveness of some of the skills that don't quite match up.

[Grace_ana]

1. It'd most likely end up a toggle.
2. we already have a speed tree AA.
3. IT IS BENEFICIAL TO SWITCH IN CLOSE RANGE that just makes sense man... Shooting at something right in your freaken face with a bow no less is just ridiculous.
4. You wouldn't be forced to switch and the attack speed debuff might not even exist they could simply give u large damage boosts but total lack of alacrity from the tree.
5. The damage buff could also be solved by giving them mobility while using archers focus and allowing for larger increases in ranged power compared to the other faster firing tree.
6. Not everyone wants a speed shooter for their dps needs to be more viable slow powerful hitting characters just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not good for someone else.
7. Really? You don't want viable melee and range on a ranger assassin style tree? Being able to shift your fighting style to work on multiple fronts is in fact utility couple that with the decent healing you can pull outta this tree. Enough spell power and you can do a lot more than if you had to focus solely on speed shooting.
8. It is adding flavor but if the tree is built properly it will be viable flavor and any kinda flavor would be good for this game at this point...

Edit: It would be nice to drop in some extra crit ability or amplify the effectiveness of some of the skills that don't quite match up.

It has nothing to do with not liking it; it's not viable. It means that you draw tons of aggro and things kill you before you can kill them because you're slow. Nothing like having a herd of EE mobs coming after you and not being able to do anything. And sure, you could switch off, but given the tree we have, there isn't enough DPS for that to help you much either, and the switch lag will probably kill you anyway. Sounds like a fun build. I recommend it to all the people I want to drive from the game.

[Grace_ana]

So both trees are up on Lamma without incorporating changes regarding the major serious issues in both trees noted by the vast majority of players commenting. That doesn't bode well. The lack of responses from dev on those issues is also pretty disturbing. I feel like the trees are basically done and it didn't really matter what we said or thought. The class passes that have been the most successful are the ones that have taken player comments and experience to heart and made (sometimes pretty serious) adjustments before ever dropping it on Lamma. They've also included a whole lot more back and forth between the devs and the players.

I'm about ready to give up rangers as a lost cause, and that makes me pretty sad. Unless I see some big changes in the trees and some actual discussion from the devs on the major issues brought forth (DPS, crits, favored enemies, empathetic healing, sneak attack, etc.), I'm just done with the ranged "pass." And I'm not really one to get snippy and irritable with the devs over stuff or go to extremes. You'd be hard pressed to find me saying that in other posts. That's how bad and frustrating this feels to me. I'd really like to be proven wrong.

[CThruTheEgo]

So both trees are up on Lamma without incorporating changes regarding the major serious issues in both trees noted by the vast majority of players commenting. That doesn't bode well. The lack of responses from dev on those issues is also pretty disturbing. I feel like the trees are basically done and it didn't really matter what we said or thought. The class passes that have been the most successful are the ones that have taken player comments and experience to heart and made (sometimes pretty serious) adjustments before ever dropping it on Lamma. They've also included a whole lot more back and forth between the devs and the players.

I'm about ready to give up rangers as a lost cause, and that makes me pretty sad. Unless I see some big changes in the trees and some actual discussion from the devs on the major issues brought forth (DPS, crits, favored enemies, empathetic healing, sneak attack, etc.), I'm just done with the ranged "pass." And I'm not really one to get snippy and irritable with the devs over stuff or go to extremes. You'd be hard pressed to find me saying that in other posts. That's how bad and frustrating this feels to me. I'd really like to be proven wrong.

Don't worry. They did this during the rogue pass too and eventually came through with major changes.

[Grace_ana]

Don't worry. They did this during the rogue pass too and eventually came through with major changes.

I remember a whole lot more feedback from the devs during that discussion. I also remember several major changes and directly addressing major concerns expressed before anything hit Lamma. I also remember the initial tree being, while not perfect, better than this. It was at least on the right track.

I think it's the lack of dev feedback to the specifics we are bringing up that is bothering me the most, tbh. Just flat out ignoring multiple comments about alacrity, crits, etc. makes me feel like nothing will actually change. I hope I'm wrong, but the lack of effective communication is irritating when we take the time to give feedback.

