With an extra skill line compared to our opposing Archer brothers, skills get spread a little thin in the early RRs. What are your impressions about potions? Can they replace pathfinding? I won't be playing a ranger right away, so I'll be able to save up for him but he is definitely the most treasured class to me (and the most punishing class if you spec poorly). I wish potions and charge buff items didn't work in pvp though... If no one used them it would still be a level playing field. (Unpopular opinion but I wish all the purge/IP/DET skills were gone and that long duration mez/roots were just scaled back) but that's another conversation...
How deep in pathfinding with Pots?
Started 9 Jan 2019
by
HelloPancake
in
Hibernia
Wed 9 Jan 2019 2:50 AM
by
Wellzy
What i find sets rangers apart is the damage add in pathfinding. Pair that with a high duel wield off hand % and you can crank out some dmg.
My ranger was ver low bow. High enough to maul a caster. But taking out stealthers in close combat was my jam.
My ranger was ver low bow. High enough to maul a caster. But taking out stealthers in close combat was my jam.
Wed 9 Jan 2019 3:34 AM
by
Tomthabom10
Actually curious about this too. Think it would be pretty damn fun running an anti SB/Infil Melee ranger (shar or Celt). I’ve heard that putting more into CD and blades and just using pots is worth it more than getting pathfinding up. Not sure how true this is though.
Wed 9 Jan 2019 9:08 AM
by
Cadebrennus
With physical damage nerfed as bad as it is, Ranger melee just can't keep up with Assassin Poisons. I used to recommend 36PF minimum for the damage add but it pales in comparison to Envenom damage.
Wed 9 Jan 2019 9:50 AM
by
HelloPancake
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑Wed 9 Jan 2019 9:08 AMWith physical damage nerfed as bad as it is, Ranger melee just can't keep up with Assassin Poisons. I used to recommend 36PF minimum for the damage add but it pales in comparison to Envenom damage.
That sounds dire, especially without physical defense. Thanks for the replies guys-- I've played and had success with both a 39 blades ~35 everything else comp 50 celt ranger and a lurikeen full sniper with just enough melee for stun reactionary styles... Celt was absolutely more fun and with the poisons being weapon skill I thought this would be "the patch" to try blades again but it looks like the safest bet is playing sniper support. Paints a really grin picture, I assume this hits hunters and scouts just as hard? If it is so lopsided, I can see a lot of us switching to assassins and the stealth war getting frustratingly assassin/minstrel dense (plus the difficulty retaliating against stealth targets once youre visible adding to worst)
Wed 9 Jan 2019 10:02 AM
by
Cadebrennus
HelloPancake wrote: ↑Wed 9 Jan 2019 9:50 AMCadebrennus wrote: ↑Wed 9 Jan 2019 9:08 AMWith physical damage nerfed as bad as it is, Ranger melee just can't keep up with Assassin Poisons. I used to recommend 36PF minimum for the damage add but it pales in comparison to Envenom damage.
That sounds dire, especially without physical defense. Thanks for the replies guys-- I've played and had success with both a 39 blades ~35 everything else comp 50 celt ranger and a lurikeen full sniper with just enough melee for stun reactionary styles... Celt was absolutely more fun and with the poisons being weapon skill I thought this would be "the patch" to try blades again but it looks like the safest bet is playing sniper support. Paints a really grin picture, I assume this hits hunters and scouts just as hard? If it is so lopsided, I can see a lot of us switching to assassins and the stealth war getting frustratingly assassin/minstrel dense (plus the difficulty retaliating against stealth targets once youre visible adding to worst)
Let's put it this way......
I'm really looking forward to using NS casted DDs in the range war.
Wed 9 Jan 2019 10:32 AM
by
Gohanssj
Melee ranger spec I'd probably go 44 CD 39 blades 36 stealth 30 bow and 16 path finding and drop stealth and raise bow as you realm rank up, now I'm gonna get shouted down for this so I'm going to pre defend it ^^ most people will say go 40 PF BUUUUUT that gets you 50 af instead of 31, 7.3 DA instead of 2.9 and 180 speed burst instead of 150.
also you get the self str and dex/quick at higher values but as the d/q is lower than charges and the str is + 2 on potions they don't really factor in.
the 180 speed burst is usefull for sure, but 150 should still get you out of most situations in the same way so not a game changer, and 19 af is well, meh. (also the epic chests have a better AF charge on as well could put that in the same category as the d/q.
