Archer location, I am dissapoint

I personally would like to see the Ranger up her physical damage game. Without taking a substantial amount of critical chance nodes, you're left dealing raw physical damage which is STILL inferior to elemental damage. By going the raw damage route, the only things that really make a difference to her damage is attack speed and the major notables like Perfect Aim, Greater Impact, Fury Bolts, and Master Fletcher. (Going down by the Duelist's tree). It's as if the game is making us go down the Critical/Elemental/Evasion path if we really want to increase our DPS to the 4k+ ranges.
For Ranger build tips, tactics, and critiques, visit this thread:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/69224
The main reason there is that we have neither a phys damage ranged skill (say, Hammerhead/Barbed Arrows), nor a ranged physical support.
Zaanus:
Global chat: Mechanics for A work one way, B for another, C for a third but also with A, B uses C but not A, and D uses A&B but not C

___
Isn't a "no" better than an ignore?
"
UnDeaD_CyBorG wrote:
There really doesn't need to be yet more elemental damage.
Barely anyone that doesn't have to goes for physical damage on ranged weapons.
The only reason you bother is that you can than use conversion skills and gems to get even more elemental damage.


Oh, I absolutely agree pure physical specs are crap. It's pretty intrinsic to how the game was built by this point tho. :/

Kind of tied into two-handed melee being blah (since flat +elemental damage isn't normalized to attack speed). "You spend less mana per second" (which is never an effective balance factor in any game with spammable mana potions) and "you can get a skill all linked up with five supports at the endgame!" is maybe not worth throwing away block.

As much as Diablo 3 is not so good, limiting the elemental mods that can appear on a weapon is a good idea. (At least I think that game does that.)
Well, being around as long as I have (well, long enough to see major changes), those fantastic ele mods back in the now legacy league no longer spawn as they were deemed OP. However, it doesn't change the fundamental issue that Ranged needs to go Crit + Elemental to achieve high DPH/DPS figures.
For Ranger build tips, tactics, and critiques, visit this thread:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/69224
Last edited by Islidox on Dec 3, 2012, 3:23:44 PM
POE needs more active skills. Period end of the story! With 50 more active skills, you know for wands, claws, bows, staves, etc. for weapons and spells, I think such balance concerns will sort themselves out. The ranger has a decent array of physical and elemental specialization available to it.

Of course, more item base types would also help a ton. We need more base ring/necklace/quiver/belt types to help the niche builds out (we could really use a ring which gives flat accuracy, my physical melee witch even with 200 dex struggles to push past 75% accuracy).
My Keystone Ideas: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/744282
"
anubite wrote:
POE needs more active skills. Period end of the story! With 50 more active skills, you know for wands, claws, bows, staves, etc. for weapons and spells, I think such balance concerns will sort themselves out. The ranger has a decent array of physical and elemental specialization available to it.

Of course, more item base types would also help a ton. We need more base ring/necklace/quiver/belt types to help the niche builds out (we could really use a ring which gives flat accuracy, my physical melee witch even with 200 dex struggles to push past 75% accuracy).


Not sure about more base item types (there are Jade Amulets for more Dex), but I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be more active skills (and rebalance of the current skillset). Having more active skills would fully take advantage of the many types of builds out there. Still waiting on that Heavy Shot and Spread Shot, GGG.
For Ranger build tips, tactics, and critiques, visit this thread:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/69224
"
Islidox wrote:
"
anubite wrote:
POE needs more active skills. Period end of the story! With 50 more active skills, you know for wands, claws, bows, staves, etc. for weapons and spells, I think such balance concerns will sort themselves out. The ranger has a decent array of physical and elemental specialization available to it.

Of course, more item base types would also help a ton. We need more base ring/necklace/quiver/belt types to help the niche builds out (we could really use a ring which gives flat accuracy, my physical melee witch even with 200 dex struggles to push past 75% accuracy).


Not sure about more base item types (there are Jade Amulets for more Dex), but I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be more active skills (and rebalance of the current skillset). Having more active skills would fully take advantage of the many types of builds out there. Still waiting on that Heavy Shot and Spread Shot, GGG.


We do indeed more active skills. The main skill gaps I want to cover next are AOE for Claw and Dagger builds, more Axe and Sword skills (main Duelist deficienct I think comes from Active skill availability), Power charges for Casters, and more options for bow users.

Great to hear about the new skills Qarl!

"
UnDeaD_CyBorG wrote:
The main reason there is that we have neither a phys damage ranged skill (say, Hammerhead/Barbed Arrows), nor a ranged physical support.


Exactly. Here's like 75% of the reason ele ranger gets more DPS than phys could ever dream of:
Unavailable


Ele ranger is good, but so are FP witches and GS maras, so please don't nerf this gem. But phys rangers needs a little love. Maybe make the melee phys dmg support a general phys dmg support. Bows already do the same base DPS as one handers (yes I know quivers are nice, but they got nothing on DW or having 80-100% more base DPS like a melee 2h).

Of course there's also the question of how much monster mitigation there is vs physical compared to elemental.

Er...to the original topic, the ranger immediate start is meh, but the whole area is solid. A lot of that is because the crit nodes though, there are definitely some areas that are lacking otherwise.
Last edited by aimlessgun on Dec 4, 2012, 1:00:03 AM
Some items in this post are currently unavailable.
"
aimlessgun wrote:
Great to hear about the new skills Qarl!

"
UnDeaD_CyBorG wrote:
The main reason there is that we have neither a phys damage ranged skill (say, Hammerhead/Barbed Arrows), nor a ranged physical support.


Exactly. Here's like 75% of the reason ele ranger gets more DPS than phys could ever dream of:
Unavailable


Ele ranger is good, but so are FP witches and GS maras, so please don't nerf this gem. But phys rangers needs a little love. Maybe make the melee phys dmg support a general phys dmg support. Bows already do the same base DPS as one handers (yes I know quivers are nice, but they got nothing on DW or having 80-100% more base DPS like a melee 2h).

Of course there's also the question of how much monster mitigation there is vs physical compared to elemental.

Er...to the original topic, the ranger immediate start is meh, but the whole area is solid. A lot of that is because the crit nodes though, there are definitely some areas that are lacking otherwise.


All we need is a dex support that increases the physical attack damage of Bows like the Melee Physical Damage support and a Weapon Physical Damage support like the WED support and physical Rangers are set.

Make it happen GGG. :D
For Ranger build tips, tactics, and critiques, visit this thread:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/69224
Last edited by Islidox on Dec 4, 2012, 3:27:55 AM
Some items in this post are currently unavailable.
"
Qarl wrote:

We do indeed more active skills. The main skill gaps I want to cover next are AOE for Claw and Dagger builds, more Axe and Sword skills (main Duelist deficienct I think comes from Active skill availability), Power charges for Casters, and more options for bow users.


Wait, no Wand skills?
Zaanus:
Global chat: Mechanics for A work one way, B for another, C for a third but also with A, B uses C but not A, and D uses A&B but not C

___
Isn't a "no" better than an ignore?

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info