[sjbb87]

So both trees are up on Lamma without incorporating changes regarding the major serious issues in both trees noted by the vast majority of players commenting. That doesn't bode well. The lack of responses from dev on those issues is also pretty disturbing. I feel like the trees are basically done and it didn't really matter what we said or thought. The class passes that have been the most successful are the ones that have taken player comments and experience to heart and made (sometimes pretty serious) adjustments before ever dropping it on Lamma. They've also included a whole lot more back and forth between the devs and the players.

I'm about ready to give up rangers as a lost cause, and that makes me pretty sad. Unless I see some big changes in the trees and some actual discussion from the devs on the major issues brought forth (DPS, crits, favored enemies, empathetic healing, sneak attack, etc.), I'm just done with the ranged "pass." And I'm not really one to get snippy and irritable with the devs over stuff or go to extremes. You'd be hard pressed to find me saying that in other posts. That's how bad and frustrating this feels to me. I'd really like to be proven wrong.

I feel the same as you

[CThruTheEgo]

I remember a whole lot more feedback from the devs during that discussion. I also remember several major changes and directly addressing major concerns expressed before anything hit Lamma. I also remember the initial tree being, while not perfect, better than this. It was at least on the right track.

I think it's the lack of dev feedback to the specifics we are bringing up that is bothering me the most, tbh. Just flat out ignoring multiple comments about alacrity, crits, etc. makes me feel like nothing will actually change. I hope I'm wrong, but the lack of effective communication is irritating when we take the time to give feedback.

Sev was the one who posted the rogue pass and he has a tendency to be very engaging with the community. There was a lot of back and forth initially, but I remember a long period of complete silence when one of the servers was constantly down (Ghallanda?). Then some huge changes were implemented that didn't even go to Lam before they went live. I would assume that feedback is at least being discussed behind the scenes, but I agree it would be nice to at least let us know that.

[blerkington]

Ranger Deepwood Stalker is now available for preview on Lamannia.

Hi,

This says an awful lot about how much Turbine values community feedback and product testing.

Thanks.

[FlaviusMaximus]

Merciful Shot does not appear to be benefiting from Adrenaline. Is that working as intended?

[Steelstar]

So both trees are up on Lamma without incorporating changes regarding the major serious issues in both trees noted by the vast majority of players commenting. That doesn't bode well. The lack of responses from dev on those issues is also pretty disturbing. I feel like the trees are basically done and it didn't really matter what we said or thought. The class passes that have been the most successful are the ones that have taken player comments and experience to heart and made (sometimes pretty serious) adjustments before ever dropping it on Lamma. They've also included a whole lot more back and forth between the devs and the players.

I'm about ready to give up rangers as a lost cause, and that makes me pretty sad. Unless I see some big changes in the trees and some actual discussion from the devs on the major issues brought forth (DPS, crits, favored enemies, empathetic healing, sneak attack, etc.), I'm just done with the ranged "pass." And I'm not really one to get snippy and irritable with the devs over stuff or go to extremes. You'd be hard pressed to find me saying that in other posts. That's how bad and frustrating this feels to me. I'd really like to be proven wrong.

Apologies if it has seemed quiet on our end in this thread. It was important to us to get at least some of the feedback adjustments in (which we did), so most of my time this week looked like this:

• Break down every post in this thread, see if there was actionable feedback and note it if there was
• Answer what questions I could in this thread
• Figure out which things didn't require discussion within the team and could be implemented in time for Lamannia
  
  • Implement that stuff.
  
  
• Start breaking down which suggestions from the thread are potential things we could do, but would require significantly more time or other balance concerns
  
  • These have to be discussed internally, and with the Lamannia build going Wednesday (yesterday), they were not going to get into the build regardless
  
  
• Fix the bugs QA had written for Deepwood Stalker changes prior to the Lamannia build deadline
• Get Lamannia out to you all.
• (Edit: ...this is just the Deepwood Stalker stuff. Also working on other U28 stuff, U28Patch1 stuff, and U29 stuff right now too!)

At this point in time: Yes, there are some subjects that have been discussed here that we haven't touched upon yet. DPS I talked a lot about in my last post, our perspective on that hasn't changed in this tree. The others, we're still talking about internally. Getting Lamannia playtest feedback that backs up your thoughts on that will help immensely; a playtest is worth a thousand words.

