Parse data from 1000(ish) encounters

[ryan]

<div></div><font color="#ff0066">Every time I see this up on my screen it irritates me just a little bit more. Since the Original post of it was burried as a reply in a thread with an unrelated topic I figured I'd copy paste it to what would seem to be the appropriate place. </font>The long awaited results:You all ready for this. . . .1st the group. . . We consisted of (at start of this xp grind session) 1 zerc 1 necro 1 warlock 1 me (ranger) 1 defiler 1 templar (and 1 necro's pet). Lvl 60 Since we're the type of guild we are NONE of ANY of our CA's are under Adept 3. Approximately 45% of the groups combined CAs are Masters. We are in predominately Fabled gear with about 30-40% legendary (either rare crafted or otherwise). I was using rare crafted poisons the entire fight and went through 7 CHARGES. (previously I would have in this period of time burned through probably more than 10 VIALS). We were fighting both Solo and grouped mobs about equally and ranged from 64^ to 66^^^ throughout the evening.Here's the Results after merging the encounters on ACT. The durations of which BTW lasterd 5 hours 4 mins and (around) 30 seconds and included somewhere around 1000 + or - encounters. . . We were together the entire time (minus one leaving early which you'll see) and naturally there were a few quick bios and snack runs and what not throughout the night by each of us <img width="16" border="0" src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif" height="16">Warlock's Numbers: Total DMG 3942213  kills 207  DPS 216.92  EXT DPS 215.72  Misses 3  Swings  5348Zerker's Numbers:    Total DMG 3618064  kills 173  DPS 198.03  EXT DPS 197.93  Misses 3481 Swings 33715Ranger's Numbers   Total DMG 3142820  Kills 143  DPS 172.05  EXT DPS 171.97  Misses 2852 Swings 14099Necro's Pet NumbersTotal DMG2406780  Kills 120 DPS 133.97  EXT DPS 131.70  Misses 4168  Swings 18123Necro's Numbers      Total DMG 2194094  Kills 120 DPS 120.40  Ext DPS 120.40  Misses 17  Swings 6203 (he said he was mostly debuffing handing hearts and heals)Templar's Numbers  Total DMG 1924366  Kills 89  DPS 115.22  EXT DPS 105.30  Misses 1275  Swings 9429 (his duration was 4 hours 38 mins and 22 seconds)Defiler's Numbers     Total DMG 379839  Kills 14  DPS 20.90  EXT DPS 20.78 Misses 845  Swings 4135Now let's look at where we stand if you combine the nero and his pet (as those numbers SHOULD be combined to provide accurate DPS standings for me within this group).DMG dealers in order during this 5 (and a few mins change) hour grind session#1 was Necro with 253.02 (him and pet combined) DPS#2 was Warlock with 216.92 DPS#3 was Zerker with 198.03 DPS#4 was Ranger with 172.05 DPS#5 wasTemp with 115.22 DPS#6 was Defiler with 20.90 DPSNow Wizzies, War, Rangers, Sins are suposed to (by devs admissions) be teir one. . .THIS IS A TON OF DATA. . . .A TON OF REAL LIVE SERVER TESTED DATA. . . can't argue the facts. I will keep all this data available for the inevitable person who posts and calls me a liar or not including everything or whatever they care to say about me. This right here is the facts. . . pure and simple numbers.<div>SpyronLevel 60 RangerFormerly on InnothuleCurrently on Crushbone</div><div></div>

[Zodi]

<div></div><p>Seems to me that Serkers are the ones who shouldnt be in the DPS tier 1 spot. Now thats something for the DEV's to look at.</p><p> </p>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Zodian wrote:<div></div><p>Seems to me that Serkers are the ones who shouldnt be in the DPS tier 1 spot. Now thats something for the DEV's to look at.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Wrong response.  Nerfing Zerker is NOT the answer.  We need our DPS raised, not everyone elses knocked down.</span></div>

[Money Mak]

<div></div><p>Hey Spyron, thanks for the great data.  Its too bad we just suck now <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />   Heres to hoping for some changes soon.</p><p>Templar dps ftw!</p>

[Bithnar]

<div>Necros arent suppose to be T1 period.  And for the ranger who has to pay cash for poisons and on the occation arrows to be 80% DPS of the Warlock just doesnt seem right.</div>

[Caliga]

Yeah, they do need to fix this.  When I first got back on I had no trouble soloing.  I think I got lucky and my poison was procing a lot more than it is set for because sense then I either do well like I did that day or really really badly.  And its all dependant on if my poison procs or not.  I understand why they had to fix procs but they really need to give rangers something to balance it out.<div></div>

[SmakenDah]

<div></div><div></div><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2"><span></span></font><blockquote><hr><font face="Arial" color="#ffffcc" size="3">ryantj wrote:</font><font face="Arial" color="#ffffcc" size="3"></font><font face="Arial" color="#ffffcc" size="3">THIS IS A TON OF DATA. . . .A TON OF REAL LIVE SERVER TESTED DATA. . . can't argue the facts. I will keep all this data available for the inevitable person who posts and calls me a liar or not including everything or whatever they care to say about me. This right here is the facts. . . pure and simple numbers.</font><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">Yes you can argue it because there are a LARGE number of factors in gathering this data that could have been variable and could have skewed the numbers to this end result. There are a number of telling issues in what was posted.Why does the Ranger have less than half the number of swings than the Berserker does? (Why does he have fewer swings than the necro's pet?)Why does the Ranger have almost as many misses with fewer swings as the Berserker?Was the Ranger using a shield? Did he only attack when the mob was half dead or down a certain amount? Was there a level difference between the Berserker and Ranger? What level mob were they facing? Did some of the mobs have damage reduction/immunities to the weapons used by the Ranger? EDIT: Was the Ranger ONLY using his bow?</font><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2"><font color="#33cc00">Looking at the group make up, the Berserker should have been in defensive mode which should have reduced his attack rate/effectiveness (i.e. less swings or more misses).</font></font><font color="#33cc00"></font><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2"><font color="#33cc00"></font><font color="#33cc00">This doesn't seem right at all and do go saying that is the issue, the Ranger in this test was sitting on his hands for half of it - the number of swings illustrates that.</font></font><div></div><p>Message Edited by SmakenDahed on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:36 PM</span></p>

[Bithnar]

<div></div>Could the fact that a long bow has a 7 second delay on it and melee weapons are no where near that slow have anything to do with the number of "Swings" the ranger performed?

[Tasye]

<b>SWINGS? Rangers are supposed to SWING the bow?Now I know what I am doing wrong. What end do I hit the mobs with? String end or wood end? Or pointy end? Top pointy end or bottom pointy end?</b><div></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Bithnar wrote:<div></div>Could the fact that a long bow has a 7 second delay on it and melee weapons are no where near that slow have anything to do with the number of "Swings" the ranger performed?<hr></blockquote>Its got everything to do with it.  Not sure, but the Zerker was probably DW, probably 1.2 or 1.5 delay weapons... he would get 4.6 swings with each weapon while we get one bow shot.. so about 9 swings to our 1 ... its not that cut and dry.. the Ranger might have melee'd some, the Zerker might have been only 1H or 2H, either way the Zerker is going to swing more.As for the # of misses, I've been noticing lately my bow misses alot more than my melee.  Alot of parries.</span></div>

[Bithnar]

<div>:smileytongue: I know I was being sarcastic</div>

[Qrgauth]

<div></div>I'm call BS on part of this.  I don't buy these numbers.  That's either because ACT is crap (which, IMO, it is), or because the intro paragraphs are deliberately misleading.If the berserker was tanking (presumably was) and not in a defensive posture (i.e. the group was fighting crap mobs so the zerk could DW, go offensive and not use a shield) and there were lots of crappy little v and vv mobs or solo mobs, the berserker area attacks (slaughter line, assault line, rampage line) would add up to a lot of bonus swings and a lot of bonus damage that wouldn't necessarily show fighting single ^^^ mobs of white, yellow or orange con where the zerk would need a shield, need a defensive stance, etc.That parse looks like the group was farming green and blue con v and vv mobs.  That would also help the necro pet rack up the DPS as well, particularly if the necro (and zerk) had levels on the ranger.But if you eliminate the specific weirdness of the berserker, the ranger appears to be similar (but less) in damage to the Warlock, which is, IIRC, exactly where they're supposed to be.  I'm pretty sure the game isn't balanced on farming greens or groups pasting solo mobs, incidentally.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:34 PM</span></p>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Tasye wrote:<b>SWINGS? Rangers are supposed to SWING the bow?Now I know what I am doing wrong. What end do I hit the mobs with? String end or wood end? Or pointy end? Top pointy end or bottom pointy end?</b><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">If a "swing" is defined as any time you do damage to something, then yes, you're swinging your bow every time you fire. My issue here is if the Ranger was only sitting back and using his bow, <u>knowing full well the procs off multi-shots CAs were fixed and that it's delay was significantly higher than most weapons</u>, then that ranger wasn't being used to it's most effective end and the test is not valid as a DPS test comparison.  If you want a valid DPS comparison for the bow use of various classes, perform 1000 fights with 1 tank taking agro and a Berserker only using a bow vs. a Ranger doing the same with both fully buffed.</font><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">The bow <i>used to be</i> the most effective means of DPS due to the proc rate bug but now you MUST melee as well. Run the tests with that in mind and then if you still come out below most classes you can stick it to SOE.</font></span><span><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Bithnar wrote:<div></div>Could the fact that a long bow has a 7 second delay on it and melee weapons are no where near that slow have anything to do with the number of "Swings" the ranger performed?<hr></blockquote>Its got everything to do with it.  Not sure, but the Zerker was probably DW, probably 1.2 or 1.5 delay weapons... he would get 4.6 swings with each weapon while we get one bow shot.. so about 9 swings to our 1 ... its not that cut and dry.. the Ranger might have melee'd some, the Zerker might have been only 1H or 2H, either way the Zerker is going to swing more.As for the # of misses, I've been noticing lately my bow misses alot more than my melee.  Alot of parries.</span></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">To me, this test illustrates something of value coming from this data IF the Ranger was only using his bow and that would be: the miss rate is a bit high - if that could be divided up and showed 90% of that were parries then I'd be inclined to say parry is affecting the bow too much.You cannot play one aspect of a class' damage ability and rightly compare it to another class that is firing everything they have. That would be like comparing the Necromancer's DPS to the Berserker without including the pet's DPS.I've nothing against Rangers and I agree things seem like they're out of whack but please use data collected from valid test scenarios. If Rangers are no longer tier 1 because now you have to melee, then it's the Ranger's fault. If they're not Tier 1 even when meleeing, then it's SOE's fault and they need to fix it.</font></span><div></div>

[Jay]

<div></div><div>Our DPS should be roughly equal to the warlock, and everyone else s/b blow the two DPS classes, including the necromancer.</div><div> </div><div>People are always going to nitpick and try to find ways to poke holes in parses, but the more of this kind of data we have, the harder is to allege that Poster_A somehow set up a group that would deliberately skew the data in the ranger's favor.</div><div> </div><div>We're not trying to get away with anything here - we have nothing to hide. We're trying to regain the tools to effectively do our jobs.</div><p>Message Edited by Jay42 on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:45 PM</span></p>

[Jay]

<div></div><div><Duplicate post removed. With a blunt spoon. ></div><p>Message Edited by Jay42 on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:43 PM</span></p>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span></span><span><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">I've nothing against Rangers and I agree things seem like they're out of whack but please use data collected from valid test scenarios. If Rangers are no longer tier 1 because now you have to melee, then it's the Ranger's fault. If they're not Tier 1 even when meleeing, then it's SOE's fault and they need to fix it.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>2 points.  We dont want to have to melee to be tier 1... were Rangers.. not assassins .. we specialise in bows.. our DPS should come from that... in fact I'd go as far to say that I'd be far happier if they kep the proc changes, removed our ability to use poisons, and let us use our bow attacks point blank.point #2 is were not tier1 DPS when we melee .. we have 4 melee attacks that do damage and if I remember correctly none of them do over 350 damage. (lvl 59 all adept 1) .. were not designed to be a Tier 1 melee class.. we are a tier 1 ranged class... we arent assassins.</span></div>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div>I'm call BS on part of this.  I don't buy these numbers.  That's either because ACT is crap (which, IMO, it is), or because the intro paragraphs are deliberately misleading.If the berserker was tanking (presumably was) and not in a defensive posture (i.e. the group was fighting crap mobs so the zerk could DW, go offensive and not use a shield) and there were lots of crappy little v and vv mobs or solo mobs, the berserker area attacks (slaughter line, assault line, rampage line) would add up to a lot of bonus swings and a lot of bonus damage that wouldn't necessarily show fighting single ^^^ mobs of white, yellow or orange con where the zerk would need a shield, need a defensive stance, etc.That parse looks like the group was farming green and blue con v and vv mobs.  That would also help the necro pet rack up the DPS as well, particularly if the necro (and zerk) had levels on the ranger.But if you eliminate the specific weirdness of the berserker, the ranger appears to be similar (but less) in damage to the Warlock, which is, IIRC, exactly where they're supposed to be.  I'm pretty sure the game isn't balanced on farming greens or groups pasting solo mobs, incidentally.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:34 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">That's actually a good point about the Berserker AEs. But I don't know if I'd be content with 44 point per second different between classes that are supposed to be in the same tier... that works out to a difference of about 2600 damage in a minute (4800 for a necro which is supposed to be in the tier under them).I'm still not convinced that would account for the serker having more than double the Ranger's number of swings. Also, does the necro pet AE? If not why does it have more swings than the Ranger? If so, why isn't it closer to the serker in # of swings?</font></span><div></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div>I'm call BS on part of this.  I don't buy these numbers.  That's either because ACT is crap (which, IMO, it is), or because the intro paragraphs are deliberately misleading.If the berserker was tanking (presumably was) and not in a defensive posture (i.e. the group was fighting crap mobs so the zerk could DW, go offensive and not use a shield) and there were lots of crappy little v and vv mobs or solo mobs, the berserker area attacks (slaughter line, assault line, rampage line) would add up to a lot of bonus swings and a lot of bonus damage that wouldn't necessarily show fighting single ^^^ mobs of white, yellow or orange con where the zerk would need a shield, need a defensive stance, etc.That parse looks like the group was farming green and blue con v and vv mobs.  That would also help the necro pet rack up the DPS as well, particularly if the necro (and zerk) had levels on the ranger.But if you eliminate the specific weirdness of the berserker, the ranger appears to be similar (but less) in damage to the Warlock, which is, IIRC, exactly where they're supposed to be.  I'm pretty sure the game isn't balanced on farming greens or groups pasting solo mobs, incidentally.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:34 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">That's actually a good point about the Berserker AEs. But I don't know if I'd be content with 44 point per second different between classes that are supposed to be in the same tier... that works out to a difference of about 2600 damage in a minute (4800 for a necro which is supposed to be in the tier under them).I'm still not convinced that would account for the serker having more than double the Ranger's number of swings. Also, does the necro pet AE? If not why does it have more swings than the Ranger? If so, why isn't it closer to the serker in # of swings?</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Gah .. simple math .. 7.0 WS vs 1.5 WS .. even if the zerker is using a 3.0 WS 2H thats still <u><b>OVER TWICE AS FAST AS A BOW.</b></u>Its not rocket science... bows shoot slow.. in a group a ranger is going to be ranged 90% of the time, onyl stepping in close to melee when his ranged arts are all refreshing.seriously..i really wish all you people wouldnt stop by the Ranger forums and discuss aspects of gameplay that you dont freaking understand .. roll a ranger.. play a ranger.. then come back and discuss it... i've played every single class between 10 live characters and 10 test characters.. i did that so that when i am working with other characters i know what buffs and skills they have.. i can ask for them to do specific things when fighting, or to put specific buffs on my guardian.. or ranger.. or zerker.. or wizard or what ever i am playing.that goes for any forum, not just the ranger forum.. so much stuff is based on conjecture on this forum..  play a class before you decide to tell someone who has played it how it works.</span></div>

