Be honest, where are you on the parsings? [Archive] - Page 3

Sirlutt

08-02-2006, 01:41 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>Jay42 wrote:<div></div> <p>Wow, I go away from the forums for a few days and y'all throw a party without me. This one delivers all the best elements of a really uber forum thread. I could make a nice numbered list but I don't want to derail any further. </p> <p>In all seriousness, thanks for posting here and discussing the issue with us, Lockeye. And thanks to the folks from Disso, SD, Amend, and other guilds for providing parses and data.</p> <p>I don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion (as usual), but I did see one thing that caught my eye - Lockeye said "In <u>none</u> of the categories does a Conjurer, Necromancer, Swashbuckler, or Brigand ever outrank the Ranger's DPS <strong><em>averages</em></strong>. " [Emphasis mine]</p> <p>Averages. I'm out of my league here, but doesn't that mean the server-wide parses of ALL characters in ALL situations - raid, group, and solo? So on the average, across all players of all classes in all three categories, maybe we look fine. But when you leave the "average" player (with average gear, average upgrades, average skills) in the dust, and you're rolling with very skilled players, in one category - T7 raiding - the "average" doesn't mean that much. It's the ceiling that matters, the potential DPS for the class - and according to several of the top guilds worldwide, the ceiling for rangers is considerably lower than the ceiling for assassins, rogues, summoners, etc. </p> <p>Point being, I think Lockeye can see accurate numbers that confirm the serverwide averages in all three categories, but the high-end raid scene can still show the discrepancy b/w rangers and other DPS classes that many people experience on a daily basis. I don't think one precludes the other, b/c I assume there are far more 'average' rangers out there soloing and grouping than raiding the high-end T7 content. Lockeye is seeing the forest; you guys are seeing the trees. </p> <p>Because really, players like Khalan and Axkiva and guilds like Dissolution and Second Dawn aren't imagining things. These high-end raiding players are seeing an issue firsthand, and are reacting accordingly - by switching from their rangers to new mains, and by declining rangers' guild applications based on thorough testing and parses. If there were not a problem with DPS class balance, they'd be raiding with rangers, plain and simple. </p><hr></blockquote>you summed it up pretty well. I think lockeyes data is correct in what it measures, but its not measuring the end game which is where most people see the issue. good post Jay.</div>

IllusiveThoughts

08-02-2006, 01:51 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jay42 wrote:<BR> <P>Wow, I go away from the forums for a few days and y'all throw a party without me. This one delivers all the best elements of a really uber forum thread. I could make a nice numbered list but I don't want to derail any further. </P> <P>In all seriousness, thanks for posting here and discussing the issue with us, Lockeye. And thanks to the folks from Disso, SD, Amend, and other guilds for providing parses and data.</P> <P>I don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion (as usual), but I did see one thing that caught my eye - Lockeye said "In <U>none</U> of the categories does a Conjurer, Necromancer, Swashbuckler, or Brigand ever outrank the Ranger's DPS <STRONG><EM>averages</EM></STRONG>. " [Emphasis mine]</P> <P>Averages. I'm out of my league here, but doesn't that mean the server-wide parses of ALL characters in ALL situations - raid, group, and solo? So on the average, across all players of all classes in all three categories, maybe we look fine. But when you leave the "average" player (with average gear, average upgrades, average skills) in the dust, and you're rolling with very skilled players, in one category - T7 raiding - the "average" doesn't mean that much. It's the ceiling that matters, the potential DPS for the class - and according to several of the top guilds worldwide, the ceiling for rangers is considerably lower than the ceiling for assassins, rogues, summoners, etc. </P> <P>Point being, I think Lockeye can see accurate numbers that confirm the serverwide averages in all three categories, but the high-end raid scene can still show the discrepancy b/w rangers and other DPS classes that many people experience on a daily basis. I don't think one precludes the other, b/c I assume there are far more 'average' rangers out there soloing and grouping than raiding the high-end T7 content. Lockeye is seeing the forest; you guys are seeing the trees. </P> <P>Because really, players like Khalan and Axkiva and guilds like Dissolution and Second Dawn aren't imagining things. These high-end raiding players are seeing an issue firsthand, and are reacting accordingly - by switching from their rangers to new mains, and by declining rangers' guild applications based on thorough testing and parses. If there were not a problem with DPS class balance, they'd be raiding with rangers, plain and simple. </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>you summed it up pretty well. I think lockeyes data is correct in what it measures, but its not measuring the end game which is where most people see the issue. <BR><BR>good post Jay.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>+1 made a lot of sense.

