It's time someone said it.

[Aiy]

<div>Im not gonna say "stop whining" seriously..im not.</div><div> </div><div>I AM gonna say, "start whining about the right things"</div><div> </div><div>Think about it guys, rangers were only T1 dps because of a bug in proccing effects...wouldn't you rather have rangers be T1 dps based on their skills alone? Without having to buy the "uber" arrows and the "pwn" poisons?</div>

[z3oslo]

<div></div><p>Well lets see where the upcoming changes to rangers put us.</p><p>We belong in T1, and our only mission in groups is to deal DPS, and nothing else. Rangers and Assasins have nothing else than DPS to bring. No buffs or anything else.</p><p>If the changes put us back at the top, im a happy TexasRanger.</p><p> </p>

[Saihung23]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Aiyrn wrote:<div>Im not gonna say "stop whining" seriously..im not.</div><div> </div><div>I AM gonna say, "start whining about the right things"</div><div> </div><div>Think about it guys, rangers were only T1 dps because of a bug in proccing effects...wouldn't you rather have rangers be T1 dps based on their skills alone? Without having to buy the "uber" arrows and the "pwn" poisons?</div><hr></blockquote><p>Wow, love it love it, I absolutely love it.  What in the hell are you talking about?   "Start whining about the right things" ok, care to elaborate WHAT the right things are?  And who the hell is whining to you? </p><p>Youve been registered since April of last year....and I would be wrong to assume you read the forums with any regularity, right?  There are changes in the works that will put us back into T1 DPS (hopefully) minus the "uber" arrows and the "pwn" poisons.</p><p>I honestly cant even figure out where that last part came from...I can only imagine you are reading a ranger complain about his poisons elsewhere...for whatever reason, rangers were overpowered before...now they are underpowered...and soon they will be (hopefully) right where they belong....above all others on DPS except for Wizards/Warlocks/Assassins...since they are also T1.</p><p>Rangers knew fixes to the proc's were coming and our class would change.  We didnt think it would be so harsh of a nerf in our dps. </p><p>.........</p><p>What am I doing...I cant believe I replied to this...youre obviously irritated with someone in particular, and posted in here thinking that is the answer.  I hope it is...like I hope this thread dies fast. </p><p>Peace</p><p>Saihung</p>

[Xev]

<span><blockquote><hr>Aiyrn wrote:<div>Im not gonna say "stop whining" seriously..im not.</div><div> </div><div>I AM gonna say, "start whining about the right things"</div><div> </div><div>Think about it guys, rangers were only T1 dps because of a bug in proccing effects...wouldn't you rather have rangers be T1 dps based on their skills alone? Without having to buy the "uber" arrows and the "pwn" poisons?</div><hr></blockquote>I would and hope that is what will happen.  I think the changes they are making are a step in the right direction, but there may still be a little more that needs to be done.  But, I think we need to wait and see how these changes actually effect us when they go live before deciding whether they are good or bad changes.I would also love to see rangers get their makeshift arrow spells improved a lot so we didn't have to pay soooo much money, in addition to poison, in order to do our damage.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Aiyrn wrote:<div>Im not gonna say "stop whining" seriously..im not.</div><div> </div><div>I AM gonna say, "start whining about the right things"</div><div> </div><div>Think about it guys, rangers were only T1 dps because of a bug in proccing effects...wouldn't you rather have rangers be T1 dps based on their skills alone? Without having to buy the "uber" arrows and the "pwn" poisons?</div><hr></blockquote>I got chased out of town for having this attitude.  Good luck =)</span><div></div>

[klepp]

<div></div>umm saihung... looks to me like he knows exactly what he's talking about.  He's right 100%    Everyone says we were uber dps.. umm no we were uber dps when we spent hard money on poisons...   the new changes may make us able to do uber dps w/out poisons.. which is how it should be.  Poisons should put us above and beyond should we chose to buy/use them.   drivethrunoob!

