The difference between the Archer classes

Started 14 Jan 2019
by Cadebrennus
in RvR
In response to a player's question on Discord. I have reposted here for the community's review, input, and more than likely hate mail from my stalkers.

Scouts are not only the most group dependent, they are also strongest in a group due to the usefulness of the Shield (such as being able to block for another group member.)
Rangers, while fun, are the one-trick-ponies of the Archer classes. They have ranged and melee, that's it. Hunter's 2handers equal a Ranger's dual wielding capabilities for damage, but dual wielding has bonuses (such as extra weapon procs) and drawbacks (such as triggering more enemy armor procs.) The Hunter Pet makes the Hunter the master of controlling a fight at range, provided he can get his slow-ass pet to the enemy Caster or Archer in time. In addition the Pet puts out more damage than the Ranger's damage add even added to two weapons.
The range difference is minimal between the Archers. It's 2200 for Scouts, 2100 for Rangers, and 2000 for Hunters. Hunters suffer from having the fastest bows so they will not have the big critical shot numbers like Scouts and especially Rangers (who have a bow that is 0.2 slower than the Scout bows and add the Damage Add to the Critshot) but do not have to swap bows to hit cap firing speed when Rapid Firing which is important to keep enemy Casters and Archers locked down. Just think of Rapid Fire as a crew served weapon, rather than a precision damage weapon.
What the class choice really comes down to is what role do you want to play as an Archer. Pure sniper? Go Scout (a tiny bit more distance) or Ranger (a bit more damage.) Melee-heavy? Ranger or Hunter. Defensive and an incredible groupmate? Go Scout. Just keep in mind that the damage from any of the Archer classes either in Melee or in Archery is subpar. At the moment a Nightshade can put out equal or greater ranged damage-per-second with an unspecced skill line than an Archer can when comparing casting speed at 1.5 seconds vs an Archer Rapid Firing at 1.5 seconds.
Mon 14 Jan 2019 11:25 AM by Azeth123
What happened with archery damage that caused it to be decreased to the level of non spec damage lines?
Mon 14 Jan 2019 5:34 PM by Cadebrennus
Azeth123 wrote:
Mon 14 Jan 2019 11:25 AM
What happened with archery damage that caused it to be decreased to the level of non spec damage lines?

AF "fix" that is in the patch notes.
Mon 14 Jan 2019 5:50 PM by Zansobar
They should adjust upwards the base damage table for archery (bows) and leave the melee base damage table the same to compensate for archers.
Mon 14 Jan 2019 9:22 PM by Zansobar
Cadebrennus wrote:
Mon 14 Jan 2019 4:48 AM
In response to a player's question on Discord. I have reposted here for the community's review, input, and more than likely hate mail from my stalkers.

Scouts are not only the most group dependent, they are also strongest in a group due to the usefulness of the Shield (such as being able to block for another group member.)
Rangers, while fun, are the one-trick-ponies of the Archer classes. They have ranged and melee, that's it. Hunter's 2handers equal a Ranger's dual wielding capabilities for damage, but dual wielding has bonuses (such as extra weapon procs) and drawbacks (such as triggering more enemy armor procs.) The Hunter Pet makes the Hunter the master of controlling a fight at range, provided he can get his slow-ass pet to the enemy Caster or Archer in time. In addition the Pet puts out more damage than the Ranger's damage add even added to two weapons.
The range difference is minimal between the Archers. It's 2200 for Scouts, 2100 for Rangers, and 2000 for Hunters. Hunters suffer from having the fastest bows so they will not have the big critical shot numbers like Scouts and especially Rangers (who have a bow that is 0.2 slower than the Scout bows and add the Damage Add to the Critshot) but do not have to swap bows to hit cap firing speed when Rapid Firing which is important to keep enemy Casters and Archers locked down. Just think of Rapid Fire as a crew served weapon, rather than a precision damage weapon.
What the class choice really comes down to is what role do you want to play as an Archer. Pure sniper? Go Scout (a tiny bit more distance) or Ranger (a bit more damage.) Melee-heavy? Ranger or Hunter. Defensive and an incredible groupmate? Go Scout. Just keep in mind that the damage from any of the Archer classes either in Melee or in Archery is subpar. At the moment a Nightshade can put out equal or greater ranged damage-per-second with an unspecced skill line than an Archer can when comparing casting speed at 1.5 seconds vs an Archer Rapid Firing at 1.5 seconds.