The big one is the DA buff 4.4 extra dps is obviously pretty usefull, but when it comes down to it having 44 CD and composite 52 blades (best dmg type but obviously you could go pierce and the same still applies) will increase your damage significantly, and more importantly your weapons skill and therefore hit rate.
I wait all of your rebukes
but I genuinely think this spec gives you much higher damage than pathfinding due to buff barrels and chargers negating most of that advantage. Also 30 bow does way more damage than it has any right to as it's the old archery system.
(Straight copy and paste from another thread so some of it might seem out of context but couldn't be arsed to retype it)
also you get the self str and dex/quick at higher values but as the d/q is lower than charges and the str is + 2 on potions they don't really factor in.
the 180 speed burst is usefull for sure, but 150 should still get you out of most situations in the same way so not a game changer, and 19 af is well, meh. (also the epic chests have a better AF charge on as well could put that in the same category as the d/q.
The big one is the DA buff 4.4 extra dps is obviously pretty usefull, but when it comes down to it having 44 CD and composite 52 blades (best dmg type but obviously you could go pierce and the same still applies) will increase your damage significantly, and more importantly your weapons skill and therefore hit rate.
I wait all of your rebukes
but I genuinely think this spec gives you much higher damage than pathfinding due to buff barrels and chargers negating most of that advantage. Also 30 bow does way more damage than it has any right to as it's the old archery system.(Straight copy and paste from another thread so some of it might seem out of context but couldn't be arsed to retype it)
Wed 9 Jan 2019 12:52 PM
by
inoeth
i constantly read something about "physical damage" nerf ...... when did that happen and how bad is it?
Wed 9 Jan 2019 8:45 PM
by
HelloPancake
inoeth wrote: ↑Wed 9 Jan 2019 12:52 PMi constantly read something about "physical damage" nerf ...... when did that happen and how bad is it?
Cade mentioned somewhere else that his fresh new 50 ranger on uthgard was doing the same damage as the i50 rr14 fully geared ranger on phoenix in melee. If that is the case-- it is very underpowered and concerning.
Wed 9 Jan 2019 11:47 PM
by
Zansobar
HelloPancake wrote: ↑Wed 9 Jan 2019 8:45 PMinoeth wrote: ↑Wed 9 Jan 2019 12:52 PMi constantly read something about "physical damage" nerf ...... when did that happen and how bad is it?
Cade mentioned somewhere else that his fresh new 50 ranger on uthgard was doing the same damage as the i50 rr14 fully geared ranger on phoenix in melee. If that is the case-- it is very underpowered and concerning.
I didn't play after the AF nerf but apparently devs here on Phoenix are matching AF to live Pendragon and claimed there was a bug where AF on players was lower than it should be. This I find highly unbelievable since the AF for each class has been known for over a decade and what the cap is (based on your absorb of armor)...AND that weapon skill divided by opponent AF has been the multiplier for melee damage (concerning AF) for, again, over a decade. I just don't understand how this AF "fix" is justified.
I'm going to try a ranger at launch but if it's really ludicrous on the competitiveness scale then I will just do like everyone else and roll a spell casting nightshade (which has been buffed up a bit here on Phoenix).
Thu 10 Jan 2019 12:18 AM
by
Cadebrennus
Allegedly the dummies on Uth are different than the dummies on Phoenix (told this by the programming Phoenix Dev). Being that I have no way to verify this all I can say is that I hope they are telling the truth, and that there "technically" is no difference between Uth and Phoenix. However measuring damage on a Phoenix Ranger and making it match a Pendragon (which is the Live test server) Ranger is a bad idea because of the following reasons:
1) TOAs boost melee and ranged damage on Live to an insane amount which has been lowered for balance on Live. Matching to a Pendragon character without all TOAs automatically generates gimped numbers.
2) All Stealther melee was nerfed by 30% (confirmed by multiple tests by multiple players) in August 2016 on Live. Assassins were given a boost to CS styles to make up the difference. Archers were not because Broadsword didn't want Archers to melee at all. Testing against base damage of Stealthers to come up with equal numbers on Phoenix means physical damage output is weakened further.
