[LukkasVM]

Originally Posted by kukkakeppii Okay,........... Also,..... .

Really no, assassin don't suffer any missing rate etc and has choice on damage.
Ranger is really under cause a single arrow, well placed, is lethal for everyone. I don't see any % to 1shot soldiers at this moment.

Also if u state soldier>>>ranger (or archer that should be but is not), yuo are simply figuring a full-soldier end game sieges, ie roll soldier or forget sieges

Bow/crossbow are powerfull weapons of context, ranged and fastest: it means that archer should do a lot more damage in less time.
Btw Funcom denies that for stated archer class, and it needs to be fixed.
Versa archers should not have medium armor and only "desperation" melee combo.

Archer are really made to hunt heavier and slower classes, no matter what armor they use.
I hope Funcom will fix asap

[kukkakeppii]

Originally Posted by LukkasVM Archer are really made to hunt heavier and slower classes, no matter what armor they use.

Says who? The way I see it is that mages are the ones who should be owning soldiers, archers and other rogues the ones who should be owning mages and priests, and soldiers that take care of rogues.

Why do I think this is the way it should be?

a.) Soldiers have the heaviest defence, so they shouldn't be losing to anyone in physical combat. Therefore the only way to kill them should be magic.

b.) Rogues in general should have highest single target dps to kill cloth/light(/even medium?) armored mages and priests fast, to make it easier for the soldiers of your own group and harder for the enemy soldiers (as they get less heal, and your soldiers get damaged less). So basically I always thought rogues were the ones who sneak behind enemy lines to ambush and take the casters off-guard.

I don't know if that's the way FC intended it to be, but that's how I'd like to see it and hopefully that's the way it will be at the end game. However, I don't think we can take out the enemy priests, which will hopefully change in future patches.

[Okutai]

Ranger =/= Archer.

Dictionary.com:

-Ranger-
one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.

-Archer-
1. a person who shoots with a bow and arrow; bowman.

See the difference?

[Alisto]

The OP MODERATED-Flame removed knows nothing about Assassins or even the Ranger class for that matter. How exactly do Assassins do crush and slash damage when they can only use daggers? Assassins do piercing and either unholy or poison damage depending on stance. Rangers can do slash, crush or piercing in melee, depending on their weapon selection.

Of course other magical damage types are available on certain weapons, but Assassins can only ever do piercing physical damage.

[LukkasVM]

Originally Posted by Okutai Ranger =/= Archer. Dictionary.com:

LOL grats, who cares about "dictionary.com".
I dont see ranger: in mmorpg usually... or archer :in mmorpg usally....

Simlpy look at funcom ranger ideas/statement....and will find an archer
(really bugged atm)....so boring but must confirm = fix it

[Hypernewt]

Why is everybody ignoring the fact that the OP makes no sense?

[LukkasVM]

Originally Posted by Hypernewt Why is everybody ignoring the fact that the OP makes no sense?

Cause he says not nosense and really ranger is very very far to be "an archer" as originally intended? ....maybe

genius is gone

[LukkasVM]

Originally Posted by LukkasVM Cause he says not nosense and really ranger is very very far to be "an archer" as originally intended? ....maybe genius is gone

mmmmmh maybee

[Niflhel]

Originally Posted by LukkasVM LOL grats, who cares about "dictionary.com". I dont see ranger: in mmorpg usually... or archer :in mmorpg usally.... Simlpy look at funcom ranger ideas/statement....and will find an archer (really bugged atm)....so boring but must confirm = fix it

Do you really want to be an archer, and not a ranger?
It would mean loosing stealth, traps and lots of ranged combos.. Archer units, historically, was often made up of a huge group of peasants who had gotten a bit of training.
With the bow providing mechanical distance to the target(Making it easier to kill), as well as being a big unit who'd primarily fire indirectly at the target(Not aiming at them, but above them), the bow was a successfull weapon.
But a single archer would be nearly useless.

And remember, our all time favorite, Sir Robin Hood, was indeed what you could call an outlaw ranger.

Also, note that bows was mostly effective because of the physologic effect it had upon the enemy. With a thick cloud of arrows on the way toward an enemy unit, all they could do was bringing up their shield, if they had one, and pray they wouldn't get hit.
And while bows(Mainly longbows, see the battle of Agincourt, for instance) was really effective against heavily armoured cavalry, due to their horses not being well armored on anything but the head, and the limited mobility if the cavalarist was to fight on food, the bows in itself(Except the longbow) was not effective against heavy armor. They didn't carry enough kinetic energy, unlike the crossbow, who could fling a bolt in a straigth line transfering a huge amount of kinetic energy unto the plate.
But a crossbow is a tricky weapon, reloading takes time, and the archer must be more or less standing still to have any hope of reloading it.

[LukkasVM]

Originally Posted by Niflhel Do you really want to be an archer, and not a ranger? It would mean loosing stealth, traps and lots of ranged combos.. Archer units, historically, was often made up of a huge group of peasants who had gotten a bit of training. With the bow providing mechanical distance to the target(Making it easier to kill), as well as being a big unit who'd primarily fire indirectly at the target(Not aiming at them, but above them), the bow was a successfull weapon. But a single archer would be nearly useless. And remember, our all time favorite, Sir Robin Hood, was indeed what you could call an outlaw ranger. it.

Interestingly, although not all correct.
But I do not think the point is the "archer" historical reconstruction ( could say many things, even different, but it's not the point).

The point is that in AoC ranger was stated as archer, or would not develop feat and combo as tey did, really they have missing many things and others must be increased.

Traps and stealth can be an herring compared to the "standard archer-historic", but secondary. If you transform these things in primary and main characteristics you class ... this is happening now.

Somenone could also say that this "ranger" is sweeter than expected ranger, but this does not change the point that this ranger lacks on' "archer side"