What is the Ranger bow that is 0.2 slower than the Scout bow and what speed are we talking here? The slowest I am aware of is the 5.5 speed bow but that should be available in both Albion and Hibernia (not Midgard).
Mon 14 Jan 2019 10:52 PM by Cadebrennus
Zansobar wrote:
Mon 14 Jan 2019 9:22 PM
Cadebrennus wrote:
Mon 14 Jan 2019 4:48 AM
In response to a player's question on Discord. I have reposted here for the community's review, input, and more than likely hate mail from my stalkers.

Scouts are not only the most group dependent, they are also strongest in a group due to the usefulness of the Shield (such as being able to block for another group member.)
Rangers, while fun, are the one-trick-ponies of the Archer classes. They have ranged and melee, that's it. Hunter's 2handers equal a Ranger's dual wielding capabilities for damage, but dual wielding has bonuses (such as extra weapon procs) and drawbacks (such as triggering more enemy armor procs.) The Hunter Pet makes the Hunter the master of controlling a fight at range, provided he can get his slow-ass pet to the enemy Caster or Archer in time. In addition the Pet puts out more damage than the Ranger's damage add even added to two weapons.
The range difference is minimal between the Archers. It's 2200 for Scouts, 2100 for Rangers, and 2000 for Hunters. Hunters suffer from having the fastest bows so they will not have the big critical shot numbers like Scouts and especially Rangers (who have a bow that is 0.2 slower than the Scout bows and add the Damage Add to the Critshot) but do not have to swap bows to hit cap firing speed when Rapid Firing which is important to keep enemy Casters and Archers locked down. Just think of Rapid Fire as a crew served weapon, rather than a precision damage weapon.
What the class choice really comes down to is what role do you want to play as an Archer. Pure sniper? Go Scout (a tiny bit more distance) or Ranger (a bit more damage.) Melee-heavy? Ranger or Hunter. Defensive and an incredible groupmate? Go Scout. Just keep in mind that the damage from any of the Archer classes either in Melee or in Archery is subpar. At the moment a Nightshade can put out equal or greater ranged damage-per-second with an unspecced skill line than an Archer can when comparing casting speed at 1.5 seconds vs an Archer Rapid Firing at 1.5 seconds.

What is the Ranger bow that is 0.2 slower than the Scout bow and what speed are we talking here? The slowest I am aware of is the 5.5 speed bow but that should be available in both Albion and Hibernia (not Midgard).

On live the bow speed was equalised between all realms. Hibernia should have the slowest bows in SI/Classic. However if there was a "custom fix" here on Phoenix to equalise bow speed between Alb and Hib I'm not aware of it.
Mon 14 Jan 2019 10:58 PM by Zansobar
What bow speed are you talking about? I've searched the epic drop merchants and the slowest I saw there was a 5.2 speed bow in Hib, however there is a 5.4 speed bow that is craftable, and there should also be a 5.5 speed bow that is craftable, which should be the same in Albion. I am not aware of a slower bow than that. I thought on Live Albion could get a 5.6 or 5.8 speed bow. At Live launch Albion had the slowest bows, but I'm not sure how that changed over the years.
Mon 14 Jan 2019 11:00 PM by Cadebrennus
Zansobar wrote:
Mon 14 Jan 2019 10:58 PM
What bow speed are you talking about? I've searched the epic drop merchants and the slowest I saw there was a 5.2 speed bow in Hib, however there is a 5.4 speed bow that is craftable, and there should also be a 5.5 speed bow that is craftable, which should be the same in Albion. I am not aware of a slower bow than that. I thought on Live Albion could get a 5.6 or 5.8 speed bow. At Live launch Albion had the slowest bows, but I'm not sure how that changed over the years.

If there's a 5.4 or 5.5 craftable bow on Alb I don't remember. You might be right on this one and I might be wrong.
Fri 18 Jan 2019 9:04 AM by teiloh
Scouts had the slowest at 5.7 afaik
Fri 18 Jan 2019 9:35 AM by Cadebrennus
teiloh wrote:
Fri 18 Jan 2019 9:04 AM
Scouts had the slowest at 5.7 afaik

Here's what should be available without Dragonsworn, Tinctured (yes, a specific thing aside from just adding tinctures to already crafted weapons), and Legendary Bows.

http://kindred-daoc.net/crafted/
Alb - Image Available duskwood heavy longbow Albion Ranged 51 1015 Bow 16.5 5.5
Hib - Image Available duskwood heavy recurve bow Hibernia Ranged 51 1015 Bow 16.5 5.5
Fri 18 Jan 2019 5:20 PM by teiloh
http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=21188

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13610

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13552

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13725

Scout bows were always a little slower on every equivalent item.
Fri 18 Jan 2019 6:30 PM by Cadebrennus
teiloh wrote:
Fri 18 Jan 2019 5:20 PM
http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=21188

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13610

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13552

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13725

Scout bows were always a little slower on every equivalent item.

