I Just Did a 100% Shinobi Playthrough: What I Learned About Rangers

[Goumindong]

Shinobi. In general too.

As for moving how else do you get your ranger in a position to shoot at flanked units? Do units regularly just flank themselves for your Rangers? I dare to say that your games must be much easier than mine.

Let's dispense with the cute sayings like "I dare your games are much easier"; I think the issue here is you are just not thinking about obvious things that I use in my game. I'm sure you can think of these things, which I use:

I set up flank with one of the following

Gunners - > demolition, sat fire
Grenadiers -> blow up cover
Technicals -> blow up cover
exo suits shredder gun -> blow up cover

In addition, without having to rely on cover destruction:

Yes those things are powerful. But any class can kill an exposed unit that I don't need to flank.

- I ever vigiliant/rapid reaction flank, which is awesome, it's essentially like CCS but the ranger has CUP and rapid reaction doesn't have a 4 tile limit
- Move + rapid fire on ranger is better than move + rapid fire on shinobi (rangers have better aim and use rifles, shinobis with smgs + hunter's instincts are a poor man's version of this)

Not only is your point about rangers being "outclassed" at flanking incomplete/wrong, but also there are plenty of units that can't be flanked where now the shinobi just looks downright bad:

archons, chrysallids, drones, sectopods, gatekeepers, bersekers, chrysallids, turrets, and I'm sure there's more I missed. Rangers are amazing for those types of enemies in addition to being fine against flanked targets.

So uhh I retain the move + overwatch combo, make it stronger, and activate it earlier. So not sure what the issue is.

For flanking Shinobi have better aim and do more damage than Rangers. Rangers are +10 if vs a target they have shot or if they're vs a target under 1/2 HP. Shinobi get +10 on every shot. This puts Shinobi at +10 over Rangers early, at MSGT assuming combat fitness they're still 2 (26 vs 24). Shinobi get more damage due to hunters instinct. (Which is nealry as powerful as a guaranteed crit by itself). Shinobi can equip rifles. They aren't weapon restricted to SMG.

[trihero]

Yes those things are powerful. But any class can kill an exposed unit that I don't need to flank.

Rangers do it twice as well/efficiently, that's a pretty big efficiency boost.

In fact, most other classes can't even do it from safe range because they are wearing smgs (technicals, grenadiers, specialists, shinobis), which suffer from both low damage and aim penalties. You will notice how painful it is to try to rely on smgs to kill exposed targets in the late game when the enemies have a lot of hp, especially on the majority of classes who don't even usually learn perks that boost primary gun damage. Shotguns have to get very close to have reasonable aim. There really aren't in practice classes that clean up exposed units anywhere near as well/efficiently as rangers from a safe range.

I don't know what you mean by retain move + overwatch, shinobis can't do something like double move into overwatch, that is pretty unique and powerful for ever vigiliant builds.

Shinobi +10 is assuming no one is near, that's not always the case. In fact is is quite awkward to manage at certain times if you also want support from the rest of your team and be in cover. Yes they can equip rifles, but now they're giving up a lot of advantages in scouting and still have lower base aim than the ranger. Hunter's instincts does nothing against unflankable targets, which I mentioned a lot of. Rangers shooting twice at a flanked target is better than one shot with hunter's instinct, which is an entirely reasonable comparison considering rangers fire twice without any perks learned at all.

I guess what you're trying to say is that gun (rifle) shinobis are vastly more powerful than rangers, therefore rangers need a buff? Is that what your argument basically is? It sounds to me like your arugment is basically: one hunter's instinct shot on a flanked target does better than one non-hunter's instinct shot a flanked target -> rangers need to be buffed.

[Goumindong]

I don't understand your comments at all, by "retain" I mean that in my proposed changes which swap the flanking/mobility power from Shinobi to Rangers I retained the OW structure you're saying is good (actualy make it better by giving them lone wolf and pushing it earlier.

Wrt: hunters instinct I am saying that one HI flanking shot is generally better than two non-HI non-flanking shot. And it is. That is, the ability to fire twice is relatively weak without the ability to generate exposure. And that value is on other units not the ranger, once exposure is generated anyone can kill the targets.

[Arantir]

Wrt: hunters instinct I am saying that one HI flanking shot is generally better than two non-HI non-flanking shot. And it is. That is, the ability to fire twice is relatively weak without the ability to generate exposure.

Can't agree with that. One HI flanking shot could be better only when you absolutely need one specific flankable nasty guy dead and he can't be reliably killed in one action without +2 dmg from HI. Rangers can also have Center Mass on the same rank, it's stronger than HI for their role in most cases and works against Drones, MECs, Berserkers & such. They've also got decent chances to outright snipe 2 guys in low cover if there's noting better to do and have far more flexibility by having 2 shots in general.

