Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

If Bliz made a ranger class...Follow

#1 Nov 27 2007 at 11:47 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,717 posts
If Blizzard made a ranger class, do you think the number of huntards would go down?

What I mean is, if blizzard made a class that's a hybrid melee/ranged DPS, which (when untalented) could do both equally well - something like a shaman version of a rogue/hunter combination (but with no pet), do you think a noticeable portion of the huntards think "wow, I can melee now and still use a bow like legolas!" and jump over there?

I know Blizzard isn't planning on making one ATM (at least not to public knowledge) so this is a sort of fun thread...but I wanna know what you think.
#2 Nov 27 2007 at 11:57 PM Rating: Good
*
231 posts
Not saying it would work, but if they wanted to make one then a new hero class could be a ranger... but with a much more epic name.
#3 Nov 28 2007 at 12:09 AM Rating: Good
***
2,717 posts
Yeah I was thinking it'd be kinda cool if there was one hero class per current class...

Paladin - Death Knight
Hunter - Ranger
Mage - Battlemage (maybe a lot of melee or enhancing focused elemental abilities)
Warlock - Necromancer
Warrior -
Rogue -
Shaman -
Druid -
Priest -

The problem is I'm stuck there lol.
#4 Nov 28 2007 at 12:11 AM Rating: Excellent
It's hard to say. I tend to try and steer clear of Huntards wherever I see them. I was running through Blasted Lands a couple of weeks ago and noticed a Hunter of to the side in the midst of a fight gone wrong. They had two mobs on them, they were almost dead, their pet was almost dead, and they were standing in the middle of things trying to melee their way to a win. Since they had already tapped both mobs, I opted to lend a hand and when it was over I sent them a /w politely suggesting that in situations like that, they use their pet to allow them to get to range so they can do more damage and end the fight faster. Their response suggested to me that they had never thought of that.

I don't want to label it "stupidity". Not everyone reads forums. If you look at the ability progression for Hunters, it's not hard to see why an otherwise bright person might think that Hunters are intended for melee as much as (if not more than) ranged combat. If you exclude the most telling indicators (ie. the vast majority of our talents/"spells" are for ranged combat), you see that we get mail armor and dual wielding as training options. Rogues are melee and they don't get mail. Warriors and Rogues are melee and they both get dual wielding. So rather than apply a shaming label, let's just call them ignorant.

Never underestimate the ignorance of the general public.

I honestly believe that the main reasons Huntards stand out is because it's so easy to spot a Huntard. It's not so easy to spot a Warlock who doesn't know wtf they are doing unless you've already leveled a Warlock. Same goes for a lot of other classes. That's not to say that you never notice when you see another class not being played well, but once you've seen how a good Hunter plays and the next party includes a Hunter in SL making frequent use of their dual swords with Beastslayer/Striking enchants, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

(Tangent: ffs if you're going to be a melee Huntard, don't make your weapons glow. It's bad enough I know you're doing it...I don't need a neon reminder.)

Anywhoo...long story short...no. I don't think a ranged/melee hybrid would reduce the number of Huntards. I just think you'd have a lot of ignorant ranged/melee hybrids embarassing themselves right next to the Huntard.
#5 Nov 28 2007 at 1:14 AM Rating: Decent
skribs wrote:
Yeah I was thinking it'd be kinda cool if there was one hero class per current class...

Paladin - Death Knight
Hunter - Ranger
Mage - Battlemage (maybe a lot of melee or enhancing focused elemental abilities)
Warlock - Necromancer
Warrior - Gladiator
Rogue - Assassin
Shaman - Elementalist
Druid - Monk
Priest - Paragon


The problem is I'm stuck there lol.



Maybe something along these line for new names for the characters for the new hero class ?
#6 Nov 28 2007 at 1:42 AM Rating: Good
*
137 posts
Quote:
honestly believe that the main reasons Huntards stand out is because it's so easy to spot a Huntard. It's not so easy to spot a Warlock who doesn't know wtf they are doing unless you've already leveled a Warlock. Same goes for a lot of other classes. That's not to say that you never notice when you see another class not being played well, but once you've seen how a good Hunter plays and the next party includes a Hunter in SL making frequent use of their dual swords with Beastslayer/Striking enchants, it sticks out like a sore thumb.


QFT. Absolutly on the ball. Rate up from me. I would not be able to tell if a warlock completly F-ed up as Ive never played one. But, everyone knows the complete basics of every class. (excpet for huntard or other class equivilants.) I would know that Warlock =/= melee, but I'd have no clue as to whether to use one spell or the other or never use one of them at all. Which is why we stick out. Our combat is so basic. Stand back, shoot while pet attacks, wait till dead. Repeat. Drink. Repeat. The only thing that becomes slightly complicated is shot rotations and proper use of talents. But even that all but the worst can come up with basic forms of them.