Interesting. Rangers were supposed to have the slowest bows due to Scouts having 100 range "advantage" (which isn't enough IMO for Scouts, it should be higher.)
Mon 21 Jan 2019 5:37 AM by jelzinga_EU
Cadebrennus wrote:
Fri 18 Jan 2019 6:30 PM
teiloh wrote:
Fri 18 Jan 2019 5:20 PM
http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=21188

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13610

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13552

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13725

Scout bows were always a little slower on every equivalent item.

Interesting. Rangers were supposed to have the slowest bows due to Scouts having 100 range "advantage" (which isn't enough IMO for Scouts, it should be higher.)

Rangers were not supposed to have slowest bows, scouts should have it. The fact rangers have less range and thus should have slowest bow means hunters should have an even slower bow (which they don't).

General idea was scout had best archery, rangers where a bit in the middle and hunters had best melee (2H Spear, slightly increased WS). Obviously hunters their melee isn't the best due to how DW/CD halved enemy defenses back in the day, but it's how it is.
Mon 21 Jan 2019 7:10 AM by Cadebrennus
jelzinga_EU wrote:
Mon 21 Jan 2019 5:37 AM
Cadebrennus wrote:
Fri 18 Jan 2019 6:30 PM
teiloh wrote:
Fri 18 Jan 2019 5:20 PM
http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=21188

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13610

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13552

http://camelot.allakhazam.com/item.html?citem=13725

Scout bows were always a little slower on every equivalent item.

Interesting. Rangers were supposed to have the slowest bows due to Scouts having 100 range "advantage" (which isn't enough IMO for Scouts, it should be higher.)

Rangers were not supposed to have slowest bows, scouts should have it. The fact rangers have less range and thus should have slowest bow means hunters should have an even slower bow (which they don't).

General idea was scout had best archery, rangers where a bit in the middle and hunters had best melee (2H Spear, slightly increased WS). Obviously hunters their melee isn't the best due to how DW/CD halved enemy defenses back in the day, but it's how it is.

Don't forget that 2handers were supposed to halve Parry, so Hunters had their own advantage built in, without even having to spec in it. This changed in 1.87.

"1.87

Shield

- A character's chance to block will no longer be penalized when facing a character who is dual wielding.

Parry

- A character's chance to Parry will no longer be penalized when facing a character who is wielding a two handed weapon. "

The concept for Hunters was that they were supposed to be a close-in fighter with the dog assist, which is why they have (barely) shorter range and faster bows.

As far as I remember, prior to crafting, Rangers had the slowest bows. Rangers were also the most "archetypal" of the Archer classes, which is the only reason I can think of them having the Pathfinding buff line and dual wielding (Celtic Dual.) Albion was always advertised as the defensive realm, so obviously emphasis on plate armor and shields. Hence, the logic makes sense that their Archer gets Shield. Hunter? I have no idea. Maybe the mashup of their abilities seemed like a good idea at the time. Btw their 2hander does equal the damage output of a dual wielding Ranger. Dog actually adds much more DPS than 36 PF does for a Ranger. The utility of the dog is good (not great, but good). It just suffers from an arthritic run speed.
Mon 21 Jan 2019 5:45 PM by Shadanwolf
I was going to make a Ranger archer.This has always been my #1 played DAOC class. NOW...I will not make one.I only will play Hib,So now I'm out of the bow and arrow business. I play an archer on another game as well . Archers there are gimped...with heavy armor king of that world:-(. So that is why the interest was in Phoenix.
Mon 21 Jan 2019 6:31 PM by Cadebrennus
Shadanwolf wrote:
Mon 21 Jan 2019 5:45 PM
I was going to make a Ranger archer.This has always been my #1 played DAOC class. NOW...I will not make one.I only will play Hib,So now I'm out of the bow and arrow business. I play an archer on another game as well . Archers there are gimped...with heavy armor king of that world:-(. So that is why the interest was in Phoenix.