[Moncreat]

<div></div><p>First off thank you for the information that you collected Ryantj.</p><p>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</p><p>Smaken Dahed writes  </p><p><font color="#33cc00">If you want a valid DPS comparison for the bow use of various classes, perform 1000 fights with 1 tank taking agro and a Berserker only using a bow vs. a Ranger doing the same with both fully buffed.</font></p><p>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</p><p>That would be a very good comparison, however there are some things that are amiss here.  If I put the same bow in a Beserkers hands as I put in a rangers hands and then just hit auto attack then the bows should do the same amount of damage because that is the nature of the bow.  I would however suspect that a Beserker would do actually more damage because his str would probably be higher that the rangers.</p><p>Rangers however have Bow CA's where as a Beserker does not so the comparison would be askew also.  Just the same as if you compared a ranger's toe to toe combat to a Beserker's toe to toe combat with the same exact weapons.  The Beserker would come out way on top because of the CA's that he has compared to the toe to toe combat CA's of a Ranger.</p><p>This is part of the balancing of classes.  Each class is good at something and in a group they need to use that.</p><p>When I play my level 60 ranger in a group I give the tank up to 3 seconds ( according to what the tank class is) to get agro and then start with a chain of arrow CAs making sure to use my agro reducing arrows CA in there so as not to move the mob from the tank.  I cycle through those, all at the same time that my auto attack with my bow continues to fire.  I then move in behind the mob and cycle through my combat CA's, a little back stabbing and then back out to go through my arrow CA's again since most of them are on a 2 minute or more recast time.</p><p>I have not parsed as much data as Ryantj has said he has but the data I have parsed in group shows my dps to be about the same, I will go back and look at the number of misses that I have made.  But the lack of swings might not be because he sat on his hands most the fight but the fact that you have to be back away from the mob to use arrow CA's and then move in to use combat CA's, this wastes some time in the group and the timer on the Bow is much, much slower that that of the weapons in primary and secondary slots.</p><p>I truely do not think Ryantj is trying to mislead anyone.  There has been noticable difference.  I was never one to put a slow weapon in one of my hands to get more procs from my poisons basically because I did not know it would make a difference.  However most poisons say they have a 25% chance to proc on a successful hit and the first day of KOS this was far from the case, the next day it was getting closer so only time will tell.</p>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span></span><span><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">I've nothing against Rangers and I agree things seem like they're out of whack but please use data collected from valid test scenarios. If Rangers are no longer tier 1 because now you have to melee, then it's the Ranger's fault. If they're not Tier 1 even when meleeing, then it's SOE's fault and they need to fix it.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>2 points.  We dont want to have to melee to be tier 1... were Rangers.. not assassins .. we specialise in bows.. our DPS should come from that... in fact I'd go as far to say that I'd be far happier if they kep the proc changes, removed our ability to use poisons, and let us use our bow attacks point blank.point #2 is were not tier1 DPS when we melee .. we have 4 melee attacks that do damage and if I remember correctly none of them do over 350 damage. (lvl 59 all adept 1) .. were not designed to be a Tier 1 melee class.. we are a tier 1 ranged class... we arent assassins.</span></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">#1 Honestly, I would agree to something like that, though using a bow in close range seems screwy... Really I think SOE fixed the bug and are looking at how it's impacted you guys (and gals). Once they have an solid idea about how things are now, they'll tweak you up to where you're supposed to be... Or knock others down a peg (as much as people would hate that, things are still too east in this game and everyone being able to dish out loads of damage is part of that issue)#2 - I actually think you've got a number of abilities that do more than that, don't you have a backstab type. Unfortunately, I think the use of melee for damage is partly a product of the original 'scout' archeteype. I'd also argue right now you are much closer to Asssassins in DPS <span>:smileyhappy:</span></font></span><div></div>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div>I'm call BS on part of this.  I don't buy these numbers.  That's either because ACT is crap (which, IMO, it is), or because the intro paragraphs are deliberately misleading.If the berserker was tanking (presumably was) and not in a defensive posture (i.e. the group was fighting crap mobs so the zerk could DW, go offensive and not use a shield) and there were lots of crappy little v and vv mobs or solo mobs, the berserker area attacks (slaughter line, assault line, rampage line) would add up to a lot of bonus swings and a lot of bonus damage that wouldn't necessarily show fighting single ^^^ mobs of white, yellow or orange con where the zerk would need a shield, need a defensive stance, etc.That parse looks like the group was farming green and blue con v and vv mobs.  That would also help the necro pet rack up the DPS as well, particularly if the necro (and zerk) had levels on the ranger.But if you eliminate the specific weirdness of the berserker, the ranger appears to be similar (but less) in damage to the Warlock, which is, IIRC, exactly where they're supposed to be.  I'm pretty sure the game isn't balanced on farming greens or groups pasting solo mobs, incidentally.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:34 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">That's actually a good point about the Berserker AEs. But I don't know if I'd be content with 44 point per second different between classes that are supposed to be in the same tier... that works out to a difference of about 2600 damage in a minute (4800 for a necro which is supposed to be in the tier under them).I'm still not convinced that would account for the serker having more than double the Ranger's number of swings. Also, does the necro pet AE? If not why does it have more swings than the Ranger? If so, why isn't it closer to the serker in # of swings?</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Gah .. simple math .. 7.0 WS vs 1.5 WS .. even if the zerker is using a 3.0 WS 2H thats still <u><b>OVER TWICE AS FAST AS A BOW.</b></u>Its not rocket science... bows shoot slow.. in a group a ranger is going to be ranged 90% of the time, onyl stepping in close to melee when his ranged arts are all refreshing.seriously..i really wish all you people wouldnt stop by the Ranger forums and discuss aspects of gameplay that you dont freaking understand .. roll a ranger.. play a ranger.. then come back and discuss it... i've played every single class between 10 live characters and 10 test characters.. i did that so that when i am working with other characters i know what buffs and skills they have.. i can ask for them to do specific things when fighting, or to put specific buffs on my guardian.. or ranger.. or zerker.. or wizard or what ever i am playing.that goes for any forum, not just the ranger forum.. so much stuff is based on conjecture on this forum..  play a class before you decide to tell someone who has played it how it works.</span></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">Again, why are you only using a bow? Do you not also have a backstab and melee combat arts. Don't parse based on half your damage capabilities and compare it to someone using all of theirs. If, even using all the CAs, you're finding berserkers are out damaging you then SOE shouldn't be able to deny anything. Also note that with less than half the number of 'swings' and almost as many 'misses' you're still pretty darn close to berserkers.</font></span><div></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span></span><span><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">I've nothing against Rangers and I agree things seem like they're out of whack but please use data collected from valid test scenarios. If Rangers are no longer tier 1 because now you have to melee, then it's the Ranger's fault. If they're not Tier 1 even when meleeing, then it's SOE's fault and they need to fix it.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>2 points.  We dont want to have to melee to be tier 1... were Rangers.. not assassins .. we specialise in bows.. our DPS should come from that... in fact I'd go as far to say that I'd be far happier if they kep the proc changes, removed our ability to use poisons, and let us use our bow attacks point blank.point #2 is were not tier1 DPS when we melee .. we have 4 melee attacks that do damage and if I remember correctly none of them do over 350 damage. (lvl 59 all adept 1) .. were not designed to be a Tier 1 melee class.. we are a tier 1 ranged class... we arent assassins.</span></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">#1 Honestly, I would agree to something like that, though using a bow in close range seems screwy... Really I think SOE fixed the bug and are looking at how it's impacted you guys (and gals). Once they have an solid idea about how things are now, they'll tweak you up to where you're supposed to be... Or knock others down a peg (as much as people would hate that, things are still too east in this game and everyone being able to dish out loads of damage is part of that issue)#2 - I actually think you've got a number of abilities that do more than that, don't you have a backstab type. Unfortunately, I think the use of melee for damage is partly a product of the original 'scout' archeteype. I'd also argue right now you are much closer to Asssassins in DPS <span>:smileyhappy:</span></font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I'd rather they raised our damage than knocked anyone down ..  I think though if anyone should be able to use bows point blank (except for Stream of Arrows) it is us.. we are the masters of the bow.True we have those, but they are positional attacks and very difficult to get off in solo .. expecially now the stun of our only stun attack is alot less.  When soloing we can get one, sometimes 2 ranged CA off, then the mob closes to melee distance.  Its then debuff, cycle through our 4 melee CA and hit stun.. back up hit a short casting melee CA (doesnt always manage to hit these days with the shorter stun) and then we are back to melee, cept none of our melee arts are up .. so we wait.. its then melee, stun, ranged CA till the mob is dead.  Its not all that effective actually.</span></div>

[Sirlutt]

we use our melee combat arts aswell .. but we need to run in close to the mob to use them so typically its fire all your ranged CA's .. run in.. get off your back stab, flametongue and then your melee Ca's and run back out to use your bow again.  If i wasnt using my melee CA's i'd parse a LOT lower.. as it is i use everything i can when it makes sense to do so and am still what I would consider low ..<div></div>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moncreathe wrote:<div></div><p>First off thank you for the information that you collected Ryantj.</p><p>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</p><p>Smaken Dahed writes  </p><p><font color="#33cc00">If you want a valid DPS comparison for the bow use of various classes, perform 1000 fights with 1 tank taking agro and a Berserker only using a bow vs. a Ranger doing the same with both fully buffed.</font></p><p>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____</p><p>That would be a very good comparison, however there are some things that are amiss here.  If I put the same bow in a Beserkers hands as I put in a rangers hands and then just hit auto attack then the bows should do the same amount of damage because that is the nature of the bow.  I would however suspect that a Beserker would do actually more damage because his str would probably be higher that the rangers.<span><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">IMO this is what gives the Ranger the edge when using only a bow vs. other classes that are only using a bow.</font></span></p><p>Rangers however have Bow CA's where as a Beserker does not so the comparison would be askew also.  Just the same as if you compared a ranger's toe to toe combat to a Beserker's toe to toe combat with the same exact weapons.  The Beserker would come out way on top because of the CA's that he has compared to the toe to toe combat CA's of a Ranger.<font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">I'm iffy on this thought because I suspect the Berserker's CAs do less damage than your CAs, including you back stab ability. Now if you were just going autoattack vs. autoattack, the Berserker might come out on top  assuming it wasn't tanking.</font></p><p>This is part of the balancing of classes.  Each class is good at something and in a group they need to use that.</p><p>When I play my level 60 ranger in a group I give the tank up to 3 seconds ( according to what the tank class is) to get agro and then start with a chain of arrow CAs making sure to use my agro reducing arrows CA in there so as not to move the mob from the tank.  I cycle through those, all at the same time that my auto attack with my bow continues to fire.  I then move in behind the mob and cycle through my combat CA's, a little back stabbing and then back out to go through my arrow CA's again since most of them are on a 2 minute or more recast time.<font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">Really, this sounds like the ideal thing to do - it's not possible solo since the mob is going to follow and enter minimum bow range (issue someone mentioned above and I don't think I like that either; i..e. you shouldn't lose almost half your abilities when soloing because almost none of the other classes do - this is bad design)</font></p><p>I have not parsed as much data as Ryantj has said he has but the data I have parsed in group shows my dps to be about the same, I will go back and look at the number of misses that I have made.  But the lack of swings might not be because he sat on his hands most the fight but the fact that you have to be back away from the mob to use arrow CA's and then move in to use combat CA's, this wastes some time in the group and the timer on the Bow is much, much slower that that of the weapons in primary and secondary slots.<font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">Apparently he was using solo mobs - and I think I agree, a lot of the berserker's damage likely came from the fact it wasn't in defensive stance and was probably dual wielding. Really, it wasn't in its 'tank role' but it's interesting to see since the ranger likely wasn't in its tank mode. I wonder how many of those mobs he didn't get a chance to attack because someone else mowed it down? </font></p><p>I truely do not think Ryantj is trying to mislead anyone.  There has been noticable difference.  I was never one to put a slow weapon in one of my hands to get more procs from my poisons basically because I did not know it would make a difference.  However most poisons say they have a 25% chance to proc on a successful hit and the first day of KOS this was far from the case, the next day it was getting closer so only time will tell.<font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">I don't think I said that, if I implied that then I apologize. I don't think this parse reveals what it is intended to reveal and I don't believe it is a valid testing scenario for actually comparing DPS. There is also some data interpretation issues among the masses who focus only on small aspects like: Berserker DPS was higher? [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]?! </font></p><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[purebree]

One thing i dont think the parsers do is attribute damage buffs to the owner. was the berzerker given proc and damage shield buffs by the other group members? if so a good chunk of his dps should be added to the other members.

