The gap, how big where it lies.. Talking dps here.

[LoreLady]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><font face="Courier New">Ok, I want to explain my thinking and a summary on why I did this.. My first thing is, the harder I button mash the less dps I seem to do when I try hard to get my best, I end up being the bottom. Effort should equal damage, unfortunatly the way our skills our set it doesnt allow for that. Second, I want to mention that peak dps in raids for rangers is 1400, assassins 2000, wizards 2000. The way I did this is so that people can start from the top and read there way down to how I got my answers. I took each and every damage art and added the totals, then categorized the totals then compared the total damages. Then, I went down to cast times to see the diffrence. If we were ballanced these things would equal themselves out. Like, if there is 50% less damage in the total damages there should be a 50% faster time to cast inorder to get equal damage.</font><font face="Courier New">Ranger                25851        38378        72420Assassin              28296        47624        63671                      ----                      2445(assa)   9246(assa)   8749(rng)</font><font face="Courier New">In theroy these totals are ballanced, one will jump ontop of another. This is with snipers shot, decapitate, and mark excluded.</font><font face="Courier New">With mark--Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  32101        51429        67476                              ---          ---          ---                              6250         89807        4944This is with mark, to give a greater handle on where assassins actually are, unfortunatly the likely hood of an assassin doing max damage with mark in a group or solo setting is slim, so I have chosen to seperate these.</font><font face="Courier New">Ranger                    14.4|</font><font face="Courier New">20.5</font><font face="Courier New">      18.8|</font><font face="Courier New">26.5</font><font face="Courier New">      31.8|</font><font face="Courier New">45.5</font><font face="Courier New">Asssassin                 8.8(10.7)      12.6(17.4)     22.6(30.5)(all abilities included)  ----           ---                              5.6s 38%diff   6.2s(32% diff) 9.2(2<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />                          3.7  26%       1.4    7.4%    1.3  4.1</font><font face="Courier New">When I  say all abilities included snipers shot is still taken out of here.. The first number is poise on both ends, the second is without poise. ON the second number after the | is without poise. Now, first diffrence in numbers is with both classes with poise, the second diffrence in numbers is rangers with poise assassins without poise. So this is showing that even though rangers are getting aa's, these aa's are just to put a ranger with an assassin who doesnt have any aa's.. What needs to be changed, is all our frontal melee abilities need to be changed and boosted to start with - shocking thrust, rip, lunging joust. And then another small boost to either recasts, or damage to archery abilities.  And a large increase in the ability snaring shot. It should be easy for a ranger to achieve 1k dps without influence of other classes. The way things should be, the harder I button mash the higher my damage should go.I was talking to sokolov on the phone the other day, the main thing he dident seem to understand is why I did things in a set time with damage, mathimatical time on the second part. The reasoning for that, is that there is a diffrence in that time I cant say that all abilities used will add up to 30 seconds for the first interval, and then 1 min for the next. The amount of time passed to use all the abilities once is diffrent between the two of them so I cannot give st intervals. What I can do however, is add both times up. Then add or subtract them from the total damages from the percentage of the time diffrence. The shorter the time diffrence, the less diffrence in damage, the greater the time diffrence the greater the diffrence in damage. So if I had 600 damage in 1 minute, and then 610 damage in a minute 10. Both would even out to 600.</font><hr size="2" width="100%">Ranger<font face="Courier New">--- Archery---                         30s        1m                                               Amazing shot(1m)          1515         --         (crit)                   (1969)        --         3938                         Counfounding arrow(30s)   1249         2872         (crit)                   (1623)        ---        4495                          Culling of the Weak(1m)   1832         --         (crit)                   (2381)        --         4762                           Devitalizing Arrow(1m     1581         --         4110(crit)                   (2055)                                             Precise shot(20s)         882          2028       I  (crit)                   (1146)        --         3174                                               Tripple volly(1m)         2412         --         (crit)                   (3135)        --         6270                            -----                       Sub total                 9471           -Focusaim-                12312        14440      39061</font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">Snaring shot (10s)        533          1599       3198                            Vieled Fire(1m 30s)       3886         --         --                             ---                      Subtotal                  16731        19925      42259(above ranged abilities with crits included)      ---                       </font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">                          Melee                                               Arrow Rip(20s)            802          1604       2406Emberstrike(10s)          1181         3543       7086Longblade(10s)            852          2556       5112Lunging Joust(20s)        815          1630       2445Rangers blade(1m)         2754         --         5508Shocking Thrust(10s)      588          1764       3348                         ---                      Subtotal                  6992         16325      25905</font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">Dot                       Mortal Reminder (30s)     2128         ---        4256                         Hawkdive - No actual figures.                                 ---                       Subtotal                  2128         ---        4256</font><font face="Courier New">                          </font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New"><font face="Courier New">Area of effect                        Rain of arrows (2min)     4336         ---        ---(4targets)                17344(8targets)                34688                          Selection(1min)           1705         ---        3410(4targets)                6820         --         13630-8targets-                13640        ---        27280---                       Subtotal                  6041         ---        7746(4 targets)               24164        ---        30974(8 targets)               48328        ---        61968---                       </font>                          </font><font face="Courier New">Snipers shot              9224         ---</font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">-------------------------------------------Total                     25851                               With crit+snipers         ---                       </font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New"><b>Assassin                              </b></font><font face="Courier New">--                        Range                                 --                        Assasiling Blast(20s)     882          1764        2646Contrived Weapon(20s)     902          1804        2706Neck shot(1m)             2492         --          4984Spitting asp(1m)          2016         --          4032                          ---                       Subtotal                  6292         3568        14368---                       </font>                                                           <hr size="2" width="100%"><div></div><font face="Courier New">DoTs                      Deadly Wound(20s)(24d)    1431         2862        4293Flowing Wound(30s)24d)    2063         4126        6189Scraping Blow(10s)(12d)   713          2139        4278                         ---                       Subtotal                  4207         9127        14760</font>---                                                                                                                              <hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">---                       Melee                     ---                       Crippling strike(1m)      1604         --          3208Eviscerate(1m)            2754         --          5508Finishing blow(45s)       1504         --          3008Freezing strike(1m)       1672         --          3344Jugular(1m)               1957         --          3914Killing Blade(2m)         6335         --          --Masked attack(10s)        852         2556         5112Puncture Blade(10s)       1299        3897         7794</font><font face="Courier New">---Subtotal                  17977       24430        38223---                     </font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">AE's                                                Slaughtersault(1m)        1876        ---          3752(4 Targets)               7504        ---          15008(8 Targets)               15005       ---          300016                          Cloaked Assault(30s)12d)  2312        4624         6936(4 Targets)               9248        18496        27744(8 Targets)               18496       36992        55488                                     ---                       Subtotal                  4188        6936         10688(4targets)                16752       35248        42752(8targets)                33504       70493        355504</font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">---                       Misc                      ---      Decapitate(10m)           14454(excluded)           Malignant Mark(30s)       3805(excluded)</font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">------------------------- Total                     28296----------Comparison of totals    ----                               ---Range                  ---Ranger                    16731        19925        42259Assassin                  6292         9860         14368                          ---          --           ---                          10439(rang)  10065(rng)   27891(rng)</font><font face="Courier New">---                     Melee---Ranger                    6992         16325        25905Assassin                  17977        24430        38223                          --           ---          --                          10985(assa)  8105(assa)   12318(assa)---DoT's                    ---   Ranger                    2128         2128         4256Assassin                  4207         13334        14760                          ---          ---          ---                          2079(assa)   11206(assa)  10504(assa)---AoE's(single target)                 ---Ranger                    6041         6041         7746Assassin                  4188         6936         10688                          ----         ---          ---                          1853(ranger) 895(assa)    2942(assa)</font><font face="Courier New">-------------------       Total Diffrence(AE's excluded and misc excluded)---------------                    Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  28296        47624        63671                          ----                          2445(assa)   9246(assa)   8749(rng)                                      With mark--Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  32101        51429        67476                              ---          ---          ---                              6250         89807        4944</font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Actuall Cast times involved------------------------------                          IAmazing shot              1.1(1.5)    1    1.1    2    2.2Arrow rip                 0.3(.5)     2    0.6    3    0.9Confounding Arrow         0.7(1)      2    1.4    3    2.1Culling of the Weak       1.1(1.5)    1    1.1    2    2.2Emberstrike               0.3(.5)     3    0.9    6    1.8Devitalizing arrow        1.1(1.5)    1    1.1    2    2.2Longblade                 0.3(.5)     3    0.9    6    1.8Lunging joust             0.3(.5)     2    0.6    3    0.9Mortal Reminder           0.3(.5)     1    0.3    3    0.9Precise shot              0.7(1)      2    1.4    3    2.1   <---(stupid mistake)Rain of arrows            1.4(2)      1    1.4    1    1.4Rangers blade             0.3(.5)     1    0.3    2    0.6Selection                 2.2(3)      1    2.2    2    4.4Shocking thrust           0.3(.5)     3    0.9    6    1.8Snipers shot              3.7(5)      1    --          --Tripple Volley            1.1(1.5)    1    1.1    2    2.2Vield fire                2.2(3)      1    2.2    1    2.2Focus aim                 0.7(1)      1    0.7    2    1.4                          ---                          14.4(20.5)       18.8(26.5)  31.1(45.5)                          ---                          18.1(25.5)(with snipers shot)                          ---                         Assailing blast           0.7(1)    2    1.4(2)    3    2.1(3)    Cloaked assault           0.7(1)    1    0.7(1)    2    1.4(2)Contrived Weapon          0.7(1)    2    1.4(2)    3    2.1(3)Crippling strike          0.3(.5)   1    0.3(.5)   2    0.6(1)Deadly wound              0.3(.5)   2    0.6(1)    3    0.9(1.5)Eviscerate                0.3(.5)   1    0.3(.5)   2    0.6(1)Finishing blow            0.3(.5)   1    0.3(.5)   2    0.6(1)Flowing wound             0.3(.5)   2    0.6(1)    3    0.9(1.5)Freezing strike           0.3(.5)   1    0.3(.5)   2    0.6(1)Jugular                   0.3(.5)   1    0.3(.5)   2    0.6(1)Malignant mark            0.1(.2)   2    0.2(.4)   3    0.4(0.6)Killing blade             0.3(.5)   1    0.3(.5)   1    0.3(.5)Masked attack             0.3(.5)   3    0.9(1.5)  6    1.8(3)Neck shot                 1.4(2)    1    1.4(2)    2    2.8(4)Puncture blade            0.3(.5)   3    0.9(1.5)  6    1.8(3)Slaughtersault            1.1(1.5)  2    2.2(3)    3    3.3(4.5)Spitting asp              1.1(1.5)  1    1.1(1.5)  2    2.2(3)Scrapping blow            0.3(.5)   3    0.9(1.5)  6    1.8(3)                          ---                              9.1            12.6           22.6                          ---Ranger                    14.4|</font><font face="Courier New">20.5</font><font face="Courier New">      18.8|</font><font face="Courier New">26.5</font><font face="Courier New">      31.8|</font><font face="Courier New">45.5</font><font face="Courier New">Asssassin                 8.8(10.7)      12.6(17.4)     22.6(30.5)(all abilities included)  ----           ---                              5.6s 38%diff   6.2s(32% diff) 9.2(2<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />                          3.7  26%       1.4    7.4%    1.3  4.1%</font><font face="Courier New"></font><hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Courier New">Lets take the base cast times, then add it to the totals of the first total to the ranger total in casttime.(assuming both have poise)Ranger                   18612           26097        52142                Assassin                 32101           51429        67476                           ---            ---          ---                         13489           25332        15334</font><hr size="2" width="100%">You can also use this to make a pattern, there is only one change here and thats at the 2-4 min mark with the assassins killing blade.  You will see the longer the fight is, the bigger the gap is.. I also wish to point out that 6292(assa dot) + 17977(assa melee) = 24269. And Ranger ranged 16731.24269 - 16731 = 7538 diffrence. To dispell any myths about rangers being able to maintain ranged dps and stay on the top of there game.I want everyone to remember.. That these values should be similar to similar damage even without poise.. Poise should be a bonus, not bringing a 50 aa'd ranger to a 0 aa'd assassin. The problem isent in our AA's. It is in our class basics.                        No more editing, additions, tweaks, you name it to this. If you want to expand it, do at your own time. I just wanted to write this out to show there is a problem and where it lies. And if this thread gets locked for any reason IE: flamming, dev trying to do a "cover up", insaulting assassins or ranger, etc.. I will do my best to annoy you!All credit for this goes to Mortred on the Befallen server.(Person posting this)<font face="Courier New"></font><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class="date_text">07-18-2006</span> <span class="time_text">09:22 AM- Found a mistake in cast times, total time is lowered by .7.. - I likely was looking at number of times or hit the wrong button etc... Things happen..  Most of the mistakes I found were was spacing all this junk.  </span></p><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class="date_text">07-20-2006</span> <span class="time_text">12:59 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:59 AM</span>

[LoreLady]

Ok, now that I have gotten that out of the way.. Now to get rid of a large misconception in every rangers eyes.. AE's.---AoE's(single target)---                            Inst           30s         1min      1m30s   2minRanger                    6041        6041        7746       7746    13787Assassin                 4188        6936        10688     13000  17188                                 ----            ---                               1853         895           29421705 Nat   4336 rain               1876slaughter1m    2312cloaked (30sSee where im going with this?The next person who says rain is the oposite of snipers shot gets a rotten tomato to the face. It will have green mold that will smell and wont leave, I stopped using arrows a LONG time ago these work much MUCH better.