It seems starting WoW is kinda like starting life, you can learn more in the first years/levels of your life than you do in the rest of you life/wow life. Maybe the huntards had no one to guide them, help them or just completly soloed everything and never grouped with others (it can happen.) If this is true, they maybe thought that because they had to melee for the first sections of their character (before they got their pet) and they thought that a hunter meleed.

So to your question Skribs, it could go both ways. many of them would migrate there, slightly restoring some of our reputaion, but some may presume that both classes can do both. And we have pets as well! It comes down to how people will look at it.
#7 Nov 28 2007 at 2:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
skribs
Scholar

1985 posts
Score: Default
Fixed that for you. Who did you **** off lately?

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a Ranger class pop up. I wouldn't switch myself, but at least the Xxlegolaxx / Araragorn clones would. Besides, alot of the current Hunter population actually do think meleeing is viable for DPS, and I am talking about level 70s that's been informed otherwise repeatedly.

One of my previous guildies (I kicked him the second I became Classleader) never had his pet out, and would consistantly run in for melee in instances because he didn't think Arrows/Bullets were worth the cost. Hell, once he even "tank" specced and wanted to be the maintank in instances. He was repeatedly explained at great length why this was the wrong approach, but stubbornly insisted that he did more DPS as melee than ranged.

Besides, can you guys remember the fellow who came here and called us close minded because we said straight out that meleeing as a Hunter was not anywhere near DPS worthy? Add a Ranger class with no pet and better melee possibilities and we just might get rid of alot of these people.

The Huntards will still be around, due to ignorance or sheer stupidity. No class will ever be rid of them, and we are cursed with a higher amount of visibility when it comes to stupid players. If we do a good job, the others shouldn't even really notice. If we do a bad job, the group will most certainly notice. But I am for any option that will lessen the amount of these wastes of oxygen.

Edited, Nov 28th 2007 5:26am by NorthAI
#8 Nov 28 2007 at 6:40 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Quote:
Paladin - Death Knight
Hunter - Ranger
Mage - Battlemage (maybe a lot of melee or enhancing focused elemental abilities)
Warlock - Necromancer
Warrior - Gladiator
Rogue - Assassin
Shaman - Elementalist
Druid - Monk
Priest - Paragon


To be fair, it would actually be something more like:
Paladin - Mountain King
Hunter - Ranger
Mage - Archmage
Warlock - Bloodmage
Warrior - Blademaster (for Horde), Spellbreaker
Rogue - Assassin or Spymaster
Shaman - Geomancer or Farseer
Druid - Of the Talon, of the Claw, Warden, Sentinel, etc etc
Priest - Acolyte, Healer, Priestess of the Moon

Just trying to keep with the lore :D
#9 Nov 28 2007 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
***
1,259 posts
Ranger reminds me too much of FFXI.. however I do agree that a ranger class would help filter out a lot of people.

Mind you I'm sure there would be skilled people playing said classes as well.

AureliusSir wrote:
(Tangent: ffs if you're going to be a melee Huntard, don't make your weapons glow. It's bad enough I know you're doing it...I don't need a neon reminder.)


That made me laugh so hard :D


It frustrates me on a daily basis when people use huntard as a blanket statement towards all hunters being terrible. I've actually noticed a lot of hunters adopting the term and turning it around to be a good thing.

Reminds me of a RL word that I will not say.
#10 Nov 28 2007 at 7:59 AM Rating: Decent
**
349 posts
Quote:
Druid - Monk


Wouldn't the Priest more likely turn into a Monk than a Druid?
#11 Nov 28 2007 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
**
830 posts
Huntards don't bother me, maybe because I'm marginally one.

If someone isn't 'playing' right, then I might say something. If they are insisting on playing inefficiently, then that's their choice, they pay their money just like I do. If I help them out and they go "Great! Thanks!" I feel better, WoW education to the rescue! ^_^

It seems to me that we are all so focused on what is perfectly efficient and that defines us as a class. It does not, and should not. Good players of ANY other class know the usefulness of a good hunter. Bad players of other classes believe the crap that goes around about ANY class, not just ours.

So, should we care what "Classtards" think we hunters are useful for? I say no. I'm secure enough in my own personal self image to be able to say what I can and cannot do and don't care what others think of me. I know what I bring to a group, PUG, guild or otherwise. If they need someone more skilled than I, then I will happily bow out or not pursue the cause the group is after.

As to skribs "Ranger" idea, it's not bad, but it may be a class without definition and end up killing the Hunter class just by sheer numbers. The idea of making a 'hero' class that has more upfront melee power plus the current hunter skills, that's probably the best place to let that go. All the wannabe Rangers will have to L2P and prove they can fight like a hunter is best at before they can emulate Aragorn or Legolas. Or they'll have to pay through the nose on eBay for one.

