Ranger: Deepwood Stalker Changes

[GoldyGopher]

Thematically what exactly are you attempting to create?

When you answer that question go back and look at what you the devs are offering up and ask your elf does this tree live up to that concept you thematically presented.

I know that Steelstar has already stated this is a stand alone enhancement tree, but lets be honest much like so many other enhancement trees in the game the purposed tree is much better at being a characters secondary tree as opposed to primary tree..

How to fix?
Well that gets back to my question what exactly is a deepwoods stalker...

Is it a Survivalist (aka Bear Grylls), A Woodland Super Soldier (John Rambo), a little bit of both or ....

The problem is while you have splashed a little bit of this and that into the tree it doesn't go together to build a "complete" build; it kind of like you are trying to make too many people happy, but in the end none of them are truly satisfied.

Deepswood Stalked should be able to make traps (snares) maybe even set something like bear traps.
Be nice if they had some tracking skills of some sort.

[Unsmitten]

Food for discussion.

[barecm]

lol

The game needs to make classes interesting, not boring like you want, taking threat range, crit multiplier, attack speed like other trees have. Need something unique not the same as everything else. You will probably say " but rangers will be behind these classes, its not fair, rangers are weak" there surely must be ways to get them closer to the other revamped classes wothout just copy/paste.

LoL all you want.... but look at the class distribution within the game. There are now more great crossbow wielding rogues running around than rangers using bows. There are more dual wielding paladins and barbs than rangers. Heck, even monks are disappearing from the melee landscape. You see plenty of monk throwers and still some monchers, but they are even monchers are disappearing. Yes, you are absolutely correct by saying we don't need overpowered classes, but unfortunately they already made that decision with Paladin, Barb and now rogue. So, you can argue from a what should be standpoint all you want... the reality is that folks see a barb or paladin rolling through EE and say to themselves.... I am going to TR into a barb/paladin or now rogue. When you leave one class behind in the dps department, it is an economic certainty that folks will gravitate to the classes that are more powerful. You will see plenty of muliclassing splashes of ranger, which is fine, but nothing really to entice anyone to go pure rogue. And yes, the whole class rebalancing was a result of the 2 lvls of paladin gripe that these boards fostered. So now, when it comes to rangers, there is an outcry of too powerful. Well, too late, Go complain to the devs to nerf the other classes before making such statements about OP ranger class warnings.

[Hazelnut]

Thematically what exactly are you attempting to create?

When you answer that question go back and look at what you the devs are offering up and ask your elf does this tree live up to that concept you thematically presented.

I know that Steelstar has already stated this is a stand alone enhancement tree, but lets be honest much like so many other enhancement trees in the game the purposed tree is much better at being a characters secondary tree as opposed to primary tree..

I'm not a dev but ...

I view the Arcane Archer tree as the ranged ranger. I think of it as artillery if part of the military.

I view the Tempest tree as the melee ranger. I think of this as light infantry or highly mobile soldiers (army rangers, marines, etc.)

I view the Deepwood Stalker as a hunter (not in the military), advanced scout, and/or military sniper. They work alone or in very small groups making attacks of opportunity.


As for it not being a primary tree. I've been playing with it lately as a primary tree. I've got a ranger up to level 12 as a nearly pure DWS (I took 2 points in AA for conjure arrows). It is really quite deadly. Trash mobs at level on normal/hard are dying after 1 or 2 shots (1 special attack followed by 1 normal attack). Elite the trash go down in 2 or 3 shorts; sometimes a bit more. And this is before the pass.

The only issue I have with the DWS at the moment is that no bows can even pretend to keep up with heavy repeating crossbows since the rate of fire on those things got doubled. I think something should be done about that (preferbly improving bows since the heavy repeater is the only thing that comes close to competing with a fighter using cleave). It is so bad, I'm thinking of splashing a level of artificer just to get heavy repeater on my rangers.

