Best Of
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
I don't see a problem with ranger meaning "ranged weapon specialist". In fact, I've played other games where that's what "ranger" means; it means someone fighting at range. It doesn't necessarily mean a WoW Hunter, or a Ranger from Dungeons and Dragons or Lord of the Rings.
I would also like if "Ranger" meant having skills that interact with all ranged weapons, whether they were bows, wands, orbs, and so on. And that would make "Ranger" a more fitting archetype name than "Archer" since it would be about more than bows.
Essentially, it would be the ranged weapon mirror to the Fighter, which is the melee weapon specialist.
They could create a class that does that.
A class that throws arrows, bolts, rocks fireballs, ninja stars (and logic, out the window).
But when people talk about ranger the mind goes to the shadowy, hooded watchmen of the woods. And frankly, there is a way bigger audience for such a class than there is for a non coherent, ranged attacks specialist with random abilities.
Re: [NA] Blackrock Guard (18+) | PVX & Light RP | PST (UTC−08:00) | Live for More!
You guys all-orc guild?
Killure
1
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
George_Black wrote: »Nobody is confused. People realize that the animations/abilities of the archetypes dont match the play as you want design.
You have 2 people on this topic saying exactly that:
One person saying that they cant play a Fighter using a spellbook (rightly so, because that would be weird).
And another person saying that the Ranger works only with bow and that archetypes should unlock more skills/weapons (which is impossible to do from a Dev standpoint).
The system wont satisfy anyone.
I'm not disagreeing. Being locked into a bow is a bad move. I was advocating for a generalized ranged weapon template rather than needing a bow to do every skill. Now, if they set it up so that there are an equal number of moves for different ranged weapons, that would probably work, though that might be another can of worms.
I don't see a problem with ranger meaning "ranged weapon specialist". In fact, I've played other games where that's what "ranger" means; it means someone fighting at range. It doesn't necessarily mean a WoW Hunter, or a Ranger from Dungeons and Dragons or Lord of the Rings.
I would also like if "Ranger" meant having skills that interact with all ranged weapons, whether they were bows, wands, orbs, and so on. And that would make "Ranger" a more fitting archetype name than "Archer" since it would be about more than bows.
Essentially, it would be the ranged weapon mirror to the Fighter, which is the melee weapon specialist.
I'd honestly be okay with that if that was the direction they wanted to go in, but yeah as of right now it doesn't even feel like "ranged weapon master" the class it's solely limited to bows.
I personally would like to see the more hooded shadowy huntsmen of the forest similar like aragorn or the d&d ranger (which i believe is one of the major inspirations for the class) but that's more a matter of opinion and preference and either option would still be much more in line with intrepid ideology of weapon diversity. in line with you described it hereYou just can't do that with the ranger as it is right now, currently missing out on 4 abilities (potentially 7) including two of the rangers main mobility tools (Air Strike and Call of the Wind) and one of their main damage dealers (snipe) Is just far beyond "Slightly suboptimal" that it's going to force players hands. That is then on top of having a ton of other skills that are themed and subtexted to just the bow and arrow.We can play a Mage who carries a sword, your Tank can zap people with a wand.
Either which way they go, whether that be ranged attack specialist or the more naturey huntsmen style they've got to do more to improve weapon diversity.
That said I am actually with Chicago when he said that Ranger/Fighter should be much more archer and weapons focused, that just makes sense when you pair what I envision as the naturey huntmens paired with the weapon master class. And yeah only minor changes are happening with subclasses, but really all it takes it a little flavoring and slight tweaking of mechanics to shift those things, and turn into more of a ranged weapons specialist. In fact I'd be totally okay if the Ranger archetype as we have it now was where Ranger/Fighter ended up (although I think that a more general ranged weapon specialist makes more sense), as long as the base archetype is just more flexible than it currently is.
I agree with you, I'm an advocate of making it more agnostic in regards to what ranged weapons you can use.
George_Black wrote: »George_Black wrote: »How do you imagine the animations of the current ranger skills when you equip a staff a spellbook, a wand or a greatsword?
Here answer this @Atama.