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span></span><span><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">I've nothing against Rangers and I agree things seem like they're out of whack but please use data collected from valid test scenarios. If Rangers are no longer tier 1 because now you have to melee, then it's the Ranger's fault. If they're not Tier 1 even when meleeing, then it's SOE's fault and they need to fix it.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>2 points.  We dont want to have to melee to be tier 1... were Rangers.. not assassins .. we specialise in bows.. our DPS should come from that... in fact I'd go as far to say that I'd be far happier if they kep the proc changes, removed our ability to use poisons, and let us use our bow attacks point blank.point #2 is were not tier1 DPS when we melee .. we have 4 melee attacks that do damage and if I remember correctly none of them do over 350 damage. (lvl 59 all adept 1) .. were not designed to be a Tier 1 melee class.. we are a tier 1 ranged class... we arent assassins.</span></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">#1 Honestly, I would agree to something like that, though using a bow in close range seems screwy... Really I think SOE fixed the bug and are looking at how it's impacted you guys (and gals). Once they have an solid idea about how things are now, they'll tweak you up to where you're supposed to be... Or knock others down a peg (as much as people would hate that, things are still too east in this game and everyone being able to dish out loads of damage is part of that issue)#2 - I actually think you've got a number of abilities that do more than that, don't you have a backstab type. Unfortunately, I think the use of melee for damage is partly a product of the original 'scout' archeteype. I'd also argue right now you are much closer to Asssassins in DPS <span>:smileyhappy:</span></font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I'd rather they raised our damage than knocked anyone down ..  I think though if anyone should be able to use bows point blank (except for Stream of Arrows) it is us.. we are the masters of the bow.<b>True we have those, but they are positional attacks and very difficult to get off in solo .. expecially now the stun of our only stun attack is alot less.  When soloing we can get one, sometimes 2 ranged CA off, then the mob closes to melee distance.  Its then debuff, cycle through our 4 melee CA and hit stun.. back up hit a short casting melee CA (doesnt always manage to hit these days with the shorter stun) and then we are back to melee, cept none of our melee arts are up .. so we wait.. its then melee, stun, ranged CA till the mob is dead.  Its not all that effective actually.</b></span></div><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#33cc00" size="2">As I noted in an inline reply to another poster I, personally, think this was bad design on SOE's part. Having a class lose almost half their combat arts or abilities because they're soloing is not a good thing.My bunch of misfits (2 berserkers, though one might jump to SK, a wizard, a ranger and me - warden) will be on tonight and I've no doubt that there will be parsers running throughout the night (namely heroic mobs and named). I'll see if I can add some other things of note but what ends up getting posted (if I can) will be a simple collection of data that illustrates the amount of damage done by members of my group throughout the night. I'm not going to aim at any specific test.</font></span><div></div>

[Qrgauth]

<div></div><div></div>My previous post sounds stronger than its meant to be, for that I apologise.  This should be a more fair, less confrontational post.The OP said he was fighting a lot of solos.Here's the reality check:1. In that situation, the berserker would rarely have to go defensive, equip a shield, etc.  I play a 53 Berserker.  Defensive berserker is GROSSLY reduced in DPS because the defensive buffs all slow.  Add to that the fact that the berserker AEs would have a LOT less effect (hitting less, KILLING less) and the berserker DPS would be way down.  It is my contention that this parse is a situation that SPECIFICALLY highlights the best possible situation for berserker DPS and is, therefore an unfair comparison.2. In that situation the necromancer, with his AEs and pet can take on 2 or more mobs at a time.  He can carve a high-speed swath through solo mobs.  With solo mobs, the necro also doesn't have to worry about drawing aggro and getting pasted for it.   I play a 57 necro.  IMO, there is little doubt that a necromancer is a better soloer than a ranger, or a warlock.  So again, groups of little solo mobs would highlight a necro's damage dealing abilities.3. A ranger can take on essentially 1 mob at a time, and if the damage is high enough dust the mob quickly - then he has to switch targets, which wastes time and if a bow shot kills a mob, he switches targets and waits for the bow to cycle, wasting time.  It is my contention that the situation parsed above therefore highlights a near worst-case scenario for ranger fighting.Among my characters I have a troubador.  Troubadors have melee and bow CAs.  Personally, I find myself dodging in and out, switching between melee and bow to maximize DPS.  To wail away with one or the other would not be efficient.  Although troubadors are not rangers, I can't believe the mechanic is that dissimilar.So although the parse is interesting, I contend that it is flawed in that the situation specifically allows two of the classes presented to exercise their abilities to maximum possible advantage while putting the ranger in a disadvantaged position.Show me a parse of 4 hours of camping 90% ^^^ white/yellow/orange regular and named mobs with that group and you might convince me.  The harder mobs would cause the berserker to actually tank instead of wailing away with AEs on crowds of weak mobs.  Similarly, the necro would be subject to more resists and unable to drive his own DPS up by attacking multiple mobs.  Also, he'd have to be careful about drawing aggro, which also lowers DPS.  With a longer fight, the ranger should be more effective (less time wasted changing targets, DoT CA's can be used to effect).Right now you've only shown that rangers do damage comparable to warlocks, which is what they're supposed to be doing.<div></div><p><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:21 PM</span></p>

[Thay]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div>I'm call BS on part of this.  I don't buy these numbers.  That's either because ACT is crap (which, IMO, it is), or because the intro paragraphs are deliberately misleading.If the berserker was tanking (presumably was) and not in a defensive posture (i.e. the group was fighting crap mobs so the zerk could DW, go offensive and not use a shield) and there were lots of crappy little v and vv mobs or solo mobs, the berserker area attacks (slaughter line, assault line, rampage line) would add up to a lot of bonus swings and a lot of bonus damage that wouldn't necessarily show fighting single ^^^ mobs of white, yellow or orange con where the zerk would need a shield, need a defensive stance, etc.That parse looks like the group was farming green and blue con v and vv mobs.  That would also help the necro pet rack up the DPS as well, particularly if the necro (and zerk) had levels on the ranger.But if you eliminate the specific weirdness of the berserker, the ranger appears to be similar (but less) in damage to the Warlock, which is, IIRC, exactly where they're supposed to be.  I'm pretty sure the game isn't balanced on farming greens or groups pasting solo mobs, incidentally.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:34 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">That's actually a good point about the Berserker AEs. But I don't know if I'd be content with 44 point per second different between classes that are supposed to be in the same tier... that works out to a difference of about 2600 damage in a minute (4800 for a necro which is supposed to be in the tier under them).I'm still not convinced that would account for the serker having more than double the Ranger's number of swings. <b>Also, does the necro pet AE? If not why does it have more swings than the Ranger? If so, why isn't it closer to the serker in # of swings?</b></font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>As a Ranger and Necro (both in 50's) I can answer that by saying maybe the Necro had the assassin pet up. Assassin pet is DW and melees like a mofo.As a ranger It seems like forever to get bow shots off in autoattack while jousting to stay out of AOE range...Just my .02</span></div>

[leafnin]

<div></div><div></div><div>Who's to say the pet isn't tanking ?  I've been in groups where the necro pet was our tank and a good DPS group is able to take out those type of mobs fast.  Also if the zerker is tanking those encounters he wouldn't necessarily have to be in defensive stance with that group setup most things would die very quickly as that group is pretty high DPS for any type of encounter.  I'm not saying this is what happened, but I am saying either of those two scenarios aren't impossible.  You can give any reason you believe that I'm wrong just as I can give any reasons your wrong.  It depends too much on factors either you or anyone but the OP knows.  Players are too smart they'll find ingenious ways to work with the most improbable of group setups <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</div><div> </div><div>Falcon</div><div>60 Ranger</div><div>Kithicor </div><p>Message Edited by leafnin on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:43 PM</span></p>

[Generic123]

<div></div><blockquote><p><font size="2" color="#ffffff"></font></p><hr><p><font size="2" color="#ffffff">SmakenDahed wrote:</font></p><p><span><font size="2" color="#ffffff">As I noted in an inline reply to another poster I, personally, think this was bad design on SOE's part. Having a class lose almost half their combat arts or abilities because they're soloing is not a good thing.</font></span></p><div></div><font size="2" color="#ffffff"></font><hr></blockquote><p><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2">Having DPS classes loose most of their attacks is an essential part of balancing solo vs group play. <span> </span>Ultimately all xp (and loot for that matter) comes from doing damage to a mob, heals, crowd control, tanking all support that but you get no direct rewards from them, the only thing that gives you combat rewards is damage. <span> </span></font></font></p><p><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2">Because of this, if you don’t cripple their DPS in solo situations damage classes end up getting better xp/hour solo then they do in groups because they don’t have to share the xp they are creating with other, lower DPS classes. <span> </span>You see exactly the same thing with Sorcerers.<span>  </span>They loose 80% of their attacks in solo situations due to the necessity to keep mobs rooted and at a distance. <span> </span></font></font></p>

[Storm_Runner]

<div>Qrgauthil,</div><div> </div><div>I'm wondering if you mis-interpreted the type of mobs he said they were fighting.  He said they were fighting<blockquote><hr>We were fighting both Solo and grouped mobs about equally and ranged from 64^ to 66^^^ throughout the evening.<div><hr></div></blockquote>To me that says they were fighting a mixed bag of mobs.  Solo mobs and groups of mobs that ranged in level from 64^ to 66^^^.  they weren't fighting only ^^^ heroic mobs or only heroic groups of 3-4 ^ mobs or only solo ^ mobs.  It sounds to me like they were doing all of the above.  Just the kind of things you'd expect a group looking to xp to do.  So how are they catering to mob types that make the ranger look bad while making the necro and zerker look good?  They're fighting single mobs any where from ^ to ^^^ and groups of mobs prolly ranging from 3 ^ mobs to 2 ^^ mobs to 1 ^^ mob and 2 ^ mobs.  This parse is an average of an entire evening of fighting all these types.  Plus who says the zerker was tanking?  The zerker could be in offensive stance DW while the necros pet tanks.  If he is in offensive and DW then that combined with his haste when he goes berserk could more than account for the difference in the number of swings between the zerker and the ranger.  Especially if the ranger loses time by moving into melee range and out to bow range depending on which of his arts are up. </div>

[Avendelf]

<div>I would say that parry vs bow attacks was stealth nerfed before LU20 came even.  Noticed it a few weeks ago in PP when I zoned in and suddenly couldnt hit any of the djinns worth a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] with my bow...just saw "parry, parry, parry" etc...and have noticed it ever since.  Is part of the reason I have switched to mostly melee in groups now...bow just doesnt hit much anymore, and when it does, it doesnt proc much anymore.  1165 atk and can maybe hit a mob 2 levels higher than me 60% of the time.  Not fun.  Also i've noticed that casters can hit orange mobs much more than I can with a bow.  I am very lucky for attacks to land with a bow on an orange mob, whereas casters seem to be able to often enough.  Add up the increased parry rate, decreased proc rate, etc....well you get a broken class. </div>

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div></div><p><snip></p><p>Right now you've only shown that rangers do damage comparable to warlocks, which is what they're supposed to be doing.</p><hr></blockquote><p>From the OP</p><p>Warlock's Numbers: Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3942213 </font></strong> kills 207  DPS 216.92  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>215.72</strong></font>  Misses 3  Swings  5348Ranger's Numbers   Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3142820</font></strong>  Kills 143  DPS 172.05  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>171.97</strong></font>  Misses 2852 Swings 14099</p><p>Those two numbers do not appear comparable to me.  This shows the Warlock doing ~25% more damage then the ranger and doing 25% higher DPS as well.  This is definitely not what they are supposed to be doing if they are in the same damage tier</p>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>Generic123 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p><font size="2" color="#ffffff"></font></p><hr><p><font size="2" color="#ffffff">SmakenDahed wrote:</font></p><p><span><font size="2" color="#ffffff">As I noted in an inline reply to another poster I, personally, think this was bad design on SOE's part. Having a class lose almost half their combat arts or abilities because they're soloing is not a good thing.</font></span></p><div></div><font size="2" color="#ffffff"></font><hr></blockquote><p><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2">Having DPS classes loose most of their attacks is an essential part of balancing solo vs group play. <span> </span>Ultimately all xp (and loot for that matter) comes from doing damage to a mob, heals, crowd control, tanking all support that but you get no direct rewards from them, the only thing that gives you combat rewards is damage. <span> </span></font></font></p><p><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2">Because of this, if you don’t cripple their DPS in solo situations damage classes end up getting better xp/hour solo then they do in groups because they don’t have to share the xp they are creating with other, lower DPS classes. <span> </span>You see exactly the same thing with Sorcerers.<span>  </span>They loose 80% of their attacks in solo situations due to the necessity to keep mobs rooted and at a distance. <span> </span></font></font></p><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">Really? Most wizards and warlocks I know don't suddenly lose their spells when facing solos? I'm not trying to be snide and I apologize if I sound that way (reading it myself, it comes off like that), I just wish they would make some adjustments here because going from having 8 abilities to 4 (just an example) because I'm fighting something that is supposed to be weaker is not *fun*.My suggestion would be to take that IF mechanism they have on spells and combat arts and apply some other effect.i.e. you fire triple shot when in melee range (currently does nothing?) which checks if the target is too close, if it's too close it fires off a short duration stun allowing you to step back and fire some other bow art.Stun is likely a bad example, but I think people will get my point.Same deal for Assassins - when most of their abilities required them to be stealthed. Allow them an alternate ability if they're not stealthed.</font></span><div></div>

[SmakenDah]

<span><blockquote><hr>leafnin wrote:<div></div><div></div><div>Who's to say the pet isn't tanking ?  I've been in groups where the necro pet was our tank and a good DPS group is able to take out those type of mobs fast.  Also if the zerker is tanking those encounters he wouldn't necessarily have to be in defensive stance with that group setup most things would die very quickly as that group is pretty high DPS for any type of encounter.  I'm not saying this is what happened, but I am saying either of those two scenarios aren't impossible.  You can give any reason you believe that I'm wrong just as I can give any reasons your wrong.  It depends too much on factors either you or anyone but the OP knows.  Players are too smart they'll find ingenious ways to work with the most improbable of group setups <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</div><div> </div><div>Falcon</div><div>60 Ranger</div><div>Kithicor </div><p>Message Edited by leafnin on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:43 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">Right... all the more proving my point that you can't just take a look at the parses and assume things without knowing all the variables involved. <span>:smileywink:</span></font></span><div></div>

[Qrgauth]

<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><p>Right now you've only shown that rangers do damage comparable to warlocks, which is what they're supposed to be doing.</p><hr></blockquote><p>From the OP</p><p>Warlock's Numbers: Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3942213 </font></strong> kills 207  DPS 216.92  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>215.72</strong></font>  Misses 3  Swings  5348Ranger's Numbers   Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3142820</font></strong>  Kills 143  DPS 172.05  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>171.97</strong></font>  Misses 2852 Swings 14099</p><p>Those two numbers do not appear comparable to me.  This shows the Warlock doing ~25% more damage then the ranger and doing 25% higher DPS as well.  This is definitely not what they are supposed to be doing if they are in the same damage tier</p><hr></blockquote>And you base that on what definition of "damage tier" ?  within 25% is reasonable to me.  Same tier doesn't mean "identical".</span></div>

[Thay]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<p>Right now you've only shown that rangers do damage comparable to warlocks, which is what they're supposed to be doing.</p><hr></blockquote><p>From the OP</p><p>Warlock's Numbers: Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3942213 </font></strong> kills 207  DPS 216.92  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>215.72</strong></font>  Misses 3  Swings  5348Ranger's Numbers   Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3142820</font></strong>  Kills 143  DPS 172.05  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>171.97</strong></font>  Misses 2852 Swings 14099</p><p>Those two numbers do not appear comparable to me.  This shows the Warlock doing ~25% more damage then the ranger and doing 25% higher DPS as well.  This is definitely not what they are supposed to be doing if they are in the same damage tier</p><hr></blockquote>And you base that on what definition of "damage tier" ?  within 25% is reasonable to me.  Same tier doesn't mean "identical".</span></div><hr></blockquote>Actually i believe a different point is that the "<b>caster</b>" class missed 0.056095736724008975317875841436051<u><i><b>%</b></i></u> of his melee attempts while the "<b>melee</b>" class missed 20.228384991843393148450244698206<u><i><b>%</b></i></u> </span><span>of his </span><span>melee attempts...interesting...<u><i><b></b></i></u><b>So who's better for melee?</b><u><i><b></b></i></u></span></div>