[Dojoc]

really good post, hopefully a dev can use this data to fix/revamp our styles to make them on par with our coussins, thx<div></div>

[Balerius]

<P>Thanks for taking the time to compile this.  I'm glad you posted it.  It pretty much reinforces what I've said for some time.</P> <P>I've long said that assassins out-dps rangers by more than 300 dps.  If you take your 60 sec totals, the assassin has 15,334 more dps than the ranger.  This is over 250 dps more.  So there's some correlation.</P> <P>Of course, your figures are "book values" based on only what the ranger & assassin bring to the table alone.  The reality is that in raid situations when one adds various raid buffs, etc., the gap grows larger, not smaller and the disparity between assassin and ranger dps can get to 400-500 dps.  And that, my friends, is why most high level raid guilds won't accept any new ranger members.</P> <P>There is nothing fancy required to redress this imbalance.  We don't really need anything "new".  It's simply a matter of increasing the damage that most of our CAs do by increasing their base damage, reducing cast times, reducing recast times, or some of all of these.</P> <P>SoE over-nerfed us in LU20.  They made some effort to correct this in LU21.  But they simply didn't understand the degree to which our pre-LU20 dps was dependent on procs and therefore failed to realize how inadequate our basic CAs were.  The LU21 tweaks they made were inadequate.  I said it at the time (in the face of some who felt that the LU21 tweaks were all we needed to restore us to equivalency to assassins in dps).    Well, I've been since proved right about our being over-nerfed in LU20 and that LU21 tweaks were inadequate. </P> <P>I really don't understand why SoE doesn't fix this now.  Surely SoE knows the imbalance exists.  The playerbase sure as heck knows the imbalance exists and would not be shocked to see the needed fixes made.</P>

[Jayad]

There's probably a few flaws in the analysis (like not taking into account Focus and procs) but broadly speaking I think it's correct.  I hope some developers pay attention.

[Wilin]

This jives with what I've been seeing in raids. Our best assassin is usually #1 dps occasionally getting outpaced slightly by a conjuror, necro, or swashie. Our 2 rangers don't even come close on average. They both have the bow out of Labs but record anywhere from 100 to 600 less dps than our best assassin. They still end up being about 200 dps less than our other assassin who has mostly crafted gear.

[Fennir]

The problem is that all this is going to do (if anything) is get assassins nerfed, not help us.Sad but true.<div></div>

[Balerius]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fennir wrote:<BR>The problem is that all this is going to do (if anything) is get assassins nerfed, not help us.<BR><BR>Sad but true.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>If assassins were far and away out-dps'ing all other classes, that might be true.  But they aren't.</P> <P>Currently swashbucklers, berzerkers, brigands, monks, brawlers, conjurers, necros, will all out-dps rangers and so all fall somewhere within the range between rangers and assassins.  Some are close to assassins and some are only a about 100-200 dps more than rangers.  So there really isn't much room to nerf assassins.</P> <P>And it would be nonsensical to do it anyway given assassin's "pure dps" role vs. those other class' utility.  Of course, given the fact that rangers have even less utility than assassins, arguably the least utility of any class in the game, it points even more strongly to the shortcomings of ranger dps.</P>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Balerius wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Fennir wrote:The problem is that all this is going to do (if anything) is get assassins nerfed, not help us.Sad but true.<font color="#ff3300"> HELLO MR NEGATIVE!</font> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>If assassins were far and away out-dps'ing all other classes, that might be true.  But they aren't.</p> <p>Currently swashbucklers, berzerkers, brigands, monks, brawlers, conjurers, necros, will all out-dps rangers and so all fall somewhere within the range between rangers and assassins.  Some are close to assassins and some are only a about 100-200 dps more than rangers.  So there really isn't much room to nerf assassins.<font color="#ff0000"> </font></p> <p>And it would be nonsensical to do it anyway given assassin's "pure dps" role vs. those other class' utility.  Of course, given the fact that rangers have even less utility than assassins, arguably the least utility of any class in the game, it points even more strongly to the shortcomings of ranger dps.<font color="#ff0000"> /agree</font></p><hr></blockquote></div>

[Fennir]

OK but I'm basing this hypothesis off history rather than hope.<div></div>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:OK but I'm basing this hypothesis off history rather than hope.<div></div><hr></blockquote>What would you do to influence the game? To point out where the problems are etc..I also ask - what are you doing to help? Btw, NO WHERE did I add snipers shot/decap in there - to controversial.. Just what damage each of them do.I know I attempted a thing like this earlier, but this is a much more accurate reading of where things stand. This was at 428 str for both, with perfectionist for both. Even if you add 150 dmg to each ranger ability (30% chance to proc), and 50  dmg to each assassin ability (10% proc) - you still fall short by ALOT on the ranger end..</div>

[Fennir]

<div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:OK but I'm basing this hypothesis off history rather than hope.<div></div><hr></blockquote>What would you do to influence the game? To point out where the problems are etc..I also ask - what are you doing to help?</div><hr></blockquote>I stopped complaining when they fixed my class.  I do wicked DPS no matter what anyone says.  I have a lot of fun playing my character.Maybe the devs want assassins to do slightly more damage than us because they don't get to do it all from ranged?  I don't know.  It's not as big of a deal as the disparities used to be.</div>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:OK but I'm basing this hypothesis off history rather than hope.<div></div><hr></blockquote>What would you do to influence the game? To point out where the problems are etc..I also ask - what are you doing to help?</div><hr></blockquote>I stopped complaining when they fixed my class.  I do wicked DPS no matter what anyone says.  I have a lot of fun playing my character.<b>Maybe the devs want assassins to do slightly more damage than us because they don't get to do it all from range</b>d?  I don't know.  It's not as big of a deal as the disparities used to be.</div><hr></blockquote>Dont spread misconceptions. I dont want another becka walking in saying that we do 100% of our damage out of joust range.</div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div>I don't see the problem. I assume the total damage numbers for 30s and 1m are both consistent with recast timers. Thus, while Assassins cast abilities faster, their total CA damage is less than rangers as shown. The "calculation" of adjusting down the Rangers' total CA damage based on the extra cast time makes no sense whatsoever.  Is the Ranger just going stop using his CAs when the Assassin runs out of CAs to use? Since the original damage totals already take time into account, incorporating a secondary element of time where none exists is completely illogical. I will concede tho that based on the above data the Assassin will have more autoattack time, but there's no logical reason to presume that when both Predators spam attacks, the Ranger will not be allowed to use all of his CAs while the Assassin can. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>07-18-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:48 PM</span>

[Fennir]

<div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div>Dont spread misconceptions. I dont want another becka walking in saying that we do 100% of our damage out of joust range.</div><hr></blockquote>I'm not going to censor myself for the sake of [Removed for Content], sorry.</div>

[Mirdo]

<DIV>I have to agree there is a discrepancy towards the high end of raids. Our parses show Rangers to be 10% to 20% behind other DPS classes (and some classes that are a DPS/utility mix).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To the people saying maybe our DPS damage is lower because we can stay at ranged; I'm sorry but that's outdated information. To conistantly achieve the highest DPS we have to joust too. If we don't do the jousting we fall even further behind other classes in damage output.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The problem seems to get worse the more a guild fine tunes it's DPS groups. In my previous guild I was top 1 or 2 every parse in labs and Lyceum. In my new guild raiding up to DT, I am doing 200 DPS more (on average) due to better tuned groups, but am typically much lower on the parses.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Higher DR bows are not necessarily the answer. That higher DR affects all classes using the bow. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think lowered recast time and possibly a slight boost to CA's is the right way to go - at least this uses existing mechanics. Whatever solution is used it has to provide consistant results and preferably easy to implement.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The high end guilds are not leaving Rangers out on a whim. They would only leave out a class because it brings less to a raid than other classes. In the case of the Ranger we bring lower DPS than any number of classes and no truly useful raid utility.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SoE didn't know what to do with Rangers for much of  EQlive and it seems they have not been able to learn from their mistakes and mainain an adequate class vision and balance in this game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I love the idea of a Ranger and will stick with mine here but should I switch games in the future I won't be playing another. Designers seem to like the idea of the class but never know what to do with it once implemented.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mirdo.</DIV>

[Korb]

Would be nice if they could add a spell/ca power reduction, casting time reduction, or something along those lines as a buff for us. Would be great to have us along then... :smileysad:

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div>I don't see the problem. I assume the total damage numbers for 30s and 1m are both consistent with recast timers. Thus, while Assassins cast abilities faster, their total CA damage is less than rangers as shown. <font size="4"> The "calculation" of adjusting down the Rangers' total CA damage based on the extra cast time makes no sense whatsoever.  Is the Ranger just going stop using his CAs when the Assassin runs out of CAs to use?</font> Since the original damage totals already take time into account, incorporating a secondary element of time where none exists is completely illogical. I will concede tho that based on the above data the Assassin will have more autoattack time, but there's no logical reason to presume that when both Predators spam attacks, the Ranger will not be allowed to use all of his CAs while the Assassin can. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-18-2006</span> <span class="time_text">09:48 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Because, while our total damages for all our abilities are ballanced. The time factor to that damage is not, if it takes you 1 min to do 100k damage, and someone can do the same damage in 30 seconds. Even though that the abilities total are the same, the realistic damage isent.</div>

[Saihung23]

<P>When I looked at your post Lorelady...I really was trying to read the parses...but then my eyes unfocused a bit...and I saw a SAILBOAT!</P> <P> </P> <P>Thats really neat...how did you do that? Cant wait for the next one <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

[griffit]

<div></div>Well if you feel strongly about it post it on one of the main forums and try to get the issue addressed in the upcoming August 3rd Stratics Dev chat.   Edit - just read thread under combat Forum.    Perhaps it would be good to bring it up on Stratics!<div></div><p>Message Edited by griffiths on <span class=date_text>07-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:32 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div>I don't see the problem. I assume the total damage numbers for 30s and 1m are both consistent with recast timers. Thus, while Assassins cast abilities faster, their total CA damage is less than rangers as shown. <font size="4"> The "calculation" of adjusting down the Rangers' total CA damage based on the extra cast time makes no sense whatsoever.  Is the Ranger just going stop using his CAs when the Assassin runs out of CAs to use?</font> Since the original damage totals already take time into account, incorporating a secondary element of time where none exists is completely illogical. I will concede tho that based on the above data the Assassin will have more autoattack time, but there's no logical reason to presume that when both Predators spam attacks, the Ranger will not be allowed to use all of his CAs while the Assassin can. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-18-2006</span> <span class="time_text">09:48 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Because, while our total damages for all our abilities are ballanced. The time factor to that damage is not, if it takes you 1 min to do 100k damage, and someone can do the same damage in 30 seconds. Even though that the abilities total are the same, the realistic damage isent.</div><hr></blockquote>That is not what the data shows.The data shows that the Ranger does MORE damage in 1 minute than the Assassin.  Note that in the Actual Cast time chart, the number of casts possible in each period of 30s and 60s have already been accounted for - which I assume is reflected by the damage total listed in the 30s and 60s column in the damage portion.Thus, we conclude that the Ranger CA damage output is greater than the Assassin's CA damage in 60s by approximately 5000 damage - when cast and recast timers are taken into consideration (assuming the data above is correct, of course).It is also understood that the Ranger spends more casting time in that time period then the Assassin and autoattack damage is not included in this analysis.I would also note that the cast time chart has errors favoring the Assassin.  The Assassin's actual cast time for 30s is 14.1 and for 60s is 24.7, not 12.6 and 22.6  The Ranger's cast time for 30s is 18.2s and for 60s is 31.1.  Making the difference 22.5% at 30s (instead of the stated 32%) and only 20.6% at 60s (instead of the stated 28%).</div><p>In any case, I know people have been complimenting the data and it's true that stuff like this takes time and effort to compile.  But I hope anyone looking at it, after showing appreciation, critically examines the data but more importantly the analysis portion.  Maybe you still disagree with my intrepretation, but I wholly believe that the analysis provided in the OP is illogical and flawed as there is no reason to adjust the total damage based on casting timers when the timers (both cast and recast) were <b><i>already</i></b> previously incorporated in compiling the damage totals in the first place.<span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>07-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:21 AM</span>

[Fennir]

<div><blockquote><hr>Mirdo wrote:<div>To the people saying maybe our DPS damage is lower because we can stay at ranged; I'm sorry but that's outdated information.</div><hr></blockquote>Uh, no it's not.Yes, we have to joust in to use some melee CAs.   On the other hand, assassins have to be in melee range 90% of the time.  We really don't.I love how easy it is for people to ignore arguments they don't like... just because they don't like them.</div>

[Serventof Wrath]

<P>Casting timers this and recast timers that.... it all sounds like math and I do enough of that at work.</P> <P>The way I see it I would be super happy if they changed just 3 of our CAs:</P> <P>Triple:  Change it to auto ranged damage x 1.1 for the 1st arrow x 1.3 for the 2nd and x 1.5 for the 3rd at Adept I.  Upgrades could increase the multiplier.</P> <P>Precise:  Same thing as Triple only with heat damage.</P> <P>Stream of Arrows: Fires 1 arrow every 1.5 sec for 30 sec at normal autoranged damage.</P> <P>Can anyone of you spreadsheet/database conspiracy theorists honestly tell me what impact those 3 changes would have on our dps.  I can say without doing the math it would atleast justify the cost of the multiple arrows when using those CAs.</P> <P>The only other thing I would ask SOE to do it to fix the DR issue with bows.</P> <P>They said they wanted to increase the DR on longbows to be online with other 2H weapons.  Great but since fighters can use the Longbow it helps them more with double attack AA then it did us.  So make 1 more change to bows:</P> <P>Long Bow:  DR = to 2H weapons, long delay, long range, only usable by SCOUTS. (I can't use a 2H sword why can they use a Long Bow)</P> <P>Short Bow:  DR = to DW weapons, fast delay, short range, only usable by SCOUTS.  (Assassins have a tone of melee stuff why would they really want to stand back at 45m.  So make these attractive stat wise for our evil half)</P> <P>Bow:  DR = to 1H weapons, average delay, range between long and short bow ranges, usable by any class that can currently use a bow.   Add this change and it gives fighters the ability to still pull with a bow but reduces their effectiveness to stand back and dps at range.</P> <P>just my 2cp</P>

[Lesca]

<DIV>A little boost to some of our ranged CAs would be greatly appreciated I think. As things stand now, you can get more damage out of getting an Illusionist to haste you, sticking Killing Instinct on and going AFK to auto attack for 30 seconds than you can from stringing the CAs together (though thanks to Poise I can get off just about every non-stealthed ranged attack during the course of Focus which does some good damage).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take Triple Volley... Obviously it relies on all three shots connecting, as the damage from the third arrow is greater than that from the first, and when you add them all up it should come out at something respectable. When each shot had a chance to proc, it was devastating. I've got a screenshot buried somewhere of my combat window where I'd fired Triple Shot (or whatever the previous one was called). After the fight, I expanded the window to display only the damage from that one CA, start to finish, and I kid you not, with Quick Shot procs, poison procs, gleaming strikes etc, the window is 3/4 height of my screen. Insane damage, and was just about guaranteed to get me killed unless the tank knew what he was doing (God bless Amends, I say). Now it's just the first shot that has a chance to proc anything... More often than not it doesn't... And we're left with something that's a tad unremarkable. Meh.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Works fine for regular grouping, as the fights don't last long enough for any disparity between classes to really show up. It's raiding that you start to notice. It's looking better now I've maxed out ranged crits, but a small increase in initial damage to some of our attacks would make me the happiest little Ranger in all of Splitpaw.</DIV>