As it stands right now magic damage and poisons do far better damage than melee/archery does. For a sneak that does ranged damage I am definitely going with NS. Even at a 71% effective range of Rangers an NS is still close in terms of damage per second (not per hit) to a Ranger IF the NS is casting at 1.5 seconds per spell or better, even without counting the insta DD.
Regarding Pathfinding I still recommend 36 PF because the base Strength buff exceeds pot buffs, the Damage Add is still decent (but not even in the same ballpark as Assassin poisons) and you get the Dex/quick when you can't pop the Dex/quick charge. I normally also advocate for the AF buff but I have been told (and not confirmed) that the Pathfinding AF buff has been nerfed. I was not aware of this so I was not able to confirm before beta closed so take that with a grain of salt.
1) TOAs boost melee and ranged damage on Live to an insane amount which has been lowered for balance on Live. Matching to a Pendragon character without all TOAs automatically generates gimped numbers.
2) All Stealther melee was nerfed by 30% (confirmed by multiple tests by multiple players) in August 2016 on Live. Assassins were given a boost to CS styles to make up the difference. Archers were not because Broadsword didn't want Archers to melee at all. Testing against base damage of Stealthers to come up with equal numbers on Phoenix means physical damage output is weakened further.
As it stands right now magic damage and poisons do far better damage than melee/archery does. For a sneak that does ranged damage I am definitely going with NS. Even at a 71% effective range of Rangers an NS is still close in terms of damage per second (not per hit) to a Ranger IF the NS is casting at 1.5 seconds per spell or better, even without counting the insta DD.
Regarding Pathfinding I still recommend 36 PF because the base Strength buff exceeds pot buffs, the Damage Add is still decent (but not even in the same ballpark as Assassin poisons) and you get the Dex/quick when you can't pop the Dex/quick charge. I normally also advocate for the AF buff but I have been told (and not confirmed) that the Pathfinding AF buff has been nerfed. I was not aware of this so I was not able to confirm before beta closed so take that with a grain of salt.
Thu 10 Jan 2019 1:22 AM
by
Thinal
I had originally posted this on a different thread, but it's more pertinent here. This is very specific to blades rangers, and I did not do a comparable test for a pierce ranger or sniper. I also never got around to the further testing I'd suggested in the post.
This is what I intend to play. Unlike Cadebrennus, I've moved toward ranger and away from nightshade. The top competition to this would be a shadowblade, depending on how annoying realm switching will be. I'll also have an animist that I intend to play and not simply use to farm.
Nightshade is not impossible, but archers get ignore pain and assassins don't. Even if assassins have a marginal edge in DPS, refilling one's tank in battle is going to be a much bigger factor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathfinding is not worthless. I ran some tests last night on test dummies with this setup, brand new i50/rr5L9:
Shar, +15 STR +10 END (dex would be fine, but NOT quickness)
35 Steath
39 Blades
12 bow (autotrain)
PF / CD: tested at PF 50, 46, 40, 36, 30, 27, 21(23) with balance in CD
2.5 mainhand, 3.1 offhand (which is why no quickness... REALLY easy to go over speed cap)
i50 potions (not charges; was trying to simulate a pretty easy setup for release. STR/CON would likely change scaling, but not order of the test results. DEX/QUI might change order, but less of a priority with blades and near-cap weapon speed.)
Used the taunt style of either blades or CD, whichever was higher for that test.
I can post full numbers for anyone interested, but DPS was about 10% higher for full PF than for full CD, and scaled fairly smoothly between them.
For RAs, I got standard LW/tireless, then purge 2, ignore pain 4, leaving 15 points. As Pathfinding had worked out so well, I tried master of arcane 6, and it would do slightly better than STR except that it was raising quickness enough to go over speed cap. I don't have conclusive results of STR versus mastery of pain, as I haven't mapped out exactly how much a crit adds to the blow. Rough estimates seem to slightly favor MoP, but I want to confirm this. (It would be nice if it did, so better potential DPS versus more consistent DPS would be the choice between the two.)
Speed cap could be less of a concern with a 2.9 mainhand, but I'd want to do a new series of tests in that case. I would expect the scaling to be tighter but the order to remain the same, but I'd want to confirm that.