[onny]

There was one thought I had not sure if anyone else mentioned it. Would it be possible to have Improved Evasion as a Tier 5 in more then one tree. The idea being right now if you are a ranged archer you don't have access to it unless you go fully melee too. I don't think it would fit well in arcane archer but would make good sense in deepwood stalker tree, and give another reason to think carefully when choosing between the two ranged trees.

Thoughts?

[slarden]

~ We are (admittedly slowly) replacing many instances of %damage with Melee or Ranged power. We are making most on hit effect scale with Ranged or Melee Power and thus we are moving towards that system. As we do so it will make remaining abilities that still use %damage be potent for a time as other sources are converted. We understand this.

Sev~

This would be good. I would suggest that when you do this you change human versatility damage boost to 10 MP instead of 20MP as it's already a very over-powered ability for 1 AP total spend. On my assassin there would be little reason to play anything other than a human since currently the % damage doesn't apply to sneak attack damage, but 20MP would provide a 30% boost to sneak attack and the base 20MP would provide more benefit than the existing 20% damage boost which people already considered over-powered. This is in addition to the extra feat which can be used for another 3 MP by taking a weapon specialization feat.

[DevilYouKnow]

This would be good. I would suggest that when you do this you change human versatility damage boost to 10 MP instead of 20MP as it's already a very over-powered ability for 1 AP total spend. On my assassin there would be little reason to play anything other than a human since currently the % damage doesn't apply to sneak attack damage, but 20MP would provide a 30% boost to sneak attack and the base 20MP would provide more benefit than the existing 20% damage boost which people already considered over-powered. This is in addition to the extra feat which can be used for another 3 MP by taking a weapon specialization feat.

Are you kidding ?

Absolutely, NO !

Human damage boost is a iconic feature of the human race, and it should not be changed, let alone nerfed.

How much proof do you need until you understand the fact that old damage boost > new damage boost ?


Read this please.


Those are the formulars.

Percentage calculation, added percentage damage (y -> old archer focus) : ((v/100)+1)*((t/100)*(100+y)) = b (new base dmg after calc.)

Flat bonus only, added ranged power (z -> new archer focus) : (((v+z)/100)+1)*t = a (new base dmg after calc)

For a = b, with y = percentage damage bonus, z = flat ranged power bonus, v = base ranged power, t = base damage before calc.

it has to be as follows :

a = b :

- ((v/100)+1)*((t/100)*(100+y)) = (((v+z)/100)+1)*t

- ((v/100)+1)*(t+ty/100)) = (((v+z)/100)+1)*t

- (vt/100) + (vty/10000) + t + (ty/100) = ((v+z+100)/100)*t

- vt + (vty/100) + 100*t + ty = (v + z + 100) *t

- v + (vy/100) + 100 + y = v + z + 100

- (vy/100) + y = z

- y ((v/100) + 1 ) = z ---> flat ranged power needed, for a = b.

Archers focus :

Damage: up to once every half second, you gain +2% competence bonus to missile damage.

This effect can stack up to 15 times, for a total of +30% missle damage.

That means y = 30.

Result :

For example : With v = 100 (base ranged power)

y ((v/100) + 1 ) = 30 ((100/100) + 1 ) = 60 = z

For example : With v = 110 (base ranged power)

y ((v/100) + 1 ) = 30 ((110/100) + 1 ) = 63 = z

For example : With v = 120 (base ranged power)

y ((v/100) + 1 ) = 30 ((120/100) + 1 ) = 66 = z

conclusion : For every +10 ranged power beyond 100 of your base, you would need 60 + every 3 ranged power to your value z.

For a to be b, the above expression needs to be fulfilled.

That means, the new archers focus needs to provide 60 + 3 ranged power for every +10 ranged power beyond 100 ranged power of your base.

I had suggest raising it to 4 ranged power per stack (15 stacks) for a total of 60 ranged power for it to be equal to the former +2% per stack percentage bonus to missle damage for a total of +30% damage bonus to missle damage at 100 ranged power as base.

By the way. This is also true for melee power boosts.

So that means human damage boost needs to provide +40 melee power if it was changed.

Otherwise it is 100% a nerf and you could as well just delete the whole race.

[Lonnbeimnech]

The bonuses to doubleshot are kinda pointless while manyshot gives a 100% penalty to doubleshot. Unless you actually do want rangers to be int based harper crossbow users instead of, um, rangers.

