Nightmist Online Forum


    
      
        Nightmist Online Forum
        (http://www.nightmist-online.co.uk/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.pl)
      

        Nightmist - Improving the game >> Improvements >> Rangers
        
(Message started by: Wolfvirus81 on 01/24/04 at 21:44:00)

Title: Rangers
Post by Wolfvirus81 on 01/24/04 at 21:44:00

Rangers need both hands to work a bow. One hand to hold the bow and the other to pull back on the string. Removing the shield is a must, reallisticly do you really think a ranger could pull back on a string with a shield around his arm?

Rapid fire, realisticly rangers shot a singal arrow so removing rapid fire should be done too. But to give the ranger a better chance of hitting offten he as to be smart and wise. Intel and wisdom will be a big factor in helping a ranger aim and hit often.

I know something similar was posted in the past about this, but I didn't feel like posting on an old post.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by alone on 01/24/04 at 21:45:57

As you said, it's been said before. Not sure previously, but there weren't any plans for change that I could remember. And really, changing it straight up now, would unbalence the classes more.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Detheroc on 01/24/04 at 22:23:52

on 01/24/04 at 21:44:00, Wolfvirus81 wrote:

Rapid fire, realisticly rangers shot a singal arrow so removing rapid fire should be done too. But to give the ranger a better chance of hitting offten he as to be smart and wise. Intel and wisdom will be a big factor in helping a ranger aim and hit often.

What were you smoking when you made this post? Rapid fire doesn't shoot two arrows at once. They just fire it quickly, hence the name 'rapid fire'.

Dual shot is also ok... I expect that a skilled ranger in a fantasy world could fire two arrows at once easily.

I do agree with your comment on bows though. I also think the same applies with halberds. It's a two handed weapon, so bye bye shield.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Oz on 01/24/04 at 23:42:43

Yet some shields are able to be strapped onto the arm leaving the hand free for other tasks. ::)

Why worry bout whats on your arm when you don't even wear pants that would protect your family jewels?

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Lavalamp And Seito on 01/25/04 at 02:00:12

on 01/24/04 at 23:42:43, Oz wrote:

lmfao so true about the pants thing :P as someone said a while ago, imagine what a bottomless male fighter running around carrying a halberd and stuff with his wanger flopping about...+o( or a nakey zerker running around with nothing but a weapon.. pretty scary stuff :-/

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by CPG on 01/25/04 at 18:12:27

If you could actually fire 5 arrows in a couple milliseconds like Rangers in this game do, your muscles would explode and your bones would break.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Detheroc on 01/25/04 at 18:14:07

Yes, but you see this game isn't realistic. Hence the spells, mana, hit points, monsters etc

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Everlast on 01/26/04 at 23:59:01

I agree with this simply because i think rangers are a little over-powered. Removing shields wouldn't lower their armor by too much, but it would cause it to be lower, which only makes sense. I find it very annoying that a ranger with the ability to 1 click anything in game with full spells on it can also have as much armor as a fighter.

I'm not one to push for the game to be more realistic, i really don't care that much. I don't play the game to think hard or be serious or realistic, but i do think rangers ought to have less armor.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Deval on 02/04/04 at 02:45:54

on 01/24/04 at 23:42:43, Oz wrote:

Yet some shields are able to be strapped onto the arm leaving the hand free for other tasks. ::)

That would be called a buckler, and no, rangers should not be able to use a shield 'AT ALL'. Common sense dictates this.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Ril<l<u on 02/04/04 at 02:50:54

if u are complaining about rangers being to click everything, are u going to start saying thieves shouldnt be able to use assassinate? and does it really matter anyways, because if pkers are going to hit u they are probably hitting u with more than one crit anyways..

The ranger armor is just fine, if u dun like rangers killing u and what not, make a ranger and train it once, see how much fun u have doing that.

thats my 2 cents *if that* =)

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Deval on 02/04/04 at 02:53:35

Woah... what the hell are you talking about? Major subject jump there...