[Mirdo]

<div></div> <blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Mirdo wrote:<div>To the people saying maybe our DPS damage is lower because we can stay at ranged; I'm sorry but that's outdated information.</div><hr></blockquote>Uh, no it's not.Yes, we have to joust in to use some melee CAs.   On the other hand, assassins have to be in melee range 90% of the time.  We really don't.I love how easy it is for people to ignore arguments they don't like... just because they don't like them.</div><hr></blockquote>That looks self-contradictory to me. You say it's not necassary to joust to maintain high dps and then it is to use our melee CA's? What am I missing? And yes Assassins have to be in melee range a lot of the time but have dots to throw up for moving out and then enough ranged attacks to maintain DPS while at range. Also, AoE's fire instantly so it's not like their (or our)  joust has to be very long. My point was being made to people that insist our DPS should be lower becuase we don't have to joust - we do to maintain it. How much jousting depends on the timing of the mob aoe. Maybe you have a much better bow than me or our other Ranger and can sit back and ranged auto in the time between focus and stealth attacks. I know if I do that my DPS drops. Mirdo. Edited for typos <div></div><p>Message Edited by Mirdo on <span class=date_text>07-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:07 PM</span>

[Fennir]

How do you read "Yes, we have to joust in to use some melee CAs" as "We don't have to joust."?Assassins = 90% melee, 10% ranged.Rangers = 90% ranged, 10% melee.I get your 'point.'  You refuse to get mine, though.  I never said "WE SHOULD BE LOWER DPS BCUZ OF THIS OMG", I said:"<b>Maybe </b>the devs want us to be lower DPS than assasins because we do most of our damage at range.  <b>I don't know."  </b>I don't conclude anything until the devs tell me so.<div></div>Anyways, this really isn't that hard to comprehend.  Assassins stay next to the mob most of the time and joust OUT.  We stand away from the mob and joust IN.  Assassins always have to contend with damage shields, AOEs, and ripostes if the mob turns.  We really don't.

[Fennir]

Anyways, forget it.  We're broken beyond all belief.  Woe is the ranger.Maybe I'll post again next year. /wave<div></div>

[Jayad]

<P>If jousting were a big negative, you would see a drop in assassin's DPS on AE fights.  Which isn't the case.  They do almost their full DPS in such a fight, as measured by me on many raids (about 5% difference).  So if it's not a real negative to have to joust, why should Rangers have something taken away in return for doing their main DPS at ranged?   That whole argument is nonsensical because *both* classes have to "joust" normally.  Rangers can't do their maximum DPS just staying at ranged, and Assassins can't do their maximum DPS staying in melee. </P> <P>You could easily make the argument that ammo cost as a penalty would offset any "benefit" the Rangers have.  There's also the fact that many proc items will not work at ranged.   By the same logic, you could say all casters should do less dps because they don't have to joust. </P> <P>It's very simple why jousting is not a real DPS hit.  Ranged and melee auto-attack are not too far apart, so there's no auto-attack penalty for switching.  (You lose your procs for a short while based on which the offensive stance works with, that's all)  The real "meat" of our damage, both assassins and rangers, comes from Combat Arts.  Recast timers are the #1 influence on how much our Combat Arts can do over a period of time.  Both classes can use all of their combat arts pretty quickly, much faster than recast timers take, ranged or melee.  Therefore, jousting is not a huge factor because you can lay down all your damage within the recast timer window no matter if you joust or not. </P> <P>Or to think of it another way - jousting doesn't "pause" an assassin from doing their damage for long, if at all.  If jousting were an issue with doing damage, it would not make sense to do it normally to maximize our DPS.</P> <P>It would be very different if jousting actually forced people away long enough to "miss" CA potential but that's just not the case.   Jousts are quick events.  They are a skill you have to learn, that's all.</P>

[LordAng]

<DIV>Ok, for some time i been arguing that rangers dont need to be fixed. this is mostly due to the fact that i am in a high-end, hardcore raiding guild and there is not a class in the game that i cant outdps on any given fight. there is a necro in the guild that i have competition with and a wizard on occasion, but for the most part, it is no problem staying in the #1 or 2 spot. assasins have never been a threat to me, same with brigs or swashes and ive had the opportunity to play with various people playing each class so im assuming that its not just luck that i can parse like i do or that everyone else just has no idea how to play their charaters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>im not sure what kind of numbers most rangers put out. from what ive seen its usually somewhere from 800-1.1k DPS. and yea, usually somewhere lower on the parse list. 1.1k DPS is below my average minimum DPS in a fight though, even in longer fights where assasins are supposed to overtake ranger DPS, i can pretty easily stay over 1.2-1.3k dps. On AE fights, forget it, its lights out, usually 1.7-2.2k DPS. but overall, at least for the last month and a half-2 months (taking in considerations that the gear i have has affected dps), on a single target raid mob, my average is 1.3-1.6k. i have a few screenshots of parses if its required that i post in order for people to take me seriously (i dont have a great comp so i dont run parses or logs on my comp, i have other people parse for me), unfortunately i only have a few recent ones, so it wont be a good sample. ill have more later.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess my big question is: what exactly is everyone else putting out for DPS? im just fine with how i parse. i will gladly welcome any more improvements to ranger dps, but man, dps would soar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i keep in mind that dps is all relative to how good the rest of your guild is EX: if your guild cranks out 18k dps and levels mobs in a minute flat, ranger dps is higher. what is most important is how you parse in respect to others in raids and how consistantly you can do it. parsers can be somewhat innaccurate depending on whos using them and where they are standing but if its consistant, you get the idea pretty well how you stand. its possible to take the top parse with 600 dps depending on the fight or 2.2k on others. I bring this up because regardless of the fight, i dont have problems keeping up with anyone; 30 seconds or 5 minutes. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I look at these posts with statistical analysis and arguments that say it is physically impossible for rangers to do what i do consistantly and i dont get it. i see everyone else saying rangers need more dps and i dont agree. maybe i am the one whos wrong, thats mainly why im wondering how everyone else is doing with their rangers. is it my AAs? i know for a fact that i use a very unconventional set-up when it comes to AAs; using INT as my main line and completely ignoring poise. My AAs are designed for procs and auto attacks, not CAs. I do have nice gear and masters, but i know im not the only one. so whats the deal with all the ranger DPS posts?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and on a side note: based on my guilds accomplishments raiding, its highly unlikely that its a coincidence that everyone else is just bad. i can tell you its fact that i play with some of the finest players eq2 has to offer.</DIV>

[Jayad]

<P>Well, I think it would be nice to hear the details of how you get there.  At least it gives us disgruntled rangers something to try different.  Maybe I'm missing something, and could improve my setup.  At least based on what i see, I typically do 1000-1100 dps in groups, and on raids it's kind of in the 1100-1300 range, on an average raid.  If I get a fabled bow and get mastered out, I have thought I could maybe get to 1400-1500 or so, using a decent raid setup where everybody does their job.  Problem is, I know for a fact that 1400 is not hard to get for assassins who are excellent, yet unless all things are lined up perfectly it's about where we stop.  For many raids, dpsers who get 1300-1400 is probably very good and acceptable - it's more than I do right now <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  but I still think it's harder for rangers to get there.  And assassins can do more with the same level of gear and skills. </P> <P>But I'm willing to look at maybe I'm doing something wrong.  I'd like to hear more about how you get there, if you're willing to share.</P> <P>Obviously I'm using "numbers" and it depends a lot on the setup, other players, debuffs, procs, etc. but I'm just using some ballparks here.  </P>

[NovacaineExpre]

<DIV>With those numbers are you taking in effect group setup?  Sometimes for trash clearing in zones I am an a "scout DPS" group where I am mainly with Assassins, Brigs, Swashys and maybe a healer for possible AE's, and lets say the healers a warden.  Obviously I am not in the "ideal" group setup.  My DPS is substantially lower (like ~200 -300 pts) lower when in a group like this.  Usually in this case I am flirting with 1K (give or take about 100)  but I usually dont use Grandmasters Caustic when fighting trash or use any potions, in fact I tend to use backup gear most of the time to avoid unnecessary repair bills :smileyvery-happy:  Obviously you are in a high end raid guild and would prefer not to reveal your grp makeup but it would be nice to view more of a "core" DPS tracker for rangers and I would like to see that.  Core meaning self buffed, no grp buffs/procs etc.  If your hitting those numbers in a grp set up like I stated above then bravo!  And it means I dont know wt.f I am doing!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[LordAng]

<P>I can tell you up front that the first thing i do differently in respect to most other rangers is my focus on auto attack damage instead of CA damage. when i use focus aim, i dont spam CAs, i still wait for auto attacks. instead of worrying about getting a few extra CAs in during a fight, i worry about increasing my damage on all ranged hits with maxed crit and increasing the damage on all my procs and DoTs with maxed spell crit. not only does maxing all crits affect CAs, it can benefit any attack you do if you have both. the extra intox damage that you can put out on every fight also helps a bit. Do i worry about CAs? sure, but i dont let it interfere with auto attacks. consider auto attack a CA that has a 3.5-5 second recast and goes off on its own (depending on haste), imo, it is the foundation of ranger dps, its the dps you dont have to work for, CAs can be built on top of that.</P> <P>just from talking with other rangers and seeing how most people are trying to compare only CA damage to other classes, that would be how my philosophy differs most from others.</P> <P> </P> <P>and yes, im usually in a group geared toward dps (with dps and haste buffs), but that is usually the goal when setting up groups</P><p>Message Edited by LordAngus on <span class=date_text>07-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:06 PM</span>

[Balerius]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LordAngus wrote:<BR> <DIV>Ok, for some time i been arguing that rangers dont need to be fixed. this is mostly due to the fact that i am in a high-end, hardcore raiding guild and there is not a class in the game that i cant outdps on any given fight. there is a necro in the guild that i have competition with and a wizard on occasion, but for the most part, it is no problem staying in the #1 or 2 spot. assasins have never been a threat to me, same with brigs or swashes and ive had the opportunity to play with various people playing each class so im assuming that its not just luck that i can parse like i do or that everyone else just has no idea how to play their charaters.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>im not sure what kind of numbers most rangers put out. from what ive seen its usually somewhere from 800-1.1k DPS. and yea, usually somewhere lower on the parse list. 1.1k DPS is below my average minimum DPS in a fight though, even in longer fights where assasins are supposed to overtake ranger DPS, i can pretty easily stay over 1.2-1.3k dps. On AE fights, forget it, its lights out, usually 1.7-2.2k DPS. but overall, at least for the last month and a half-2 months (taking in considerations that the gear i have has affected dps), on a single target raid mob, my average is 1.3-1.6k. i have a few screenshots of parses if its required that i post in order for people to take me seriously (i dont have a great comp so i dont run parses or logs on my comp, i have other people parse for me), unfortunately i only have a few recent ones, so it wont be a good sample. ill have more later.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I guess my big question is: what exactly is everyone else putting out for DPS? im just fine with how i parse. i will gladly welcome any more improvements to ranger dps, but man, dps would soar.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>i keep in mind that dps is all relative to how good the rest of your guild is EX: if your guild cranks out 18k dps and levels mobs in a minute flat, ranger dps is higher. what is most important is how you parse in respect to others in raids and how consistantly you can do it. parsers can be somewhat innaccurate depending on whos using them and where they are standing but if its consistant, you get the idea pretty well how you stand. its possible to take the top parse with 600 dps depending on the fight or 2.2k on others. I bring this up because regardless of the fight, i dont have problems keeping up with anyone; 30 seconds or 5 minutes. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I look at these posts with statistical analysis and arguments that say it is physically impossible for rangers to do what i do consistantly and i dont get it. i see everyone else saying rangers need more dps and i dont agree. maybe i am the one whos wrong, thats mainly why im wondering how everyone else is doing with their rangers. is it my AAs? i know for a fact that i use a very unconventional set-up when it comes to AAs; using INT as my main line and completely ignoring poise. My AAs are designed for procs and auto attacks, not CAs. I do have nice gear and masters, but i know im not the only one. so whats the deal with all the ranger DPS posts?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and on a side note: based on my guilds accomplishments raiding, its highly unlikely that its a coincidence that everyone else is just bad. i can tell you its fact that i play with some of the finest players eq2 has to offer.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>My guild is a hardcore raid guild is at least as "hardcore" and talented as yours.  That isn't a "[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]-waving" sort of statement.  I'm just trying to put my comments in context.  All of my CAs are at Master and all of my gear is fabled.  That also isn't a "[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]-wave" or "look at me" comment.  I'm merely trying to help you understand where I'm speaking from.</P> <P>I have said in numerous threads in the past months that I routinely do an average of 1250 dps.  More on AE targets and/or targets when I have Sniper Shot up.  Rarely do I do less.  Some places, like Labs, where the mobs have low HP/mitigation my average for the night might rise to 1400 with correspondingly higher numbers with Sniper Shot or AE targets.  But 1250 dps is a pretty good "rough average" for epic mobs throughout T7 (I'm only talking T7).</P> <P>So I think my dps is roughly the same as yours.  What isn't the same is where that dps places me relative to my fellow guildmates compared to where yours apparently places you.</P> <P>In my guild, following each fight the dps is posted in a special dps channel.  The top 10 dps are listed.  In my guild, unless you do in excess of 1000 dps you don't even make the top 10 cutoff.  Our raid dps is generally somewhere between 15K and 22K.  It can be (and has been) higher, depending on the fight.</P> <P>In my guild, my roughly 1250 average dps places me below assassins (typically 1700-1800 dps), conjureres/necros (typically 1500-1700 dps), swashbucklers/brigands (typically 1400-1500 dps), and monks/brawlers (our monks can do over 1400 dps just using autoattack).</P> <P>So while I do roughly 1250 dps, in my guild that places me in the "bottom 5" of the top 10 dps.  Yes, sometimes I break into the top 5.  Rarely do I show in the #1 or #2 spot (yay for Corsolander).</P> <P>I can't explain the difference in how I compare within my guild to how you compare within yours other than to say that we must place a greater emphasis than your guild on dps and structure our raids accordingly.  But my experience is why I say Rangers are broken.  It is admittedly a limited sample.  But I think it shows better where the theoretical maximum dps limits are of each class.</P> <P>And I might also say that the comparative dps results for each class that my guild sees I more common among higher end raid guilds than yours appears to be.  Which is, of course, why many such guilds have no interest in adding a ranger to their rosters.  My guild will certainly never add a ranger to our roster should we have a need in the future for a "dps class".</P>