[Aletys]

There have been a lot of similar statements and arguments in this thread, which has made it difficult to parse out the useful feedback. To clarify:
~snip~

Said this before, but since it's come up a few times in this thread:

• Nobody's forcing anyone to play particular builds or styles! You are free to play what you want.
• Our goal is to create the building blocks for characters and playstyles, so various players can find one or more they enjoy playing.
• Some players believe that Top DPS is the only "good" way to make a character.
  
  • As a result, feel "forced" to take certain things when they are Top DPS, and "forced" to not take everything else when it isn't.
  • It's definitely one method, and that's what you like playing, great! But that's not the only style people play (not by a long shot), and it's certainly not the only playstyle we build enhancements, items, and abilities for.
  
  
• Play what you want, it's up to you.

What you're avoiding entirely is that a major component of rangers is using bows, and that right now rangers are the least effective of the classes at using their primary weapon. I don't see the proposed changes in dws as changing that.

Right now, rangers are subpar: They're only so-so healers, poor at damage, have poor defense since the armor-up pass, and are overall poor at what their main focus is supposed to be. If I want to have an effective (reasonable dps & survivability) ranger, I have to be a monkcher or a pally with a ranger splash. There is no inducement to play a ranger except as a splash.

You are correct that we can choose to play what we want, but right now, there is no reason to play a ranger, except as a splash. The rewards/benefits simply aren't there.

A lot of this discussion and angst might have been eliminated, or at least reduced, if you had delayed the release of the dws treee until you were ready to release all the ranger trees. Right now, we can't see how it's going to fit in with the other trees, which only aggravates the situation. I'd like to suggest that you NOT release the dws tree by itself, but rather delay it & release all three revised trees together. That would make a lot more sense, and would also allow an informed discussion of all the changes together.

[Thar]

lol

The game needs to make classes interesting, not boring like you want, taking threat range, crit multiplier, attack speed like other trees have. Need something unique not the same as everything else. You will probably say " but rangers will be behind these classes, its not fair, rangers are weak" there surely must be ways to get them closer to the other revamped classes wothout just copy/paste.

melee power is more "boring" than threat/crit range increases. the class needs the same to be viable mathimatically OR people will grab a few levels of ranger to boost their pally or barb for the melee power increases. That doesn't make ranger better. you need the base dps increases to be similar so they don't stack.

[Bennum]

I think that rangers definitely need to be getting a bonus to their critical profiles in this pass in addition to a defense buff to become viable. But I do not believe it should be in this tree, perhaps bonus to critical threat/ modifier while twf in tempest and while using a bow in AA (shortbow or longbow only).

[legendkilleroll]

LoL all you want.... but look at the class distribution within the game. There are now more great crossbow wielding rogues running around than rangers using bows. There are more dual wielding paladins and barbs than rangers. Heck, even monks are disappearing from the melee landscape. You see plenty of monk throwers and still some monchers, but they are even monchers are disappearing. Yes, you are absolutely correct by saying we don't need overpowered classes, but unfortunately they already made that decision with Paladin, Barb and now rogue. So, you can argue from a what should be standpoint all you want... the reality is that folks see a barb or paladin rolling through EE and say to themselves.... I am going to TR into a barb/paladin or now rogue. When you leave one class behind in the dps department, it is an economic certainty that folks will gravitate to the classes that are more powerful. You will see plenty of muliclassing splashes of ranger, which is fine, but nothing really to entice anyone to go pure rogue. And yes, the whole class rebalancing was a result of the 2 lvls of paladin gripe that these boards fostered. So now, when it comes to rangers, there is an outcry of too powerful. Well, too late, Go complain to the devs to nerf the other classes before making such statements about OP ranger class warnings.

I said before I think other revamped classes were too much and need toning down but warlock was last thing added and they just ridiculous so It doesn't seem like nerfs will happen

I just don't think every tree has to be identical like people are asking with crit range/threat and attack speeds or the trend is just gonna continue

Warchanter is one of my fav trees, only has the multiplier when rolling 19-20, has the chants that help the party and freezes for CC and helplessness which also helps everyone, sure WC arnt top dps and that's all that seems to matter now days with all the self healing, people are always gonna play FotM builds, I just don't get why you want every tree to be made up of the same things, make it unique, doesn't mean its gonna suck as there must be other ways to improve than using the same old stuff.