[Fennir]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>I got chased out of town for having this attitude.  Good luck =)</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>you sure?   there are plenty of vocal and experienced rangers who have expressed the same opinion.the problem is that the people who whine greatly outnumber the people who actually provide constructive evidence to the devs.  when the devs listen to the intelligent contributions and modify their plans, the whiners think it was because of them.   then some of the more bold whiners begin whining that the fixes are not enough and they want more, etc.as far as i'm concerned, the fixes are all i need DPS-wise.  I contend that any ranger who cannot deal after the next update may want to re-examine how they play their class.  anything further I'm going to complain about is listed in the compiled bugs thread.</span></div>

[AfflictedOne]

<span><blockquote><hr>klepp wrote:<div></div>umm saihung... looks to me like he knows exactly what he's talking about.  He's right 100%    Everyone says we were uber dps.. umm no we were uber dps when we spent hard money on poisons...   the new changes may make us able to do uber dps w/out poisons.. which is how it should be.  Poisons should put us above and beyond should we chose to buy/use them.   drivethrunoob!<hr></blockquote>Yes instead of having to spend tons of money on poisons.  We're now gonna have to spend an insane amount of money on arrows and that's assuming that we can find someone willing to craft them.  At least for the first 2-3 weeks till every ranger is outta coinage then we back to tier 3 dps.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>I got chased out of town for having this attitude.  Good luck =)</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>you sure?   there are plenty of vocal and experienced rangers who have expressed the same opinion.the problem is that the people who whine greatly outnumber the people who actually provide constructive evidence to the devs.  when the devs listen to the intelligent contributions and modify their plans, the whiners think it was because of them.   then some of the more bold whiners begin whining that the fixes are not enough and they want more, etc.as far as i'm concerned, the fixes are all i need DPS-wise.  I contend that any ranger who cannot deal after the next update may want to re-examine how they play their class.  anything further I'm going to complain about is listed in the compiled bugs thread.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Yea, but when I said that it was before the nerf even tho.That's the trouble developers will always have to face.  People seem to think they are entitled to having things about their classes increased but underplay or forget them in short, and that nerfs are always wrong and never, ever forget a nerf.</span><div></div>

[AfflictedOne]

<span><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>I got chased out of town for having this attitude.  Good luck =)</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>you sure?   there are plenty of vocal and experienced rangers who have expressed the same opinion.the problem is that the people who whine greatly outnumber the people who actually provide constructive evidence to the devs.  when the devs listen to the intelligent contributions and modify their plans, the whiners think it was because of them.   then some of the more bold whiners begin whining that the fixes are not enough and they want more, etc.as far as i'm concerned, the fixes are all i need DPS-wise.  I contend that any ranger who cannot deal after the next update may want to re-examine how they play their class.  anything further I'm going to complain about is listed in the compiled bugs thread.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Actually wanna throw out some info related to dps here.  I've been doing some raiding the last couple days and I really don't think these fixes are gonna help all that much.  I've actually crit hit with sniper shot for 14K and got off a M1 veiled fire for over 6K not to mention all melee attacks and all ranged working every angle for dps in a fight and still parsed no better than 5th.  The minimal increases to some of out lesser CA's aren't gonna make up the rest of it.  The only hope we have from this fix is the arrow autoattack.  The only problem is it's gonna make us into paupers.  There's no way that the majority of rangers can afford to use T7 arrows when our makeshift line doesn't make enough to keep us going.  There's been nights I've  finished exping with less than 1 stack of arrows (started with 40) while using makeshift every time it's up. 40 stacks of T6 arrows are approx 1.2pp and you can't even buy T7 atm.It is just so insanely frustrating to work for all the dps you can (and yes I've played ranger a long time and know how to joust) and still not make the top 5 on parses 95 out of 100 times.</span><div></div>

[Fennir]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>Yea, but when I said that it was before the nerf even tho.That's the trouble developers will always have to face.  People seem to think they are entitled to having things about their classes increased but underplay or forget them in short, and that nerfs are always wrong and never, ever forget a nerf.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>The problem is that you actually thought people (especially rangers) didn't know rangers were overpowered.  Why would you think telling a class that's getting nerfed that it's a good thing would get you anywhere?Did you know how broken we'd become, or if we were going to be fixed this fast?  Apparently the devs didn't even know, so I'm not sure you could have.</span></div>

[Aiy]