[Nak]

for the 1000003 time, ranger dps is situational, its just there are fewer situation in a rangers have a clear advantage There are some fights where it is impossible for a ranger to be on top, if the other people who are playing are top quality players. I've sad to myself "k i've got to be on top after doing that" to see myself 3rd on the list, while other times not really thinking of it end up on top. The ranger class requires more effort to maximize dps then any class I've ever seen. I always keep my raid window up and compare my power % with others power % along with my dps vs their dps with my power pool vs their power pool. I usually have around a 6200 power with my usual group on a raid while others have roughly around 5600. Its not uncommon for me to be at a lower % power and do less dps ( being everyone started at 100% power ) the class is decent, but there could be a few tweaks to make it more desireable <div></div>

[USAFJeeper]

<DIV>I am NOT in a hardcore guild!   People tell us all the time we arent <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />   We raid 3 times a week we have done up to Deathtoll, not keen on racing to contested mobs.  I am consistently in 5th place with DPS tween 800-1100.  I am beat by a swashbuckler, conjurer, assassinx2 on a regular basis.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think rangers are too low.  I am maxed agility line and str so I have poise and perfectionist.  I am going to give INT a shot soon to see how that affects me.  I usually max str and agi in groups.  I have all Master in ranged CAs (adept 3 on sniper) and I wear fabled gear.  I have no idea how you guys get 1100+ DPS consistently.  I am not a newb and I have raided since Vox was the shiznizzle in EQ1.  I play with a great guild of folks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I understand how to joust, keep caustic up at all times and only rarely use SoA to go afk.  I use Poise to get off 2-3 CAs at a time, and space them normally tween auto attacks to maximise the damage.  I do need a better bow, using Grizz atm, I know I would increase DPS if I  was able to get a better bow.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by USAFJeeper on <span class=date_text>07-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:56 PM</span>

[Mirdo]

<DIV>Layla,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My experiences are pretty much as Belarius. In most raid zones when pushing hard, our other ranger and I can hit between 1100 and 1300 DPS on single target or small groups without using rain. BUT when we are hitting that range, our assassin is hitting 1500-1800. It pretty much scales through the damage range, when we hit a bit lower he usually has but %age difference remains at approximately the same.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are other classes that regularly beat us in raids too - but the margin is usually lower. Again it pretty much scales. The classes we actually trade positions with on the parser are classes I don't believe we should be trading with - or at least not every fight. Our Assassin, wizards and Warlocks don't mess about down the ranks  - they trade off against each other. We are left competing with Swashies, Brigs, Conjurers etc etc. I just want our damage to in the same place as the Assassin - I wouldn't mind even a bit lower tbh but the difference really starts to scale up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes situationally (read - when rain is up) we out parse a lot of classes. 2k or more is possible on groups. But for us to do that the group has to die fast which means a number of classes big aoe's have coincided. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Fennir. I'm glad you are happy with the class as it is and you are do well on your raids. I don't think we are completely broken but I do think we lack the ability to match a number of classes DPS. Have fun.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mirdo.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><edit></DIV> <DIV>I re-read that and it sounds like an attack on certain classes or request for nerfs - it's not. DPS scaling across the board looks decent now - except I believe Rangers regularly drop in lower than we should. I also agree with Lorelady that's it's a mechanics issue - not skill or raid setup - better raid group setup only highlights the problem.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When raid guilds stop accepting classes or actually pursue a policy of not using them at all, there's an issue.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Mirdo on <span class=date_text>07-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:46 AM</span>

[Teksun]

Just an FYI for clarity: We have 22 damage dealing CA's. 13 of these use our bow<blockquote>2 bow shots are AOE3 bow shots are stealth  </blockquote>9 melee attacks<blockquote>NO AOE2 stealth rear attacks</blockquote>NONE of our AA damage abilities are ranged.<div></div>

[Lord Dragon]

Now I have read over everything in this post, and I see the concearns that we as rangers have, but I have one question... those numbers are unmoded.  as in.  not stat modifiers correct... and with that question being answered is it not then possible to raise our stats to the point where the DPS could be inline and or even higher then that of the assassin.  after all the numbers don't like that's for sure, but basicly forgoing all  agi,  and dump pure str and int for CA's  sure it might mean that we would have to go with cloth armor for the insain int.  but isn't it also feasable <div></div>

[Balerius]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lord Dragon wrote:<BR>Now I have read over everything in this post, and I see the concearns that we as rangers have, but I have one question... those numbers are unmoded.  as in.  not stat modifiers correct... and with that question being answered is it not then possible to raise our stats to the point where the DPS could be inline and or even higher then that of the assassin.  after all the numbers don't like that's for sure, but basicly forgoing all  agi,  and dump pure str and int for CA's  sure it might mean that we would have to go with cloth armor for the insain int.  but isn't it also feasable <BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No.

[Sokolov]

<div><blockquote><hr>Mirdo wrote:<div></div> <div></div><div>I also agree with Lorelady that's it's a mechanics issue...</div><hr></blockquote>What exactly is this mechanics issue?  Lorelady's data does not conclusively show that cast or recast timers has any significant effect on Ranger DPS vs Assassin DPS.</div>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div>I don't see the problem. I assume the total damage numbers for 30s and 1m are both consistent with recast timers. Thus, while Assassins cast abilities faster, their total CA damage is less than rangers as shown. <font size="4"> The "calculation" of adjusting down the Rangers' total CA damage based on the extra cast time makes no sense whatsoever.  Is the Ranger just going stop using his CAs when the Assassin runs out of CAs to use?</font> Since the original damage totals already take time into account, incorporating a secondary element of time where none exists is completely illogical. I will concede tho that based on the above data the Assassin will have more autoattack time, but there's no logical reason to presume that when both Predators spam attacks, the Ranger will not be allowed to use all of his CAs while the Assassin can. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-18-2006</span> <span class="time_text">09:48 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Because, while our total damages for all our abilities are ballanced. The time factor to that damage is not, if it takes you 1 min to do 100k damage, and someone can do the same damage in 30 seconds. Even though that the abilities total are the same, the realistic damage isent.</div><hr></blockquote>That is not what the data shows.The data shows that the Ranger does MORE damage in 1 minute than the Assassin.  <font color="#ff0000">1000 damage in 10 seconds is less than 1000 damage done in 5. Thats why I put the second point in there.</font>Note that in the Actual Cast time chart, the number of casts possible in each period of 30s and 60s have already been accounted for - which I assume is reflected by the damage total listed in the 30s and 60s column in the damage portion.Thus, we conclude that the Ranger CA damage output is greater than the Assassin's CA damage in 60s by approximately 5000 damage - when cast and recast timers are taken into consideration (assuming the data above is correct, of course).<font color="#ff0000"> Total damage, yes there is a diffrence I am not going to deny or try to hide that fact. Howevever if all our cast times were 1/2'd to 0.5  it would be equal.  --- Ballanced to me is where Class A will do more damage at the 30 second mark, where B will do more at the 1 min mark, and A will do more again at the 30s mark. This is the pattern we are seeing in total damages.. </font>It is also understood that the Ranger spends more casting time in that time period then the Assassin and autoattack damage is not included in this analysis.<font color="#ff0000"> Auto attack is not included because there is no data to support imballance on auto attack.</font>I would also note that the cast time chart has errors favoring the Assassin.  The Assassin's actual cast time for 30s is 14.1 and for 60s is 24.7, not 12.6 and 22.6  The Ranger's cast time for 30s is 18.2s and for 60s is 31.1.  Making the difference 22.5% at 30s (instead of the stated 32%) and only 20.6% at 60s (instead of the stated 28%).<font color="#ff0000">Im abit confused on what you are stating here.. Are you adding the 0.5 delay? Or are you saying that my math is wrong? If my math is wrong, i'll check it again and make it right. If you are adding the 0.5 second delay in there, you are still saying theres a 20% diffrence in CA's.. -By your own admitance.</font></div><p>In any case, I know people have been complimenting the data and it's true that stuff like this takes time and effort to compile.  But I hope anyone looking at it, after showing appreciation, critically examines the data but more importantly the analysis portion.  Maybe you still disagree with my intrepretation, but I wholly believe that the analysis provided in the OP is illogical and flawed as there is no reason to adjust the total damage based on casting timers when the timers (both cast and recast) were <b><i>already</i></b> previously incorporated in compiling the damage totals in the first place.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Yes the data is flawed, I can make it as perfect as I can get it. And it will always be flawed, there are to many variables to take into consideration like - items, stat mods, player skill, resist types, gaps in auto attack, lag, procs, group setup etc. All I have done is take the max damage for both classes, took range/melee/dot/ and added them up.</font></p><font color="#ff0000">If anyone can prove that I am wrong, that it is just the way every ranger plays there character or there is a problem with how much our auto attack is doing id LOVE to be proven wrong. But right now, I feel like the fat kid at dodge ball and cant do a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] thing about it.I would also like to add, that I have been in two guilds in the past 4-5 months.. The first guild I was in I was top dog EVERY SINGLE TIME, there wasent a person in there that outdamaged me and when there was.. It was rare, the assassin was below me by 400 dps, the wizard was below me by 200 dps. With a poor group setup as well. I moved to my current guild because of the gossip from the raidleader (who was actually booted from the guild) and now I am seeing a diffrent side of things. Now, its about once every 2 weeks I see myself on the top parse (dps being afk ofcorse! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />)Now with what I just said, does that mean other classes need a boost because I was top dps in my last guild? No, those players just need to learn to play there class more effectively. Am I slacking at my 1100ish dps? I have been looking for diffrent ways to get my dps up there. Are the wizards/assassins etc better geared than me and better players? Well, im holding 430 str unbuffed with fabled gear. They may be better players in general, but what about all the other rangers? <font size="3">Any other ranger consistantly doing 1500-1800 dps?</font></font><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-19-2006</span> <span class="time_text">09:21 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote></div>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Mirdo wrote:<div></div> <div></div><div>I also agree with Lorelady that's it's a mechanics issue...</div><hr></blockquote>What exactly is this mechanics issue?  Lorelady's data does not conclusively show that cast or recast timers has any significant effect on Ranger DPS vs Assassin DPS.</div><hr></blockquote>Sokolov, I am going to update my post to show the totals without poise on the ranger end.. I think you are looking at "ranger poise, assassin no poise.. Ranger even because ranger have poise.RANGER SPEAK CAVEMAN RAWR!"</div>