[BSbon]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><p>Right now you've only shown that rangers do damage comparable to warlocks, which is what they're supposed to be doing.</p><hr></blockquote><p>From the OP</p><p>Warlock's Numbers: Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3942213 </font></strong> kills 207  DPS 216.92  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>215.72</strong></font>  Misses 3  Swings  5348Ranger's Numbers   Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3142820</font></strong>  Kills 143  DPS 172.05  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>171.97</strong></font>  Misses 2852 Swings 14099</p><p>Those two numbers do not appear comparable to me.  This shows the Warlock doing ~25% more damage then the ranger and doing 25% higher DPS as well.  This is definitely not what they are supposed to be doing if they are in the same damage tier</p><hr></blockquote>And you base that on what definition of "damage tier" ?  within 25% is reasonable to me.  Same tier doesn't mean "identical".</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>it seems to me that the biggest factor is the misses from each class. 3 misses for a warlock might be a total of 3k in lost damage. not sure on what the best nuke a warlock has at that level. now take a look at the ranger's misses. a ranger of that level should have an average hit for more that 100 right? so take his misses and X that by 100 and you get 28520 lost damage due to misses. and i'm just guessing on the average damage done per attack. what if it was 500? it would be 1426000 lost damage due to misses. i think those 2 numbers are the low and high estimates but you see my point i hope.</p><p>bongo</p>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span><blockquote></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">Really? Most wizards and warlocks I know don't suddenly lose their spells when facing solos? I'm not trying to be snide and I apologize if I sound that way (reading it myself, it comes off like that), I just wish they would make some adjustments here because going from having 8 abilities to 4 (just an example) because I'm fighting something that is supposed to be weaker is not *fun*.My suggestion would be to take that IF mechanism they have on spells and combat arts and apply some other effect.i.e. you fire triple shot when in melee range (currently does nothing?) which checks if the target is too close, if it's too close it fires off a short duration stun allowing you to step back and fire some other bow art.Stun is likely a bad example, but I think people will get my point.Same deal for Assassins - when most of their abilities required them to be stealthed. Allow them an alternate ability if they're not stealthed.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>yep.. we agree on that stuff then... and i have an idea on how to fix it.Make our bow CA's usable at point blank.  A number of them are positional anyhow, or require stealth (the really large ones).. in a goup your usually at range anyhow, same with raiding.. the onyl time you'd get a benefit from them having 0 range is when your soloing, when we need it the most.</span></div>

[SmakenDah]

<font color="#339900" face="Century" size="2">Okay, mucked around for 3 hours with the group I mentioned above. 53 DE SK, 53 Halfling Berserker, 52 High Elf Wizard, 52 Wood Elf Ranger and 52 Wood Elf Warden (low 50s group, cobalt imbued weapons were used, the SK was using a prismatic). We hit hidden cache and parsed all the fights in there, including the named ones. Also went off to Living Tombs and killed some named there. We played the game as we normally play it - a group, with the 4 basic types covered, heading into dungeons but we were 5 instead of 6.Of the parses that were posted the results were (all heroic groups, and a named or two):9 Ranger wins5 Wizard wins1 Berserker win *Some of the others got some numbers as well and will be posting their findings from the same angle - being a group delving in a dungeon. For the most part, the Ranger beat out the Wizard EVEN when the Wizard was nuking so hard he stole agro from the Tank. So, not only did the Ranger end up on top most of the time, but he was up top with the Wizard nearly all the time. The tanks alternated tanking but for the most part the SK came in under those but that flip flopped with the berserker.* The one Beserker win came up when we were fighting a large encounter 4-5 mobs in the encounter and the Berserker was AEing. He (10021)was about 2000 damage more than the Ranger (8621). We asked the Ranger if he was using AEs and he said no. <span>:smileyindifferent:</span> Next fight with a group the same size he used his AEs and smoked (18509) the Berserker (14154 - the wizard was in second place with 17792).Overall, IMHO, you're Tier 1 DPS if a Wizard is Tier 1 DPS. More often than not, the Ranger did a lot more damage than the Wizard while consuming LESS mana than the Wizard did and while drawing less agro than the Wizard did (in the fights the Wizard pulled agro from the Berserker/SK the Ranger still did more damage).Personal observations:</font><ul><li><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Rangers compare with another Tier 1 DPS class - Wizard - and come off on top with less mana used and less agro generated now.</font></li><li><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Berserker do seem to have DPS that is a bit to high when compared to the Tier 1 classes, especially while in defensive mode - he gave the SK a run for his money while the SK was in offensive mode</font></li><li><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Wizards might need some tweaking to their mana use when compared to the mana use of Rangers (and other classes in general)</font></li><li><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Wizards could probably use some agro reducers as well</font></li><li><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Combat was definitely tougher this time through in the Living Tombs (we were aiming to get the SK his Silent City access) since we weren't plowing through things as quickly as we used to - obviously due to the Ranger DPS reduction. That said, it was refreshing in that it was actually challenging in parts.</font></li></ul><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Our Ranger was saying he had to play VERY differently to generate all the damage he was generating to beat the Wizard - he had to use all his abilities. I found that surprising to hear (as a Warden I'm constantly doing something be it healing or nuking) but understood how easy it was for him to take agro previously so he was initially reluctant to use all his abilities as much as he could.</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">One issue with the test:</font><ul><li><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Fluffy, the wizard's short term pet, was parsed outside of the Wizard DPS. In one of the tests Fluffy would have equalized the damage done for the encounter (Ranger on top by a few, in the others where Fluffy was available it wasn't even close)</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"><font size="1">Fluffy needs nerfing... he out damaged me in a few fights</font><span>:smileysad:</span></font></li></ul><font color="#339900"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Sorry, while I noticed it wasn't as easy to take down certain mobs as it was before, the Ranger still added as much DPS as the Wizard, often more and with less mana used or agro generated. So you're doing less damage, but it's exactly in line with another Tier 1 class, often more than not.</font>

[xfres]

<div>WOW this is great information thank you so much for taking the time to do SOEs job!  My hat is off to you! Im surprised with the necros damage though I thought it would be much higher.  He must not have many master spells, cuz when I group with my necro the damage is insane fully masterized (many of those missed hits would be landed with masters and with more damage)!  Sadly enough rangers are DEAD and sony is running their tests to prove us all wrong.  When will Sony start to value their loyal customers? </div>

[Tarryn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<font color="#339900" face="Century" size="2">Some of the others got some numbers as well and will be posting their findings from the same angle - being a group delving in a dungeon. For the most part, the Ranger beat out the Wizard EVEN when the Wizard was nuking so hard he stole agro from the Tank. </font><hr></blockquote><p>Please have them post those full numbers here, then.  The parse comparisons I've seen so far, like the one in the top of this thread, show us to be significantly further behind where we should be.  If you have <em>numbers</em> that show otherwise, I'd like to see them.</p><p>When you state that you have parses that support your <em>already stated opinion,</em> it would be wise to actually post the results--otherwise it looks like you're just covering your yahoo.</p>

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><p>Right now you've only shown that rangers do damage comparable to warlocks, which is what they're supposed to be doing.</p><hr></blockquote><p>From the OP</p><p>Warlock's Numbers: Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3942213 </font></strong> kills 207  DPS 216.92  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>215.72</strong></font>  Misses 3  Swings  5348Ranger's Numbers   Total DMG <strong><font color="#ff0000">3142820</font></strong>  Kills 143  DPS 172.05  EXT DPS<font color="#ff0000"> <strong>171.97</strong></font>  Misses 2852 Swings 14099</p><p>Those two numbers do not appear comparable to me.  This shows the Warlock doing ~25% more damage then the ranger and doing 25% higher DPS as well.  This is definitely not what they are supposed to be doing if they are in the same damage tier</p><hr></blockquote>And you base that on what definition of "damage tier" ?  within 25% is reasonable to me.  Same tier doesn't mean "identical".</span></div><hr></blockquote>25% may seem reasonable to you, but it seem ludicrous to me.  What if your gas go up by 25%?  Say your paying $2.25.  Does $2.81 sound reasonable?   What if your favorite burger that you were paying $2 for suddenly cost $4.  That is roughly analougous to the 50% damage loss sustained by rangers. Your friend was paying $2.75 before and still pays the same price.  He wasn't happy before.  Are you happy now, because $4 is still reasonable for a burger?

[Qrgauth]

<div></div><div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<font color="#339900" face="Century" size="2">Of the parses that were posted the results were (all heroic groups, and a named or two):9 Ranger wins5 Wizard wins1 Berserker win *Some of the others got some numbers as well and will be posting their findings from the same angle - being a group delving in a dungeon. For the most part, the Ranger beat out the Wizard EVEN when the Wizard was nuking so hard he stole agro from the Tank. So, not only did the Ranger end up on top most of the time, but he was up top with the Wizard nearly all the time. The tanks alternated tanking but for the most part the SK came in under those but that flip flopped with the berserker.* The one Beserker win came up when we were fighting a large encounter 4-5 mobs in the encounter and the Berserker was AEing. He (10021)was about 2000 damage more than the Ranger (8621). We asked the Ranger if he was using AEs and he said no. <span>:smileyindifferent:</span> Next fight with a group the same size he used his AEs and smoked (18509) the Berserker (14154 - the wizard was in second place with 17792).</font><hr></blockquote>Which demonstrated precisely what I said about the original post: The group in the original post was fighting in a place that allowed the berserker and necromancer to shine in their best possible way, while not allowing the same to the ranger.  The fact that even half the fights were solos would severely [Removed for Content] the parsing stats.Smaken's group parsed almost no solo mobs - the parsing was almost all heroics, most of which were ^ to ^^^.    Oddly enough the ranger won most of the fights.  The difference?  THe rest of us needed to fight, we couldn't just stand there and let the ranger kill everything for us.I can't say with 100% certainty, but I am pretty sure (95%+) that Sony doesn't balance the game based on groups wailing solo mobs.  I'm pretty sure it's balanced on groups fighting tough heroics with the characters using all their abilities.  Until tonight, I merely questioned the realism of the OP's numbers.  Now I've seen for myself that they are meaningless.I might also add that our level 52 ranger BEAT that level 60 ranger on DPS pretty much every time that I noticed.  171 DPS from a level 60 ranger?  not likely.  More and more I'm becoming convinced that these "gimped" rangers have a player issue, not a ranger issue.Oh, and to gas-boy above me... I already pay more than $2.81 a gallon.  I wish it would get that low again.  I could brutalize your ludicrous analogy, but I don't think I have to because anyone reading it could also poke the same holes in it.</span></div><p><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-25-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:57 AM</span></p>

[Tarryn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div></div><div><span>I might also add that our level 52 ranger BEAT that level 60 ranger on DPS pretty much every time that I noticed.  171 DPS from a level 60 ranger?  not likely.  More and more I'm becoming convinced that these "gimped" rangers have a player issue, not a ranger issue.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>I'm a 60 ranger, I've been playing since well back in beta.  Though I don't raid much, I've done a helluva lot of encounters, group and solo, in the past year and a half.  My gear isn't fabled, but it's decent legendary and good treasured, with cobalt imbued weapons and imbued ironwood bow, and with most attacks at Adept 3.</p><p>That said, I have parsed 170ish DPS <strong><em>myself</em></strong> these past couple of days.  I'm here to tell you it <em>is</em> likely, and it <em>is </em>happening.</p><p>Again, if you have <em>numbers</em> that tell a different story, post them.  They won't prove your point by themselves, but they'll at least make it look less like you're just pushing an agenda.</p>

[Qrgauth]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Tarryn wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<font color="#339900" face="Century" size="2">Some of the others got some numbers as well and will be posting their findings from the same angle - being a group delving in a dungeon. For the most part, the Ranger beat out the Wizard EVEN when the Wizard was nuking so hard he stole agro from the Tank. </font><hr></blockquote><p>Please have them post those full numbers here, then.  The parse comparisons I've seen so far, like the one in the top of this thread, show us to be significantly further behind where we should be.  If you have <em>numbers</em> that show otherwise, I'd like to see them.</p><p>When you state that you have parses that support your <em>already stated opinion,</em> it would be wise to actually post the results--otherwise it looks like you're just covering your yahoo.</p><hr></blockquote>Ok here are some.  Sightless is the ranger, he was parsing with ACT, same as the original poster.  Fynrod is the wizard, Exmortis is SK, Tulyp is berserker, Ravenleaf is a warden:<font color="#ff0000">^^^ dervish footpad in HC</font>(1140828907)[Fri Feb 24 19:55:07 2006] aPC 805008 Sightless:Sightless/a says to the group,"Allies: (00:41) 31220 | 761.46Sightless 13733 | XDPS:334.95|DPS:473.55Exmortis 6306 | XDPS:153.80|DPS:197.06Tulyp 6008 | XDPS:146.54|DPS:150.20Fynrod 4589 | XDPS:111.93|DPS:183.56Ravenleaf 584 | XDPS:14.24|DPS:19.47"<font color="#ff0000">Another ^^^ dervish footpad, HC</font>(1140828996)[Fri Feb 24 19:56:36 2006] aPC 805008 Sightless:Sightless/a says to the group,"Allies: (00:2<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 28133 | 1,004.75Fynrod 8311 | XDPS:296.82|DPS:437.42Sightless 7635 | XDPS:272.68|DPS:477.19Exmortis 5694 | XDPS:203.36|DPS:247.57Tulyp 4009 | XDPS:143.18|DPS:148.48Ravenleaf 2484 | XDPS:88.71|DPS:124.20"<font color="#ff0000">Yet another dervish footpad encounter in HC</font>(1140829046)[Fri Feb 24 19:57:26 2006] aPC 805008 Sightless:Sightless/a says to the group,"Allies: (00:26) 22074 | 849.00Fynrod 6709 | XDPS:258.04|DPS:670.90Sightless 5788 | XDPS:222.62|DPS:482.33Tulyp 4798 | XDPS:184.54|DPS:184.54Exmortis 2873 | XDPS:110.50|DPS:151.21Ravenleaf 1906 | XDPS:73.31|DPS:119.13"Those three are typical of what we saw on most heroic encounters.<font color="#ff0000">Something a bit more substantial: Bruticus in HC</font>(1140829713)[Fri Feb 24 20:08:33 2006] aPC 805008 Sightless:Sightless/a says to the group,"Allies: (00:59) 64784 | 1,098.03Sightless 23050 | XDPS:390.68|DPS:443.27Fynrod 15957 | XDPS:270.46|DPS:284.95Exmortis 13166 | XDPS:223.15|DPS:243.81Tulyp 9201 | XDPS:155.95|DPS:161.42Fluffy 2184 | XDPS:37.02|DPS:52.00Ravenleaf 921 | XDPS:15.61|"<font color="#ff0000">A 4-mob no arrow heroic encounter in HC: (notice berserker uberness in this specific situation... also notice who is #2)</font>(114083028<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />[Fri Feb 24 20:18:08 2006] aPC 805008 Sightless:Sightless/a says to the group,"Allies: (00:23) 26620 | 1,157.39Tulyp 10021 | XDPS:435.70|DPS:455.50Sightless 8621 | XDPS:374.83|DPS:718.42Exmortis 6032 | XDPS:262.26|DPS:377.00Fynrod 1668 | XDPS:72.52|DPS:128.31Fluffy 278 | XDPS:12.09|DPS:34.75Ravenleaf 0 | XDPS:0.00|DPS:0.0"We've got reams of this stuff.  I'm sure someone else will post better than I can, but that's just a taste.XDPS, if I recall, was the DPS over the whole encounter from anyone's first hit until the end.  DPS is the DPS for that player from HIS first hit until the end.I see our ranger doing "Tier 1" damage, if wizards can be said to be Tier 1.  So how can this be explained?  There are possible explanations:1) I could be making this stuff up.  There's no way to prove I'm not, but I left all the timestamps and serial numbers from the log, so if you have some kind of access at sony you can go look it up I suppose.2) We could be much better players than all the other rangers on the server.  Possible, but I doubt it.3) We could play in a manner that is much more like what Sony expects as far as balancing classes goes.  This one is VERY likely IMO, because we fight very few solos as a group.4) Some, even many, of the people posting parses are choosing situations deliberately to make their ranger look bad.  I also think this one is likely.</span></div>

[Tarryn]

<div></div>Thanks for finally putting up some numbers.  That helps, though it only fuels the question why we're seeing such discrepancies from similar situations.