Again, Huntards don't bother me. I play for me, not for them. I help my guild, I continue to improve myself. I certainly don't have the skills to critique others actions.
#12 Nov 28 2007 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
***
2,717 posts
Quote:

It seems to me that we are all so focused on what is perfectly efficient


Well, there's a difference between someone speccing marksman in raids, and someone speccing melee in raids...the marksman may not be optimal, but it'll be within a few percent of the DPS he could have done with BM or the group help he would have been with SV. On the other hand, a melee hunter will drop his DPS by a lot (what were the estimates in the other threads? Like 40% or something?).

And while people do want to have fun, a lot of that fun comes from accomplishment and doing the most we can (at least for a lot of people). So what is perfectly efficient becomes important, especially when the forums are here so a lot of people can come and ask "what is teh best spec?"
Quote:

Who did you **** off lately?


Could be anybody...probably was the warriors. I said something that would probably **** them off lol (I suggested to someone asking for tanking tips that he not bring DPS that can't CC into the harder instances, which includes ignoring DPS warriors...). But there's lots of people I could have pissed off, it's just my personality.

Edited, Nov 28th 2007 10:19am by skribs
#13 Nov 28 2007 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
**
747 posts
A Huntard is all well and good as far as i'm concerned until he/she tries to become part of a group and perform the job a Hunter is supposed to.

As much as we would like to say that everyone pays for this game and therefore has the right to play the way they want, the classes were built in a way that kind of dictates an optimal playstyle. Therefore, I as a player also have the right to ask any player/ players I group or raid with to spec and play the class to it best possible potential otherwise there are plenty of other people who do things the "optimal" way that can replace the "classtard."

On another note, a melee/ ranged hybrid would be pretty cool, especially in smaller more confined instances. The Talent trees could support, ranged, melle or support playstyles, and they would basically play like a druid, but without the form shifting (with all the movement in combat and gear switching for optimal utility.)

I'd check it out, seems like it would be fun and different, i'm getting to the point now that the game is getting a bit stale for me, but I did recently have to give up raiding due to my inability to give that kind of time commitment.

#14 Nov 28 2007 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
**
365 posts
Paladin - Crusader, Avenger
Hunter - Ranger, Dead Eye, Sharp Shooter
Mage - Battlemage, Archmage, Arcanist, Spellblade
Warlock - Necromancer, Sorcerer
Warrior - Berserker, Gladiator, Viking (thumbs up), War Monger, Knight
Rogue - Deulist, Assasin, Thief, Spy, Smuggler, Swashbuckler (pirate class), ninja
Shaman - Geomancer, Farseer, Earth Whisperer
Druid - Monk (in the D&D sense), of the Talon, of the Claw, Dreamer
Priest - Cleric, ummmm i dunno

Dwarf - Mountain king, Dwarven Defender
Human - Hero
Night Elf - Demon Hunter, Warden
Bloof Elf - Spell Breaker, Blood Mage
Orc - Battlemaster, Raider
Troll - Berserker, Shadow Hunter, Voodoo Priest
Tauren - Brave, Spirit Walker
Gnome - Tinkerer, Thief
Draeni - Guardian, Protector, Watcher, Dark Slayer, Harbinger
Undead - Death Knight, Lich, Dark Ranger

#15 Nov 28 2007 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,388 posts
skribs wrote:
Yeah I was thinking it'd be kinda cool if there was one hero class per current class...

Paladin - Death Knight
Hunter - Ranger
Mage - Battlemage (maybe a lot of melee or enhancing focused elemental abilities)
Warlock - Necromancer
Warrior -
Rogue -
Shaman -
Druid -
Priest -

The problem is I'm stuck there lol.


Death Knight are made to replace Warriors, AND Paladins as a Tanking 2h-wielding DPS class (no shield, yet tank, and yet from the looks of their spells, also doing somewhat of a Warlock/Necromancers job.

Ranger I could go for if no pet, and able to do equally well in both Ranged and Melee Combat, maybe even depending on spec.

IMO there are ony 2 more hero classes avail after that-

Battlemage (Your casting DPS... DUH!)

Whatever the hell they want to call their Healing Class, but that would be the final.

Making a Hero Class that coincides with every WoW class is dumb, time consuming, and uneeded.
#16 Dec 01 2007 at 6:28 AM Rating: Decent
A ranger class would, to me anyway, seem to be just a regular class, like warrior or druid. For a hybrid DPS/Ranged class, it would have to be a Demon Hunter, Ranger just sounds too normal.
#17 Dec 01 2007 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
*
231 posts
i'm still gonna wet my pants when i get to play a necromancer.

just slightly ot: do we get another character slot for each realm with WotLK? I really dont want to delete any of my alts.
#18 Dec 02 2007 at 3:02 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,602 posts
yes but ranged powers arent exactly in demonhunter lore.

They jump ito battle and start tearing stuff apart.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 6 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (6)