[Prandtl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mirdo wrote:<BR> <BR> <DIV>I also agree with Lorelady that's it's a mechanics issue...</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>What exactly is this mechanics issue?  Lorelady's data does not conclusively show that cast or recast timers has any significant effect on Ranger DPS vs Assassin DPS.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>Looking over the data and reading Lorelady's commentary, I do not believe she is trying to prove that cast or recast timers have a significant effect on ranger vs. assassin DPS.  Those are merely an appendix to the extensive data presented above.  Criticizing an entire forest for a single stunted tree is a bit nitpicky in my estimation.  The lions share of the data shows damage potential, not cast and recast timers.<BR>I had intended to stay away from this thread, but as I follow the comments and examine the data a few items filtered through to my pea brain.  First and foremost, all the damage needs to be compared not as just raw numbers, but also in the context of how assassins and rangers generally fight in our virtual world:<BR>- Rangers fight primarily at range.  They may melee/joust on occasion, but only while recast timers reset<BR>- Assassins fight in close and personal, and only drop to range while recast timers reset or a nasty AOE drops.<BR>I will ignore ranger melee and assassin ranged attacks from this point forward.  Please realize that this does not take into account cast timers, assassins having to stealth for their big hitters, long recast CA’s, and the myriad of other things that make each class unique.  Autoattack is not included, on the assumption that dual wield and ranged autoattack are of a similar magnitude.</P> <P>Comparing 1 minute data<BR>   Ranger ranged:  42259<BR>   Assassin melee: 31888<BR>Not too shabby, but include DoT’s…<BR>   Ranger ranged DoT: 0<BR>   Assassin melee DoT: 14760<BR>It is readily apparent that a sizible portion of an assassin’s damage comes from damage over time, and also that these CA’s are melee arts, where assassins spend most of their time.  Rangers have no comperable DoT capability, since their sole DoT is a melee CA.<BR>It is very difficult to compare AoE’s because, as Lorelady pointed out, the numbers of your  enemy may vary.  I’ll include single target and 4 mob for comparison <BR>   Ranger ranged AoE: 7746,    30974<BR>   Assassin melee AoE: 10688,   42752<BR>Looking at total damage potential over this hypothetical one minute span<BR>   Ranger ranged damage potential = 42259 + 0 + 7746 = 50005<BR>   Assassin melee damage potential = 31888 + 14760 + 10688 = 57336</P> <P>As far as predators go, it should now be obvious to even the casually informed that assassins crank out more damage then their Queynos brethren.</P> <P>edited to correct assassin melee dps #</P><p>Message Edited by Prandtl on <span class=date_text>07-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:52 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><div>The data shows that the Ranger does MORE damage in 1 minute than the Assassin.  <font color="#ff0000">1000 damage in 10 seconds is less than 1000 damage done in 5. Thats why I put the second point in there.</font></div></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote>I agree that 1000 damage in 10 seconds is less than 1000 in 5 seconds.  But the data shows damage in 30s and 60s for both classes.  The time factor is already present.  There is no reason to adjust Ranger CA damage down due to spending more time casting within the 60s - there is no logical basis for such a calculation.<blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr><div>Note that in the Actual Cast time chart, the number of casts possible in each period of 30s and 60s have already been accounted for - which I assume is reflected by the damage total listed in the 30s and 60s column in the damage portion.Thus, we conclude that the Ranger CA damage output is greater than the Assassin's CA damage in 60s by approximately 5000 damage - when cast and recast timers are taken into consideration (assuming the data above is correct, of course).<font color="#ff0000"> Total damage, yes there is a diffrence I am not going to deny or try to hide that fact. Howevever if all our cast times were 1/2'd to 0.5  it would be equal.  --- Ballanced to me is where Class A will do more damage at the 30 second mark, where B will do more at the 1 min mark, and A will do more again at the 30s mark. This is the pattern we are seeing in total damages.. </font></div><hr></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote>I am not sure what you are saying here.  Reducing the cast time of the Ranger's CAs would increase DPS of both the skill itself and total dps over time, there is no question - but this is more to do with the recycle time (cast + recast) rather than the time the skill takes to cast.  <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr><font color="#ff0000"></font>It is also understood that the Ranger spends more casting time in that time period then the Assassin and autoattack damage is not included in this analysis.<font color="#ff0000"> Auto attack is not included because there is no data to support imballance on auto attack.</font></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote>It wasn't a criticism.  I was merely purposing that I recognize the final DPS will not be the same as what the data shows and that I am not saying Rangers do more DPS overall, as autoattack appears to favor the Assassin due to the extra time the class has to do so. <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><div>I would also note that the cast time chart has errors favoring the Assassin.  The Assassin's actual cast time for 30s is 14.1 and for 60s is 24.7, not 12.6 and 22.6  The Ranger's cast time for 30s is 18.2s and for 60s is 31.1.  Making the difference 22.5% at 30s (instead of the stated 32%) and only 20.6% at 60s (instead of the stated 28%).<font color="#ff0000">Im abit confused on what you are stating here.. Are you adding the 0.5 delay? Or are you saying that my math is wrong? If my math is wrong, i'll check it again and make it right. If you are adding the 0.5 second delay in there, you are still saying theres a 20% diffrence in CA's.. -By your own admitance.</font></div></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote>I am saying your math is wrong.  Some columns add up properly and others do not.  You already fixed one error as of my posting this.  When I add up the 30s for the assassin, I get 14.1 from the numbers 1.4 + 0.7 + ... + 1.1 + 0.9.  If your numbers include delay then mine do, otherwise, all I did was do a "SUM" on my spreadsheet on your numbers.I am not saying there's a 20% difference in CAs.  I am saying that using the casting sequence you devised, the assassin uses 20% less time out of 60s for casting CAs.  It has no effect on the strength of the CA itself, nor does it affect DPS over the 60s.(You may say this is contradictory to me saying earlier that reducing cast times would increase DPS.  In the case of actually reducing the cast time, you are modifying the original time frame, possibly allowing more casts of the same CA every 60s due to otal recycle time reduction - this would also increase total damage over time, of course, which is exactly why I would only support "scaling" the total damage is you are examining CHANGES to cast time, not CURRENT relative cast times.)<blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><p>In any case, I know people have been complimenting the data and it's true that stuff like this takes time and effort to compile.  But I hope anyone looking at it, after showing appreciation, critically examines the data but more importantly the analysis portion.  Maybe you still disagree with my intrepretation, but I wholly believe that the analysis provided in the OP is illogical and flawed as there is no reason to adjust the total damage based on casting timers when the timers (both cast and recast) were <b><i>already</i></b> previously incorporated in compiling the damage totals in the first place.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Yes the data is flawed, I can make it as perfect as I can get it. And it will always be flawed, there are to many variables to take into consideration like - items, stat mods, player skill, resist types, gaps in auto attack, lag, procs, group setup etc. All I have done is take the max damage for both classes, took range/melee/dot/ and added them up.</font></p><font color="#ff0000">If anyone can prove that I am wrong, that it is just the way every ranger plays there character or there is a problem with how much our auto attack is doing id LOVE to be proven wrong. But right now, I feel like the fat kid at dodge ball and cant do a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] thing about it.</font></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote>I am not saying the data is flawed.  I am saying the analysis is.  There is no reason to scale down Ranger CA damage due to cast time when the Total Damage already takes cast times into account.Heck, I am not even saying Rangers do more DPS than X class.  I am just saying the analysis does not compute. </div>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div> <blockquote> <hr> Mirdo wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <div>I also agree with Lorelady that's it's a mechanics issue...</div> <hr> </blockquote>What exactly is this mechanics issue?  Lorelady's data does not conclusively show that cast or recast timers has any significant effect on Ranger DPS vs Assassin DPS.</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Looking over the data and reading Lorelady's commentary, I do not believe she is trying to prove that cast or recast timers have a significant effect on ranger vs. assassin DPS.  Those are merely an appendix to the extensive data presented above.  Criticizing an entire forest for a single stunted tree is a bit nitpicky in my estimation.  The lions share of the data shows damage potential, not cast and recast timers.I had intended to stay away from this thread, but as I follow the comments and examine the data a few items filtered through to my pea brain.  First and foremost, all the damage needs to be compared not as just raw numbers, but also in the context of how assassins and rangers generally fight in our virtual world:- Rangers fight primarily at range.  They may melee/joust on occasion, but only while recast timers reset- Assassins fight in close and personal, and only drop to range while recast timers reset or a nasty AOE drops.I will ignore ranger melee and assassin ranged attacks from this point forward.  Please realize that this does not take into account cast timers, assassins having to stealth for their big hitters, long recast CA’s, and the myriad of other things that make each class unique.  Autoattack is not included, on the assumption that dual wield and ranged autoattack are of a similar magnitude.</p> <p>Comparing 1 minute data   Ranger ranged:  42259   Assassin melee: 38223Not too shabby, but include DoT’s…   Ranger ranged DoT: 0   Assassin melee DoT: 14760It is readily apparent that a sizible portion of an assassin’s damage comes from damage over time, and also that these CA’s are melee arts, where assassins spend most of their time.  Rangers have no comperable DoT capability, since their sole DoT is a melee CA.It is very difficult to compare AoE’s because, as Lorelady pointed out, the numbers of your  enemy may vary.  I’ll include single target and 4 mob for comparison    Ranger ranged AoE: 7746,    30974   Assassin melee AoE: 10688,   42752Looking at total damage potential over this hypothetical one minute span   Ranger ranged damage potential = 42259 + 0 + 7746 = 50005   Assassin melee damage potential = 38223 + 14760 + 10688 = 63671</p> <p>As far as predators go, it should now be obvious to even the casually informed that assassins crank out more damage then their Queynos brethren.</p> <hr></blockquote>You have pretty much hit the nail on the head there. I think stukov is saying what he is saying is time and time again I have said to bring all the 1m cast times for all ranged ca's (including assassins) to 45s. And that would ballance things out on raids while not overpowering on group. No where have I said that groups are vastly unballance, assassins cant get the full dots out in groups where we burst everything. HOWEVER, there is a trend, a downward spiral to damage. I showed it in the AE's and although I havent calculated the data for totals (im lazy and dont want to do it <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />).  I have shown that trend very quickly with cast times though. That gap will widen larger and larger at the 2.3.4.5 min mark etc.What I would like to see in ranger damage is.. 1000assassin damage total, 1050 assassin damage with proc.. 900 damage total, 1100 damage with proc (+- 100) Meaning although our total damage is higher, the likelyhood of achieving that damage is slim, thus ranger average being 1000 damage.And btw Prantl - Excellt wording on your post.</div>

[Sokolov]

<div><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr></blockquote><p>Looking over the data and reading Lorelady's commentary, I do not believe she is trying to prove that cast or recast timers have a significant effect on ranger vs. assassin DPS.  Those are merely an appendix to the extensive data presented above.  Criticizing an entire forest for a single stunted tree is a bit nitpicky in my estimation.  The lions share of the data shows damage potential, not cast and recast timers. </p><hr></blockquote>-------------------      Total Diffrence(AE's excluded and misc excluded)---------------                   Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  28296        47624        63671                          ----                          2445(assa)   9246(assa)   8749(rng)                                    With mark--Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  32101        51429        67476                             ---          ---          ---                             6250         89807        4944I apologize if you feel I am nitpicking.I felt that with the scaling down of ranger damage by 15k from a level higher than the assassin to a level lower than the assassin and that the conclusion commentary was based on these numbers, that the cast timers were significant to the argument.Thus in my intrepretation the cast times were central to the argument (since the rest does not support the point), and the data above was the supplementary information so we could see how the numbers were built up and derived.Your intrepretation is interesting, but it supposes the Assassin is maximizing damage more (via stealth etc.) but the Ranger is not (ignoring melee attacks).</div>

[Sirlutt]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>LordAngus wrote:<div>Ok, for some time i been arguing that rangers dont need to be fixed. this is mostly due to the fact that i am in a high-end, hardcore raiding guild and there is not a class in the game that i cant outdps on any given fight. there is a necro in the guild that i have competition with and a wizard on occasion, but for the most part, it is no problem staying in the #1 or 2 spot. assasins have never been a threat to me, same with brigs or swashes and ive had the opportunity to play with various people playing each class so im assuming that its not just luck that i can parse like i do or that everyone else just has no idea how to play their charaters.</div> <div> </div> <div>im not sure what kind of numbers most rangers put out. from what ive seen its usually somewhere from 800-1.1k DPS. and yea, usually somewhere lower on the parse list. 1.1k DPS is below my average minimum DPS in a fight though, even in longer fights where assasins are supposed to overtake ranger DPS, i can pretty easily stay over 1.2-1.3k dps. On AE fights, forget it, its lights out, usually 1.7-2.2k DPS. but overall, at least for the last month and a half-2 months (taking in considerations that the gear i have has affected dps), on a single target raid mob, my average is 1.3-1.6k. i have a few screenshots of parses if its required that i post in order for people to take me seriously (i dont have a great comp so i dont run parses or logs on my comp, i have other people parse for me), unfortunately i only have a few recent ones, so it wont be a good sample. ill have more later.</div> <div> </div> <div>I guess my big question is: what exactly is everyone else putting out for DPS? im just fine with how i parse. i will gladly welcome any more improvements to ranger dps, but man, dps would soar.</div> <div> </div> <div>i keep in mind that dps is all relative to how good the rest of your guild is EX: if your guild cranks out 18k dps and levels mobs in a minute flat, ranger dps is higher. what is most important is how you parse in respect to others in raids and how consistantly you can do it. parsers can be somewhat innaccurate depending on whos using them and where they are standing but if its consistant, you get the idea pretty well how you stand. its possible to take the top parse with 600 dps depending on the fight or 2.2k on others. I bring this up because regardless of the fight, i dont have problems keeping up with anyone; 30 seconds or 5 minutes. </div> <div> </div> <div>I look at these posts with statistical analysis and arguments that say it is physically impossible for rangers to do what i do consistantly and i dont get it. i see everyone else saying rangers need more dps and i dont agree. maybe i am the one whos wrong, thats mainly why im wondering how everyone else is doing with their rangers. is it my AAs? i know for a fact that i use a very unconventional set-up when it comes to AAs; using INT as my main line and completely ignoring poise. My AAs are designed for procs and auto attacks, not CAs. I do have nice gear and masters, but i know im not the only one. so whats the deal with all the ranger DPS posts?</div> <div> </div> <div>and on a side note: based on my guilds accomplishments raiding, its highly unlikely that its a coincidence that everyone else is just bad. i can tell you its fact that i play with some of the finest players eq2 has to offer.</div><hr></blockquote>lvl 69 Assassin with 50% Adept 1 and 50% masters - i parse 800-1.2 K usually.. and 1.3-1.5 if all my timers are up on a single mob.  I'm about to Adept III everything thats left and i only have DR 50 legendary weapons .. once i get a couple of the 60-65 ones and hit 70 i expect those numbers to rise.On group mobs, if the adds dont have much HP i dont parse very high .. on things like the 3 in Labs i parse pretty well.forgot to add i have 27 AA points.</div><p>Message Edited by Sirlutt on <span class=date_text>07-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:00 PM</span>

[Prandtl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>-------------------      <BR>Total Diffrence(AE's excluded and misc excluded)<BR>---------------                   <BR>Ranger                    25851        38378        72420<BR>Assassin                  28296        47624        63671<BR>                         ----<BR>                         2445(assa)   9246(assa)   8749(rng)<BR>          <BR>                        <BR>With mark--<BR>Ranger                    25851        38378        72420<BR>Assassin                  32101        51429        67476   <BR>                         ---          ---          ---   <BR>                         6250         89807        4944<BR><BR>I apologize if you feel I am nitpicking.<BR><BR>I felt that with the scaling down of ranger damage by 15k from a level higher than the assassin to a level lower than the assassin and that the conclusion commentary was based on these numbers, that the cast timers were significant to the argument.<BR><BR>Thus in my intrepretation the cast times were central to the argument (since the rest does not support the point), and the data above was the supplementary information so we could see how the numbers were built up and derived.<BR><BR><BR>Your intrepretation is interesting, but it supposes the Assassin is maximizing damage more (via stealth etc.) but the Ranger is not (ignoring melee attacks).</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>For my own look at the data I ignored the totals at the bottom and instead focused on raw damage avaliable to each class<STRONG> in their primary fighting mode</STRONG>.  Hence the ranger is also maximizing, utilizing two stealth CA's as well.  That is the primary assumption of my data interpretation:  Ranger at range, assassin in melee.  Is that a valid assumption?  It is open to debate, but as simplified as this SWAG is (CA's criting, no autoattack, etc) I think it is acceptable as long as it's kept in context.</P> <P> I thought of attempting to string together a damage potential timeline including cast times and recast timers as well as autoattack, but do not know enough of good assassin tactics to even attempt this.</P> <P>I didn't attempt to draw any deeper conclusions aside from the raw numerical bottom line; but if I <EM>did</EM> go out on a limb and do so I would state that rangers need some form of DoT from range.  Precise Shot and Snaring Shot are both pathetically weak and should potentialy be converted to DoT's.</P> <P>edited for clarity</P><p>Message Edited by Prandtl on <span class=date_text>07-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:46 PM</span>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr></blockquote><p>Looking over the data and reading Lorelady's commentary, I do not believe she is trying to prove that cast or recast timers have a significant effect on ranger vs. assassin DPS.  Those are merely an appendix to the extensive data presented above.  Criticizing an entire forest for a single stunted tree is a bit nitpicky in my estimation.  The lions share of the data shows damage potential, not cast and recast timers. </p><hr></blockquote>-------------------      Total Diffrence(AE's excluded and misc excluded)---------------                   Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  28296        47624        63671                          ----                          2445(assa)   9246(assa)   8749(rng)                                    With mark--Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  32101        51429        67476                             ---          ---          ---                             6250         89807        4944I apologize if you feel I am nitpicking.I felt that with the scaling down of ranger damage by 15k from a level higher than the assassin to a level lower than the assassin and that the conclusion commentary was based on these numbers, that the cast timers were significant to the argument.<font color="#ff0000">DONT CONFUSE ME IM NOT A LAWYER..  - I have no idea what you mean by this.</font><font size="3">Thus in my intrepretation the cast times were central to the argument (since the rest does not support the point), and the data above was the supplementary information so we could see how the numbers were built up and derived.</font><font color="#ff0000">Seriously, are you a lawyer in reallife? And yea, all damage in the post was secondary to the point of damage over time.</font>Your intrepretation is interesting, but it supposes the Assassin is maximizing damage more (via stealth etc.) but the Ranger is not (ignoring melee attacks).  <font color="#ff0000">"maximizing damage more" - Jedi young  here come! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.  Out of what I have seen, assassins do 900ish combat damage, while rangers (well myself,) is doing  600-700.. The rest comes from auto attack.  Currently, there are to many problems for rangers to do max damage. From things like not being able to use ranged auto attack in the sweet spot while using melee ca's. And lack of damage in CA's in general. By lack of damage, I mean in total.. Not how much we can do instantly. I have never drawn my conclusions from just standing damage in one segment.. Its ALL about damage in intervals.</font></div><hr></blockquote></div>