[Qrgauth]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Tarryn wrote:<div></div>Thanks for finally putting up some numbers.  That helps, though it only fuels the question why we're seeing such discrepancies from similar situations.<hr></blockquote>Your question about why is a good one.  Here's why (I think)- First and foremost, we fought almost exclusively heroic mobs, usually single ^^^ or double ^^.  These fights tended to be somewhat longer than if we fought, say, 50% solo mobs.   On the harder and longer fights, it's harder for berserkers to shine.  Our wizard did quite well.  Notice that, as I said very early in the thread, when we did fight a (heroic) group of 4, no-arrow mobs, I got to really show off my berserker... but that was the ONLY time.  I don't usually tank in full-defensive, so my damage is kind of middling or even high for a berserker.  Ranger damage, since he rarely got aggro is top-notch.  Solo mobs die too quickly when attacked by a group to get a fair representation of much of anything.  Take a long parse of which 50 % are solo fights and you just can't show much of anything worthwhile.  Thus, the OP is NOT a "similar situation" to this one - the OP's situation is one that emphasizes the weakness in the ranger class while highlighting the strengths of the berserker and necromancer classes.  I suggest that Sony doesn't balance the game based on groups fighting 50% solo mobs.  I would bet they balance it using an environment similar to what you might find in an heroic instance.- Secondly, we had to educate our ranger a bit - PUSH YOUR [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] BUTTONS <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  yeah, he had to work at it.  Even he commented that it was very busy maintaining damage.  Well, welcome to our world.  He had to adjust his play style a bit.  I'll bet most of the parses we've seen that portray rangers so negatively are made by people who are NOT using their abilities to anywhere close to their full potential.  I'm sorry if that offends any rangers who think they are super uber players, but I'm trying to be very serious here.- Third, not every class is the best every time in every situation.  There are just goign to be times and places where a necro, or a paladin, or whatever will be better.- Fourth, if berserkers, or monks, or bruisers, or a_moss_snake is now out DPS-ing rangers, that's not a ranger problem... it's a problem with berserkers, or monks or bruisers, or a_moss_snake.  Just because rangers have been put where they belong doesn't mean that OTHER classes still aren't properly balanced.</span></div><p><span class="time_text">To be fair, there <font color="#ffff33"><b>ARE</b></font> fights from our outing where the ranger "loses", but they are few and far between.</span></p><p>We even had an earthquake in the middle of our trip to Living Tombs.  Maybe it rattled the mobs <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Qrgauthil on <span class="date_text">02-25-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:57 AM</span></p>

[Tarryn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><span>- Fourth, if berserkers, or monks, or bruisers, or a_moss_snake is now out DPS-ing rangers, that's not a ranger problem... it's a problem with berserkers, or monks or bruisers, or a_moss_snake.  Just because rangers have been put where they belong doesn't mean that OTHER classes still aren't properly balanced.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>I disagree.  The problem is, we're trying to normalize across 4 classes--Assassin, Ranger, Warlock, and Wizard.  If rangers were are out of kilter as we were purported to be, who knows which--if any--of these classes are correct?</p><p>The only Tier 1 class aside from your rangers was your Wizard--and I've heard enough complaints from Wizards to be doubtful that <em>they</em> are where they're supposed to be.  I know this--the classes I listed are supposed to be <em>roughly</em> equivalent, with situational variance.  All the other classes should be doing less damage pretty consistently, because they bring other things to the table.</p><p>Your parse shows one thing, but I've seen parses that tell another tale--also against ^^^ heroics.  I can't readily explain that difference, but I do know that parses I saw prior to LU20 had rangers averaging anywhere from 10% to 50% higher than other T1 classes.  It's true that occasionally a parse could show spike damage going much higher, but that was <em>not common.  </em>It was due to crazy procs, which any way you slice it were not <em>constant</em> damage.  That's a fact.  Here's another fact: If you take a ranger who's averaging 50% more than he should be, and cut his damage in half--he's now too low.</p><p>Bottom line is this:  This is going to be a fruitless argument until more people start posting <em>proper </em>parses, containing <em>at least</em> two similarly equipped Tier 1 classes with equivalent upgrades, in a proper testing environment.  Hopefully, the devs are already doing that.  But, for the sake of all of us--not just rangers--it would be very wise if some of the higher caliber guilds out there who have the resources to carry out such tests would do so.  And parse the unbiased results here for all to see.</p><p>I don't like this nerf, and I feel it went much too far.  However, if sufficient numbers are posted that place us where we should be, I will at least be satisfied that we aren't broken.  Such parses would be of aid to the entire community, and the developers as well.</p><p>I would urge any of my fellow rangers in guilds with such resources to convince your guilds to carry out such tests.  It's the only way we're going to be either fixed, or convinced.</p>

[Lightomen]

<p>Qrgauthil, I have a problem with your numbers, as well as the OP.  What level were the Wizzies spells compared to those of the rangers? Adept 1 -vs- Adept 3 -vs- Master 1 there are huge differences.</p><p>Yes, we Rangers have to learn to play different, and I have and have managed to hold my own casting:</p><p>- 3 debuffs (only 1 of which does any damage)- - Snipe (Adept 1) (Decreases Defense)- - Forester's Noose (Adept 1) (Decreases mit vs Heat by 1224)- - Debilitating Arrow (Adept 1) (458 - 764 DMG) (Decreases Deflection and Parry by 35)- 4 ranged/bow CAs- - Precise Shot (Master 1) (2 arrows) (234 - 391 ea) (If first misses then so does second shot????)- - Triple Arrow (Master 1) (3 arrows) (163 - 272, 327 - 545, 490 - 817) (If one misses then so do successive shots????)- - Culling the Weak (Adept 1) (731 - 1218 DMG - back attack)<font color="#ff0000">*</font>- - Stream of Arrows (Adept 3) (393 - 655 DMG every 2-3 sec) <font color="#ff0000">**</font>- 8 melee CAs (In order performed, usually from behind to limit Parrying)- - Shocking Thrust (Adept 1) (234 - 391 DMG)- - Lunging Blade (Adept 1) (67-124 DoT)- - Fatal Reminder (Adept 1) (36 - 61 DMG w/ 98 DoT for 8 ticks)- - Arrow Rip (Master 1) (516 DMG)- - Longshank (Adept 1) (245 - 409 DMG - back attack)<font color="#ff0000">*</font>- - Dire Blade (Adept 1) (821 - 1368 DMG - back attack)<font color="#ff0000">*</font>- - Surveil (Adept 1) (0 DMG) Invises ranger- - Tangleflame (Adept 1) (345 - 575 DMG)- and a DPS and Ranged short term self-buffs. (<font color="#ff0000">* - Back attacks.  If tanks does not spin the mob we cannot use and trust me when I tell you I adore tanks who know this fine little art.  I ask the tank to spin the mob.  If he doesn't then I have a choice between risking adds or not using these CAs.</font>)(<font color="#ff0000">** - The spell says it uses 13 power every 1.5 secs but it is my best estimate that it fires an arrow any where from 1 to 3 seconds (I have logs showing the spell casting at 23:53:29, 32, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51 and 54) and again we have to move a significant distance away from the mob to use.  This distance is not a lot but in some scenarios it is not at all feasible (ie. Darathar, I can't be on that beach and stream him)</font>)In my groups from 60 to 62, my parses were all done in single mob, 65^^^ and 66^^^ Heroic encounters.  What I found was:- an issue with a fair amount of Master 1's being parried or missing all together.  However, the wizzy said his spells were missing too.  I did not think to ask what grade (App 1-4, Adept 1/3, or Master) spells he was using.- I was able to keep my DPS up near 250 - 300 (with 400s when using poisons) and I am a very active player as I was pulling mobs to the tank.- I used 42 charges of Translucent Torment of Rijacki.  That is 1pp+.  I should not HAVE to use poisons to keep my DPS in Tier 1.  No one else HAS to pay to keep their DPS in their tier, so why should I.  Assassins flat out owned me in my groups because they have at least 3 spells that hit for 3k+ damage and are on short recast timers.- LASTLY, I found out I don't need Primal Agility (Adept 3) because I can't pull agro with my DPS anyways.... WOOOOOOOT and HELL YES I TRIED....  Had another Ranger in group and he had to use his high dmg spells as fast as he could to pull agro and the SK tank got it back within 5 secs.</p><p>We need a little tweaking upwards on our ranged CAs.  Yes, we are RANGE-rs and our ranged CAs set us apart from Assassins who melee.</p>

[Tarryn]

<div></div><p>Staghorn, if you have any of those parses still available, could you post them?</p><p>Not that I'm disagreeing with your assessment, but numbers are a lot more convincing than summations.  And convincing is what we need--for the devs and our fellow players, or for ourselves, whichever way the cards fall.</p>

[athitchcock]

<div></div><div>Qrgauthil, did you actually read the original post?</div><div> </div><div>"We consisted of (at start of this xp grind session) 1 zerc 1 necro 1 warlock 1 me (ranger) 1 defiler 1 templar (and 1 necro's pet). Lvl 60 "</div><div>"We were fighting both Solo and grouped mobs about equally and ranged from 64^ to 66^^^ throughout the evening.""The durations of which BTW lasterd 5 hours 4 mins and (around) 30 seconds and included somewhere around 1000 + or - encounters"</div><div> </div><div>I'm going to take him at his word. This is a group of lvl 60s fighting mobs 4 to 6 levels higher than they are. Sure, some were solo, but a solo 64 vs a 60 would still be tough, right? Also, he parsed 1000 fights over 5 hours, which is a much better statistical sample than a few mobs from a run through the Hidden Cache that you show. (maybe 100 fights and 2 hours if you take your time?)</div><div> </div><div>For your test, you noted the classes, but not the levels. I took the liberty of tracking them down for you.</div><div>Currently:</div><div>Ranger Sightless is lvl 52</div><div>Wizard Fynrod is lvl 53</div><div>SK Exmortis is lvl 53</div><div>Berserker Tulyp is lvl 53</div><div>Warden Ravenleaf is lvl 53</div><div> </div><div>A fairly equal group considering rangers only get an aggro reducing buff at 53, so Sightless wasn't missing out on any dmg spells. The problem is, to my recollection, the Hidden Cache mobs range from lvl 52 to 55 ish (plus the lvl 60 Mullok), so you were fighting mostly blue and even cons with a few orange mobs, while Ryantj according to his original post was fighting mobs that were consistently yellow or higher.</div><div> </div><div>And please don't scoff at 25%. I assume you have a job and have co-workers with the same amount of tenure and experience as you. Would you be bothered if they were making 25% more than you? Would you refuse a 25% pay raise? Do you tip 25%, it isn't that much after all. I don't think so, 5 to 10% is a reasonable variation.</div><div> </div><div>You said "Secondly, we had to educate our ranger a bit" Was this ranger possibly an alt or created after LU13? Before LU13 we had to spam every button we had to get dps. After LU13 a few early CAs in a row would easily pull aggro. A few days ago you would have been educating the ranger how to not steal aggro. If the ranger didn't know how to play their class, were they using poisons? A pre LU13 ranger would remember well how it used to work, after all we were [Removed for Content] for 10 months before we became "uber" for 5 months.</div><div> </div><div>Yeah, there are a few rangers who are saying we shouldn't have been changed. That isn't realistic and they can quit if they like. Parses are a statistical analysis of data and can be used to misrepresent the truth, but they are the best method we have to show how the changes have affected us.</div><div> </div><div>Honestly, in the end I don't care if I'm king of dps in raids or groups, as long as we are completing what we set out to do as a group, it's all good. My problem is that Rangers have had their solo abilities severly reduced and to my understanding, any class is supposed to be able to fight solo mobs alone. From the looks of the changes, my repair costs are going to offset my savings on poisons.</div><div> </div><div>Another note, at lvl 60 we have 7 melee CAs, 3 of which are positional and 2 of those requiring stealth. We have 13 ranged CAs, 3 of which require stealth or position, all of which require distance. Our offensive stance only works on ranged attacks and our defensive stance reduces our dps. That doesn't leave a lot of options when you are toe to to with a mob and waiting 20s for your stun to refresh so you can use a ranged or flanking attack. I'm just stating that for all the rangers that need to be educated on how to play their class. I thank all of you who don't play rangers for coming here to help explain for us how to properly click on the attack button, I've been having trouble finding it ever since LU20.</div><div> </div><div>Gnaril</div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by athitchcock on <span class="date_text">02-25-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:06 AM</span></p>

[Steezi]

<div></div><p>Smaken i will try to make it so u understand this.... i am a 62 ranger in almost fully fabled, with the exception of one spell all adept 3 and higher. Not rilly tryin to toot my own horn that badly =P, but i would say one of the top 15-20 rangers on Nek server post patch... Self buffed, i have 348 str, 363 agi. Quite good, but not one of the best on server. I will give u a list of our ranged and close combat ca's, and hope that u can understand where our dps comes from...</p><p>Close Combat (dualies)- 1:Lunging blade; 74-126 dot every 6 seconds     2:fatal reminder'  107 every 4 seconds 3: Shocking Thrust 226-377</p><p>4: longshank- 315-535  5: tangleflame; 443-739 6: Dire Blade; 1053-1756   1min recast</p><p>6 close combat ca's for very little damage. (remember i am 62 with very high str....)</p><p> </p><p>Ranged Combat (bow)- 1: Snaring shot 234-391   2: confusion arrow- 478 (with nerfed ability) 3:miricle arrow*-623 (t5 spell... kept cause its masta</p><p>and not worth the upgrade in dmg) 4:precise shot- 225-376 and 225-376 5:devitalizing arrow- 694-1156 (t7 adpt 1) 6: Culling of the Weak- 938-1564 </p><p>7: Triple arrow; (157-262 / 314-524 / 472-787) 8: stealthy fire (M2) 1773-2955  9: sniper shot- 4188-6848 10: STREAM OF ARROWS- 30 seconds casting an arrow every 1.5 seconds for 432-721.</p><p>10 ranged ca's for an extremely large potential damage.</p><p>we use our bows, end of story.</p><p>The problem seems obvious to me when those little close combat spells are doin the damage that they are SUPPOSED to do, and somehow that ends up being more then the ranged. Take a look at those spells. Precise shot is broken. devitalizing arrow is broken. triple arrow is broken. stream of arrows doesnt exist, its like an ugly mistake that they want to be rid of. the close combat aa's proc like they are supposed to, but the proc on the bow is near non existant... with no procs on except your offensinve stance, poison, and weapon procs, u may hit one of those three in 5 arrows. Once u get into a group with a conj or an inquisitor, the proc they put on u goes off every other time u hit...(one small dmg the other pwer gain for inquis)</p><p>its been said before by a man wiser than i.... "it was borked, they tried to unbork it, and borked it even worse the other way..."</p><p>cheers to us hopefully bein put where we belong... AMID the pack of t1 dps!</p><p>Stylee Mc'Cutta 62 ranga Nek</p><p><Myrmidons></p>