Ranvarenaya

08-02-2006, 02:21 AM

Here's a raid-long parse of DT from last night, including the speed-bumps associated with the new Tarinax:Allies: (01:12:06) 44705345 | 10,334.11 [Morlander-Fusion-28236]Necro 4220085 | 975.52Assassin 4124940 | 953.52Ranger 3984680 | 921.10Brigand 3662525 | 846.63Swash 3607675 | 833.95Monk 3175030 | 733.94Bruiser 2975567 | 687.83Conj 2884997 | 666.90Brigand 2819548 | 651.77(Brigand 2 is my brother, just switched from a monk and this was his first brigand raid, so he's behind in gear/spells)To me, this is a decent example of how dps breaks down over the course of an entire raid zone <i>without</i> maximizing dps groups. EX: I'm the ranger in there, and that dps is with self-haste, self-str, 30% dps from the inq and that's it. My point being, if we put dps in a raid and let them do their thing, rangers can beat brigands/swashbucklers, and stay close to assassins. What I'm gathering from other posts and opinion is that when you give the assassin the juice to do 1500, a ranger can't scale in the same manner. I can't test that or speak to it personally, but if that is the case maybe it's more about the functionality of buffs, procs, etc that boost the assassin and not the ranger than it is with our fundamentals like CA's and auto-attack.<div></div>

Sirlutt

08-02-2006, 02:31 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>Ranvarenaya wrote:Here's a raid-long parse of DT from last night, including the speed-bumps associated with the new Tarinax:Allies: (01:12:06) 44705345 | 10,334.11 [Morlander-Fusion-28236]Necro 4220085 | 975.52Assassin 4124940 | 953.52Ranger 3984680 | 921.10Brigand 3662525 | 846.63Swash 3607675 | 833.95Monk 3175030 | 733.94Bruiser 2975567 | 687.83Conj 2884997 | 666.90Brigand 2819548 | 651.77(Brigand 2 is my brother, just switched from a monk and this was his first brigand raid, so he's behind in gear/spells)To me, this is a decent example of how dps breaks down over the course of an entire raid zone <i>without</i> maximizing dps groups. EX: I'm the ranger in there, and that dps is with self-haste, self-str, 30% dps from the inq and that's it. My point being, if we put dps in a raid and let them do their thing, rangers can beat brigands/swashbucklers, and stay close to assassins. What I'm gathering from other posts and opinion is that when you give the assassin the juice to do 1500, a ranger can't scale in the same manner. I can't test that or speak to it personally, but if that is the case maybe it's more about the functionality of buffs, procs, etc that boost the assassin and not the ranger than it is with our fundamentals like CA's and auto-attack.<div></div><hr></blockquote>That is pretty much the same as what I am seeing.</div>

Peston

08-02-2006, 03:46 AM

<div></div>We should be T1 dps regardless of buffs, procs, etc.'nuff said...And great post Jay! =) That's what I was trying to say in an earlier post.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Peston on <span class=date_text>08-01-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:47 PM</span>

Pins

08-02-2006, 07:01 AM

<BR> <P>Here's a parse for our deathtoll run tonight: Group setups were(Yes I'm freely giving this out, because who cares?, also if a name isn't listed, it's the only one of each class on our roster):</P> <P>Group1, DPS: Troubador(Angua, also had AE Avoid), Conjuror(mage pet), Wizard(Warlock for Tarinax and Cruor, either got Synergism), Fury, Brigand(got vim, Zaphear)), Assassin(got vim, Agitate, Skratch)<BR>Group2, MT: Dirge(ran a tanking lineup, has AE Avoid and DKTM, Refrain), Coercer, Berserker(Main Tank), Templar(Elrohn), Defiler, Warden(Yavanna)<BR>Group3, ST: Dirge(ran DPS lineup, except on Drake, Cruor, and Tarinax where he ran Tanking, does not have AE Avoid but has DKTM, Dlisk), Bruiser(Amends Target), Paladin(Second Tank), Templar(Oopo), Mystic, Warden(Necro for Cruor and Tarinax, Warden is Fern)<BR>Group4, DPS: Troubador(Hummtune, does not have AE Avoid or DKTM), Warlock(Wizard for Tarinax and Cruor, either got Synergism), Illusionist(Synergism), Brigand(Rapidity and Aura, Tangarth), Inquistor, Necromancer(Warden for Cruor and Tarinax, Necro always had Synergism and used his mage pet)</P> <P>Allies: (51:2<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 39442146 | 12772.72 [Skratch-Decapitate-22040]<BR>Skratch 3638309 | 1178.21 - Assassin 9.2%<BR>Falcogen 3541060 | 1146.72 - Wizard 8.9%<BR>Nooch 3341022 | 1081.94 - Necromancer 8.4%<BR>Tangarth 3306976 | 1070.91 - Brigand 8.4%<BR>Kobal 3187396 | 1032.19 - Berserker(MT) 8.1%<BR>Zaphear 3082817 | 998.32 - Brigand 7.8%<BR>Ishbu 2656877 | 860.39 - Conjuror 6.7% <BR>Xede 2609993 | 845.21 - Warlock 6.6%<BR>Calaglin 2391735 | 774.53 - Illusionist 6.1%</P> <P>But *shrug*, we maximized tank and dps groups!</P><p>Message Edited by Pinski on <span class=date_text>08-01-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:02 PM</span>