[Crychtonn]

<P>Layla which bow are you currently using.  Seeing your'e in Amend I'd guess you have either Bazkul or the War bow from Venekor.  That could explain why you parse a decent amount higher then what most people are.  I know my DPS jumped at least 100-150 after I finally got lucky and grabbed the Recurved from the Cube mob.  If I ever get lucky and see Vene drop his bow with the 106 DR I'd expect to see my DPS jump up another 100-200.</P> <P>And like you I also work my CA's around my auto attack.  I'll admit I have been in the habit of spamming as many CA's as I can during the 10 sec of Focus.  But outside of that I keep my combat window open and track my auto attacks.  I'll give your tactic a try and treat CA's the same during the Focus buff that I do outside of it.  Always willing to try new idea's.</P> <P>The lack or and rarity of top end bows to match what other classes get for weapons is one of the biggest problems for the class as I see it.  The rediculous cost of ammo being the other for people not as fortunate as myself that got one of the free ammo bows.</P> <P> </P>

[Dirtgirl]

<FONT color=#ffcc66>/sigh</FONT>

[Recca[BK]]

lorelady has always made post s with tons of "comparable" data that is useless anyone remember the CA spreadsheet between rangers and assassins that did nothing?

[Prandtl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Recca[BK] wrote:<BR>lorelady has always made post s with tons of "comparable" data that is useless anyone remember the CA spreadsheet between rangers and assassins that did nothing?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If you know of a better way to quickly and simply "compare" the data then please do post it here.  I look forward to your contribution.

[LoreLady]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Recca[BK] wrote:lorelady has always made post s with tons of "comparable" data that is useless anyone remember the CA spreadsheet between rangers and assassins that did nothing? <hr> </blockquote>If you know of a better way to quickly and simply "compare" the data then please do post it here.  I look forward to your contribution.<hr></blockquote>Recca, you really irritate me with these kinda comments.. Your going on ignore, you have really [Removed for Content] me off this time. I really have no desire to debate someone with a sign labled "[Removed for Content] are us" on there forehead.</div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>07-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:47 PM</span>

[Beldin_]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Balerius wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Currently swashbucklers, berzerkers, brigands, monks, brawlers, conjurers, necros, will all out-dps rangers and so all fall somewhere within the range between rangers and assassins.  Some are close to assassins and some are only a about 100-200 dps more than rangers.  So there really isn't much room to nerf assassins.</BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't raid .. only play solo or groups .. but when i group i often play with a swashie wo often raids and has a lot of fabled stuff and masters .. and he never ever does more dps then me who only has adept 3 spells .. maybe he does more on single fights but not if you parse over a long time. Monks normally do maybe half the dps then a ranger in groups .. and zerkers .. not even a third. My Conji . yes she got near .. however i don't know how its after the nerf with the last LU since i was to busy with my SK <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Balerius]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Beldin_ wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Balerius wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Currently swashbucklers, berzerkers, brigands, monks, brawlers, conjurers, necros, will all out-dps rangers and so all fall somewhere within the range between rangers and assassins.  Some are close to assassins and some are only a about 100-200 dps more than rangers.  So there really isn't much room to nerf assassins.</BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't raid .. only play solo or groups .. but when i group i often play with a swashie wo often raids and has a lot of fabled stuff and masters .. and he never ever does more dps then me who only has adept 3 spells .. maybe he does more on single fights but not if you parse over a long time. Monks normally do maybe half the dps then a ranger in groups .. and zerkers .. not even a third. My Conji . yes she got near .. however i don't know how its after the nerf with the last LU since i was to busy with my SK <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Rangers are fine solo (within their limitations) and in groups.  This entire thread is about raid dps.

[USAFJeeper]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <P>The lack or and rarity of top end bows to match what other classes get for weapons is one of the biggest problems for the class as I see it.  The rediculous cost of ammo being the other for people not as fortunate as myself that got one of the free ammo bows.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Maybe they could convert a few of the gajillion 2 handed weapons!  After all bows are supposed to be comparable so chanbe the graphic and slot and we are good!</P> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Teksun]

Maybe we could use 2 handed swords as ammo?Only if they make them stackable though<div></div>

[Serventof Wrath]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Teksun wrote:<BR>Maybe we could use 2 handed swords as ammo?<BR><BR>Only if they make them stackable though<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This would give me a reason to take my EBBC off the wall.

[LoreLady]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Beldin_ wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Balerius wrote: <div></div> <blockquote>Currently swashbucklers, berzerkers, brigands, monks, brawlers, conjurers, necros, will all out-dps rangers and so all fall somewhere within the range between rangers and assassins.  Some are close to assassins and some are only a about 100-200 dps more than rangers.  So there really isn't much room to nerf assassins.</blockquote> <hr> </blockquote>I don't raid .. only play solo or groups .. but when i group i often play with a swashie wo often raids and has a lot of fabled stuff and masters .. and he never ever does more dps then me who only has adept 3 spells .. maybe he does more on single fights but not if you parse over a long time. Monks normally do maybe half the dps then a ranger in groups .. and zerkers .. not even a third. My Conji . yes she got near .. however i don't know how its after the nerf with the last LU since i was to busy with my SK <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Because all our damage is burst, you will never notice it in groups.. In groups its even. There are some abilities that need to be ajusted imo, however.. However, I am basing my arguement on raids soly because thats where we are finding the biggest problems in.Also, I added a summary to the OP to why I did things the way I did and what things mean. If anyone wants to take a look.<p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:00 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><font face="Courier New">Ok, I want to explain my thinking and a summary on why I did this.. My first thing is, the harder I button mash the less dps I seem to do when I try hard to get my best, I end up being the bottom. Effort should equal damage, unfortunatly the way our skills our set it doesnt allow for that. Second, I want to mention that peak dps in raids for rangers is 1400, assassins 2000, wizards 2000.The way I did this is so that people can start from the top and read there way down to how I got my answers. I took each and every damage art and added the totals, then categorized the totals then compared the total damages. Then, I went down to cast times to see the diffrence. If we were ballanced these things would equal themselves out. Like, if there is 50% less damage in the total damages there should be a 50% faster time to cast inorder to get equal damage.</font><font face="Courier New">Ranger                25851        38378        72420Assassin              28296        47624        63671                 ----                 2445(assa)   9246(assa)   8749(rng)</font><font face="Courier New">In theroy these totals are ballanced, one will jump ontop of another. This is with snipers shot, decapitate, and mark excluded.</font><font face="Courier New">With mark--Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  32101        51429        67476                       ---          ---          ---                       6250         89807        4944This is with mark, to give a greater handle on where assassins actually are, unfortunatly the likely hood of an assassin doing max damage with mark in a group or solo setting is slim, so I have chosen to seperate these.</font><font face="Courier New">Ranger                    14.4|</font><font face="Courier New">20.5</font><font face="Courier New">      18.8|</font><font face="Courier New">26.5</font><font face="Courier New">      31.8|</font><font face="Courier New">45.5</font><font face="Courier New">Asssassin                 8.8(10.7)      12.6(17.4)     22.6(30.5)(all abilities included)  ----           ---                     5.6s 38%diff   6.2s(32% diff) 9.2(2<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />                  3.7  26%       1.4    7.4%    1.3  4.1</font><font face="Courier New">When I  say all abilities included snipers shot is still taken out of here.. The first number is poise on both ends, the second is without poise. ON the second number after the | is without poise. Now, first diffrence in numbers is with both classes with poise, the second diffrence in numbers is rangers with poise assassins without poise. So this is showing that even though rangers are getting aa's, these aa's are just to put a ranger with an assassin who doesnt have any aa's..What needs to be changed, is all our frontal melee abilities need to be changed and boosted to start with - shocking thrust, rip, lunging joust. And then another small boost to either recasts, or damage to archery abilities.  And a large increase in the ability snaring shot. It should be easy for a ranger to achieve 1k dps without influence of other classes. The way things should be, the harder I button mash the higher my damage should go.I was talking to sokolov on the phone the other day, the main thing he dident seem to understand is why I did things in a set time with damage, mathimatical time on the second part. The reasoning for that, is that there is a diffrence in that time I cant say that all abilities used will add up to 30 seconds for the first interval, and then 1 min for the next. The amount of time passed to use all the abilities once is diffrent between the two of them so I cannot give st intervals. What I can do however, is add both times up. Then add or subtract them from the total damages from the percentage of the time diffrence. The shorter the time diffrence, the less diffrence in damage, the greater the time diffrence the greater the diffrence in damage. So if I had 600 damage in 1 minute, and then 610 damage in a minute 10. Both would even out to 600.</font><hr></blockquote><p><span>“Like, if there is 50% less damage in the total damages there should be a 50% faster time to cast inorder to get equal damage.” </span></p><p><span><font face="Arial">This is only true for burst damage.<span>  </span>With any sufficient long battle time, it is recycle time (cast + recovery + recast) that will affect total damage.</font></span></p><p><span>“So this is showing that even though rangers are getting aa's, these aa's are just to put a ranger with an assassin who doesnt have any aa's..”</span></p><p><span><font face="Arial">Again, this is only true for burst damage and cast times.<span>  </span>Since Ranger CA cast times are higher, any ability which reduces the cast time will benefit actual DPS of a Ranger moreso than an Assassin.</font></span></p><p>“<span>I was talking to sokolov on the phone the other day, the main thing he dident seem to understand is why I did things in a set time with damage, mathimatical time on the second part.”</span></p><p><span><font face="Arial">Actually,  I have always maintained that you need to keep it as damage over a set time frame - this has been my argument all along.  Cast time differentials does NOT affect damage over time.  It is the recycle time that matters.</font></span></p><p>EDIT: Now, as I mentioned to you on the phone, I am not arguing against or for the damage potential of Rangers in either direction.  I am simply stating that the analysis shown to me makes no sense to me.<span></span><font face="Garamond"><span></span></font></p></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:37 AM</span>

[Ravenwind]

<P>Here's something I posted a while back.  If I understand pure auto-attack correctly.  </P> <P> </P> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Ok, if the Assassins get a permanent 66% dps buff (Fiendish Villany) like our 46% haste buff (Shroud of the Forest - Master I), then assuming everything else was equal, here's how it would play out averaged to 50% and 50%...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Assuming a 6 second delay bow (like Grizz) and 1000 dmg avg shot normal.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>0 Seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>A - 1500 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>R - 1000 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>4.5 Seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>R - 1000 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>6 Seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>A - 1500 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>9 Seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>R - 1000 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>12 Seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>A - 1500 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>13.5 Seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>R - 1000 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>18 Seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>A - 1500 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>R - 1000 dmg</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>The Assassin has fired 4 shots for 6000 dmg.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>The Ranger has fired 5 shots for 5000 dmg.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>This is assuming equal auto-attack abilities.  If there's anything I left out, please feel free to point it out.</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>Ravenwind Stormhand</DIV> <DIV>70 Ranger of DROW</DIV> <DIV>Unrest</DIV><p>Message Edited by RavenwindBR on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:02 PM</span>