[Steezi]

<div></div><p>apoligize, i missed one of our major ranged ca's... Natural selection is 630-1031 ae.... also after readin the previous post, wanna xplain the difference in ca's stag and i said rangers have....</p><p>Dire blade, Longshank and Lunging blade can all be used from ranged distance, but the weapon used is dualie... and considering that Dire Blade is one of our biggest attacks, and is used from ranged distance (despite weapon)  i think its safe to say Stag was correct...however unlike the other 11 ranged ca's they do not have a minimum distance requirement...</p><p>imma stick with 11 ranged ca's and 7 close combat... its the difference in damage that really matters.</p><p>Attempting to educate trolls is hurting my head....srry for the mis </p>

[MortiferaInfe]

<div></div><p>Hi,</p><p>I am the ranger in Qrgauthil's infamous group!</p><p>I've been playing the game since it was in BETA. My first char was Mortifera, a DE Inquisitor. I also started a ranger pre-LU13 named Lure as an alt (got to around lvl 35). I stopped EQ2 for a little while cause I ran out of content. Then came back as a new ranger named Sightless.</p><p>I'm now level 52 and all my spells are either ADEPT 1 or APP IV <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I have Cobalt weapons and Iron Imbued bow.</p><p>The mobs we were fighting ranged from blue to yellow. I'd say 60% yellow. All the crocs were ^^^ yellow to me and Bruticus was the named.</p><p>On Bruticus we made sure in teamspeak that we went 'full power, no holds barred even if you get aggro keep nuking'.</p><p>I cannot say that I am personnally happy about what they did to ranger, I think our DPS is too low considering that we bring nothing else but tracking to a group. We have defence/heat debuffs, but let's not get carried away.</p><p>I cannot say how we compare to swashbucklers, monks, etc. So Wizards and Rangers might be Tier 3 for all I know, but those parses that Qrgauthil posted were accurate.</p><p>As for 'educating the ranger' LOL, I know how to play my class. I just told them that to finish on top of the DPS chain in our group I had to use all of the CAs regularly, non stop. Before if I did that, I would pull aggro easily, thus it was a bit more 'relaxed' to play and I got off with much better DPS.</p><p>So now you have to focus more to get less DPS. They 'educated' me by saying : That's what we have to do, so tough luck for you now!</p><p>I guess it pans out then for the amout of work required.</p><p>Anyhoot, I have no special gear and was fighting level appropriate mobs. I can't say if our DPS drops at level 60 compared to level 62-64 mobs. All I can say is that I can finish on top of the DPS list with a wizard, a beserker and an SK that have similar (or better heh) gear than me.</p><p>As I said, maybe wizards/rangers are Tier3 DPS atm, I cannot say. But I'm Tier 1 in that group LOL. I do feel, once again, that we either should have more DPS (15-20% more) or 1-2 utility spells that are usefull/desired by a group to compensate if not.</p><p>We're playing again Sunday, going to head into Silent City with level 56+ mobs, so I'll parse again once we're there. I'll still be 52, maybe hit 53 while inside.</p><p> </p>

[SmakenDah]

<div></div><div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>athitchcock wrote:<div>Qrgauthil, did you actually read the original post?</div><div> </div><div>"We consisted of (at start of this xp grind session) 1 zerc 1 necro 1 warlock 1 me (ranger) 1 defiler 1 templar (and 1 necro's pet). Lvl 60 "</div><div>"We were fighting both Solo and grouped mobs about equally and ranged from 64^ to 66^^^ throughout the evening.""The durations of which BTW lasterd 5 hours 4 mins and (around) 30 seconds and included somewhere around 1000 + or - encounters"</div><div> </div><div>I'm going to take him at his word. This is a group of lvl 60s fighting mobs 4 to 6 levels higher than they are. Sure, some were solo, but a solo 64 vs a 60 would still be tough, right? Also, he parsed 1000 fights over 5 hours, which is a much better statistical sample than a few mobs from a run through the Hidden Cache that you show. (maybe 100 fights and 2 hours if you take your time?)</div><div> </div><div>For your test, you noted the classes, but not the levels. I took the liberty of tracking them down for you.</div><div>Currently:</div><div>Ranger Sightless is lvl 52</div><div>Wizard Fynrod is lvl 53</div><div>SK Exmortis is lvl 53</div><div>Berserker Tulyp is lvl 53</div><div>Warden Ravenleaf is lvl 53<font color="#339900" face="Century" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Heh, if the Ranger was lower level than the wizard and still beating the Wizard, do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? You can disregard that because at the time of most of the tests the levels were:</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Sightless 52</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Fynrod 52</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Exmortis 53</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Tulyp 53</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Ravenleaf 52</font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Ravenleaf (me) and Fynrod leveled near the end of the evening in Living City. If you could see my achievements and Fynrod's you'll see where we leveled. Those parses were taking place in Hidden Cache. I said this above - I realize most of you don't make the connection between Qrgautil and I but we group together a lot as we do with the other 3 in that group.</font></div><div> </div><div>A fairly equal group considering rangers only get an aggro reducing buff at 53, so Sightless wasn't missing out on any dmg spells. The problem is, to my recollection, the Hidden Cache mobs range from lvl 52 to 55 ish (plus the lvl 60 Mullok), so you were fighting mostly blue and even cons with a few orange mobs, while Ryantj according to his original post was fighting mobs that were consistently yellow or higher.<font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">White, Yellow and Orange mobs, not a single blue to me at 52 and most of them were actually yellow. When we hit Living Tombs we were facing mobs that were mostly white to orange to me AFTER I hit 53rd.</font></div><div> </div><div>And please don't scoff at 25%. I assume you have a job and have co-workers with the same amount of tenure and experience as you. Would you be bothered if they were making 25% more than you? Would you refuse a 25% pay raise? Do you tip 25%, it isn't that much after all. I don't think so, 5 to 10% is a reasonable variation.</div><div> </div><div>You said "Secondly, we had to educate our ranger a bit" Was this ranger possibly an alt or created after LU13? Before LU13 we had to spam every button we had to get dps. After LU13 a few early CAs in a row would easily pull aggro. A few days ago you would have been educating the ranger how to not steal aggro. If the ranger didn't know how to play their class, were they using poisons? A pre LU13 ranger would remember well how it used to work, after all we were [Removed for Content] for 10 months before we became "uber" for 5 months.<font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">Sightless had a Ranger pre-LU13 but restarted after LU-13 when we all decided to start over. He is a full time Ranger. Before the fix he couldn't play this way because he'd draw agro within the first or second use of a multi-shot attack (due to obscene numbers of procs from bow and poisons).</font></div><div> </div><div>Yeah, there are a few rangers who are saying we shouldn't have been changed. That isn't realistic and they can quit if they like. Parses are a statistical analysis of data and can be used to misrepresent the truth, but they are the best method we have to show how the changes have affected us.<font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">I see you do understand the issue at hand, but I suspect there might be another issue which affects people 60+ which is how the KoS content compares to DoF content. I can't comment on that. All I can say is that as far as DoF goes, when fighting things equal ot above our level range the ranger did the most DPS more often than not.</font></div><div> </div><div>Honestly, in the end I don't care if I'm king of dps in raids or groups, as long as we are completing what we set out to do as a group, it's all good. My problem is that Rangers have had their solo abilities severly reduced and to my understanding, any class is supposed to be able to fight solo mobs alone. From the looks of the changes, my repair costs are going to offset my savings on poisons.</div><div> </div><div>Another note, at lvl 60 we have 7 melee CAs, 3 of which are positional and 2 of those requiring stealth. We have 13 ranged CAs, 3 of which require stealth or position, all of which require distance. Our offensive stance only works on ranged attacks and our defensive stance reduces our dps. That doesn't leave a lot of options when you are toe to to with a mob and waiting 20s for your stun to refresh so you can use a ranged or flanking attack. I'm just stating that for all the rangers that need to be educated on how to play their class.<b> I thank all of you who don't play rangers for coming here to help explain for us how to properly click on the attack button, I've been having trouble finding it ever since LU20.</b></div><div><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">No need to get nasty. We're passing alone our observations from grouping with OUR ranger who was giving us immediate feedback. If he suddenly  drops to doing no DPS when in KoS I'll gladly say he's broken.</font></div><div>Gnaril</div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by athitchcock on <span class="date_text">02-25-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:06 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">I'm really curious to see if the KoS solo mobs are tougher than the DoF ones which is possible. Obviously I'd expect them to be tougher, but I mean more at a relative level of difficulty. Sightless was having no problems with solo mobs in DoF, even groups of them. </font><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">For people asking about the spell levels, the Ranger and Wizard mainly had Adept 1s though the Wizard had an Adept 3 Ice Comet. Ranger was using an imbued ironwood bow and cobalt imbued DW weapons.</font></span><span><blockquote><hr>Steezity wrote:<p>Smaken i will try to make it so u understand this.... i am a 62 ranger in almost fully fabled, with the exception of one spell all adept 3 and higher. Not rilly tryin to toot my own horn that badly =P, but i would say one of the top 15-20 rangers on Nek server post patch... Self buffed, i have 348 str, 363 agi. Quite good, but not one of the best on server. I will give u a list of our ranged and close combat ca's, and hope that u can understand where our dps comes from...</p>...<p>Stylee Mc'Cutta 62 ranga Nek</p><p></p><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2"></font><hr></blockquote><font face="Century" color="#339900" size="2">I realize the skills being used, I've had lengthy discussions with Sightless BUT I do admit we are parsing a group of about the same level and it could be possible that something gets skewed at the higher levels (i.e. the higher level abilities for rangers and other classes get too much of a disparity).In our level range, I don't see much of an issue aside from possibly giving Rangers some more group value outside of DPS.EDIT: I should add we were using two different parsers to collect that information. There might have been a blue group or two near the entrance, I was too engrossed in watching the health bars <span>:smileyindifferent:</span> because when I was done loading in Tulyp was already engaging a group. /bonk</font></span></div><p>Message Edited by SmakenDahed on <span class="date_text">02-25-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:35 AM</span></p>

[Generic123]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Generic123 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p><font size="2" color="#ffffff"></font></p><hr><p><font size="2" color="#ffffff">SmakenDahed wrote:</font></p><p><span><font size="2" color="#ffffff">As I noted in an inline reply to another poster I, personally, think this was bad design on SOE's part. Having a class lose almost half their combat arts or abilities because they're soloing is not a good thing.</font></span></p><div></div><font size="2" color="#ffffff"></font><hr></blockquote><p><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2">Having DPS classes loose most of their attacks is an essential part of balancing solo vs group play. <span> </span>Ultimately all xp (and loot for that matter) comes from doing damage to a mob, heals, crowd control, tanking all support that but you get no direct rewards from them, the only thing that gives you combat rewards is damage. <span> </span></font></font></p><p><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2">Because of this, if you don’t cripple their DPS in solo situations damage classes end up getting better xp/hour solo then they do in groups because they don’t have to share the xp they are creating with other, lower DPS classes. <span> </span>You see exactly the same thing with Sorcerers.<span>  </span>They loose 80% of their attacks in solo situations due to the necessity to keep mobs rooted and at a distance. <span> </span></font></font></p><hr></blockquote><font size="2" color="#33cc00">Really? Most wizards and warlocks I know don't suddenly lose their spells when facing solos? I'm not trying to be snide and I apologize if I sound that way (reading it myself, it comes off like that), I just wish they would make some adjustments here because going from having 8 abilities to 4 (just an example) because I'm fighting something that is supposed to be weaker is not *fun*.My suggestion would be to take that IF mechanism they have on spells and combat arts and apply some other effect.i.e. you fire triple shot when in melee range (currently does nothing?) which checks if the target is too close, if it's too close it fires off a short duration stun allowing you to step back and fire some other bow art.Stun is likely a bad example, but I think people will get my point.Same deal for Assassins - when most of their abilities required them to be stealthed. Allow them an alternate ability if they're not stealthed.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p><font color="#ffffff"><font size="2">Soloing as a Wizard means keeping the mob rooted because you just don’t have the armor or hit points to go toe to toe with it.<span>  </span>Roots normally last 0-2 attacks, including damage ticks on a DoT.<span>  </span></font></font><font size="2" color="#ffffff">There is no practical way to use your 10+ DoT’s when soloing because if you do the mob will simply not stay rooted.<span>  </span>Instead what you do is root it, and cycle Ice Comet (every 50 sec), Ball of Incineration (every 12 sec) and Incapacitate (every 30 sec)<span>  </span>So while the mechanism is slightly different the end result is the same, you only get to use a couple of your spells while soloing.</font></p><p><font color="#000000"><font size="2"><font color="#ffffff">Even Conjurers who are something of a hybrid class and should therefore be very strong solo take a big hit in their DPS because they have to us a tank pet rather then a mage or scout pet.<span>  </span>It’s really only fighters and priests that get to go full out with their DPS abilities when soloing and that's the way it should be IMO.</font> </font></font></p>

[BSbon]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>athitchcock wrote:<div></div><div> </div><div> </div><div>A fairly equal group considering rangers only get an aggro reducing buff at 53, so Sightless wasn't missing out on any dmg spells. The problem is, to my recollection, the Hidden Cache mobs range from lvl 52 to 55 ish (plus the lvl 60 Mullok), so you were fighting mostly blue and even cons with a few orange mobs, while Ryantj according to his original post was fighting mobs that were consistently yellow or higher.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote><p>this right here is the reason why the ranger was not parsing high. it was the amount of misses due to the level of the mobs. a caster missing 3 times vs a melee class missing oh i forget the amount somewhere around 2000 times.</p><p>bongo</p>

[Moncreat]