HI is great if you can stack the crit bonuses on the top of it cause 40% flanking bonus synergizes with HI but isn't enough by itself. The main purpose of HI is still a Serial Shinobi and in this case you either max the crit chance or don't rely on the crits completely and just stack the base damage and HI is almost mandatory in both cases, idealy you want to reliably one-shot M2 Advent, Snakes & Mutons at some point. Crit rangers though don't actually need HI so much cause Bring 'Em On is already enough to kill flanked stuff in most cases while you can't easily build a crit Shinobi whitout Agression & other crit stuff in the perk tree (Shadowstrike can be nice but it's not something you can use every turn) and that's fine cause crit Shinobi is pretty OP (I know cause I got one ).

[aedn]

Rangers are largely fine as is, they do not need any super revamps just like other classes that do not fit into a specific players play style or preferences. Rangers are the infantry class of xcom 2, as such they trade mobility for volume of fire, and reliable consistent damage output. There are currently 3 solid builds with the ranger class , along with several hybrid setups that work well, allowing the ranger to trade damage for defense, or defense for mobility/damage allowing a variety of play styles.

Shinobi's trade damage for mobility and as such are significantly limited in consistent damage output without the ability to secure flank shots, unless in melee range. They excel at securing shots at higher threat enemies who are exposed, but can't reliably kill enemies who are in cover in general at range. melee builds are an alternative that increase risk while increasing reward.

If you want a mobile play style for rangers, build them with pump action, and a mix of defensive and crit boosting perks and run around killing everything with the sawed off, while having good defense, or build them as OW specialists who can shoot up to 4 times per turn reliably, and who can still double move to secure flanks constantly while shooting 3 times per turn.

The only issue with rangers at the moment, is that crit needs to be capped at 100% after dodge, which has impacted the crit build significantly.

[trihero]

Wrt: hunters instinct I am saying that one HI flanking shot is generally better than two non-HI non-flanking shot. And it is. That is, the ability to fire twice is relatively weak without the ability to generate exposure. And that value is on other units not the ranger, once exposure is generated anyone can kill the targets.

Not a fair comparison, I've been saying this many times. You should be comparing 2 non-HI flanking vs 1 HI flanking, not 2 non-HI non-flanking. Or you can compare 1 HI cover shots vs 2 non-HI cover shots, that is also fair. You cannot arbitrarily change other variables to make your variable of interest look better, you set the conditions to either cover, or not cover in both situations. It is not like HI comes with innate cover destruction or guaranteed flanks or something. It's even harder to flank without an SMG's movement.

Firing twice is not relatively weak, it is relatively strong. Especially against units who can't even be flanked, where HI falls on its face as mentioned many times but you continue to ignore like it doesn't exist.

Even in the best case scenario against flankable units, once exposure is generated, no other class than the ranger takes advantage better/more efficiently. Just because I use demolition on a 20 hp officer's cover doesn't mean the specialist, technical, grenadier, with a coil smg is going to be able to kill it, not even in his dreams. Assault has to get too close for comfort sniper ok sure that's sort of his thing too but he's very inflexible mobility wise, gunner not really since 2 rifle shots > 1 cannon shot, and if you get 2 cannon shots then you gave up the godly sat fire for it. But the coil ranger, probably, and very efficiently without blowing a big cooldown, and from safe range. Looking at the 8 classes, I see nothing that comes close to fitting the bill here. It's very delusional to say that "once exposure is generated anyone can kill the targets." Not even close. The ranger does it so well, and also does incredibly damage against unflankable targets consistently. One ranger taking advantage of exposed units is more than twice as valuable as 2 other rifle users (tech/grenadier/spec) due to light em up, innate aim, and other perks. I'll say it again:

It's very delusional to say that "once exposure is generated anyone can kill the targets." Not even close.

You don't even have to believe me, just watch xwynn's legendary ironman play through. You will notice his rangers (deyan, shelbs) are consistently doing the most damage in every battle due to sheer volume of fire and they are the one taking the most advantage of both flanking shots, as well as just nonflanking shots shooting through cover when flanking shots are unavailable. Everyone else on the team is diddling around with either poor mobility (sniper) or poor ability to capitalize on flanks (smgs on technicals/grenadiers/specs, etc), or getting themselves exposed (assaults).