MODIFY:

Something that I had suggested in January last year is still a very valid idea:

on 01/28/03 at 01:30:56, Deval wrote:

Idea:

If you want to remove the shield off the ranger it could replaced with a 'Metal Splint' or 'Wooden Splint' etc.
Basically it is a length of contoured metal or wood that is strapped to the forearm (of the hand that loads the bow) for defense purposes, thus not requiring the use of the hand to wield it. AR would have to be significantly lower than say, that of a fighter or paladins shield, due to the fact it offers alot less protection, and having a halberd slamming down into your forearm would not be without pain and some form of bruising/damage.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Everlast on 02/04/04 at 06:39:05

on 02/04/04 at 02:50:54, Ril<l<u wrote:

Looks to me like you're talking about what i said about them being overpowered...

1. If i were complaining about things being able to pk me, i would just go ahead and quit nightmist. Things should be able to kill me in the d**n game. If i wanted a class changed because they could kill things too easily i would go on a thread and complain about berzerkers with spells on rather than rangers, who don't deal quite as much damage to armored crits.

2. Rangers have hp that is really high now, some reaching over 300 on 18 cons. They do 2nd most damage per round, if not the most when you consider how often a zerker misses. They have the highest or equal to the highest (depending on race) armor out of all of the classes w/o spells casted.
If you can tell me how that isnt just a little over-powered i'll listen, but saying they're hard to train isn't something i consider a reasonable thing.

3. I do have rangers...3 arch halfling ones and a human 6 mil from master they are quite nice ones too. I don't want my crits to become weaker all of the sudden, but i realize that they are probably stronger than they ought to be when compared to other classes. They are not THAT hard to train. They infact might be the easiest thing to train from lvl 25 and up other than clerics and pacifists. pregnant doges to train from 1-23, but after that they are not all that bad imo.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Raven on 02/05/04 at 08:14:20

basing their chance to hit on intell and wisdom is just stupid
the shield should go but they should be able to were stuff like bucklers and steel bracers

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by porter on 02/05/04 at 17:31:59

i think all the class are ok. mess with them more and they will get more messed up ;D and i dont think people want to wait 2 yr. for a update

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Everlast on 02/05/04 at 17:47:56

on 02/05/04 at 08:14:20, Raven wrote:

basing their chance to hit on intell and wisdom is just stupid
the shield should go but they should be able to were stuff like bucklers and steel bracers

when did anyone suggest basing their chance to hit by int and wis? If someone did then it is the dumbest idea i've heard in a long long while...

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Snowy on 02/05/04 at 18:49:21

porter, mages are not ok

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Deval on 02/06/04 at 00:30:09

on 02/05/04 at 08:14:20, Raven wrote:

the shield should go but they should be able to were stuff like bucklers and steel bracers

See my post above.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Bean on 02/13/04 at 07:20:28

To buddy who said you can't logically fire two arrows at once with accuracy....

Wanna come down to an archery range and bet some money on that?

As for the rapid firing blowing up your muscles, and breaking your bones... Well thats a tad extreme, but yeah you would'nt be able to shoot that fast lol...

I know a guy who can shoot 4 arrows in 8 seconds If they are sitting on a table in front of him.... but other than that.... meh...

ANYWHO, I agree with deval mostly.... Toodles

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Silverwizard on 02/13/04 at 15:50:57

Archers usually wear arm guards and also had either a back or leg quiver which is useful for shooting. If you had a decent bow and were conditioned to it you could rapid fire usually by holding one arrow above another though.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Gaptooth Scarbelly on 02/13/04 at 21:00:43

Rangers have equal second lowest armour in game with spells on (excluding zerkers who get uber HP instead of armour)

1) Druids
2) Mages
3) Clerics
4) Pacis
5) Fighters
6/7) Rangers/Pallys
8) Thieves

hmm... low armour, average hp, only mages have a lower base damage weapon (and they use spells instead), d**n near impossible to train l15-23, need at least 22 dex to be useful, damage lowered almost every update, ect ect

And worse, they get no benefit due to the fact they are most likely 20+ yards away from the melee shooting arrows and should be able to dodge almost all attacks. The 'shield' they carry makes up for this

Rangers are fine, leave em be

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Mip on 02/14/04 at 03:44:59

Arg. Why must you people have your cake and eat it, too?