[legendkilleroll]

melee power is more "boring" than threat/crit range increases. the class needs the same to be viable mathimatically OR people will grab a few levels of ranger to boost their pally or barb for the melee power increases. That doesn't make ranger better. you need the base dps increases to be similar so they don't stack.

Not if you add something to the later ranger cores, seriously is threat range/multiplier the only option? Surely somebody must have ideas that are different.

[MrWindupBird]

There have been a lot of similar statements and arguments in this thread, which has made it difficult to parse out the useful feedback. To clarify:

• The biggest reason for this is that Deepwood Stalker's main focus is Versatility. You can gain abilities out of this tree that accentuate Melee, accentuate Ranged, or help you build a character that is proficient (if not top-of-the-line) with both.
• Severlin did say that this is a good tree to stack on top of other, more DPS-focused trees. This is true, if not the primary function of the tree. If you are Melee Ranger who takes Tempest as their primary tree and want to get some extra Melee attacks or focus on Dexterity, taking some things from Deepwood Stalker can support that.

[*]In the end, we see a character that chooses to take Deepwood Stalker as their main tree being a character that wants to switch between Melee and Ranged depending on the situation; the changes we want to make to the tree are the changes that will support that, especially in T5 and later Cores. The results should be viable (we are doing internal DPS testing at the moment with the current round of changes), but not necessarily top-of-the-line in terms of DPS, because some of the damage is traded for versatility.[/LIST]

I like the idea of a tree that explicitly is hybrid-focussed. To that end, there was an excellent suggestion earlier in the thread:

Tier 5: Hybrid Theory

When manyshot is activated, you gain +1mp and +1% doublestrike and offhand doublestrike for each second that you deal damage with a bow. Stacks 20 times. 1 stack fades away every 3 seconds.

So 20 seconds of manyshot followed by 60 seconds of boosted melee.

There's your tier5.

Something along these lines would be fun.

[Thar]

I said before I think other revamped classes were too much and need toning down but warlock was last thing added and they just ridiculous so It doesn't seem like nerfs will happen

I just don't think every tree has to be identical like people are asking with crit range/threat and attack speeds or the trend is just gonna continue

Warchanter is one of my fav trees, only has the multiplier when rolling 19-20, has the chants that help the party and freezes for CC and helplessness which also helps everyone, sure WC arnt top dps and that's all that seems to matter now days with all the self healing, people are always gonna play FotM builds, I just don't get why you want every tree to be made up of the same things, make it unique, doesn't mean its gonna suck as there must be other ways to improve than using the same old stuff.

But bards have a crit option available. if you use it or not is your choice.

[Thar]

Not if you add something to the later ranger cores, seriously is threat range/multiplier the only option? Surely somebody must have ideas that are different.

to each her own, but people love the crit range/multipliers for a reason. otherwise it will need more than 20 melee/ranged power.

[SpectreJ]

There have been a lot of similar statements and arguments in this thread, which has made it difficult to parse out the useful feedback. To clarify:

• We did not say that DWS is a "filler tree". Some players did, who do not seem to like Deepwood Stalker as a concept, but we did not.
• It is not true that it is "not intended to be a main tree" on our end.
• What Severlin did say is that the DPS of Deepwood Stalker is intentionally lower than the other two Ranger trees.
  
  • The biggest reason for this is that Deepwood Stalker's main focus is Versatility. You can gain abilities out of this tree that accentuate Melee, accentuate Ranged, or help you build a character that is proficient (if not top-of-the-line) with both.
  • Severlin did say that this is a good tree to stack on top of other, more DPS-focused trees. This is true, if not the primary function of the tree. If you are Melee Ranger who takes Tempest as their primary tree and want to get some extra Melee attacks or focus on Dexterity, taking some things from Deepwood Stalker can support that.
  