Dont shy away and give a true answer. Saying that people get confused by the term class and saying that ranger is free to intrepertation seem dismissive and evasive to me.
"Don't shy away and give a true answer." What are you, a reporter trying to nail down a politician? A thread can talk about different things, and not every post has to address every single topic everyone brings up in every previous post in the thread. It may seem "dismissive and evasive" to you, but that's something you're going to have to figure out how to deal with.
Atama
1
Re: [Feedback Request] Alpha Two Citadel of the Steel Bloom & Firebrand Preview | August Livestream
I think the combat is almost there, but it didnt hit the sweet spot there even tough its getting very close!
I will point substanticial examples of:
At 6:36 the character is out of combat, but still it is absolutely rigid and ready for a fight at all times, the character is never relaxed and his arms are always in a stance of being ready to fight, the character's supporting foot, which is the right foot, is positioned backwards, while the left side of the body is projected forward:
https://youtu.be/T1gJiGXStHA?t=399
This would never be the case in GW2
At 7:21, haracter's kneeling animation is another case of bad timing, making the animation look like a Powerpoint slideshow, the animatio progresses in a flat timeline when it should have different speeds, it should start slowly, then speed up and at the momment the knee his the floor then the animation should be slowed again.
https://youtu.be/T1gJiGXStHA?t=440
It's not important if we kneel slowly like that in real life, it doesn't look in a game animation, we have to do a few things differently than in real life so the animation becomes enticing.
At 10:06, Steven casts that spell which the character puts his arms up and do that gesture, this is not cool since the arms have a flat speed, this one is a bit painful to watch.
https://youtu.be/T1gJiGXStHA?t=606
Etc, this bad timing
At 1:35, this orchestra conductor shows it all, the video also has spell effects to make it easier:
https://youtu.be/cvbyoZJJYvo?t=95
The people in this video are not even in the gaming industry.
AoC:
I am being ruthless here about this, sorry.
The Dragon's animations and effects are amazing, the dragon is in another level and have no problems. Now someone has to go back and update every animation of every character
LOL
I will point substanticial examples of:
At 6:36 the character is out of combat, but still it is absolutely rigid and ready for a fight at all times, the character is never relaxed and his arms are always in a stance of being ready to fight, the character's supporting foot, which is the right foot, is positioned backwards, while the left side of the body is projected forward:
https://youtu.be/T1gJiGXStHA?t=399
This would never be the case in GW2
At 7:21, haracter's kneeling animation is another case of bad timing, making the animation look like a Powerpoint slideshow, the animatio progresses in a flat timeline when it should have different speeds, it should start slowly, then speed up and at the momment the knee his the floor then the animation should be slowed again.
https://youtu.be/T1gJiGXStHA?t=440
It's not important if we kneel slowly like that in real life, it doesn't look in a game animation, we have to do a few things differently than in real life so the animation becomes enticing.
At 10:06, Steven casts that spell which the character puts his arms up and do that gesture, this is not cool since the arms have a flat speed, this one is a bit painful to watch.
https://youtu.be/T1gJiGXStHA?t=606
Etc, this bad timing
At 1:35, this orchestra conductor shows it all, the video also has spell effects to make it easier:
https://youtu.be/cvbyoZJJYvo?t=95
The people in this video are not even in the gaming industry.
AoC:
- no antecipation: no weight and weight release
- no follow through: characters move like robots
- bad motion x time relation: the same problem the spell effects have, in the spells is just more annoying
I am being ruthless here about this, sorry.