You can't keep pretending flanking shots are all that exist, and even if you did, 2 non-HI flanking > 1 HI flanking. It's OK for teams to be stronger than their parts, one guy is the cover destroyer, one guy takes advantage of it. Absolutely nothing wrong with the ranger "relying" on other people to expose cover.

And rangers can generate their own flanks quite well thanks to ever vigilant.

I think at this point it's clear you are ignoring very reasonable and prevalent counter-points, instead choosing metrics that only highlight the benefit of HI while ignoring the weaknesses of it. I'm not sure what's to be gained by repeating my points over and over. I was considering just not posting at all in order to encourage this thread to die sooner, and maybe I should do just that.

[Icreatedthisforyou]

I can summarize the problem with your suggestion:

You are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Goumindong]

Not a fair comparison, I've been saying this many times. You should be comparing 2 non-HI flanking vs 1 HI flanking, not 2 non-HI non-flanking. Or you can compare 1 HI cover shots vs 2 non-HI cover shots, that is also fair. You cannot arbitrarily change other variables to make your variable of interest look better, you set the conditions to either cover, or not cover in both situations. It is not like HI comes with innate cover destruction or guaranteed flanks or something. It's even harder to flank without an SMG's movement.

You cannot arbitrarily give rangers a free move action at the start of their turn.

[Thrair]

I'm with Trihero, on this. You're shooting down anything that does not agree with your own viewpoint. This is not a debate thread... It's a monologue fishing for validation.

[Sir_Dr_D]

My main problem with the ranger class is if you end up with a ranger that has low aim. It is the only class that seems useless in such a scenario. At least with a sharpshooter, you can make him into a holo-targeter. I will likely be modifying my Ranger tree to add in options such as rapid deployment, field medic, and bombardment. After all infantry should be good at throwing grenades and helping their fellow soldiers.


But for the OP's original tree. I agree with the overwatch changes. Ever vigilant should be first, before the other overwatch perks.
It would be a good choice to go against Walk Fire.

[Saph7]

What I'd really like to see with Rangers would be for them to have a little more ammo than they do now. Give them a level 1 perk that gives them +1 ammo while they use an assault rifle: call it 'Ammo Conservation' or something.

One of the big reasons that Rangers compare poorly to Gunners is that like Gunners, they need a lot of ammo to power their skills, but Gunners get a free +2 ammo right from the start. It seems a bit unfair that Rangers are so dependent on autoloaders/high cap mags when no other class absolutely needs weapon mods to function.

[Tuhalu]

What I'd really like to see with Rangers would be for them to have a little more ammo than they do now. Give them a level 1 perk that gives them +1 ammo while they use an assault rifle: call it 'Ammo Conservation' or something.

One of the big reasons that Rangers compare poorly to Gunners is that like Gunners, they need a lot of ammo to power their skills, but Gunners get a free +2 ammo right from the start. It seems a bit unfair that Rangers are so dependent on autoloaders/high cap mags when no other class absolutely needs weapon mods to function.

That sounds like something you could improve Pump Action with. Make it so it gives +1 regular ammo and +2 PA Shotgun ammo.

I don't think Rangers are that badly off compared to Gunners though. Area Suppression only works on 2 guys unless you get extra ammo, hail of bullets takes all 5 shots, Cyclic Fire takes 4 shots, Demolition takes 2 shots. Most things that Gunners do take extra bullets.

[nightwyrm]

What I'd really like to see with Rangers would be for them to have a little more ammo than they do now. Give them a level 1 perk that gives them +1 ammo while they use an assault rifle: call it 'Ammo Conservation' or something.

One of the big reasons that Rangers compare poorly to Gunners is that like Gunners, they need a lot of ammo to power their skills, but Gunners get a free +2 ammo right from the start. It seems a bit unfair that Rangers are so dependent on autoloaders/high cap mags when no other class absolutely needs weapon mods to function.

That sounds like something you could improve Pump Action with. Make it so it gives +1 regular ammo and +2 PA Shotgun ammo.

I don't think Rangers are that badly off compared to Gunners though. Area Suppression only works on 2 guys unless you get extra ammo, hail of bullets takes all 5 shots, Cyclic Fire takes 4 shots, Demolition takes 2 shots. Most things that Gunners do take extra bullets.

While Gunner's abilities take more ammo, they can almost always reload -> shoot without losing damage potential. On the other hand, Rangers ideally wants to shoot, shoot and shoot some more. I find that usually my Gunners are more limited by cooldowns while Rangers are limited by ammo.

[Saph7]

While Gunner's abilities take more ammo, they can almost always reload -> shoot without losing damage potential. On the other hand, Rangers ideally wants to shoot, shoot and shoot some more. I find that usually my Gunners are more limited by cooldowns while Rangers are limited by ammo.