  
• In the end, we see a character that chooses to take Deepwood Stalker as their main tree being a character that wants to switch between Melee and Ranged depending on the situation; the changes we want to make to the tree are the changes that will support that, especially in T5 and later Cores. The results should be viable (we are doing internal DPS testing at the moment with the current round of changes), but not necessarily top-of-the-line in terms of DPS, because some of the damage is traded for versatility.

I have no issue with a DPS loss for versatility in principle, (I don't think it is really appropriate in the MMO realm, but that is a side issue) but that only really works if the versatility is useful. In this case that means you need to have a reason to use both ranged & melee. If you are mostly melee spec, this isn't much of an issue. There are plenty of times where you can't get into melee (or at least it isn't worth it), but if you are ranged spec, that doesn't strike me as the case. I know of no intrinsic issue with firing a ranged weapon in melee range, leaving the option of ranged just being inferior damage even when speced towards it over melee, which is wholly inappropriate. So you aren't giving up damage for versatility, you are giving up damage for role-playing. There is nothing wrong with RPing of course, but it just means that it isn't an actually viable tree.

There is also the issue of course that you still have to spec ranged or melee in the tree itself as well as in feat choices, though with feats the load is rather lighted by the rangers class benefits. So the problem I see is that if you use DWS as your main spec you end up being either a subpar melee with mediocre ranged, or a subpar range with mediocre (and therefore probably useless) melee, or someone with an iffy at best capability in both. I really like the idea of the DWS as kind of a complete package ranger, but as it is, you are still more or less picking one side anyways, and that means you are just gimping yourself for an image.

Obviously we have one more adjustment coming so things may change, but unless this can reasonably promote using both, (perhaps with a mechanic were using one buffs the other such as attacking with one give a stacking damage buff for the other) I just don't see how it can be considered a legitimate tree.

[Thar]

LoL all you want.... but look at the class distribution within the game. There are now more great crossbow wielding rogues running around than rangers using bows. There are more dual wielding paladins and barbs than rangers. Heck, even monks are disappearing from the melee landscape. You see plenty of monk throwers and still some monchers, but they are even monchers are disappearing. Yes, you are absolutely correct by saying we don't need overpowered classes, but unfortunately they already made that decision with Paladin, Barb and now rogue. So, you can argue from a what should be standpoint all you want... the reality is that folks see a barb or paladin rolling through EE and say to themselves.... I am going to TR into a barb/paladin or now rogue. When you leave one class behind in the dps department, it is an economic certainty that folks will gravitate to the classes that are more powerful. You will see plenty of muliclassing splashes of ranger, which is fine, but nothing really to entice anyone to go pure rogue. And yes, the whole class rebalancing was a result of the 2 lvls of paladin gripe that these boards fostered. So now, when it comes to rangers, there is an outcry of too powerful. Well, too late, Go complain to the devs to nerf the other classes before making such statements about OP ranger class warnings.

I agree, nothing op with the ranger improvements so far compared to what other classes got. It's not even comparable so we have to assume the rest is similar lackluster.

[CeltEireson]

Steelstar/Severlin

Not directly related to rangers enhancement as such, but something I think needs fixed before we increase ranged power further or make other ranged changes. its with regards to the current AI of mobs when attacked at range - unless they are directly damaged mobs have a tendency just to stand there whilst you massacre their mates one by one. Whilst it does indeed make life easier for ranged characters I'm hoping its not working as intended. I don't think all mobs should instantly aggro on the archer but this is the polar opposite and not great either. In a group ideally some at least should go for nearest player character, apart from those damaged by the archer which should obviously aggro on him/her, in solo there should maybe be a delay before they realise where the attack is coming and charge.

[ValariusK]

Not if you add something to the later ranger cores, seriously is threat range/multiplier the only option? Surely somebody must have ideas that are different.

The problem is that crit multiple/threat range modifiers are HUGE. To equate to a holy sword with no crit adjustment you need like plus 100-120 Melee power. Its crazy. (This assumes you have a basic melee power of around 100 to begin with, which most LD builds will).