The Dragon's animations and effects are amazing, the dragon is in another level and have no problems. Now someone has to go back and update every animation of every character
LOL
Re: [Feedback Request] Alpha Two Citadel of the Steel Bloom & Firebrand Preview | August Livestream
- Excessive lighting and fog
- Unlike FFXIV and Lost Ark (which ik are different type of mmo in terms of graphics and target audiences), this game’s fights are not as captivating. The dragon fight, in particular, felt repetitive
- Outdated animations like the dragon’s wings or that green lady or even the fire from those supports
- The dragon and the other monsters stand still until engaged, and the dragon's death animation is unimpressive
- The player's characters dont look very appealing to me idk why, also all of the characters looked kinda same
- When the dragon breathes fire, the terrain should be altered to reflect the damage. This change should be persistent throughout the entire battle with the affected area remaining scorched/burned. Also when the dragon steps on the water there are no animations and when the dragon lands or moves his tail it doesnt knock ppl off
- For the dungeon (idk what the other dungeons are like tho) we need some other challanges instead of just killing mobs, for the dragon as well bcs just hitting the dragon and run from the fire is boring imo and it is like any other mmo out there
- There should be some impact to the fight when players die, not just reviving them in no time like nothing happened
- When the dragon (or other bosses) appears maybe a cinematic should start or smthing, if u dont look up in the sky u dont even see that a dragon is coming
- Separate from this, the "64 classes" doesn't seem like a good idea for me alltho i understand the concept behind it and ik the second class will just influecne a few spells.
Overall im kinda dissapointed, it doesn't look bad, but it doesn’t look very good either. Those saying the dragon fight was 10/10 might be biased due to their investment in the game, whether through early access payments or involvement as testers. Right now i dont see why someone would leave their current playing mmo to come on AoC, but this is only based on what ive seen in that preview, i know its still in Alpha and there are a lot of things that will be improved or changed and also a lot of stuff that we havent seen yet.
- Unlike FFXIV and Lost Ark (which ik are different type of mmo in terms of graphics and target audiences), this game’s fights are not as captivating. The dragon fight, in particular, felt repetitive
- Outdated animations like the dragon’s wings or that green lady or even the fire from those supports
- The dragon and the other monsters stand still until engaged, and the dragon's death animation is unimpressive
- The player's characters dont look very appealing to me idk why, also all of the characters looked kinda same
- When the dragon breathes fire, the terrain should be altered to reflect the damage. This change should be persistent throughout the entire battle with the affected area remaining scorched/burned. Also when the dragon steps on the water there are no animations and when the dragon lands or moves his tail it doesnt knock ppl off
- For the dungeon (idk what the other dungeons are like tho) we need some other challanges instead of just killing mobs, for the dragon as well bcs just hitting the dragon and run from the fire is boring imo and it is like any other mmo out there
- There should be some impact to the fight when players die, not just reviving them in no time like nothing happened
- When the dragon (or other bosses) appears maybe a cinematic should start or smthing, if u dont look up in the sky u dont even see that a dragon is coming
- Separate from this, the "64 classes" doesn't seem like a good idea for me alltho i understand the concept behind it and ik the second class will just influecne a few spells.
Overall im kinda dissapointed, it doesn't look bad, but it doesn’t look very good either. Those saying the dragon fight was 10/10 might be biased due to their investment in the game, whether through early access payments or involvement as testers. Right now i dont see why someone would leave their current playing mmo to come on AoC, but this is only based on what ive seen in that preview, i know its still in Alpha and there are a lot of things that will be improved or changed and also a lot of stuff that we havent seen yet.
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
George_Black wrote: »How do you imagine the animations of the current ranger skills when you equip a staff a spellbook, a wand or a greatsword?
I don't think they need to re do the skills, I think they need to add more skills, furthermore I think ranger should have been a final class and the archetype should have been archer, and ranger could have been archer/fighter or something, I think intrepid are seeing ranger to much as a marksman or archer instead of a ranger
Chicago
2
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
I know we're well past the ranger showcase but as more and more classes have come out, it's become more and more apparent to me that rangers as they currently exist really feel counterintuitive to Ashes of Creation's design and I think they miss out on the class fantasy.
To Clarify, currently rangers feel like "bow-the class" as opposed to a more hunter/nature aesthetic. Which is fine if Ashes of Creation had classes locked to a weapon... but they don't. I've been on a trend of looking for unique combinations in Ashes of creation recently to see how they might work, 2h sword wielding mage (which they even showcased in a livestream!), bow mage, PI members have gone to talk about battle clerics with maces and heavy armor instead of wands, and all of the different weapon varieties each class can carry. there are only 3 examples I can really think of that fly in the face of this incredible diversity. Everything else besides these 3 examples is truly diverse and unique and allows the user to do whatever kind of stuff they want to do.