[Nak]

heh anyone have a ring off chel'drak, i've killed him before but never got a run through nizara...if i do manage to get a group to go there i'll tell you if a 5% ability reduction makes a somewhat noticable difference <span>:smileysad:</span> <div></div>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><div><blockquote><hr size="2" width="100%"></blockquote><p><span>“Like, if there is 50% less damage in the total damages there should be a 50% faster time to cast inorder to get equal damage.” </span></p><p><span><font face="Arial">This is only true for burst damage.<span>  </span>With any sufficient long battle time, it is recycle time (cast + recovery + recast) that will affect total damage.<font color="#ff0000">Its true if your doing damage at intervals.. However, when your talking intervals one should be higher than the other at spots,and vise versa.</font></font></span></p><p><span>“So this is showing that even though rangers are getting aa's, these aa's are just to put a ranger with an assassin who doesnt have any aa's..”</span></p><p><span><font face="Arial">Again, this is only true for burst damage and cast times.<span>  </span>Since Ranger CA cast times are higher, any ability which reduces the cast time will benefit actual DPS of a Ranger moreso than an Assassin.<font color="#ff0000">How so? - Unless you  are speaking of skilling blade.</font></font></span></p><p>“<span>I was talking to sokolov on the phone the other day, the main thing he dident seem to understand is why I did things in a set time with damage, mathimatical time on the second part.”</span></p><p><span><font face="Arial">Actually,  I have always maintained that you need to keep it as damage over a set time frame - this has been my argument all along.  Cast time differentials does NOT affect damage over time.  It is the recycle time that matters.<font color="#ff0000">I dont think I have said otherwise, I am just trying to put a way that make sense to you.. If I can make it make sense to my critics that the data is well founded and brings upon conclusions. Then, I have done my job.. My challenge to you is, how would all this be right in your eyes? I have been thinking of afew things to try and change, but im lazy and I dont want to do something in this length for some time.</font></font></span></p><p>EDIT: Now, as I mentioned to you on the phone, I am not arguing against or for the damage potential of Rangers in either direction.  I am simply stating that the analysis shown to me makes no sense to me.<span></span><font face="Garamond"><span></span></font></p></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-21-2006</span> <span class="time_text">11:37 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote></div>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>RavenwindBR wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p>Here's something I posted a while back.  If I understand pure auto-attack correctly.  </p> <div> <hr> </div> <div></div> <blockquote> <div>Ok, if the Assassins get a permanent 66% dps buff (Fiendish Villany) like our 46% haste buff (Shroud of the Forest - Master I), then assuming everything else was equal, here's how it would play out averaged to 50% and 50%...</div> <div> </div> <div>Assuming a 6 second delay bow (like Grizz) and 1000 dmg avg shot normal.</div> <div> </div> <div><font size="2">0 Seconds</font></div> <div><font size="2">A - 1500 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2">R - 1000 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">4.5 Seconds</font></div> <div><font size="2">R - 1000 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">6 Seconds</font></div> <div><font size="2">A - 1500 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">9 Seconds</font></div> <div><font size="2">R - 1000 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">12 Seconds</font></div> <div><font size="2">A - 1500 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">13.5 Seconds</font></div> <div><font size="2">R - 1000 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">18 Seconds</font></div> <div><font size="2">A - 1500 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2">R - 1000 dmg</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">The Assassin has fired 4 shots for 6000 dmg.</font></div> <div><font size="2">The Ranger has fired 5 shots for 5000 dmg.</font></div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2"></font> </div> <div><font size="2">This is assuming equal auto-attack abilities.  If there's anything I left out, please feel free to point it out.</font></div><font size="2"></font></blockquote> <blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Ravenwind Stormhand</div> <div>70 Ranger of DROW</div> <div>Unrest</div><p>Message Edited by RavenwindBR on <span class="date_text">07-21-2006</span> <span class="time_text">12:02 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I dont mean to derail you, but I am going to anyways.. There are afew flaws in this thinking first ifyou have base 1000 damage, your going to get this.Ranger 1200Assassin 1300But if you take procs into this, it derails this thinking. Assassin proc 500 dmg - 10% Ranger proc 450 dmg 30% chance. Making the total damage per ability +- 150 And the assassin +- 75 so you will get numbers like this.Ranger 1350-1500Assassin 1375-1450This leaves the ranger with a higher max damage, but a lower chance to top it, while the assassin has a greater chance to peak the higher damage but cannot top the ranger.. And has a higher min making the idea of this ballanced..</div>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>Ranger vs Assassin An single target damage over time analysis Some Assumptions and Defintions: Gear - Gear is considered equal for both Predators Skills - All Skills are being considered as Master 1 AAs - AAs are considered equal (Poise makes little difference) Damage Maximization - Both classes are assumed to be maximizing damage potential and able to use all abilities Cast Order - Cast order is being ignored for sake of simplicity (and is abstracted by the DPS calculaton done on the skils) Recycle Time - Defined as Cast Time + Recovery Time + Recast Time DPS - Defined as Damage / Recycle Time Recycle Time for DoTs - Recycle Time for DoT (Damage over Time) abilities are considered to me the duration of the DoT component of the skill or the sum of the Cast + Recovery + Recast timers, whichever is greater. EDIT: Further Clarifications: Crits - Considered intangible and not included Damage - Damage numbers culled from the OP Sniper's/Decapitate - These skills have a recast time larger than the study period of 180s, thus the recycle time has been abstracted to 180s to simulate the fact that these skills can be used once per encounter. This analysis utilizes the idea that each skill has a damage per second factor that can be approximated by taking its damage and dividing it over its recycle time. This has the inherent problem of not being to accurately gauge burst damage potential as it averages out a skill's damage and is obviously an inaccurate in the short run due to assumption of damage from time=0s.  But it has the advantage of allowing us to abstract any set of skill's damage into almost any time frame.  In this case, we are using 180s as a typical raid encounter length in our analysis.  It also allows us to ignore casting order and still come out with a fairly reliable average DPS due to its pro-rated nature. I have also done the charts in such a manner that allows you to compare the skills obtained by each class at the same levels. Ranger <img src="http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5622/rangerbd0.jpg"> Assassin <img src="http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5678/assassincf3.jpg"> Summary <img src="http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/525/summarybe2.jpg"> <div></div> Using the above assumptions as listed, an Assassin will deal ~12% more DPS with his CAs than a Ranger.<p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-21-2006</span> <span class="time_text">10:18 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-21-2006</span> <span class="time_text">10:48 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:54 PM</span>

[LoreLady]

<div></div><div></div>Thanks for putting those up, however now your on the other side of things!!First, whats DPP? The summarys are very diffrent from my own. I used crits included in ranger DPS for all ranged abilities when they would be used accept for snaring shot/vield fire/snipers shot.  So, the ranged dps is about 25% than normal due to crits. I also made a point of distinguishing the diffrence in dps from mark and rangers at there max dps.                                                                                        30s                        1m<font face="Courier New">Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  32101        51429        67476                              ---          ---          ---      ^                        6250         89807        4944mine30s 24435    274621m 48871   54925^Yours.Just looking at what you have at the 30s mark, I am wondering why everything really low.. The numbers should be near doubled, even at the medium damage. So, if these numbers are showing low on both ends it shows the gap much bigger than it actually is on your spreadsheets. Also if you look at rain of arrows, it goes up by about 1k over 30 seconds every time, how does that work?Forinstance, Culling of the weak base damage 1832. Cast time 1.5. +0.5 recovery.. Damage/totaltime = 916That ability has a 1200 min damage, so your number isent the medium.I really dont understand how your getting your damage at each interval.In your data it still shows theres a problem in DPS between the two classes, however because I still dont understand how your getting your damage the actuall gap is flawed. The one main thing I look at in your post is your sheer DPS numbers... Sheer dps numbers times number of times cast will give a clearer reading of the gap IMO.You did a great job compiling this data and taking up my challenge. And it still shows a significant gap that grows expodentially. I am just having a hard time accepting it because my total damages for these to classes intertwine with eachother like so. </font><font face="Courier New">Ranger                25851        38378        72420   98271  110798Assassin              28296        47624        63671   91967  117930                      ----                      2445(assa)   9246(assa)   8749(rng)</font><font face="Courier New"> And so forth and so forth.. But, if you have these total damages ballanced but a inballance by 20-30% in cast times it makes the total damage gap still around 20-30% (well, more like 15-25% once you include procs)Sad thing was, I was a kid who nearly flunked mathclass <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Hopefully I can put together alil something once I head to college this fall <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font><div></div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class="date_text">07-21-2006</span> <span class="time_text">09:20 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:32 PM</span>

[LoreLady]

Double posting on purpose I know my last post is a jumble but I have spent the last 30 mins looking over your data more and more and the more I look at it the more of a puzzled look I have on my face and the more I see a larger diffrence that your data is saying per ability than what your data is reading. Your data shouldent have abilities that arent in use  being added to the total at each interval. And its being added every time, your data at 30s shows what I have in my summary for complete burst damage at 0s (eliminating cast times).. Theres just WAY to much im not getting..I will say this again.. If you eliminate the cast times and take the damage and seperatly take the cast times and take the %age of the total cast time you get your dpsForinstance <font face="Courier New">Ranger                        72420 (taking the 1 min numbers cause the total damages are higher for ranger)Assassin                      63671</font>72420         63671 /45.5          /30.5---1591            2087Sokolov is saying my dps is flawed because I am using this type of thinking, I just dont understand what sokolov data is saying in the totals. I want everyones comments (Cept recca) about what you think is flawed in both.You know your to much into a game WHEN!... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div></div><div></div>Thanks for putting those up, however now your on the other side of things!! <hr></blockquote>I have never claimed to be on a side.   Please don't attribute to me opinions I never stated.  I simply disagreed with your analytical methods. <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div></div><div></div>First, whats DPP? <hr></blockquote>Damage per power used as explained in my post. <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div></div><div></div> The summarys are very diffrent from my own. I used crits included in ranger DPS for all ranged abilities when they would be used accept for snaring shot/vield fire/snipers shot.  So, the ranged dps is about 25% than normal due to crits. I also made a point of distinguishing the diffrence in dps from mark and rangers at there max dps.                                                                                        30s                        1m<font face="Courier New">Ranger                    25851        38378        72420Assassin                  32101        51429        67476                              ---          ---          ---      ^                        6250         89807        4944mine30s 24435    274621m 48871   54925^Yours.Just looking at what you have at the 30s mark, I am wondering why everything really low.. The numbers should be near doubled, even at the medium damage. So, if these numbers are showing low on both ends it shows the gap much bigger than it actually is on your spreadsheets. </font><hr></blockquote> Yes, I did not include criticals, nor Focus Aim/Mark, etc., which accounts for some of the lower damage.  I am assuming that the increase in the corresponding spell lines are approximately equal, and has little relative effect on the aggregate data. <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div></div><div></div><font face="Courier New"> Also if you look at rain of arrows, it goes up by about 1k over 30 seconds every time, how does that work?Forinstance, Culling of the weak base damage 1832. Cast time 1.5. +0.5 recovery.. Damage/totaltime = 916That ability has a 1200 min damage, so your number isent the medium.I really dont understand how your getting your damage at each interval.</font> <hr></blockquote>Each skill has been calculated to a raw DPS number and then abstracted to each time segment.  As I explained in my original post, this is not representative of the normal order of things, but is representative of the potential DPS that each skill can provide. Thus, even tho it would only do its damage at certain intervals, the damage is applied based on the per second damage a skill provides over its recycle time. All this I explained in my post. The advantage of this method is that it provides abstracted numbers which can be used in various situations. Another advantage is that cast times, recovery times and recast times are all taken into consideration from the outset. As an aside, I can very easily give you what happens to each class' DPS if cast times were increased or decreased. And incidentally, this is what happens to the chart with Poise applied: <img src="http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2233/sumih1.jpg"> Notice that DPS increases by a mere 9 points and total damage changed by less than 2000 for each class - thus supporting the idea that changes in cast time has little effect overall on CA DPS when considering damage over the time elapsed of a typical encounter. As you said, it's math and I personally have every confidence in my methodology, tho I would not expect everyone to agree with it. In any case, again I state that I was never disagreeing with anything except your OP's methodology. Also, the range of damage is really irrelevant.  The % difference is what's vital and we see that the assassin's CAs provides 12% more DPS and this is subject to increase if equivalvent additional % buffs are applied to the base damage numbers.<p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-21-2006</span> <span class="time_text">10:38 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:33 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div> <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:Double posting on purpose I know my last post is a jumble but I have spent the last 30 mins looking over your data more and more and the more I look at it the more of a puzzled look I have on my face and the more I see a larger diffrence that your data is saying per ability than what your data is reading. Your data shouldent have abilities that arent in use  being added to the total at each interval. And its being added every time, your data at 30s shows what I have in my summary for complete burst damage at 0s (eliminating cast times).. Theres just WAY to much im not getting..I will say this again.. If you eliminate the cast times and take the damage and seperatly take the cast times and take the %age of the total cast time you get your dpsForinstance <font face="Courier New">Ranger                        72420 (taking the 1 min numbers cause the total damages are higher for ranger)Assassin                      63671</font>72420         63671 /45.5          /30.5---1591            2087Sokolov is saying my dps is flawed because I am using this type of thinking, I just dont understand what sokolov data is saying in the totals. I want everyones comments (Cept recca) about what you think is flawed in both.You know your to much into a game WHEN!... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>I believe that  DPS is determined by damage over encounter time, not the time you spent casting.  That's my problem with your thinking.<div></div><p>Cast Time "imbalances," insofar as they do not affect Recycle Time, do not affect overall CA DPS in any significant manner.  </p> <p>They do, of course, affect Autoattack damage, which is not being currently considered here in this thread.<span class="time_text"></span></p><p> </p> <p><font face="Courier New"> </font> </p> <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote: <font face="Courier New">And so forth and so forth.. But, if you have these total damages ballanced but a inballance by 20-30% in cast times it makes the total damage gap still around 20-30% (well, more like 15-25% once you include procs)</font><hr> </blockquote> I have to say this makes no sense to me.  You cannot calculate total damage over time without considering cast times to begin with.  Cast times, therefore, cannot be applied again in a logical manner unless one is considering AutoAttack damage. <p><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>07-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:45 PM</span>

[Prandtl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <BR>have never claimed to be on a side.   Please don't attribute to me opinions I never stated.  I simply disagreed with your analytical methods.<BR><BR> <P><BR> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I know you have never "picked" a side.   I will take an in depth look at your post above in the morning, with a clear mind.  Of course I will look at it with a ranger slant, but thats to be expected.   It will be very similar to what I do RT, just a bit more important  :smileyvery-happy:<BR></P>

[LoreLady]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div> <blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:Double posting on purpose I know my last post is a jumble but I have spent the last 30 mins looking over your data more and more and the more I look at it the more of a puzzled look I have on my face and the more I see a larger diffrence that your data is saying per ability than what your data is reading. Your data shouldent have abilities that arent in use  being added to the total at each interval. And its being added every time, your data at 30s shows what I have in my summary for complete burst damage at 0s (eliminating cast times).. Theres just WAY to much im not getting..I will say this again.. If you eliminate the cast times and take the damage and seperatly take the cast times and take the %age of the total cast time you get your dpsForinstance <font face="Courier New">Ranger                        72420 (taking the 1 min numbers cause the total damages are higher for ranger)Assassin                      63671</font>72420         63671 /45.5          /30.5---1591            2087Sokolov is saying my dps is flawed because I am using this type of thinking, I just dont understand what sokolov data is saying in the totals. I want everyones comments (Cept recca) about what you think is flawed in both.You know your to much into a game WHEN!... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>I believe that  DPS is determined by damage over encounter time, not the time you spent casting.  That's my problem with your thinking.<div></div><p>Cast Time "imbalances," insofar as they do not affect Recycle Time, do not affect overall CA DPS in any significant manner.  </p> <p>They do, of course, affect Autoattack damage, which is not being currently considered here in this thread.<font color="#ff0000">Ok, but im still having a tough time reproducing it.  I'll try again when I get some sleep, im on 4 hours sleep and cant think straight, btw someone please shoot my neibours.</font></p><p></p><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote: <font face="Courier New">And so forth and so forth.. But, if you have these total damages ballanced but a inballance by 20-30% in cast times it makes the total damage gap still around 20-30% (well, more like 15-25% once you include procs)</font><hr> </blockquote> I have to say this makes no sense to me.  You cannot calculate total damage over time without considering cast times to begin with.  Cast times, therefore, cannot be applied again in a logical manner unless one is considering AutoAttack damage.<font color="#ff0000">I was throwing out a random number without calculating it its my bad..  1500 to 2000 is 25% and the diffrence I am typiccally seeing on raids and myself. I got this by taking the total damage and deviding it by the cast time to get a diffrence of dps per ability. As of yet I havent said its wrong, just that I havent been able to reproduce it. And before we get athousand people jumping at me telling me how its done, just let me get some sleep and give it another crack. I stillhave a tough time with it though, rain  in practise does 4k damage when used, then another 4k in 2 mins..  Again untill I reproduce it to fully understand it myself im not commenting further. There is a diffrence between reading and understanding.</font> <p><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">07-21-2006</span> <span class="time_text">10:45 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote></div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>07-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:44 AM</span>