Try out low bow and see how that works out for you. Seems to be the new meta on Phoenix for Mid and Hib. Low bow might even work out better for Scouts too, who knows.
Mon 21 Jan 2019 7:28 PM by Pao
With Artefacts you clearly can see alb is suppose to have the slowest bow. It had the slowest bow .

Just compare the hib and mid version with all version.



http://camelot.allakhazam.com/quests.html?cquest=1855
Mon 21 Jan 2019 8:57 PM by Cadebrennus
Pao wrote:
Mon 21 Jan 2019 7:28 PM
With Artefacts you clearly can see alb is suppose to have the slowest bow. It had the slowest bow .

Just compare the hib and mid version with all version.



http://camelot.allakhazam.com/quests.html?cquest=1855

TOA was its own clusterfuck and has no bearing on "what was supposed to be." Pre-crafting, Hib had the slowest bow. That's what I remember.
Mon 21 Jan 2019 10:15 PM by randomeclipse
I’m 32 so far on my Ranger and haven’t found Bow too bad (Bow and PF at or near level). Time will tell in RvR though.

Watch this space.
Tue 22 Jan 2019 7:10 PM by Thinal
Cadebrennus wrote:
Mon 14 Jan 2019 4:48 AM
What the class choice really comes down to is what role do you want to play as an Archer. Pure sniper? Go Scout (a tiny bit more distance) or Ranger (a bit more damage.) Melee-heavy? Ranger or Hunter. Defensive and an incredible groupmate? Go Scout.

I agree that the scout is the best at defensive and "group mate," presuming Albion isn't already glutted with shield-bearing armsmen, paladins, or reavers who would otherwise do it better. In RvR, the scout's portable slam and readily-available stealth groups make it an exceptional choice.

However, I'd suggest that the Hunter is being significantly underrated here in all other respects. Each gets a specialty: scouts get slam, rangers get damage add, and hunters get pets. Well, the top dog is 32 beastcraft, but slam is a solid 42 shield, and rangers can benefit from pathfinding as high as 50 AND have an extra spec line necessary for melee combat on top of that. Even if one can demonstrate that the right combination of weapon, CD, and PF would top a hunter + dog, the math is insanely complicated. I did extensive testing and was only able to come out with a solid comparison of PF versus CD for a very strictly-designed melee-only ranger. I have no freaking clue how PF compares directly to any weapon/CD ratio, with or without potions / charges / conc buffs.

Therefore, making a high-archery hunter compromises almost nothing in melee capability. Shield slam leaves a scout with medium spec on a single 1H weapon. Few rangers manage to find the points to get archery past 35, and many don't come that far. As penetrating arrow is so silly since it does diddly shit for self-bubbles, that leaves little incentive indeed for a ranger to spec anything in between 12 (free) archery and 35 for the first, exhausting rapid fire.

Hunters have the worst crit shot? I did extensive play and testing in i50 on hunters, rangers, nightshades, and shadowblades, and I could count on one hand the number of times I managed to get off a crit shot at all in RvR. Most targets are running, especially if alone or in a small enough group to where you think you could get lucky. Usually it was tough enough to get off even a normal bowshot. There are no advance stealth skills here, so you're never going to be able to pop a true sight and see that solo stealther at enough range to crit shot him. If bows are even out, it's almost always going to be against visibles, and my hunters spent considerably more time in rapid-fire mode than in critshot mode.

I like rangers. A lot. I still play one. If this game were purely PvE, I wouldn't consider any other archer. But I'm cross-realming and slowly learning the Midgard PvE map, because my hunters tested so well in RvR. For that matter, I should probably get over my hatred of Albion, because seriously... 9 seconds of uninterrupted det-ignoring mutilation on a stealther? What the hell is wrong with me?
Thu 24 Jan 2019 2:54 PM by Horus
Rangers were always a bit weaker...scouts out range them and are equal if not better at melee due to shield. Hunters with shorter range but def better at melee with spec lines and pet. To make up for this, Rangers were given prob the best self buffs in the PF line. With the proliferation of potions and charged items, that balancing is pretty much gone out the window. If you dump your ranger points into PF to get buffs superior to what your fellow archers get from pots and charges, you are gimping another critical line they do not have to. So you say "well just use potions too". Which is fine, but then you are removing the one thing that was given to Rangers to balance them out...more or less negating a spec line (would almost be like having shield potions or pet potions). IMO Scouts are the all around best Archer for endgame RvR. Hunter are superior based on certain situations because that pet just adds so much to certain encounters (do pets chase down people after they restealth here? I forget)...others not so much. Ranger is just there. Play it if you love the class (as I do) but understand you are the red headed step child of the archer archetype on Phoenix.
Thu 24 Jan 2019 2:58 PM by Shadanwolf
Horus wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 2:54 PM
Rangers were always a bit weaker...scouts out range them and are equal if not better at melee due to shield. Hunters with shorter range but def better at melee with spec lines and pet. To make up for this, Rangers were given prob the best self buffs in the PF line. With the proliferation of potions and charged items, that balancing is pretty much gone out the window. If you dump your ranger points into PF to get buffs superior to what your fellow archers get from pots and charges, you are gimping another critical line they do not have to. So you say "well just use potions too". Which is fine, but then you are removing the one thing that was given to Rangers to balance them out...more or less negating a spec line (would almost be like having shield potions or pet potions). IMO Scouts are the all around best Archer for endgame RvR. Hunter are superior based on certain situations because that pet just adds so much to certain encounters (do pets chase down people after they restealth here? I forget)...others not so much. Ranger is just there. Play it if you love the class (as I do) but understand you are the red headed step child of the archer archetype on Phoenix.