[Kielbasa]

The bonuses to doubleshot are kinda pointless while manyshot gives a 100% penalty to doubleshot. Unless you actually do want rangers to be int based harper crossbow users instead of, um, rangers.

I've been saying the same thing but it seems to be largely ignored. That said I thoroughly enjoy an int based repeater ranger. Running around 3x hiting everything is almost like having perma manyshot.

[blerkington]

The bonuses to doubleshot are kinda pointless while manyshot gives a 100% penalty to doubleshot. Unless you actually do want rangers to be int based harper crossbow users instead of, um, rangers.

Hi,

Yes, exactly. As a number of people have said, this pass hasn't dealt with any of the core problems of archery.

We've been assured that this is going to examined later. But until that occurs, it's very difficult to evaluate whether or not the changes in this tree (or the upcoming AA pass) will actually be any good then. They aren't good now, and without details of the other archery changes, we can't be sure about the more distant future either.

Although I think it's very unlikely the changes (if any) will bridge the gap with other ranged styles, the developers could have saved themselves a lot of grief by rolling out those changes first.

This whole exercise really should have been done the other way around, with the developers stating their position on changes to manyshot and the doublshot penalty, how 10k stars is going to work with bows, and whether or not there will be any RoF changes to bow combat.

Thanks.

[Bannith]

It has nothing to do with not liking it; it's not viable. It means that you draw tons of aggro and things kill you before you can kill them because you're slow. Nothing like having a herd of EE mobs coming after you and not being able to do anything. And sure, you could switch off, but given the tree we have, there isn't enough DPS for that to help you much either, and the switch lag will probably kill you anyway. Sounds like a fun build. I recommend it to all the people I want to drive from the game.

It clearly has something to do with you not liking it as you stated you'd avoid it simply for slow shooting. Your in the pew pew crowd that's fine just don't assume that because it fires slower its weak and useless. There are people who build for massive amounts of single target dps this more caters to them which few other things really do. If in fact it was implemented this way it might end up with more base dps than AA while AA is much better in the effect category which should be the case.(Dealing nearly the same Raw damage v dealing multiple weaker effects but much quicker. Pretty much adds up to Deepwood being an actual sniper/melee skirmisher and AA being a quick disruptive dps/crowd killer)
The ranged is clearly built for sniping tactical shots taking out important targets first from a distance. I would go as far as to add some natural effect arrows such as nightshade venom etc to amplify single target dps. The melee on the other hand would be built for crowds to slaughter in effect multiple weaker enemies so unless your soloing EE completely unprepared you should be fine.(Really no one should be able to solo EE effectively but that's the state of the game these days) As for aggro again unless your solo running without pets hires etc for decoys whatever your not drawing aggro from everything and if you do you still have many shot and several skill shots that if you use them correctly even now can be rather useful. Deepwood is pretty much built now to be mildly stealthy and hit from the shadows it simply lacks the damage and precision shots it should have to make this play style competitive which would cater to another group of players rather than the zergers and speed shooter. No matter how you look at it if its built to be effective it can only add to the currently limited list of top tier combat. Based on what you stated before you wanted more alacrity and double shot right? That pretty much cookie cutters this into a weaker version of AA with little to no added effects... Really doesn't solve any issues with the tree just makes it like the next one over.
So again amp the damage add in some nice sniping abilities like head shot is now a few nature abilities such as nightshade poisoned arrows maybe an exploding thorn arrow too that'd be cool dealing poison and piercing damage in a medium aoe. Improve melee to be quick and shifty allowing dispatching weak targets to be easy but reserve range for sniping I really don't see how that's not viable if the numbers are correct if built properly it could end up with nice ranged dps enough to deal effectively in close ranged while still having effective melee. Thus the versatile tree they seem to want this to be without making it filler which no tree should ever be.

[Saekee]

do the active ranged attacks affect all arrows/shurikens in the volley (like in manyshot etc.)?

[PermaBanned]

Nvm

[Dace]

Survivalist III, II, I - Light Armor or no armor (as per improved dodge)

Favoured Defence - Triple the benefit offered at each tier, and its still weak
Favoured Hunter - Triple the benefit offered at each tier, and its still weak

Stealthy / Faster Sneaking - Pointless filler

Extra Favored Enemy - Dump 30 Melee Power into this ability

Thrill of the Hunt - Underwhelming. Triple the benefit (including duration), make it stack, and it'd do