As for this thread's topic, a good part of the extra damage was in increased strength. With 50 PF, the strength self-buff would be better than the warden's conc buff, but the warden conc will be higher at lower PF. If you *knew* you were running regularly in a warden/bard smallman or in an 8-man, then pathfinding would probably be a poor investment. I would consider it likely though that you'll be self-buffs, pots, and charges almost always after release.
And of course, I don't attest to these results for other races, piercing, or a build with any effectiveness in archery. It would be worth testing a 'keen piercer with slightly slower weapons. I do find blades to be superior for a ranger, though, especially now that it has an off-evade stun for rogues. I tested a blades Shar because that's the setup I'm most likely to play, and I might not get around to other tests before i50 ends.
This is what I intend to play. Unlike Cadebrennus, I've moved toward ranger and away from nightshade. The top competition to this would be a shadowblade, depending on how annoying realm switching will be. I'll also have an animist that I intend to play and not simply use to farm.
Nightshade is not impossible, but archers get ignore pain and assassins don't. Even if assassins have a marginal edge in DPS, refilling one's tank in battle is going to be a much bigger factor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathfinding is not worthless. I ran some tests last night on test dummies with this setup, brand new i50/rr5L9:
Shar, +15 STR +10 END (dex would be fine, but NOT quickness)
35 Steath
39 Blades
12 bow (autotrain)
PF / CD: tested at PF 50, 46, 40, 36, 30, 27, 21(23) with balance in CD
2.5 mainhand, 3.1 offhand (which is why no quickness... REALLY easy to go over speed cap)
i50 potions (not charges; was trying to simulate a pretty easy setup for release. STR/CON would likely change scaling, but not order of the test results. DEX/QUI might change order, but less of a priority with blades and near-cap weapon speed.)
Used the taunt style of either blades or CD, whichever was higher for that test.
I can post full numbers for anyone interested, but DPS was about 10% higher for full PF than for full CD, and scaled fairly smoothly between them.
For RAs, I got standard LW/tireless, then purge 2, ignore pain 4, leaving 15 points. As Pathfinding had worked out so well, I tried master of arcane 6, and it would do slightly better than STR except that it was raising quickness enough to go over speed cap. I don't have conclusive results of STR versus mastery of pain, as I haven't mapped out exactly how much a crit adds to the blow. Rough estimates seem to slightly favor MoP, but I want to confirm this. (It would be nice if it did, so better potential DPS versus more consistent DPS would be the choice between the two.)
Speed cap could be less of a concern with a 2.9 mainhand, but I'd want to do a new series of tests in that case. I would expect the scaling to be tighter but the order to remain the same, but I'd want to confirm that.
As for this thread's topic, a good part of the extra damage was in increased strength. With 50 PF, the strength self-buff would be better than the warden's conc buff, but the warden conc will be higher at lower PF. If you *knew* you were running regularly in a warden/bard smallman or in an 8-man, then pathfinding would probably be a poor investment. I would consider it likely though that you'll be self-buffs, pots, and charges almost always after release.
And of course, I don't attest to these results for other races, piercing, or a build with any effectiveness in archery. It would be worth testing a 'keen piercer with slightly slower weapons. I do find blades to be superior for a ranger, though, especially now that it has an off-evade stun for rogues. I tested a blades Shar because that's the setup I'm most likely to play, and I might not get around to other tests before i50 ends.
Thu 10 Jan 2019 2:25 AM
by
Tomthabom10
Well damn now you’re making me want to make a shar or Celt Melee ranger. What specs did you try out on i50 and which ones did you like the best?