[blerkington]

Hi,

In reply to Steelstar's comments on page 17:

The proposed DWS tree doesn't support a hybrid style particularly well. As Grace pointed out, many of the special attacks require a choice between a melee attack OR a ranged attack.

Nor does the tree provide very much other than combat abilities. If it provide some useful non combat abilities, it might be received as something other than a second rate tree. But as it stands, it's behind on damage output, self healing, defence AND utility.

The issue of RoF and on hit procs for things like sneak attack, ED abilities and weapon effects is at the core of why archery is behind the other ranged styles at the moment. The small improvements you're making to the class via the new DWS tree does very little to address this.

The 'nobody's forcing you to play' comment really got on my nerves. Yes, in a very literal sense, no-one is forcing anyone to play any build. However, because the game is riddled with imbalances, some builds are much better for the key activities of the game than others, and the approach you are taking is just reinforcing that, rather than adding variety and interesting choices.

The fact that you are defending this mess rather than taking on some of the very insightful criticism being made here by experienced ranged players signals to me that this exercise is going to be the usual waste of time masquerading as community consultation. As usual, the dev team is wedded to its bad ideas, and it is unable to accept and use criticism to improve its work.

Thanks.

[ValariusK]

A related point on the percentage damage boosts being converted to MP/RP.
Note that there are a lot of action boosts that don't work on % damage, but actually something typically better than that. You have Haste boosts and doublestrike boosts, both of which will become not just a little, but MUCH better than the MP/RP boosts, which experienced a serious nerf when converted from % damage types.

[Grailhawk]

A related point on the percentage damage boosts being converted to MP/RP.
Note that there are a lot of action boosts that don't work on % damage, but actually something typically better than that. You have Haste boosts and doublestrike boosts, both of which will become not just a little, but MUCH better than the MP/RP boosts, which experienced a serious nerf when converted from % damage types.

I'm not sure I agree.

If people could get 100% - 120% dobulestrike (assuming that works like it should and gave a chance at a third attack) then the double strike boost would have the same issue.

MP boost is a nerf because MP stacks with itself additively not multiplicatively which does mean its doing less then the old damage boost.

Same for Alacrity (maybe alacrity in this game is really stupid complex it might actually stack with itself multiplicatively ).

[Mindos]

Hi,

In reply to Steelstar's comments on page 17:

The proposed DWS tree doesn't support a hybrid style particularly well. As Grace pointed out, many of the special attacks require a choice between a melee attack OR a ranged attack.

Nor does the tree provide very much other than combat abilities. If it provide some useful non combat abilities, it might be received as something other than a second rate tree. But as it stands, it's behind on damage output, self healing, defence AND utility.

The issue of RoF and on hit procs for things like sneak attack, ED abilities and weapon effects is at the core of why archery is behind the other ranged styles at the moment. The small improvements you're making to the class via the new DWS tree does very little to address this.

The 'nobody's forcing you to play' comment really got on my nerves. Yes, in a very literal sense, no-one is forcing anyone to play any build. However, because the game is riddled with imbalances, some builds are much better for the key activities of the game than others, and the approach you are taking is just reinforcing that, rather than adding variety and interesting choices.

The fact that you are defending this mess rather than taking on some of the very insightful criticism being made here by experienced ranged players signals to me that this exercise is going to be the usual waste of time masquerading as community consultation. As usual, the dev team is wedded to its bad ideas, and it is unable to accept and use criticism to improve its work.

Thanks.

No one is forcing you to play Ranger.
No one is forcing you to not play Ranger.

No one is forcing you to not have fun.
No one is forcing you to have fun.


Why do we play this game? For fun, of course! Is Ranger playing fun? **crickets** Is playing a Ranger splash MORE fun? Hmmmm. I want you to know that I agree with everything you've said. Also, the implied "by our internal numbers" retort to our claims of just how few and far between Fun pure Rangers are nowadays, well, it gave me the distinct impression that this tree is done. Yes, this thread has been read- but all changes locked in, ala the W.O.P.R. from Wargames.