How about this:

The ranger carries 6 different bows which just happen to weigh just as much as one bow. The ranger also carries magically arrows that notch themselves. When a ranger "rapid fires," all 6 bows fire at the exact same time.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by scare on 02/15/04 at 01:18:10

i agree. rangers are fine just the way they are. i think that some people just hate rangers :-/

also, if ur so into real life, a ranger could have the shield on his back. good god people, havent any of you ever played Zelda?

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Well Tucked Wedgie on 02/15/04 at 23:26:50

on 02/15/04 at 01:18:10, scare wrote:

i agree. rangers are fine just the way they are.

::) People like you will be the death of this game.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Mip on 02/15/04 at 23:58:24

on 02/15/04 at 01:18:10, scare wrote:

also, if ur so into real life, a ranger could have the shield on his back. good god people, havent any of you ever played Zelda?

Did you just use a fantasy genre video game to argue feasable aspects in real life? o_O

A video game filled with fairies, magic, swords that would be almost impossible to wield, temples filled with monsters and an instrument(s) that can control time?

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by scare on 02/16/04 at 00:28:03

good god Mip do you always have to contradict everything i say?

ah well, its cool
its kinda funny lol

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Well Tucked Wedgie on 02/16/04 at 00:30:24

on 02/16/04 at 00:28:03, scare wrote:

its kinda funny lol

Look at everyone laughing.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Silverwizard on 02/16/04 at 00:36:36

on 02/15/04 at 23:58:24, Mip wrote:

Umm Mip there are faeries, magic swords and cool time crap in this game too..... so yeah this is not real life.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by scare on 02/16/04 at 00:40:26

FINALLY!

someone is actually on my side! ;D

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Well Tucked Wedgie on 02/16/04 at 00:49:08

on 02/16/04 at 00:36:36, Silverwizard wrote:

Umm Mip there are faeries, magic swords and cool time crap in this game too..... so yeah this is not real life.

Yes, but some of us have an understanding of the extremeties of nonsense.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Silverwizard on 02/16/04 at 01:10:18

I am not acctually on your side I do not think rangers should be able to carry a shield nor should anyone with a two handed weapon. But I was just pointing out that all of the things that he said that were immpossible about Zelda were in this game too.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Mip on 02/16/04 at 02:07:10

on 02/16/04 at 00:28:03, scare wrote:

good god Mip do you always have to contradict everything i say?

No, just the dumb things.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by World on 02/16/04 at 18:53:59

on 02/14/04 at 03:44:59, Mip wrote:

Arg. Why must you people have your cake and eat it, too?

Well what else are you going to do with the cake, just let it go out of date.

Rangers are not really over powered just against zerkers they own

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Deval on 02/17/04 at 00:45:12

I'm glad that you just wrote out a huge number of valid points and reasons to back your statement, no really I do, because, we totally all take your word as law... ::)

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Eiements on 02/17/04 at 05:00:09

i think sheild should be taken off maybe give them bracers?

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Silverwizard on 02/18/04 at 21:11:40

I thought that was the point of the entire thread giving them bracers. Yes archers did wear arm guards but as much to protect them from their own attacks.

Title: Re: Rangers
Post by Detheroc on 02/18/04 at 22:34:27

on 01/24/04 at 21:44:00, Wolfvirus81 wrote:

But to give the ranger a better chance of hitting offten he as to be smart and wise. Intel and wisdom will be a big factor in helping a ranger aim and hit often

Since when? Intelligence makes no difference, which is why it isn't based on it. Same as wisdom. You have to be wise to fire an arrow? What the ****? Don't post again until you've finished school, then your posts might not be as idiotic and embarrassing.