(shakes head and frowns)
Thu 24 Jan 2019 4:09 PM by Sepplord
Horus wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 2:54 PM
Rangers were always a bit weaker...scouts out range them and are equal if not better at melee due to shield. Hunters with shorter range but def better at melee with spec lines and pet. To make up for this, Rangers were given prob the best self buffs in the PF line. With the proliferation of potions and charged items, that balancing is pretty much gone out the window. If you dump your ranger points into PF to get buffs superior to what your fellow archers get from pots and charges, you are gimping another critical line they do not have to. So you say "well just use potions too". Which is fine, but then you are removing the one thing that was given to Rangers to balance them out...more or less negating a spec line (would almost be like having shield potions or pet potions). IMO Scouts are the all around best Archer for endgame RvR. Hunter are superior based on certain situations because that pet just adds so much to certain encounters (do pets chase down people after they restealth here? I forget)...others not so much. Ranger is just there. Play it if you love the class (as I do) but understand you are the red headed step child of the archer archetype on Phoenix.

Is that theorycrafting?

Because i remember very well, back then, before TOA came out, melee-ranger was something several people played. While-melee scouts/hunters were not a thing at all.
celticdual shredded shield-scouts because of the block penalty and the MUCH higher melee damage
Hunters also were at a disadvantage because their 2h got evaded a lot while their own evade was cut by the CD
Thu 24 Jan 2019 7:16 PM by Cadebrennus
Sepplord wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 4:09 PM
Horus wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 2:54 PM
Rangers were always a bit weaker...scouts out range them and are equal if not better at melee due to shield. Hunters with shorter range but def better at melee with spec lines and pet. To make up for this, Rangers were given prob the best self buffs in the PF line. With the proliferation of potions and charged items, that balancing is pretty much gone out the window. If you dump your ranger points into PF to get buffs superior to what your fellow archers get from pots and charges, you are gimping another critical line they do not have to. So you say "well just use potions too". Which is fine, but then you are removing the one thing that was given to Rangers to balance them out...more or less negating a spec line (would almost be like having shield potions or pet potions). IMO Scouts are the all around best Archer for endgame RvR. Hunter are superior based on certain situations because that pet just adds so much to certain encounters (do pets chase down people after they restealth here? I forget)...others not so much. Ranger is just there. Play it if you love the class (as I do) but understand you are the red headed step child of the archer archetype on Phoenix.

Is that theorycrafting?

Because i remember very well, back then, before TOA came out, melee-ranger was something several people played. While-melee scouts/hunters were not a thing at all.
celticdual shredded shield-scouts because of the block penalty and the MUCH higher melee damage
Hunters also were at a disadvantage because their 2h got evaded a lot while their own evade was cut by the CD

You're probably thinking of the dual wield 50% debuff to shield & evade with Physical Defense RA days that Melee Rangers had back in the day. Then, yes, they shredded people.
Fri 25 Jan 2019 7:07 AM by Sepplord
Cadebrennus wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 7:16 PM
Sepplord wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 4:09 PM
Horus wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 2:54 PM
Rangers were always a bit weaker...scouts out range them and are equal if not better at melee due to shield. Hunters with shorter range but def better at melee with spec lines and pet. To make up for this, Rangers were given prob the best self buffs in the PF line. With the proliferation of potions and charged items, that balancing is pretty much gone out the window. If you dump your ranger points into PF to get buffs superior to what your fellow archers get from pots and charges, you are gimping another critical line they do not have to. So you say "well just use potions too". Which is fine, but then you are removing the one thing that was given to Rangers to balance them out...more or less negating a spec line (would almost be like having shield potions or pet potions). IMO Scouts are the all around best Archer for endgame RvR. Hunter are superior based on certain situations because that pet just adds so much to certain encounters (do pets chase down people after they restealth here? I forget)...others not so much. Ranger is just there. Play it if you love the class (as I do) but understand you are the red headed step child of the archer archetype on Phoenix.