<div>All im saying is, rangers shouldnt have to rely on poion procs to be able to be T1 dps, i dont understand what was so hard to figure out about that.</div><div> </div><div>And i really dont understand why higher tier arrows are only increasing autoattack damage, yet they do nothing for our CA's.</div><div> </div><div>Has it been posted somewhere that they're gonna fix this? Cause if not, well, thats just stupid. They blind us with pretty new spells and a new root, but they dont bother to fix some of the actual problems with this class.</div><div> </div><div>And being able to summon a handful of arrows every 10 minutes is just a slap in the face, period.</div><div> </div><div>HOPEFULLY when they remove subcombines, the cost of arrows might just actually drop. *crosses fingers*</div><div> </div><div>im not saying i dont like the changes, they are a step in the right direction for sure, but i would like to see some of the class breaking bugs fixed (i.e. broken tracking)</div>

[Jiinx]

Weapon stats (damage, speed) do not matter on CAs.  For consistency, arrow quality should not matter on CAs, either.<div></div>

[Aiy]

<div></div>well thats all fine and dandy, but even still, it would be nice if say, using a CA didnt consume an arrow, or something. As it stand, were the only class that has to regulary pay to use our CA's

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>Yea, but when I said that it was before the nerf even tho.That's the trouble developers will always have to face.  People seem to think they are entitled to having things about their classes increased but underplay or forget them in short, and that nerfs are always wrong and never, ever forget a nerf.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>The problem is that you actually thought people (especially rangers) didn't know rangers were overpowered.  Why would you think telling a class that's getting nerfed that it's a good thing would get you anywhere?Did you know how broken we'd become, or if we were going to be fixed this fast?  Apparently the devs didn't even know, so I'm not sure you could have.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Nah, people were pretending they didn't know, saying stuff like "Rangers are right where they should be." Anyway, I guess it's just a double standard, if an "experienced" ranger says we should be doing damage with CAs instead of based on a buggy proc, then it's fine, but if a 46 ranger says it, it's "telling a class that's getting nerfed that it's a good thing."</span><div></div>

[Gareorn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>Yea, but when I said that it was before the nerf even tho.That's the trouble developers will always have to face.  People seem to think they are entitled to having things about their classes increased but underplay or forget them in short, and that nerfs are always wrong and never, ever forget a nerf.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>The problem is that you actually thought people (especially rangers) didn't know rangers were overpowered.  Why would you think telling a class that's getting nerfed that it's a good thing would get you anywhere?Did you know how broken we'd become, or if we were going to be fixed this fast?  Apparently the devs didn't even know, so I'm not sure you could have.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Nah, people were pretending they didn't know, saying stuff like "Rangers are right where they should be." Anyway, I guess it's just a double standard, if an "experienced" ranger says we should be doing damage with CAs instead of based on a buggy proc, then it's fine, but if a 46 ranger says it, it's "telling a class that's getting nerfed that it's a good thing."</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><img src="http://www.pwasoh.com/media/war_protest_signs/image014.jpg">

[Dagator]

<div></div>First, I have been called one of the crazy whining rangers, but I will and always try to be objective.  To respond to the OP, I agree that we should be T1 dps without having to spend all the money on poisons and arrows.  I /bugged and /feedback after the proc patch, but the other concern was the parry/block/deflect/riposte issue.  I know we were overpowered, doing most damage in groups by a long shot, but the reality is that we should have or should be equal to other T1 dps, which includes wizards and assassins.  The only problem that I see is how can it be fixed fairly?  I mean, should we be T1 dps without the poisons and expensive arrows?  If so, what happens when we do spend the money on expensive arrows and poisons?  We go over our normal dps allotment and wizards and such would complain.  On the other hand, should we be T2/3 dps and if we buy poisons and arrows, it puts us in T1 dps?  I don't have a constructive answer, and don't want any flames or insults this time around, (I cleaned up my language too), but the fact is, I don't think there is a really really clean solution to keep everyone happy, (not that everyone would ever be happy at the same time anyway).  I guess in my opinion, people played their toons happily while the fountain of good dps flowed, then it stopped, (ranged dps flow that is, please no melee arguments), and people were upset.  Most of us, including myself, had seen the "nerf the rangers" threads for so long, and then it happened, and we complained.  If I upset you at some point, please accept my apology for that.  However, I still think rangers have issues on live, and I have not heard enough constructive feedback from test about the new patches to have an idea of what the changes will bring.  I can say that my 60 ranger hasn't played much since the update and I have leveled my dirge.  I was fortunate enough to find a class that lets me feel like I help the group again, and I feel wanted.  The ranger in me is fading, but I have found a new release.  For my sake, please don't start any, "nerf the dirge buffs" threads...lol

[jagermiester]

<div></div>Seriously i find it amusing when mid 40s rangers [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] about dps issues and dps parses and all that crap. You dont have a friggen clue what you are talking about. You dont have the big CAs you dont have the top end gear. You are just [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].  Shut up. You arent helping and honestly if you dont use the spells you dont know what the hell you are talking about. Hit the high end gear get some stats 200+ feel the fury of a true nerfing when you cant solo things you could do at level 50 with minimal effort but now have to have a slugfest to do now. Mostly just shut up.