1st, the fighter as a whole feels pretty locked into melee weapons. There are several skills that i simply cannot picture working with ranged weapons. Like how would a spellbook work with Whirlwind? for example. But in this example, fighters still have a large range available to them. If we look at the planned weapons we can see that "melee" weapons would incorporate:
- Axes - 1h/2h
- Clubs
- Daggers
- Hammers
- Lances
- Maces - 1h/2h
- Polearms/Halberds
- Spears - 1h/2h
- Swords - 1h/2h
Fighters will still have plenty of options to them to really customize and diversify their class to make fighters feel unique, and none of the fighter skills feel required to have any specific of these. Plus I'm not sure that whirlwind wouldn't work with a wand or a scepter.
2nd, the tank has 1 skill that is weapon locked and that is shield assault. that's it.
Rangers in comparison to these two have 7 skill specifically locked to bow(Weapon bow mastery, Snipe shot+upgrades, the 3 Imbued Ammo techniques, Call of the wind (no idea why this requires the bow, but it does per the wiki), Air strike) (The imbued ammo techniques don't actually specify bow as a requirement but do say "When the target is hit by your bow" in the description.)
And then have 4 more skills that are clearly bow and arrow themed, use arrows in the animations, and/or list bows and arrows in the description of the skill. (Thundering shot, Scatter shot and it's variants, Barrage, Raining Death, and you count the 3 imbued ammo techniques here if you didn't count them above),
For a total of 11! of the rangers techniques being clearly themed for 1 weapon type and that alone. In fact it would have been easier to tell you all the things the rangers can do that aren't bow and arrow themed! which is the hunts and marks (which i love and feel very thematic), the bear trap, disengage, camouflage, and the vine field. 11 skills feels crazy in comparison to all of the other classes for weapon locking.
Despite this I think some skills can be reflavored/reworked slightly to work with any weapon, Barrage, call of the wind, airstrike, thundering shot, the imbued ammo, headshot and honestly Snipe as a targeted charge up dash for melee weapons would be awesome. All of these could easily work with melee weapons let alone other ranged weapon options. A ranger with a staff cosplaying as a druid sounds awesome! and hunting with a spear is an incredibly common depiction.
I think one of Ashes of Creations biggest draws is the customization of build crafting and building something that feels unique and fits your own playstyle/personal vision for a class. One of the biggest components of that is the ability to use any weapon you want with any class, and in it's current iteration Ranger does not allow for that freedom, and currently feels more like a class dedicated to a specific weapon than anything else. This feels like a miss from intrepid given how well they've crafted everything else and how cool the hunter/nature fantasy of the ranger class feels.
TL:DR - I think the ranger class is more of the "bow and arrow" class, and having a class so rigidly attached to one specific weapon feels counter to the general design stance that they have taken of "Any class can use any weapon"
Disclaimer - I know ashes of creation is still in alpha! the game isn't even close to release yet and several things are still a work in progress! Ranger isn't done yet, I get it! I'm more hoping that this post and subsequent discussion can help guide intrepid to getting the ranger into a better overall place and get the same sort of customization that all of the other classes get to love and enjoy. This isn't coming out of hatred or anything like that for the ranger, actually quite the opposite as someone who loves the ranger in d&d and just want it to be as free as everything else.
Edit: forgot to include camouflage under the things Rangers can do without a bow, now fixed, and is a very hunter/naturey thing i like about ranger. Originally forgot to include it cause it's not directly on the skill tree on the wiki.
I highly agree with all of this, and this is coming from someone that wants to play a ranger and most likely use bows, however! I agree locking rangers into bows and from what I've seen, we are missing a huge part of the ranger fantasy, for example having a connection with beasts, tracking, etc, a great example I could give for anyone that has read the lotr books ( doesn't really go into detail in the movies ) but the type of ranger Aragon is in the books sums it up pretty perfectly, and he mostly uses a great sword
Chicago
2