Thu 10 Jan 2019 7:44 AM
by
inoeth
so a ranger has now how much AF? as i understand that, it applys for all classes right? then everybody does lower dmg? btw when i played the beta i was wondering how much dmg my hunter was doing. i played hunter about 10 years on live and he never did that much, so i think the change might be justified. i guess we will see how it turns out after launch, if it is broken now i think we can expect a hotfix. you hear me devs i count on you ;D
Thu 10 Jan 2019 8:29 AM
by
Cadebrennus
inoeth wrote: ↑Thu 10 Jan 2019 7:44 AMso a ranger has now how much AF? as i understand that, it applys for all classes right? then everybody does lower dmg? btw when i played the beta i was wondering how much dmg my hunter was doing. i played hunter about 10 years on live and he never did that much, so i think the change might be justified. i guess we will see how it turns out after launch, if it is broken now i think we can expect a hotfix. you hear me devs i count on you ;D
Everyone's physical damage (melee and archery) has been lowered. This means that classes with another method of damage which adds to melee/ranged dps such as hybrids (Thanes, Champions), classes with shouts (Skalds, Champions, Minstrels), and Assassins (Poison) can now more easily pull ahead of pure physical dps classes, particularly ones on a lower damage table (like Archers). Main tanks (regular and light tanks) will still be okay, but won't be the melee gods that they were on live.
Thu 10 Jan 2019 9:40 AM
by
labra
Did someone test the damage output difference between a 50PF/39blade and a 50blade/39 PF?
Thu 10 Jan 2019 2:13 PM
by
inoeth
Cadebrennus wrote: ↑Thu 10 Jan 2019 8:29 AMinoeth wrote: ↑Thu 10 Jan 2019 7:44 AMso a ranger has now how much AF? as i understand that, it applys for all classes right? then everybody does lower dmg? btw when i played the beta i was wondering how much dmg my hunter was doing. i played hunter about 10 years on live and he never did that much, so i think the change might be justified. i guess we will see how it turns out after launch, if it is broken now i think we can expect a hotfix. you hear me devs i count on you ;D
Everyone's physical damage (melee and archery) has been lowered. This means that classes with another method of damage which adds to melee/ranged dps such as hybrids (Thanes, Champions), classes with shouts (Skalds, Champions, Minstrels), and Assassins (Poison) can now more easily pull ahead of pure physical dps classes, particularly ones on a lower damage table (like Archers). Main tanks (regular and light tanks) will still be okay, but won't be the melee gods that they were on live.
that does not sound too bad imo!
Thu 10 Jan 2019 2:16 PM
by
inoeth
labra wrote: ↑Thu 10 Jan 2019 9:40 AMDid someone test the damage output difference between a 50PF/39blade and a 50blade/39 PF?
i did not but im pretty sure 50 blade will be stronger because more styl dmg and less evade/block/parry.
im not sure about the DA but i dont think it will make a big difference.
maybe cadebrennus can tell us more about that
Thu 10 Jan 2019 3:02 PM
by
Patron
important is composite 52 Weapon, everything else is wayne Weaponwise
Thu 10 Jan 2019 3:14 PM
by
labra
I always believed 52 composite in weapon line was to reduce variance when using CD dual styles.
And having the most in CD to have more weapon skill
And having the most in CD to have more weapon skill
Thu 10 Jan 2019 6:23 PM
by
Cadebrennus
inoeth wrote: ↑Thu 10 Jan 2019 2:16 PMlabra wrote: ↑Thu 10 Jan 2019 9:40 AMDid someone test the damage output difference between a 50PF/39blade and a 50blade/39 PF?
i did not but im pretty sure 50 blade will be stronger because more styl dmg and less evade/block/parry.
im not sure about the DA but i dont think it will make a big difference.
maybe cadebrennus can tell us more about that
Yup I did test it. The damage isn't much higher between 36 PF and 50 PF but honestly neither is the damage difference between 39 Blades and 50 Blades. The real reason to go 50 Blades is ONLY for the 50 rear follow-up style which has the highest Growth Rate out of the CD/Blades/Pierce lines. If you don't see yourself using that style very often then don't bother with it. If you are someone who can get into position to use that style frequently then it is definitely worth it because of the Growth Rate returns. If Celtic Dual was as good as Dual Wield then I would recommend taking that higher but the Growth Rates on the styles are just terrible. You need 3rd in a chain from the side style just to match the 2nd in a chain in the Blades rear style. If you think about if, rear style chains happen with far more frequency.
The other thing though is as Inoeth pointed out is weaponskill vs block/parry/evade. I recommend downloading an older version of charplan which calculates your weaponskill so that you can see exactly what it would be. It doesn't calculate CD/DW weaponskill so you have to go off of your Blades/Pierce WS to determine it.
This topic is locked and you can't reply.
Return to Hibernia or the latest topics