Exactly. Gunner actions in a battle usually look something like:

Turn 1: move to good cover, use Hail of Bullets or suppress
Turn 2: reload, use ability or suppress
Turn 3: reload, use ability or suppress
Turn 4: see turn 3

Gunners can reload every turn and still use their core class ability, Rangers can't. I'd really like them to get +1 ammo just as a base class ability. They're billed as 'masters of the rifle', but at the moment they can't actually use a rifle any more effectively than anyone else without a lot of work or very high level.

[nightwyrm]

Gunners can reload every turn and still use their core class ability, Rangers can't. I'd really like them to get +1 ammo just as a base class ability. They're billed as 'masters of the rifle', but at the moment they can't actually use a rifle any more effectively than anyone else without a lot of work or very high level.

My Rangers get top priority for Expanded Mags. With an Advanced or even just the basic mod, they can usually get two turns of full shooting before having to reload.

[stefan3iii]

With this tree I can't understand why I wouldn't take the entire left side every time? Seems much stronger than everything else.

It would make rangers strong, but it would also basically make them just like gunners, which is kind of uninteresting.

What I'd like to see is to bring back critfantry, I mean Pavonis is sort of trying with the current perk tree, but you just can't get the crit % high enough to really make it happen. It would make infantry the damage focused class that has high variance, which would be interesting and different from gunners.

[Arantir]

What I'd like to see is to bring back critfantry, I mean Pavonis is sort of trying with the current perk tree, but you just can't get the crit % high enough to really make it happen. It would make infantry the damage focused class that has high variance, which would be interesting and different from gunners.

Well... you still can make it work and have quite enormous damage output. The main problem is that you can't put on both the scope and the laser sight at the same time. The scope is super useful on a ranger indeed, but laser sight is superior in this case. Idealy you want a guy with high base aim, officer with Get Some perk and supportive holo sharpshoter in the team (DFA/Holo/Alfa-Mike works well) Sting grenadier / chain lightning assault are also nice to have so you can keep more enemies who don't have to be instantly killed on the screen.

The main targets for this guy is tough unflankable enemies and here's what we got:
30(aggression)+10(talon rounds)+15(mk2 holo)+15(elite ls)+20(get some)=90% for the first shot & 100% crit for the following Rapid Fire with Locked On. If there aren't enough enemies in sight for the Agression bonus you may have Executioner or just get closer & rafid fire while having proximity bonus from a Laser Sight and there's also Close & Personal perk available. There are still enough flexibility and you can definitely have those 2-3 100/100 shots per turn on non-dodgy targets. The means to compensate for accuracy without a scope are Holo, perception PCS & Combat Fitness basically (grappling hooks also to some extent).

There is also a possibility for half-crit build without Agression. Center Mass is a stronger option before you got Bring 'Em On and tools to maximize crit chance. This one is really good against flankable targets in a team with cover-destruction capabilities and you can force the painful Bring 'Em On crit via Rupture against the tough ones. If you go with close-ranged crit bonuses you may as well take Fortify, with this thing you can engage from non ideal cover and stay fine.

Critfantry is still a thing and this guys can outdamage gunners, they just need the right team to be efficient.

[stefan3iii]

Critfantry is still a thing and this guys can outdamage gunners, they just need the right team to be efficient.

Hmmm, it seems you have to give up a lot to do that? I don't know if it's really fair to count Get Some and Holotargeting, when that benefits everyone, not just the ranger. For example, without center mass, the ranger is going to do -2 base damage over a gunner, while crits on a Mag weapon gives you +3 damage. BEO pushes that up, but not enough in every fight.

I went back and compared the Ranger to Long War 1 infantry, and noticed that not only is crit generally higher in the LW1 perks, but crit damage is higher:

LW1:
Bring-Em-On: +6 damage at 7 enemies
Aggression: +30% crit with 3 enemies
Crits are 1.5x multiplier on base damage, so VPT/Ranger perks also boost crit damage.

LW2:
Bring-Em-On: +6 damage at 12 enemies, or 3 damage at 7 enemies
Aggression: +30% crit at 6 enemies
From what I can tell, crit damage is a flat amount based on weapon type, with perks increasing it.

I think an interesting and simple way to buffer the ranger would be:
- Add Deadshot (+10% critical) at Squaddie.
- Cap out Bring-Em-On at +6 damage, but with far fewer enemies visible.
- Make aggression +10% per enemy, capped at 30%. This would buff the SS too, but with a Serial nerf I think that'd be ok.