Diern

08-02-2006, 08:39 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>Ixnay wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Diernes wrote: <div>So wrong, and perfect example of why the communities opinion of SK is so warped. We may not be the best tank, but a SK is all about finesse and a well played one can do very well.Where the hell do you get the notion that SK is worst DPS of the fighters thats just plain incorrect. You obviously havent seen a SK played correctly, we do DPS at least at the level of a bezerker.</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Another contestant.</p> <p>If you are gonna talk smack, at least have the cajones to provide your guild and character name.</p> <p>Thanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><hr></blockquote>And what does my character name or guild have to do with anything, and I wasnt talking smack I was talking reason ....Go check the SK boards once and a while and search on SK DPS. The only time a SK should be at the bottom of the fighters in DPS would be vs a disease immune mob.</div>

MystaSkrat

08-02-2006, 08:51 AM

Sirlutt

08-02-2006, 09:00 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>Diernes wrote:<div>And what does my character name or guild have to do with anything, and I wasnt talking smack I was talking reason ....</div><hr></blockquote>cos it governs the size of your [Removed for Content] .. if your not leet and from an uber guild, your [Removed for Content] must be small and all the cool kids wont want to be your friend.grow your [Removed for Content] and then you'll be cool kid.</div>

MystaSkrat

08-02-2006, 09:19 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Diernes wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>And what does my character name or guild have to do with anything, and I wasnt talking smack I was talking reason ....<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>cos it governs the size of your [Removed for Content] .. if your not leet and from an uber guild, your [Removed for Content] must be small and all the cool kids wont want to be your friend.<BR><BR>grow your [Removed for Content] and then you'll be cool kid.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Or maybe if you're not in a higher end guild, that conducts raids in a fashion that shows the differences in class performance, you wouldn't know as much about it.

Peston

08-02-2006, 10:40 AM

I am really itching to see another dev response...<div></div>

Colossaltitan

08-02-2006, 10:47 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Ranvarenaya wrote:<BR>Here's a raid-long parse of DT from last night, including the speed-bumps associated with the new Tarinax:<BR><BR>Allies: (01:12:06) 44705345 | 10,334.11 [Morlander-Fusion-28236]<BR>Necro 4220085 | 975.52<BR>Assassin 4124940 | 953.52<BR>Ranger 3984680 | 921.10<BR><FONT color=#ff0000>---------------------------------</FONT><BR>Brigand 3662525 | 846.63<BR>Swash 3607675 | 833.95<BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Ranv, you need to tell me when your going to post these numbers so I can come in uh, right about here.<BR><BR>>_<<BR>

USAFJeeper

08-02-2006, 10:51 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Diernes wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>And what does my character name or guild have to do with anything, and I wasnt talking smack I was talking reason ....<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>cos it governs the size of your [Removed for Content] .. if your not leet and from an uber guild, your [Removed for Content] must be small and all the cool kids wont want to be your friend.<BR><BR>grow your [Removed for Content] and then you'll be cool kid.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Or maybe if you're not in a higher end guild, that conducts raids in a fashion that shows the differences in class performance, you wouldn't know as much about it.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Or maybe even if he is not in a so higher end guild, but at least isnt posting as an anonymous troll!

Pins

08-02-2006, 11:07 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Colossaltitan wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Ranvarenaya wrote:<BR>Here's a raid-long parse of DT from last night, including the speed-bumps associated with the new Tarinax:<BR><BR>Allies: (01:12:06) 44705345 | 10,334.11 [Morlander-Fusion-28236]<BR>Necro 4220085 | 975.52<BR>Assassin 4124940 | 953.52<BR>Ranger 3984680 | 921.10<BR><FONT color=#ff0000>---------------------------------</FONT><BR>Brigand 3662525 | 846.63<BR>Swash 3607675 | 833.95<BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Ranv, you need to tell me when your going to post these numbers so I can come in uh, right about here.<BR><BR>>_<<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So, what you're saying is you want to parse lower so that way you can look like you aren't as good as other necros are worldwide?