[damahra]

<div></div>WOW, seriously, it's [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]heads like you who think they're the "most uber" and who have THE most knowledge of the class that make me sick and I'm sure make other rangers that may be hmmm not so "grown up" /sarcasm as you not want to post an opinion on these boards, I think a 40's ranger, or 20's or 70's or lvl 2 ranger has just as much right to post an opinion on here as anyone, so why don't YOU just shut up eh?

[TaleraRis]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Aiyrn wrote:<div>Im not gonna say "stop whining" seriously..im not.</div><div> </div><div>I AM gonna say, "start whining about the right things"</div><div> </div><div>Think about it guys, rangers were only T1 dps because of a bug in proccing effects...wouldn't you rather have rangers be T1 dps based on their skills alone? Without having to buy the "uber" arrows and the "pwn" poisons?</div><hr></blockquote>I got chased out of town for having this attitude.  Good luck =)</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I dunno. I've expressed the same opinion, even going so far as calling it being weaned from the poison and proc teat, and I didn't have to pull out the asbestos suit.</span><div></div>

[TaleraRis]

<span><blockquote><hr>jagermiester wrote:<div></div>Seriously i find it amusing when mid 40s rangers [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] about dps issues and dps parses and all that crap. You dont have a friggen clue what you are talking about. You dont have the big CAs you dont have the top end gear. You are just [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].  Shut up. You arent helping and honestly if you dont use the spells you dont know what the hell you are talking about. Hit the high end gear get some stats 200+ feel the fury of a true nerfing when you cant solo things you could do at level 50 with minimal effort but now have to have a slugfest to do now. Mostly just shut up.<hr></blockquote></span>Let's not get into this sort of attitude, Jag. ALL ranger opinions are valid. Any changes affect all of us to varying degrees, but they do affect ALL of us. And we need to understand how things are being affected at all levels, not just the high ones, not just the low ones. We'll never be able to be cohesive as a class if we're bickering about such and such's level and how much they could possibly know or understand. They understand where they are, and their point of view is just as valid in regard to ranger concerns.<div></div>

[Gareorn]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>damahra wrote:<div></div>WOW, seriously, it's [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]heads like you who think they're the "most uber" and who have THE most knowledge of the class that make me sick and I'm sure make other rangers that may be hmmm not so "grown up" /sarcasm as you not want to post an opinion on these boards, I think a 40's ranger, or 20's or 70's or lvl 2 ranger has just as much right to post an opinion on here as anyone, so why don't YOU just shut up eh?<hr></blockquote><p>Before you do something silly like tell someone that everyone has the right to post their opinion and then in the same sentence tell them to shut up...  Relax.  Take a deep breath and exhale slowly.</p><p>I'm not at the end game, I'm mid-T6 and I (kind of) hold the same opinion as Jager, just not to his extent.  I do realize that the higher levels felt the nerf bat much more than I, and that I felt the nerf bat much more than those in levels below me.  This is due to the nerf having the greatest effect on the ranged abilities, and as Rangers level up they become more specialized in ranged combat.  And, Jager was responding not to a ranger, but to someone who has a flavor-of-the-month Ranger alt.  From the looks of it, that Ranger alt hasn't been played much since the LU20 nerfing.</p><p>Personally, I tend to support the opinions of those like Jager much more than the opinions of those who greeted our nerfing with enthusiastic jubilance.  If you wish to support the latter, well that's your right also.</p><p>Message Edited by Gareorn on <span class="date_text">03-11-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:49 AM</span></p>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>TaleraRis wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>jagermiester wrote:<div></div>Seriously i find it amusing when mid 40s rangers [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] about dps issues and dps parses and all that crap. You dont have a friggen clue what you are talking about. You dont have the big CAs you dont have the top end gear. You are just [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].  Shut up. You arent helping and honestly if you dont use the spells you dont know what the hell you are talking about. Hit the high end gear get some stats 200+ feel the fury of a true nerfing when you cant solo things you could do at level 50 with minimal effort but now have to have a slugfest to do now. Mostly just shut up.<hr></blockquote></span>Let's not get into this sort of attitude, Jag. ALL ranger opinions are valid. Any changes affect all of us to varying degrees, but they do affect ALL of us. And we need to understand how things are being affected at all levels, not just the high ones, not just the low ones. We'll never be able to be cohesive as a class if we're bickering about such and such's level and how much they could possibly know or understand. They understand where they are, and their point of view is just as valid in regard to ranger concerns.<div></div><hr></blockquote>I actually tend to think that playing other classes who play WITH rangers also gives a different but still valid insight into the class.  Besides, look at my classes, does anyone doubt I don't know "nerfed?" <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span><div></div>