Is that theorycrafting?

Because i remember very well, back then, before TOA came out, melee-ranger was something several people played. While-melee scouts/hunters were not a thing at all.
celticdual shredded shield-scouts because of the block penalty and the MUCH higher melee damage
Hunters also were at a disadvantage because their 2h got evaded a lot while their own evade was cut by the CD

You're probably thinking of the dual wield 50% debuff to shield & evade with Physical Defense RA days that Melee Rangers had back in the day. Then, yes, they shredded people.

Yes i am, at least about the 50% defensive penetration. Melee-Rangers also worked before PD very well.

I am aware that the defense penetration is different here, and that could change the equation by a LOT. That's why i asked if it was theorycrafting. Because on classic live rangers were the top of the archerfoodchain i melee, by far.
Fri 25 Jan 2019 7:42 AM by Cadebrennus
Sepplord wrote:
Fri 25 Jan 2019 7:07 AM
Cadebrennus wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 7:16 PM
Sepplord wrote:
Thu 24 Jan 2019 4:09 PM
Is that theorycrafting?

Because i remember very well, back then, before TOA came out, melee-ranger was something several people played. While-melee scouts/hunters were not a thing at all.
celticdual shredded shield-scouts because of the block penalty and the MUCH higher melee damage
Hunters also were at a disadvantage because their 2h got evaded a lot while their own evade was cut by the CD

You're probably thinking of the dual wield 50% debuff to shield & evade with Physical Defense RA days that Melee Rangers had back in the day. Then, yes, they shredded people.

Yes i am, at least about the 50% defensive penetration. Melee-Rangers also worked before PD very well.

I am aware that the defense penetration is different here, and that could change the equation by a LOT. That's why i asked if it was theorycrafting. Because on classic live rangers were the top of the archerfoodchain i melee, by far.

Yup very true, at least on classic and maybe SI. After Archers were equalised on live ("magic" Archery) Hunter shot way past Scouts and Rangers in melee and ranged, especially with their nutso snaring diseasing pet.

Here (I don't remember the same on live) dual wielding had its reduction of block evade nerfed from 50% to 25%. That definitely made a big difference when attacking anything with Evade or Shield in beta. I tested a Sword Hunter in PvP with a similar spec to my Ranger and he SHREDDED targets faster in melee than my Ranger. As far as I know, 2hand still reduces Parry effectiveness. Hunter 2hand = Ranger CD damage. No shit. Dummy and player tested. The pet acts like an additional offhand hit on top of the already impressive 2hand damage that hits harder than an unstyled offhand, but I didn't test the frequency of pet hits. I think it's slower than CD/DW offhand but it attacks 100% of the time as opposed to 69% or lower offhand swing so it probably evens out. The only downside I can see to the 2hander is a miss that is a bigger detriment to the Hunter than a miss is to a Ranger, and has 1 proc to the Ranger's 2 procs. Upside is that for the same amount of damage the Hunter is hitting defensive procs a lot less frequently than a dual wielding Ranger or Assassin.
Fri 25 Jan 2019 3:57 PM by Thinal
Cadebrennus wrote:
Fri 25 Jan 2019 7:42 AM
Hunter 2hand = Ranger CD damage. No shit. Dummy and player tested.

I can back that up. I did extensive testing with shadowblade specs varying axe, left axe, and critical strike and comparing damage of equal double-wields versus 2H. While I wasn't able to test every possible configuration, I never found a case where the double-wield topped the best possible 2H damage I could find. It's not exactly the same thing, as I wasn't using any double-wield haste effect (two EQUAL weapons) and I was using Garrote with a higher growth rate than any of the anytimers archers would have available, but the hunter is also going to have a higher weapon spec if only due to it being a single line versus the Ranger's two spec lines.
Sun 27 Jan 2019 6:28 PM by worldknown
So rangers are nerfed in this version we are playing
This topic is locked and you can't reply.

Return to RvR or the latest topics