<div>Thank you Mortiferalnferi for letting us know about the CA levels and what you were using.</div><div> </div><div>I think the big thing here that is not constant is the creatures we are fighting.  Some are fighting mobs even with thier groups, some are fighting solo mobs, some are fight heroic mobs, some are fighting mobs several levels higher than them, and etc.</div><div> </div><div>What would be nice is to compare data from the same level rangers on similar mobs.</div><div> </div><div>I can say that I parsed my data last night on all different type mobs and we all know that there are some level 58^^^ heroic mobs that are much harder to kill than say some level 62^^^ heroic mobs.</div><div> </div><div>I can say that when I was in my 50's that the Cache and Rooste were fun zones because even though those mobs considered high level they had what seemed to be low resists, low hp, and such that those mobs went down faster than say some of the other instanced zones I have done.</div><div> </div><div>Last night I had a group that had a Beserker, Templer,  2 Rangers, Conjurer, and a  Wizard and all were 60 for the first part of the night and we were exploring and trying different mobs.  We were doing level 65 and 66 SOLO mobs some down arrow and maybe one or two up arrows.  The Conjuror's pet beat us everytime and it was a good fight if the rangers actually got to 100 dps on those mobs and yes we were going through every CA we had.  Those mobs just kept deflecting or parrying almost everything we had.  There were some fights that the pet was really the reason that the mob was killed and when you pull up the parse and see that you only did like 23dps it makes you want to cry.</div><div> </div><div>We than went into the Nest and started clearing out those mobs that are level 63+^^^ heroic mobs, not all are heroic but the level was lower than the ones we were fighting earlier.  We basically would mow down those groups but still with both rangers doing every CA they had and working at it, the highest either of the rangers parsed on those mobs was 207 dps.</div><div> </div><div>We than went to the Rooste and Ancients just to make us feel better about our power and cleared those zones...lol very quickly as we should by being a level 60 group.</div><div> </div><div>But my point is that all the data that people are comparing has the wrong common factor that we should be looking at.  I think we could better ourselves by comparing the same type groups on the same type mobs and than having the highest DPS rangers talk about what they have and what they are doing to get the highest DPS they can get.   I have yet to see a level 60+ post that his dps has been over 400.</div><div> </div><div>I did a dps of 1834 two nights ago and that is because I hit a level 62v solo mob with Sniper shot and one other bow shot and he was dead.  It made me feel better.  :lol</div>

[ryan]

Wow quite a few responses during my recent grind sessions. First let me say that I appreciate everyone's input (yes even those that disagree with me or flat don't believe me). Each of us is most definately allowed to have his or her own opinion. Since there were about a million questions raised and asked during this thread I'm not going to answer them all one - by - one. Here are a few that seem to have been made a big issue. Yes the zerker was tanking. From what he tells me he was in defensive mode in the begining of the night and switched to offensive mode about 50%-60% through the evening. We did after all have 2 healers with us and the necro still says he was healing and buff/debuffing the majority of time. Yes the majority of the mobs we fought were yellow con, sprinkle in a SMALL handfull of orange cons and a small handfull or white cons and a small handfull of blue cons. We were a full group with plenty of healing power after XP so ya yellow was the ideal target for that. Since we were (at the time) all the same lvl that shouldn't make much of a difference as class A should THEORETICALLY have just as much dificulty with a yellow con as class B (least in my mind) I supose that's a point of possible conention? And yes there were just as many solo target encounters as there were group encounters. I don't know HOW to best make a necro shine as I don't have one and I don't know HOW to best make a zerker shine as I don't have one of those either so logically I CERTAINLY don't know how to create an environment where the BOTH shine. Was the environment we were in ideal for zerks and necs and very negative for wars and rangers? I don't know but it is the envrionment SOE gave me in which to get to 70.And finally to those that disagree with my numbers:You're welcome to your opinion. Here are your choices plain and simple:1 If you play a lvl 60+ Ranger get a group of equal lvl toons and parse for yourself.2 if you play a lvl 60+ other class get a group of equal toons include a ranger and parse for yourself3 if you play a ranger UNDER 60 then FIRST get to 60 then see #14 if you play another class under 60 then FIRST get to 60 then see #2Download ACT (or since i saw someone said ACT is crap get whichever parsing software you prefer)5 if you don't want to do any of the above then you're reliant on other's data and personally ignorant of the situation. At that point PERSONALLY i don't feel your comment carry much weight. No flame to you personally but this thread is about a SPECIFIC set of data and if you haven't done 1-4 then you are ignorant of the situation THAT data was gathered in and the data itself.Anyway thanks for all your input both positive and negative. Someone's gotta play devil's advocate after all eh?<div></div>

[athitchcock]

<div></div><div><font size="3">My main beef with Qrgauthil was that he didn't believe the original parse data due to possible inconsistencies, yet was happy to refute it with similar data which could also be put in question. </font></div><div><font size="3"></font> </div><div><font size="3">To those of you from Qrgauthil's group. The way I look at it, you were fighting appropriate content (even con and higher at 52) and it worked out for you, I assume you didn't wipe during the instance and everyone got very good xp. As I said "I don't care if I'm king of dps in raids or groups, as long as we are completing what we set out to do as a group, it's all good.", because in reality you probably had fun and didn't feel like the content was overly difficult. It appears that Sightless has a fine understanding of how to play a ranger and didn't need to be "educated". Maybe "educated" wasn't the right word to use, instead you could have told him not to hold back like he probably was pre LU20. I'm confident that your results in Silent City will be the same. If your results showing us still doing T1 comparable dps is where the changes leave us for grouping, then for the most part I'm ok with it. If the wizard is pulling aggro while doing less dps, then they obviously need some form of aggro management to match our dps and aggro generation. Just giving a wizard more dps would only exacerbate the aggro problem.</font></div><div><font size="3"></font> </div><div><font size="3">My biggest problem with the changes is the effect it has on our soloing.  Generic123 stated the following</font></div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><font size="3">"Roots normally last 0-2 attacks, including damage ticks on a DoT.<span>  </span><font color="#ffffff">There is no practical way to use your 10+ DoT’s when soloing because if you do the mob will simply not stay rooted.<span>  </span>Instead what you do is root it, and cycle Ice Comet (every 50 sec), Ball of Incineration (every 12 sec) and Incapacitate (every 30 sec)<span>  </span>So while the mechanism is slightly different the end result is the same, you only get to use a couple of your spells while soloing.</font>"</font></div></blockquote><div><font size="3">Do wizards root, cast spells until root breaks, root again and repeat? This way you are able to keep your distance, because you can't take melee dmg. Rangers need to keep their distance to use the bulk of our skills, but we don't have an effective way of repeatedly doing so during a fight.</font></div><div><font size="3">Pre LU20 I would pull with a large dmg ranged attack and hopefully get 1-2 more ranged attacks off before the mob got to me (using thorny trap would increase this to 2-4 ranged attacks). This would put the mob at about 0 to 40% health, in which case I would turn on the defensive stance and begin to use melee CAs and cycle cheap shot to stun the mob and move away to get a ranged or flanking attack off. I could withstand 40% worth of the melee dance. </font></div><div><font size="3">Post LU20 I use the same tactics, but the mob now gets to me at 60 to 90% health, I'm having a lot of trouble outlasting the mob now (ie dying/running).</font></div><div><font size="3"></font> </div><div><font size="3">I'm sorry if I was overly nasty in my earlier post, but if you don't play a ranger your only experience with our abilities is from grouping with them, from what you are told and from what you read on forums. Since I have only really played one class since launch, I try to make a point of not telling others how to do their jobs. I base my understanding of other classes on statements that they make, like the information that Generic123 posted. If you are not in the ranger's shoes when he disbands to finish off a quest or get that last little bit of xp, you probably don't see the full impact the changes have had on us. </font></div><div><font size="3"></font> </div><div><font size="3">The soloing heroics thing seems to be mentioned often, I'd like to point out that this was only possible if using stun poisons. Pre LU20 at 58 I am confident that with stun poisons I probably could have soloed the djinn at the end of the carpet quest in SS. This is an encounter that was at first only thought doable with a serious group that included an enchanter and/or several tanks for the adds. Without keeping him, or any other heroic mob perma stunned, the ranger would have been face down very quickly. The simple removal of stun poisons or the addition of "if not heroic" to it's ability would have removed this problem from the game.</font></div><div><font size="3"></font> </div><div><font size="3">Gnaril</font></div>

[Qrgauth]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Lightomen wrote:<p>Qrgauthil, I have a problem with your numbers, as well as the OP.  What level were the Wizzies spells compared to those of the rangers? Adept 1 -vs- Adept 3 -vs- Master 1 there are huge differences.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">Both 52 with Adept 1s.  The berserker (me) has a number of Adept IIIs</font><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>Yes, we Rangers have to learn to play different, and I have and have managed to hold my own casting:</p><p>- 3 debuffs (only 1 of which does any damage)- 4 ranged/bow CAs- 8 melee CAs (In order performed, usually from behind to limit Parrying)</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><p><font color="#ff0000">That sounds about right.  15 buttons to mash <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font></p><blockquote><p></p><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>- an issue with a fair amount of Master 1's being parried or missing all together.  However, the wizzy said his spells were missing too.  I did not think to ask what grade (App 1-4, Adept 1/3, or Master) spells he was using.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"><p></p></blockquote><p><font color="#ff0000">Interesting, but not a ranger issue.  That's possibly a general game mechanics issue.  And I agree, it sucks when master taunts get resisted, for example.</font></p><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2">- I used 42 charges of Translucent Torment of Rijacki.  That is 1pp+.  I should not HAVE to use poisons to keep my DPS in Tier 1.  No one else HAS to pay to keep their DPS in their tier, so why should I.  Assassins flat out owned me in my groups because they have at least 3 spells that hit for 3k+ damage and are on short recast timers.<hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">I disagree here.  Yes, you should. You're a poison using class and poison is an integral part of your class balance, and it should be a factor for ALL poison using classes.  You don't have to use uber legendary poison at 1 pp a pop to do it however.  Every time a ranger buys a poison for a handful of gold, some tank is forking over a handful of gold to repair his armour.  Poison isn't "bonus damage".</font><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>We need a little tweaking upwards on our ranged CAs.  Yes, we are RANGE-rs and our ranged CAs set us apart from Assassins who melee.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">That may well be, but I'd say rangers are pretty close to where they should be now.  Need a bit of tweaking - maybe, broken - no.</font></span></div>

[MortiferaInfe]

<div></div><p>My <strong>opinion</strong> in this, is this, <strong>at level 52</strong>:</p><p><strong>1.</strong> I cannot say if we are Tier 1 DPS because I could not compare to swashbucklers, monks, necros, etc. We could be in Tier 2 or Tier 3 for all I know. But I do more DPS than an SK, a Warden (hehe) and a Beserker.</p><p><strong>2.</strong> I can compete with wizards.</p><p><strong>3.</strong> I should do 15-20% more DPS or get 1 or 2 group friendly spells.</p><p><strong>4</strong>. I wish I had more cash to buy poison <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>That's about all I can say for now.</p><p> </p>

[Tarryn]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div><span><font color="#ff0000">That may well be, but I'd say rangers are pretty close to where they should be now.  Need a bit of tweaking - maybe, broken - no.</font></span></div><hr></blockquote><p>I'm pretty much in agreement with Sightless on the 15%-20% DPS increase we need.  However, for a class who brings nothing but DPS to the table, 20% too low is absolutely what I would call "broken".  20% is plenty to put us down in Tier 2, and that's not where we're supposed to be.</p><p>When a group is looking to fill a DPS slot, they should be saying: "Find us a Wizard, Ranger, Warlock, or Assassin."  They should NOT be saying: "Get us a Wizard, Warlock, or Assassin...settle for a Ranger if there's nothing else."</p><p>Even par, that's all we want.  Not outclassing the whole show, nor being outclassed, on the basis of the mechanics of our class--but upon our skill as players.</p><p>Message Edited by Tarryn on <span class="date_text">02-25-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:17 PM</span></p>

[Runewind]

<span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Lightomen wrote:<p>Qrgauthil, I have a problem with your numbers, as well as the OP.  What level were the Wizzies spells compared to those of the rangers? Adept 1 -vs- Adept 3 -vs- Master 1 there are huge differences.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">Both 52 with Adept 1s.  The berserker (me) has a number of Adept IIIs</font><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>Yes, we Rangers have to learn to play different, and I have and have managed to hold my own casting:</p><p>- 3 debuffs (only 1 of which does any damage)- 4 ranged/bow CAs- 8 melee CAs (In order performed, usually from behind to limit Parrying)</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><p><font color="#ff0000">That sounds about right.  15 buttons to mash <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font></p><blockquote><p></p><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>- an issue with a fair amount of Master 1's being parried or missing all together.  However, the wizzy said his spells were missing too.  I did not think to ask what grade (App 1-4, Adept 1/3, or Master) spells he was using.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"><p></p></blockquote><p><font color="#ff0000">Interesting, but not a ranger issue.  That's possibly a general game mechanics issue.  And I agree, it sucks when master taunts get resisted, for example.</font></p><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2">- I used 42 charges of Translucent Torment of Rijacki.  That is 1pp+.  I should not HAVE to use poisons to keep my DPS in Tier 1.  No one else HAS to pay to keep their DPS in their tier, so why should I.  Assassins flat out owned me in my groups because they have at least 3 spells that hit for 3k+ damage and are on short recast timers.<hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">I disagree here.  Yes, you should. You're a poison using class and poison is an integral part of your class balance, and it should be a factor for ALL poison using classes.  You don't have to use uber legendary poison at 1 pp a pop to do it however.  Every time a ranger buys a poison for a handful of gold, some tank is forking over a handful of gold to repair his armour.  Poison isn't "bonus damage".</font><blockquote><font color="#6666ff">I think that we would be fine with poison being needed for us to get T1 DPS so long as we can use cheap poison to do it. We shouldn't have to buy legendary poison to do it though and we do currently and I think that's most people's gripe. Poison in itself isn't "bonus damage" but buying expensive legendary poison should make us an exceptional T1 class while using it. Just like if a fighter has an expensive weapon they're an exceptional damager for their level. Or if a wizard buys a master 1 of a nuke spell they're exceptional too. (You know before level 50 when most people buy master 1s)  It doesn't make us an exceptional T1 DPS class though. it makes us a passable one. That's the problem.</font><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>We need a little tweaking upwards on our ranged CAs.  Yes, we are RANGE-rs and our ranged CAs set us apart from Assassins who melee.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">That may well be, but I'd say rangers are pretty close to where they should be now.  Need a bit of tweaking - maybe, broken - no.</font></span></div><hr></blockquote><font color="#6666ff">I will say I am happy to be seeing some positive parses. Believe me no one here wants to see us suck. If it turns out that we're able to do our jobs well then I'm sure everyone will be happy. The reason we're arguing with people who are saying we're fine where we are is we have had lots of experiences that show we're not fine and we don't want SOE to look in and see all those people saying we are and just ignore the problems. Because we aren't where we should be. We aren't necessarily tragic it seems but it would be much easier for the devs to look at a topic like this and say "Well they seem fine in that person's group so we don't have to fix them" </font></span><div></div>