[Balerius]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>I got chased out of town for having this attitude.  Good luck =)</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>you sure?   there are plenty of vocal and experienced rangers who have expressed the same opinion.the problem is that the people who whine greatly outnumber the people who actually provide constructive evidence to the devs.  when the devs listen to the intelligent contributions and modify their plans, the whiners think it was because of them.   then some of the more bold whiners begin whining that the fixes are not enough and they want more, etc.as far as i'm concerned, the fixes are all i need DPS-wise.  I contend that any ranger who cannot deal after the next update may want to re-examine how they play their class.  anything further I'm going to complain about is listed in the compiled bugs thread.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>And as far as I'm concerned, it's entirely premature to say that the fixes if implemented live as they are on test will do all that is necessary to return our dps to a level that is equivalent to assassins.  I contend that anyone who thinks otherwise is playing with crappy assassins.  Perhaps you ought to wait and see what the impact is before you start gratuitously insulting rangers who differ with your opinion.</p><p> </p>

[Fennir]

Gratuitously insulting?lol you'll know when I'm gratuitously insulting. that wasn't it.<div></div>

[Balerius]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:Gratuitously insulting?lol you'll know when I'm gratuitously insulting. that wasn't it.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Then perhaps you don't understand the term.  So let me put it more basic terms.</p><p>You happen to think that the proposed changes on the Test server are all that we need to return us to parity with assassins.  I disagree with your position that a change to a 30 sec buff and 1/3 increase in bow autoattack damage is going to close the gap.  While I have my doubts, and have stated in other threads why, I am willing to see what the changes bring.  You are not.  Without waiting to see how the changes affect all aspects of the game, you have trumpeted all over this board how you are certain that the Test changes are all that we need.  You have gone on to state that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know how to play a ranger.</p><p>I call that insulting.  The fact that you <strong><em>could</em></strong> have stated your opinion on how you expect the changes to play out without going on to brand those who disagree with you as not knowing how to play their class makes the insult gratuitous.  Understand now?</p>

[Fennir]

If all that was being changed was one buff and bow autoattack, I might not be so sure.  Have you even read the test notes?Thankfully that's not all they're changing.  Miracle shot line is being doubled in damage.  Confusion line cast time is lowered to 1s and damage upped.  Arrow rip damage upped.  Fatal reminder damage upped.  Lunging changed to a root and DD.  Snaring shot damage upped.  All of that IN ADDITION to the Focus Fire changes AND bow autoattack.And I didn't say anyone who disagrees doesn't know how to play a ranger.  I specifically said if you can't hang after the changes, you need to re-examine how you play your class.  I am already doing 700-800 DPS under good conditions in a nerfed state.  Change all the crap above, and I'll be pushing 1k again.What I don't understand is how you can take my opinion so personally?  None of us have played with the changes yet, so who am I insulting?  I'm making an educated guess based on my current status and the changes on test.  I believe 100% that a ranger who has trouble being T1 DPS after all those changes should rethink their strategy.  I'm sorry if you don't like that, don't agree, or feel insulted.  That's very much your prerogative.BTW if we suck after the changes I'll come right back here, say I was wrong, and ask for more changes.  I'd put 20p on it not happening, though.P.S.  "I am willing to see what the changes bring.  You are not." is probably the least truthful statement in your post.  Telling whiny people not to ask for more before they even see how the current changes play out is all I've done in that regard,  which is quite the opposite of what you suggest is my mentality.<div></div>

