Page 1 of 4
Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:14 pm
by SpiritHealer
While I'm not a Ranger, and have never played one, wouldn't it make sense if it's armor was better than a rogues ? In terms of physical damage resistance? After all it is a 'All-Round Class' the only thing it lacks is having a warrior type quality, or maybe giving it a skill which boosts its total amount of armor.
Just something that I thought of would like other players insight on this as well.
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:17 pm
by Fromen
So they should have a good armor , been armor the only good thing for warriors ?
I mean they are ok as they are if they make more OP. , this game should change the name then to Celtic-rangers or Ranger heroes because all others class will be alts.
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:43 pm
by hatoyo
Honestly, this is why they have things like bows, bolas and entangle- to reduce damage.
Their armor is already "all around" it's between low (mages druids) and high (warriors)
In theory, i wouldn't mind if rangers had a bit more armor than rogues, but in that theory rogues would have significantly better dps than rangers and/or evasive and sneaky skills like play dead and hide etc would work better at high lvls
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:53 pm
by Aileron
Traditionally, rangers (or hunters) have light armor, they have to be light footed and quiet when stalking or hunting prey.
Bowmen aren't rangers, and they typically wear heavier armor like chain, and usually part of an army's range attack.
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:19 pm
by Brookie
Maybe they could make that or rangers? Some super heavy armour that has some debuffs like -10% attack speed and -50% running speed but still would be usefull with a few good buffs on it idk
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:34 pm
by SpiritHealer
So they should have a good armor , been armor the only good thing for warriors ?
I mean they are ok as they are if they make more OP. , this game should change the name then to Celtic-rangers or Ranger heroes because all others class will be alts.
It's getting quite old, and repetitive for people to always say,
'Might as well call the game Celtic (InsertSubjectHere)'
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:52 pm
by Fromen
Maybe they could make that or rangers? Some super heavy armour that has some debuffs like -10% attack speed and -50% running speed but still would be usefull with a few good buffs on it idk
If they ever get to the point should be - % 33 attack speed , movement well no other classes have equipped weigth limitations.
But then all other classes should gain speed of attack by the sacriface of armor ( or weigth eqquipped)
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:56 pm
by Brookie
Would be to hard to implement and hangs game far too much. Weight would be a massive disadvantage which would make radient earthstone even more overpowered
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:17 am
by Sir Blaze333
Rangers are the same as rogues. OTM just split the class into melee and ranged.
Archers on the other hand are more like warriors with heavier armor and a bow. But that's not a class, so no, rangers should not have more armor.
Re: Shouldn't Rangers Have Better Armor Than Rogues?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:20 am
by Galadeep
I do not think rangers should have more armor than rogues. Firstly rangers have bolas and they can attack from a distance, while rogues are left attacking the mob strait up taking huge hits. If anything they should increase rogue armor or add peirce bonus to quest armor. We dont have a bolas skill so this is the least they could do.