I spoke about what I knew at the time. I've commented how the things people are experiencing are much worse than I was told. I've asked them to report those as bugs. I think that's fair. You're really not supposed to miss that much or deal 50% less damage ever.

It's possible RNG still fills roles that other jobs cant, but they definitely don't fill some of the roles that they shared with most melees anymore. Whether you think thats a good thing or not is up to opinion. There's always the argument that "we spend gil to do damage so we should do more" which is always lingering in the back of this debate that I'm not sure really how much validity it should hold. I think you still invite RNGs to merit PTs, but it will be introduced with "well do we have a solid tank to hold aggro for the majority of the fight" and if not, will this be worth inviting them.

Show me the tank that's holding hate the majority of a fight in a merit party and I will show you 3 DPS that aren't pulling their weight.

On an unrelated note, maybe instead of trying to tell rangers that played the job in 2006 and lived through this style of change once that their house isn't on fire, when it clearly is burning to the ground, we should listen to the people with experience playing the job? There's 20+ pages of people pointing out exactly why this is a problem, and none of it is 'wah, I won't do 4K WS anymore!' The problem with the ranger distance change was never that they did less damage, even in retail Ranger did more or less the same damage as it did before the change if you were at the right range. It was always the positioning aspect and the fact that the ranges chosen for maximum damage put the ranger nowhere near their optimal position in any circumstance. Unless this came with a native enmity decrease that makes it possible to stand at the correct range without pulling the mob all over Hell's half acres it's just the same terrible broken mechanic rangers had to suffer through from 2006 until SE finally saw the light and removed those limitations.

In 2006 I was dumb enough to like the change because I didn't understand the game's mechanics as thoroughly and it was a mystery to me why just stepping back a couple of paces was such a big deal. In 2019, it's a little more obvious to me why rangers hated it to hell and back and wanted nothing to do with it.

That comparison doesn't even make sense because WHM never worked that way and you'd have to apply the same logic to all spells, which would similarly make 0 sense. Additionally, you're not actually tackling anything with that scenario. You're presenting it in the exact opposite way that these changes went.

Nas made this decision based on his own experience with Ranger. I didn't have anything to do with it and you don't need to be attacking me or coming up with ridiculous irrelevant hypothetical scenarios to try to convince me of anything.

A ranger now deals more damage and is more accurate vs any target provided they are in a specific range. You have options of many different ranged weapons if you find yourself in a specific range much more often than another. Want to melee? Use one that's better in melee range. Want to use a long bow? Play in a way that uses it to it's best ability. Want to fight at a wide variety of ranged? Find a ranged weapon that does that.

Not that it's relevant, but when I leveled Ranger I didn't just stick to longbows, it depended on my exact level, the exact ammo, etc. Is this any different? Now you can pick what's best for the scenario. Play it smart. You'll do more damage, you'll be more accurate, you'll be much stronger, if you just play WITH the changes instead of against them.

On another note, nas -has- been hearing all the complaints, and he's working on getting correct TP for ammo working.

-every single post- is read by nas. Every single angry message in naschat is too. It -all counts-. But that doesn't mean being angry will change nas's mind every time. He has the final say.

What? Did you misunderstand me or something? I'm super pro-gun and own several. Waiting on some handgun grip tape to arrive as we speak :^)

But, no reason to be political, or worse, to misrepresent or misunderstand something so poorly (or feel the need to be outraged so extremely) that you make up beliefs in your head about what others think.

^^Anyone who was meleeing for TP outside of using a Kclub was doing it wrong and 100% gimping their own damage compared to a ranger spamming their RA macro. MAYBE you got one or two swings in like Kazen said, but other DD jobs still generated TP much faster than you. I don't know where this idea of Rng generating TP at insane rates ever came from but I sure as hell wish I experienced it.

If you're swapping to -enmity gear but not taking advantage of the distance, you're doing it wrong. This isn't an "or". It's an "and". Do both.

I did not lie. This is NOT SE's change. That's an indisputable fact. Nor is it a nerf if you just get your head out of your butt and actually try to play with the changes instead of playing the same way you did before while ignoring the changes. You have the opportunity to but don't want to.

If that's your stance, that you don't want to and shouldn't need to adjust how you play, then I simply disagree. There will be changes that make people have to play differently in the future, too.

If you don't pull hate, tell me what the issue is then. Because everyone keeps complaining about pulling the mob away form melees etc. What's wrong if you don't pull hate?

Use a weapon that deals more damage at range then. Want the reduced enmity? Eat the reduced damage too. You can't have it both ways. But you have the options.