[Graton]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Aiyrn wrote:<div></div>well thats all fine and dandy, but even still, it would be nice if say, using a CA didnt consume an arrow, or something. As it stand, were the only class that has to regulary pay to use our CA's<hr></blockquote>assassin's have 3 bow attacks also which they use all the time if they know what they're doing. that said i fully agree with you the both predator classes should have the ability to summon good arrows. even though it's only auto attack dmg, those extra arrows being fired between ca's can be significant.as for tier 1 dps in general after the first weekend of raiding, it seems pretty reasonable to me with one notable exception. the dps ranking on most fights in temple of scale looked likeassassinrangerwizard / warlockbruisertroub / dirg / shadowknighti don't recall the rest but pretty reasonable. in lab where there were a good deal more ae's it looked likerangerwizard / warlockassassinbruisertroub / dirg / shadowknighti think the t1 dps classes are currently making decent sense. assassins shine where we can melee the whole time and are still good with occasional jousting. rangers really show their stuff on mean ae fights and are solid as well on others. wizzies and warlocks are typically behind both but not by too much and they do have superior utility so it's reasonable.now the notable exception... the class i left off this list was necromancer. my guild has no conjurors so i can't really comment there but a necro with his dmg pet up is flat insane right now. they seem to be headed straight into a nerf had i to guess. the other thing i'm not sure about is rogues. we have a decent number but none have lvl'd very fast so i really am in the dark about them. that all said, tier 1 is closer to be being tier 1 than it has been since i can recall.</span></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Graton wrote:<div><span> wizzies and warlocks are typically behind both but not by too much and they do have superior utility so it's reasonable.</span></div><hr></blockquote>So.. for example:Wizards and Warlock group buffs give power and stats and resists - thus utility - which may or may not help the group kill faster, but, nonetheless, superior utility.Ranger self-buffs give less aggro and more damage - but NOT utility - yet it helps the group kill faster, but, nonetheless, inferior utility.*boggle*(EDIT: I do realize my views on utility are unpopular.  One day I am going to have to make a post on the main boards about how I view utility so I can get flamed, hehe)</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">03-13-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:03 AM</span></p>

[Jay]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<span><div></div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<span>I got chased out of town for having this attitude.  Good luck =)</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><div>you sure?   there are plenty of vocal and experienced rangers who have expressed the same opinion.</div><div> </div><div><strong><font color="#ffff33"><Kaeros raises hand></font></strong>the problem is that the people who whine greatly outnumber the people who actually provide constructive evidence to the devs.  when the devs listen to the intelligent contributions and modify their plans, the whiners think it was because of them.   then some of the more bold whiners begin whining that the fixes are not enough and they want more, etc.as far as i'm concerned, the fixes are all i need DPS-wise.  I contend that any ranger who cannot deal after the next update may want to re-examine how they play their class.  anything further I'm going to complain about is listed in the compiled bugs thread.</div></span><hr></blockquote><p>QFE. I didn't even respond to the OP b/c I thought it was all a given - of course nobody wanted to be Top Dog DPS, and nobody wants all our dmg to be based on procs. Maybe I'm going too far in assuming that was common assent?</p><p>It's almost like the perception of whining is now greater than the actual whining. Or maybe I'm just doing a good job of screening out those threads, so I don't see it all happening. I really don't know, but personally I'm not all that concerned about the State of the Ranger at the moment. We had some damage problems that the proc reduction in LU20 revealed, the Devs recognized those deficiencies, and they've already put in some changes to address them. /shrug</p><p>What more can you really ask for? I'm interested to see what comes through in LU21, and after that, I'll express what remaining concerns I have.</p><p>FWIW, Tobias has become one of my favorite peeps in this forum, the dude knows what time it is. Kudos, man.</p>