[Jaslath]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Lightomen wrote:<p>Qrgauthil, I have a problem with your numbers, as well as the OP.  What level were the Wizzies spells compared to those of the rangers? Adept 1 -vs- Adept 3 -vs- Master 1 there are huge differences.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">Both 52 with Adept 1s.  The berserker (me) has a number of Adept IIIs</font><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>Yes, we Rangers have to learn to play different, and I have and have managed to hold my own casting:</p><p>- 3 debuffs (only 1 of which does any damage)- 4 ranged/bow CAs- 8 melee CAs (In order performed, usually from behind to limit Parrying)</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><p><font color="#ff0000">That sounds about right.  15 buttons to mash <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />]</font></p><p><font color="#ccff00">Actually that sounds dead wrong since 8 of those buttons are for melee attacks.  No one makes a ranger to do melee damage unless it's to finish a mob off.  Those melee attacks should not be part of a rangers regular damage sequence especially while in a group.</font></p><blockquote><p></p><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>- an issue with a fair amount of Master 1's being parried or missing all together.  However, the wizzy said his spells were missing too.  I did not think to ask what grade (App 1-4, Adept 1/3, or Master) spells he was using.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"><p></p></blockquote><p><font color="#ff0000">Interesting, but not a ranger issue.  That's possibly a general game mechanics issue.  And I agree, it sucks when master taunts get resisted, for example.</font></p><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2">- I used 42 charges of Translucent Torment of Rijacki.  That is 1pp+.  I should not HAVE to use poisons to keep my DPS in Tier 1.  No one else HAS to pay to keep their DPS in their tier, so why should I.  Assassins flat out owned me in my groups because they have at least 3 spells that hit for 3k+ damage and are on short recast timers.<hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">I disagree here.  Yes, you should. You're a poison using class and poison is an integral part of your class balance, and it should be a factor for ALL poison using classes.  You don't have to use uber legendary poison at 1 pp a pop to do it however.  Every time a ranger buys a poison for a handful of gold, some tank is forking over a handful of gold to repair his armour.  Poison isn't "bonus damage".<font color="#ccff00">No it shouldn't be a integral part of class balance when as been noted it requires rare poison to reach teir 1.  Hell I personally feel that  no Qeynosian specific class should be using poison but that is another dicussion.  Also your example about tank repair his armor is garbage since everyone has to repair armor and I don't see tanks forking over money to repair armor, buy arrows, AND buy poison just to do his job on a daily basis.</font></font><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2"><p>We need a little tweaking upwards on our ranged CAs.  Yes, we are RANGE-rs and our ranged CAs set us apart from Assassins who melee.</p><hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">That may well be, but I'd say rangers are pretty close to where they should be now.  Need a bit of tweaking - maybe, broken - no.<font color="#ccff00">All I know is that soloing I feel like I'm still playing an assassin even though I have betrayed to become a ranger.  Something is wrong about that.</font></font></span></div><hr></blockquote></span></div>

[strider19]

Funny how a mage, who can root and just nuke over and over again (or in necro's case use a pet to tank) get so much dps.  Yet a ranger, who can't keep a mob at distance (whiners crying about kiting, and devs fixing it in a day) does less than half the DPS.Also funny how a tank class (zerker), who can TANK, has his own role in a group, a TANK....does more dps than what should be a tier 1 dps class (ranger, who also has no utilities and can not tank much better than a mage).So funny, thnx devs, thnx a lot for everything, we love you too.spits in the face of all the nerf calling cry babies and devs who refuse to care about our class<div></div>

[Velocidad]

<span><blockquote><hr>Qrgauthil wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr width="100%" size="2">- I used 42 charges of Translucent Torment of Rijacki.  That is 1pp+.  I should not HAVE to use poisons to keep my DPS in Tier 1.  No one else HAS to pay to keep their DPS in their tier, so why should I.  Assassins flat out owned me in my groups because they have at least 3 spells that hit for 3k+ damage and are on short recast timers.<hr width="100%" size="2"></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">I disagree here.  Yes, you should. You're a poison using class and poison is an integral part of your class balance, and it should be a factor for ALL poison using classes.  You don't have to use uber legendary poison at 1 pp a pop to do it however.  Every time a ranger buys a poison for a handful of gold, some tank is forking over a handful of gold to repair his armour.  Poison isn't "bonus damage".</font><font color="#ff0000"></font></span></div><hr></blockquote>This is where you are mistaken. First being, if the tanks goes down, pretty much everyone else is also. Yes I know some people run and get away, smart playing by them. Secondly if the tank goes down, your scout or evaccing mage is to blame for not pulling the trigger. That isn't an inherent trait for tanks to have to pay for repairs.Some sort of armor degredation caused by damage would be.For it to be equal every class would have to take a 30 to 75% dmg reduction if they don't have some kind of reagent to use the combat arts/spells. Yeah there are other trade offs but I can dispute those also if you want to bring them up.Just to clarify that 30% to 75% dmg reduction if we aren't using poison. Adeste's is the lvl 50 legendary. First hit is is 435dd plus the first dot dmg which is in the 90s. Say 520 points right off the bat. Now taking into account which of our CAs it lands with that is anywhere from ~120 to 1500. So at that level casters can use 1 vanadium for every 700 spells and for every 700 hits a tank takes it costs him a plat to repair. The non poison using scouts can be bundled in with the casters and use 1 vanadium per 700 CAs. Then you can add in a modifier for a chance NOT to use that portion per spell or take armor degredation that is equal to our chance for the poison to proc.</span><div></div>

[Sapperlight]

<div></div><p>It's disappointing to see the blind lashing out in here, especially when thoughtful posts are made in an attempt to get insight into the OP's analysis.  Remember that there are lies, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] lies, and statistics, so drilling down into the methodology is absolutely necessary if you want to draw proper conclusions. While I commend the OP on his effort, the information I get on my parses does not merit the same conclusions.</p><p>I use the Combat Stats Monitor.  I have all master or adept 3 ranged CAs, and adept 1 and master (2) melee CAs.  In my groupings, against blue to yellow con mobs, I have consistently been at the top of the parse when in various groupings with a ranger, a berserker, a coercer, and a wizard.  My DPS is down 200-300 from before LU20.  I've had to change my tactics somewhat, but I think that was to be expected with any wholesale change in the game.</p><p>I use all of my ranged CAs, which gives me 10 shots to use on a regular basis, 11 if I use natural selection (AE), 12 if I use Sniper (15 min recast).  I use two debuffs.  I use melee attacks if there is no AE.  If you choose not to use them because it doesn't fit your picture of the class, then that's absolutely your perogative.  However, that's not SoE's picture of the class, and it's hard to argue with dire blade (1740 average, 2513 high) and tangleflame (728 average, 1102 high), especially when they can be used at medium range.</p><p>I use the same soloing techniques we've discussed on these boards many times, and I can still kill a yellow no arrow in KoS using a trap.  I've actually had a trap hold a mob for 5 CAs, which is more than I did before LU20.  I've also had them blow through it or miss it because of the smaller size.  My stun works the same as before.</p><p>I think we got hit hard, perhaps overly hard.  I don't have the breadth of data to say that for a fact, and I would argue that none of us do.  I want to see our class get better, but I also want to see us do so in an intelligent and unemotional manner. </p><p>[Full Disclosure: Sapper, Level 61 Ranger, Najena server.]</p>

[Lightomen]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sapperlight wrote:<div></div><p>It's disappointing to see the blind lashing out in here, especially when thoughtful posts are made in an attempt to get insight into the OP's analysis.  Remember that there are lies, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] lies, and statistics, so drilling down into the methodology is absolutely necessary if you want to draw proper conclusions. While I commend the OP on his effort, the information I get on my parses does not merit the same conclusions.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">I applaud you for your incite hear.  So, let us take a gander at your next lie.</font></p><p>However, that's not SoE's picture of the class, and it's hard to argue with dire blade (1740 average, 2513 high) and tangleflame (728 average, 1102 high), especially when they can be used at medium range.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Your STR is approx 250 and your AGI is close also.  My STR is 250 and my AGI is 350.  I looked over my log for 3 days worth of XPing and my High hit on Dire Blade was 1706 with the Avg being around 1100 -1200.  Tangleflame had a high Hit of 709 and an Avg around 450 - 550.</font></p><p>[Full Disclosure: Sapper, Level 61 Ranger, Najena server.]</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Thank you for providing this because a quick search gave me your stats. </font></p><hr></blockquote><p>People need to stop providing false information.  If Sapper would like to instruct me on how he is able to hit hard with lower stats then I have then I would gladly entertain his contention that HIS Dire Blade and Tangleflame do so much more then mine.  Until then he is just padding his numbers to make himself look better then he actually is.</p><p>I have not provided my Parses because I am not a die-hard parser.  I know how it works and how to use it.  If anybody would like to do a hard core parse with me in group I can tell you I will not hold back.  Hell right now, I don't even have to cast Confusion Arrow anymore.  I still wear Primal Agility because old habits die hard.</p><p>We are broke and that is all I know.  Going full tilt with Mystic and Dirge buffs and I was not able to pull off a monk.</p><p>So far 90%+ posts contend we are broke.  Less then 10% contend we are not.  Of those 10%, I would dare say, 1% of those are Rangers.  I don't think Rangers are lazy, as some inuendo on the forums indicate.  I have always been very active in groups and Raids.</p>

[Qrgauth]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Lightomen wrote:<div></div><p>Going full tilt with Mystic and Dirge buffs and I was not able to pull off a monk.</p><hr></blockquote>Did it occur to you that maybe it's not rangers that are broken now, but monks?</span></div>

[strider19]

Same deal with every class...rangers ARE the ones who are broken<div></div>

[SmakenDah]

<font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">One thing we noted on Sunday was that the Ranger's DPS was more reliant on buffs than the Wizard's DPS was. If the buffs were missing (i.e. solo) then the Ranger lost as much as 100DPS. That said, the Ranger was still close to what the Wizard was putting out. One buff (Warden single target ATK buff) raised the Ranger's DPS by 50 points on average. With the Berserker buffs going the DPS was raised by another 50 points. The Wizard wasn't impacted at all. Once again, with buffs the Ranger out DPSed the Wizard consistently.I thought I'd add that observation because Sightless hasn't. <span>:smileywink:</span></font><div></div>

[Sapperlight]

<div></div>My, some people are full of themselves.  My agility and strength both hover around 350--obviously EQ2Players doesn't account for everything, such as self-buffs and AA's.  Dire Blade is Master 2 and Tangleflame is Master 1.  I openly admitted that my damage went down significantly and I'm not please about it.  However, I don't see how blindly lashing out at people with ad hominem attacks and perpetuating fallacious information will solve the problem.

[Steezi]

<div></div><p>Dont mention wizards.... Wizards are broken as badly as we are. Accurate comparison would be assassin on a single target, or a conj/necro/warlock on a group encounter... Wizards i personally feel should do disgusting amounts of single target dmg with no aggro drops. Atm they have middle dmg spells with no aggro drops.</p><p>The reason u see so much more outrage on ranger pages that on wizzies, is that they were broken steadily over a much longer period of time...for us it happened all at once.</p><p>SOE... Fix your dps classes! I have absolutely no faith in your abilities to see what this game needs....anyone who thinks a good fix is coming soon, look at said broken wizards. And SOE loves casters...</p>

[Fib]

The right way to do an analysis of this is to parse a much greater sample of  all sorts of classes  for a couple of weeks.  That would represent an average of what the classes do under normal curcumstances.  This data while interesting is a sample size of 1.   Yeah I know 1000 reps.  But  its still just one estimate of one ranger.I don't know what kind of prebuilt analytical tools SOE has for the game.  If it were me I would have built in a way of monitoring a variety of things over time.   The amount of information that the game generates in a single minute of activity  one one server has to be astounding though.Kinda makes you wonder what infor they do generate.<div></div>

[Steezi]

<div></div>dont try to tell them thinks that make sense. they will get mad and nerf brigands or somthing.

[Lightomen]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sapperlight wrote:<div></div><p>I have all master or adept 3 ranged CAs, and <font color="#ffff00">adept 1 and master (2) melee CAs</font>. </p><hr></blockquote><p>My apologies for not following you.  You stated you had "adept 1 and master (2) melee CAs".  I read this as you had adept 1 and master II, which prob not many rangers take the Master II melee CA since Stealthy Fire was the only real choice at 54.</p>

[Tarryn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Lightomen wrote:<div></div><p>prob not many rangers take the Master II melee CA since Stealthy Fire was the only real choice at 54.</p><hr></blockquote>Heh...  I two-box with a templar alot, so I love my Master II Dire Blade.  Up to 2k dmg+ every 60 sec is nice.

[Kelader]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>SmakenDahed wrote:<div></div><div></div><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2"><span></span></font><blockquote><hr><font color="#ffffcc" face="Arial" size="3">ryantj wrote:</font><font color="#ffffcc" face="Arial" size="3"></font><font color="#ffffcc" face="Arial" size="3">THIS IS A TON OF DATA. . . .A TON OF REAL LIVE SERVER TESTED DATA. . . can't argue the facts. I will keep all this data available for the inevitable person who posts and calls me a liar or not including everything or whatever they care to say about me. This right here is the facts. . . pure and simple numbers.</font><hr></blockquote><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2">Yes you can argue it because there are a LARGE number of factors in gathering this data that could have been variable and could have skewed the numbers to this end result. There are a number of telling issues in what was posted.<font color="#cc0000">Why does the Ranger have less than half the number of swings than the Berserker does? (Why does he have fewer swings than the necro's pet?)Why does the Ranger have almost as many misses with fewer swings as the Berserker?</font>Was the Ranger using a shield? Did he only attack when the mob was half dead or down a certain amount? Was there a level difference between the Berserker and Ranger? What level mob were they facing? Did some of the mobs have damage reduction/immunities to the weapons used by the Ranger? EDIT: Was the Ranger ONLY using his bow?</font><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2"><font color="#33cc00">Looking at the group make up, the Berserker should have been in defensive mode which should have reduced his attack rate/effectiveness (i.e. less swings or more misses).</font></font><font color="#33cc00"></font><font color="#33cc00" face="Century" size="2"><font color="#33cc00"></font><font color="#cc0000">This doesn't seem right at all and do go saying that is the issue, the Ranger in this test was sitting on his hands for half of it - the number of swings illustrates that.</font></font><div></div><p>Message Edited by SmakenDahed on <span class="date_text">02-24-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:36 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I ran a parser on similar if lower level group of encounters last night.  I play a 44 ranger and grouped with a 45 zerker, 43 coercer and 42 necro, and 44 templar.  We were doing exp runs along the top of CT.  Those are mostly white cons, with some yellows, and a few blues. </p><p>Interestingly, I had the exact same relationship between my swings and the zerker swings.  I was not sitting on my hands - I never do.  I melee when my bow ca's arnt up.  Yet, in many encounters the Zerker had many more swings.  He did not use a shield.  Outside of tough raid mobs, most tanks don't at my level. </p><p>I would not conclude that there is anything wrong with this ranger or these parses. </p><p> </p>