[Jayad]

<DIV>Interesting analysis, Sko.  As you say, it's just comparing CAs and it shows Rangers being a bit short on that. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would love to see somebody taking the next step and adding a typical AA tree and Focus/Mark to it.  I think Mark is superior to Focus.  If you parse raids with assassins, Mark is the largest CA component.  Focus, while providing a nice boost, isn't as good.  My hypothesis is also that the AAs work out better for Assassins than Rangers, with melee gaining benefits from all trees except 1 and the Agi tree not being that great.  You also can't get the impact of Poise without considering Focus, but it could very well be that Poise is not a good investment.  In that case, it would be interesting seeing some numbers backing that up.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What is the skill assassins get in place of our summon arrows skill?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Xney wrote:<div></div> <div>Interesting analysis, Sko.  As you say, it's just comparing CAs and it shows Rangers being a bit short on that. </div> <div> </div> <div>I would love to see somebody taking the next step and adding a typical AA tree and Focus/Mark to it.  I think Mark is superior to Focus.  If you parse raids with assassins, Mark is the largest CA component.  Focus, while providing a nice boost, isn't as good.  My hypothesis is also that the AAs work out better for Assassins than Rangers, with melee gaining benefits from all trees except 1 and the Agi tree not being that great.  You also can't get the impact of Poise without considering Focus, but it could very well be that Poise is not a good investment.  In that case, it would be interesting seeing some numbers backing that up.</div> <div> </div> <div>What is the skill assassins get in place of our summon arrows skill?</div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>Already done that in mine xney.. I have mark, focus, included in the totals of mine.. And btw, I used all the totals with focus (when it would normally be used).And assassins get makeshift weapon, its a throwing knife or hammer or something sucky. And, I have done all mine with poise and perfectionist included. I have also shown the diffrence between an assassin with 25 aa's compared to a ranger with 50 aa's if they take the poise line or not.</div>

[Domiuk]

<DIV>So far it seems to me you are really only discussing CAs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The dps differance that some of you are talking is a few hundred points of dps, Of course we have others who are not seeing this differance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Could the differance simply be group make up are both classes sitting at 100/100 haste dps ?  or is the nature of dps group buff makeup favouring the assasin  ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would for one like to see the parsers,  An ACT parser will show very clearly where the damage differance is coming from.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So come on lets see a few of these parsers showing assasins trouncing rangers with there breakdown of damage by type for both classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In particular I would like to see how much autoattack damage both classes are doing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[LoreLady]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Domiuk wrote:<div>So far it seems to me you are really only discussing CAs.</div> <div> </div> <div>The dps differance that some of you are talking is a few hundred points of dps, Of course we have others who are not seeing this differance.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>Could the differance simply be group make up are both classes sitting at 100/100 haste dps ?  or is the nature of dps group buff makeup favouring the assasin  ? <font color="#ffff00">Only dicussing aa's.. Both sokolov's and my data point to an imbalance in the class.</font></div> <div> </div> <div>I would for one like to see the parsers,  An ACT parser will show very clearly where the damage differance is coming from.</div> <div> <font color="#ffff00">Combat dicussion, most useless class - rangers and shadowknights are clearly stated as the two most useless clases. Theres afew parsings floating around there.</font></div> <div>So come on lets see a few of these parsers showing assasins trouncing rangers with there breakdown of damage by type for both classes.</div> <div> </div> <div>In particular I would like to see how much autoattack damage both classes are doing.<font color="#ffff00">Auto attack is equal.</font></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote></div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>07-22-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:19 PM</span>

[Recca[BK]]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Domiuk wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Could the differance simply be group make up are both classes sitting at 100/100 haste dps ?  or is the nature of dps group buff makeup favouring the assasin  ? <FONT color=#ffff00>Only dicussing aa's.. Both sokolov's and my data point to an imbalance in the class.</FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would for one like to see the parsers,  An ACT parser will show very clearly where the damage differance is coming from.</DIV> <DIV> <FONT color=#ffff00>Combat dicussion, most useless class - rangers and shadowknights are clearly stated as the two most useless clases. Theres afew parsings floating around there.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>So come on lets see a few of these parsers showing assasins trouncing rangers with there breakdown of damage by type for both classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In particular I would like to see how much autoattack damage both classes are doing.<FONT color=#ffff00>Auto attack is equal.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV> <P>Message Edited by LoreLady on <SPAN class=date_text>07-22-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:19 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>sol and your data show absolutly nothin of any value. how can it point to an imbalance? <BR>

[Domiuk]

<DIV>LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Domiuk wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Could the differance simply be group make up are both classes sitting at 100/100 haste dps ?  or is the nature of dps group buff makeup favouring the assasin  ? <FONT color=#ffff00>Only dicussing aa's.. Both sokolov's and my data point to an imbalance in the class.</FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would for one like to see the parsers,  An ACT parser will show very clearly where the damage differance is coming from.</DIV> <DIV> <FONT color=#ffff00>Combat dicussion, most useless class - rangers and shadowknights are clearly stated as the two most useless clases. Theres afew parsings floating around there.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>So come on lets see a few of these parsers showing assasins trouncing rangers with there breakdown of damage by type for both classes.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In particular I would like to see how much autoattack damage both classes are doing.<FONT color=#ffff00>Auto attack is equal.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> 1  It does not automatically follow that if one class does more damage with CAs than another that there dps will be greater.  So this does not neccasarily mean there is an imbalance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2 The thread on most useless class is hardly damning evidence and a parser simply showing total dps for a fight gives no information at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3  You state autoattack is equal , that has got to be rubbish.  A ranger using a bow and x type of arrows does exactly the same damage as an Assasin in mellee with a pair of DW ?    again is that assasin sitting at 100/100 because he is close to other mellee classes buffing him while the rangers is only 60/40 and out of range of some buffs ?             </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This argument is a lot more complicated than you are making it sound and you are offering very little actual evidence to prove your points.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you post parsers showing that an assasin is doing clearly more damage because of combats arts and that both classes are fully utilising there abilitys and indeed that autoattack damage is somewhere similar.  it might be fair to say the combat arts are imbalanced , but frankly not until then.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not trying to be funny or anything but while there are rangers and assasins out there who think that both classes do similar damage (and post parses showing this) I am going to assume that those of you who are not hitting the high numbers are doing something wrong or its a group make up thing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If there is an issue and you can clearly show what it is, there is more chance of getting it fixed but understand that what is currently posted , shows nothing.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Domiuk wrote:<div>LoreLady wrote: <div></div> <div> <blockquote> <hr> Domiuk wrote: <div> </div> <div>Could the differance simply be group make up are both classes sitting at 100/100 haste dps ?  or is the nature of dps group buff makeup favouring the assasin  ? <font color="#ffff00">Only dicussing aa's.. Both sokolov's and my data point to an imbalance in the class.</font></div> <div> </div> <div>I would for one like to see the parsers,  An ACT parser will show very clearly where the damage differance is coming from.</div> <div> <font color="#ffff00">Combat dicussion, most useless class - rangers and shadowknights are clearly stated as the two most useless clases. Theres afew parsings floating around there.</font></div> <div>So come on lets see a few of these parsers showing assasins trouncing rangers with there breakdown of damage by type for both classes.</div> <div> </div> <div>In particular I would like to see how much autoattack damage both classes are doing.<font color="#ffff00">Auto attack is equal.</font></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> 1  It does not automatically follow that if one class does more damage with CAs than another that there dps will be greater.  So this does not neccasarily mean there is an imbalance.<font color="#996600">If one class is doing 25% more damage consistantly on CA's it means both classes are imballanced. I have shown that.</font></div> <div> </div> <div>2 The thread on most useless class is hardly damning evidence and a parser simply showing total dps for a fight gives no information at all.<font color="#996600">Then why arent people speaking out about it? And when people do, we rangers dont have to say a thing to defend ourselves, the folks at dissolusion are doing a fantastic job for us.</font></div> <div> </div> <div>3  You state autoattack is equal , that has got to be rubbish.  A ranger using a bow and x type of arrows does exactly the same damage as an Assasin in mellee with a pair of DW ?    again is that assasin sitting at 100/100 because he is close to other mellee classes buffing him while the rangers is only 60/40 and out of range of some buffs ?     <font color="#996600">Buffs come at a long long way, auto attack is equal. If both classes have the top weapons in the game the auto attack is going to be equal, however melee attack does less overall on your secondary hand and more on your primary.. So even though you have a total of 120 damage rating, you are only getting about 100 out of it.. They did it this way in eq1, they also have it in eq2 it only makes sense.</font>        </div> <div> </div> <div>This argument is a lot more complicated than you are making it sound and you are offering very little actual evidence to prove your points.<font color="#996600">You havent provided me any evidence that my numbers are false, no one has. Only person who has done that is sokolov. And his numbers still agree with my own, just a diffrent way of doing things.</font></div> <div> </div> <div>If you post parsers showing that an assasin is doing clearly more damage because of combats arts and that both classes are fully utilising there abilitys and indeed that autoattack damage is somewhere similar.  it might be fair to say the combat arts are imbalanced , but frankly not until then.<font color="#996600"> I have done exaccly as you said in the past, arguement becomes about the parsings itself not the imballance I avoid posting parsings on fourms. Since auto attack is equal, the only imballance out there are the combat abilities.I would also like to point out, I do an average of 1400 dps on raids. I do the rangers dance every time I can to get 300 more dps. Rangers dance is when using a melee auto attack when I use melee CA's and jumping in right up close to the mob, and then jumping back into the sweet spot when my ranged comes up and  back in again.. No assassin does this for the dps boost (not that I know) - this isent jousting btw.There is also a problem with a ranger holding ranged auto attack in the sweet spot that when you use a melee CA in this spot your out of range for melee damage (fine) - but during this time you also have a gap in your ranged auto attack duration  where there shouldent be - not untill your next ranged auto attack.CA imballance in both classes,  the problems I have stated above (although most have overcome this and now do more than they normally do because of the ranger dance) all contribute to the overal problem.</font></div> <div> </div> <div>I am not trying to be funny or anything but while there are rangers and assasins out there who think that both classes do similar damage (and post parses showing this) I am going to assume that those of you who are not hitting the high numbers are doing something wrong or its a group make up thing.</div> <div> </div> <div>If there is an issue and you can clearly show what it is, there is more chance of getting it fixed but understand that what is currently posted , shows nothing.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div></blockquote></div></div><hr></blockquote></div>

[Recca[BK]]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This argument is a lot more complicated than you are making it sound and you are offering very little actual evidence to prove your points.<FONT color=#996600>You havent provided me any evidence that my numbers are false, no one has. Only person who has done that is sokolov. And his numbers still agree with my own, just a diffrent way of doing things.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>this also doesnt mean your numbers are correct, despite your over confidence in them.<BR>

[LoreLady]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Recca[BK] wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LoreLady wrote: <div> <blockquote> <div> <div> <blockquote> <div> </div> <div>This argument is a lot more complicated than you are making it sound and you are offering very little actual evidence to prove your points.<font color="#996600">You havent provided me any evidence that my numbers are false, no one has. Only person who has done that is sokolov. And his numbers still agree with my own, just a diffrent way of doing things.</font></div> <div> </div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div> <hr> </blockquote>this also doesnt mean your numbers are correct, despite your over confidence in them.<hr></blockquote>Prove me wrong - and all I have shown is max CA damage potential in both classes. You havent shown me anything in my data, or in sokolov's that is false. So both remain true. If you find faults of taking total damage over time casting at diffrent intervals and then show me that I am wrong go ahead.. I have shown my data in several diffrent ways to show many diffrent factors. Am I going to say that an assassin will reach 2000 CA dps at 1 min at 428, its [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] near impossible (probabble though <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) - and on the same token will you see a ranger do 1500 CA dps at one min.. Again improbable. But, it measures that there is a large diffrence between the two.And its a shame that ignore doesnt block your posts just PM's.. </div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>07-23-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:01 AM</span>

[Prandtl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Recca[BK] wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This argument is a lot more complicated than you are making it sound and you are offering very little actual evidence to prove your points.<FONT color=#996600>You havent provided me any evidence that my numbers are false, no one has. Only person who has done that is sokolov. And his numbers still agree with my own, just a diffrent way of doing things.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>this also doesnt mean your numbers are correct, despite your over confidence in them.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm still awaiting your data, Recca[BK]   I'm sure it will be most enlightening

[LoreLady]

<div><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Recca[BK] wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LoreLady wrote: <div> <blockquote> <div> <div> <blockquote> <div> </div> <div>This argument is a lot more complicated than you are making it sound and you are offering very little actual evidence to prove your points.<font color="#996600">You havent provided me any evidence that my numbers are false, no one has. Only person who has done that is sokolov. And his numbers still agree with my own, just a diffrent way of doing things.</font></div> <div> </div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div> <hr> </blockquote>this also doesnt mean your numbers are correct, despite your over confidence in them. <hr> </blockquote>I'm still awaiting your data, Recca[BK]   I'm sure it will be most enlightening<hr></blockquote>Im still waiting for recca to say anything that makes sense.</div>