[Graton]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Graton wrote:<div><span> wizzies and warlocks are typically behind both but not by too much and they do have superior utility so it's reasonable.</span></div><hr></blockquote>So.. for example:Wizards and Warlock group buffs give power and stats and resists - thus utility - which may or may not help the group kill faster, but, nonetheless, superior utility.Ranger self-buffs give less aggro and more damage - but NOT utility - yet it helps the group kill faster, but, nonetheless, inferior utility.*boggle*(EDIT: I do realize my views on utility are unpopular.  One day I am going to have to make a post on the main boards about how I view utility so I can get flamed, hehe)</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">03-13-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:03 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>wizzies and warlocks actually outdmg predators on most multi-mob fights, outdmg assassin's on joust fights and are slightly behind both on straight up hack and slash. ae fights are a big part of raiding so seriously their dmg is among the best a majority of the time.utility does more then 'make people kill faster'. that's a rather one-sided view. i was in a group last night that suceeded because the wizzie rooted two adds and then fed the healer who was oop. wizards / warlocks bring more to a raid than dmg, rangers and assassins really don't. assassin's have hate transfer but they don't spend time in the main tank group unless a guild is really small or doesn't have certain key classes. our poison proc while not nothing is a small dps increase to one other toon. rangers trap comes in handy once every other blue moon.resists are very important on many raids. having a wizard in a melee dps group can easily be the difference between success and failure because the group might be able to stay in ae range without sacrificing all their good dps gear to swap in resist sets. feeding power to a drained tank or healer has saved many a raid and any groupmate that can buff everyones strength by 70 or so is cool with me.i'm really unclear on your feelings on utility. so do you think that sorceres should outdmg predators in all cases and have more utility just because utility doesn't count? By this same argument should illusionists do the same dmg as sorceres and bards the same as predators? i'm not sure what you find boggling about my point because the idea that there is a trade off between certain strengths is the whole idea behind a class system isn't it ?</span></div>

[LoreLady]

"<span>i'm really unclear on your feelings on utility. so do you think that sorceres should outdmg predators in all cases and have more utility just because utility doesn't count? By this same argument should illusionists do the same dmg as sorceres and bards the same as predators? i'm not sure what you find boggling about my point because the idea that there is a trade off between certain strengths is the whole idea behind a class system isn't it ?"-GratonYou couldent have said it better,  it bothers me when people want there cake and eat it to. Rangers and assassins have there place in the DPS scale and the situational benifits, just as wizzes and warlocks have theres.  There is no need to give extra DPS, or util unless  the particular class requires it. And by require it I mean not falling under there class listing.  Any wizard who is  crying about rangers getting a boost and they are not, please look at the spell charts.I put my own abilities on the assassin forums as to why we are getting the boost when someone stated that assassins should outdamage rangers. And I ended up getting ridiculed for it. I will happily copy and paste my spell chart to anyone who wants it so see why we are getting a boost.</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Graton wrote:<div><span>wizzies and warlocks actually outdmg predators on most multi-mob fights, outdmg assassin's on joust fights and are slightly behind both on straight up hack and slash. ae fights are a big part of raiding so seriously their dmg is among the best a majority of the time.utility does more then 'make people kill faster'. that's a rather one-sided view. i was in a group last night that suceeded because the wizzie rooted two adds and then fed the healer who was oop. wizards / warlocks bring more to a raid than dmg, rangers and assassins really don't. assassin's have hate transfer but they don't spend time in the main tank group unless a guild is really small or doesn't have certain key classes. our poison proc while not nothing is a small dps increase to one other toon. rangers trap comes in handy once every other blue moon.resists are very important on many raids. having a wizard in a melee dps group can easily be the difference between success and failure because the group might be able to stay in ae range without sacrificing all their good dps gear to swap in resist sets. feeding power to a drained tank or healer has saved many a raid and any groupmate that can buff everyones strength by 70 or so is cool with me.i'm really unclear on your feelings on utility. so do you think that sorceres should outdmg predators in all cases and have more utility just because utility doesn't count? By this same argument should illusionists do the same dmg as sorceres and bards the same as predators? i'm not sure what you find boggling about my point because the idea that there is a trade off between certain strengths is the whole idea behind a class system isn't it ?</span></div><hr></blockquote>I actually didn't really mean to imply anything about Predator DPS vs Sorcerer DPS (hence the "for example" in my reply). My view on utility is this - any ability which aids the group in doing whatever it has chosen to do is, in some fashion, utility.  This includes healing, taunts, cures, dps, crowd control, etc.  In this view, which, in my opinion, is far from one-sided, utility is seen as something which benefits the group and is not limited to whatever people decide utility should include.I certainly agree that having a wizard in a melee group helps, for example.  But I don't say that proves a wizard has utility. Let's say we have a standard 3 melee 3 caster group.  So a player (of whatever class) with a group melee buff increases the efficiency of 3 players in the group - thus I would say that the buffing player has 3 "points" of utility in that group.  BUT the buff receiving players have to be in the group for that buff to be useful - thus they each also reacive one "point" of utility.  A self buff, therefore, gives the player two "points."  So say a ranger self buffs his DPS or aggro, he gets 2 points for that, plus he receives a str boost from a group buff for another point.  A defiler has a group str buff, which aids the 3 melee, for 3 points as well.  Each spell, therefore, is actually useful to the group by this measure of 3 points, despite one having a group nature, and the other a self-only nature.  This "point" system by no means suggests any buff is more powerful than another and makes no attempt to determine the usefulness of the utility, but simply gives us an idea of how buffs specifically relate to group dynamics.  </span><span>If a group buffer has no class of the appropriate type to buff, then what good is that buff as utility?  Utility of the buffing type requires a buffer but the target is also important.</span><span>That is just an example.  But my idea is simply that the current definition of utility is very narrow, and does not adequetly describe the relationships between a group and its members and how buffs and abilities interrelate. Of course, "pure" utility like mez is harder to measure, but if you were to compare a mez to a damage CA, both take up a hotbar slot and both have their place and both help the group achieve their goal - why is one utility and the other not?In any case, what I am saying here actually agrees with your point.  If a ranger has more damage utility then he will have less utility of other types.  And vice versa for a support class.So ultimately I am just arguing against the standard definition of utility and the propensity for players to downplay their classes' ability to aid a group by stating that their abilities are not utility (or good utility).  I am prolly just being [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].  Anyway, hope that clears that up =)</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">03-13-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:55 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">03-13-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:01 PM</span></p>

[Jay]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div><span>My view on utility is this - any ability which aids the group in doing whatever it has chosen to do is, in some fashion, utility.  This includes healing, taunts, cures, dps, crowd control, etc.  In this view, which, in my opinion, is far from one-sided, utility is seen as something which benefits the group and is not limited to whatever people decide utility should include.</span><hr></blockquote>Okay, we've talked about this before, but this statement begs the question: what is NOT utility in your view, Sokolov? Seriously - you've lumped every single type of ability that every class has into one huge umbrella term - "utility" - which pretty much makes the term useless in any discussion, IMO. If every skill is utility in one way or another, then what's the point of even having a word for it?

[Fennir]

He overintellectualized his argument back on itself.Happens a lot.<div></div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Jay42 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div><span>My view on utility is this - any ability which aids the group in doing whatever it has chosen to do is, in some fashion, utility.  This includes healing, taunts, cures, dps, crowd control, etc.  In this view, which, in my opinion, is far from one-sided, utility is seen as something which benefits the group and is not limited to whatever people decide utility should include.</span><hr></blockquote>Okay, we've talked about this before, but this statement begs the question: what is NOT utility in your view, Sokolov? Seriously - you've lumped every single type of ability that every class has into one huge umbrella term - "utility" - which pretty much makes the term useless in any discussion, IMO. If every skill is utility in one way or another, then what's the point of even having a word for it?<hr></blockquote>That's the point.  The current definition of utility allows people to argue weird things concerning dps vs utility and claim superior utility arbitarily.   The typical argument implies that X class is better for grouping - but I have demonstrated that group enhancement abilities necessarily requires there to be a group in the first place!The point is that in my definition of utility, there are many <i><b>KINDS</b></i> of utility - leading to the idea that just because you don't have one kind of utility doesn't mean you don't have other kinds of utility which benefit the group.The problem I see (and you may disagree that it is a problem) is that people tend to lump all damage and self-buffs together and call those non-utility, and then they argue that those abilities should be more powerful if they have less utility.  But we see that if, for simplicities' sake, all abilities are roughly equal, that no such adjustments are really necessary.  By definition, having more damage and self-buffs already give more power to a class that has less traditional utility abilities.  By changing the definition and looking at every ability in a group usefulness context, we eliminate this fallacy and realize that things like self buffs and the desirability to BE buffed are just as vital to the functionality of traditional utility as the utility itself.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">03-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:58 PM</span></p>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:He overintellectualized his argument back on itself.Happens a lot.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Have a nice day!</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">03-14-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:59 PM</span></p>