Colossaltitan

08-02-2006, 11:09 AM

<DIV>Can't take a joke? I'm T2 DPS! I swear!</DIV><p>Message Edited by Colossaltitan on <span class=date_text>08-02-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:10 AM</span>

Kenazeer

08-02-2006, 04:14 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Here's a parse for our deathtoll run tonight: Group setups were(Yes I'm freely giving this out, because who cares?, also if a name isn't listed, it's the only one of each class on our roster):</P> <P>Group1, DPS: Troubador(Angua, also had AE Avoid), Conjuror(mage pet), Wizard(Warlock for Tarinax and Cruor, either got Synergism), Fury, Brigand(got vim, Zaphear)), Assassin(got vim, Agitate, Skratch)<BR>Group2, MT: Dirge(ran a tanking lineup, has AE Avoid and DKTM, Refrain), Coercer, Berserker(Main Tank), Templar(Elrohn), Defiler, Warden(Yavanna)<BR>Group3, ST: Dirge(ran DPS lineup, except on Drake, Cruor, and Tarinax where he ran Tanking, does not have AE Avoid but has DKTM, Dlisk), Bruiser(Amends Target), Paladin(Second Tank), Templar(Oopo), Mystic, Warden(Necro for Cruor and Tarinax, Warden is Fern)<BR>Group4, DPS: Troubador(Hummtune, does not have AE Avoid or DKTM), Warlock(Wizard for Tarinax and Cruor, either got Synergism), Illusionist(Synergism), Brigand(Rapidity and Aura, Tangarth), Inquistor, Necromancer(Warden for Cruor and Tarinax, Necro always had Synergism and used his mage pet)</P> <P>Allies: (51:2<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 39442146 | 12772.72 [Skratch-Decapitate-22040]<BR>Skratch 3638309 | 1178.21 - Assassin 9.2%<BR>Falcogen 3541060 | 1146.72 - Wizard 8.9%<BR>Nooch 3341022 | 1081.94 - Necromancer 8.4%<BR>Tangarth 3306976 | 1070.91 - Brigand 8.4%<BR>Kobal 3187396 | 1032.19 - Berserker(MT) 8.1%<BR>Zaphear 3082817 | 998.32 - Brigand 7.8%<BR>Ishbu 2656877 | 860.39 - Conjuror 6.7% <BR>Xede 2609993 | 845.21 - Warlock 6.6%<BR>Calaglin 2391735 | 774.53 - Illusionist 6.1%</P> <P>But *shrug*, we maximized tank and dps groups!</P> <P>Message Edited by Pinski on <SPAN class=date_text>08-01-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:02 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry for the derail...but GO FALCO. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Miss ya on BB bud.<BR>

Teksun

08-02-2006, 04:29 PM

I'll chime in again. Our biggest problem is we bring nothing special to the raid. Even if our DPS was equal to assassins and we were solid T1, so what? Raids would still prefer assassins because they can put hate on a tank. Always good in a raid, even if it's not the MT. We bring NOTHING original, nothing unique.I always considered the Ranger to be the master puller. We have the range for it, we have the shots for it, we have the deagro for it. But thats still not enough to make us worthwhile. I honestly think we need one shot, either add it to sniper for long recast, or trick shot and even lower damage on that, that removes social agro from the encounter. Make us the kings of the pull. Give us something.<div></div>

scl

08-02-2006, 05:24 PM

<blockquote><hr>Ranvarenaya wrote:Here's a raid-long parse of DT from last night, including the speed-bumps associated with the new Tarinax:Allies: (01:12:06) 44705345 | 10,334.11 [Morlander-Fusion-28236]Necro 4220085 | 975.52Assassin 4124940 | 953.52Ranger 3984680 | 921.10Brigand 3662525 | 846.63Swash 3607675 | 833.95Monk 3175030 | 733.94Bruiser 2975567 | 687.83Conj 2884997 | 666.90Brigand 2819548 | 651.77(Brigand 2 is my brother, just switched from a monk and this was his first brigand raid, so he's behind in gear/spells)To me, this is a decent example of how dps breaks down over the course of an entire raid zone <i>without</i> maximizing dps groups. EX: I'm the ranger in there, and that dps is with self-haste, self-str, 30% dps from the inq and that's it. My point being, if we put dps in a raid and let them do their thing, rangers can beat brigands/swashbucklers, and stay close to assassins. What I'm gathering from other posts and opinion is that when you give the assassin the juice to do 1500, a ranger can't scale in the same manner. I can't test that or speak to it personally, but if that is the case maybe it's more about the functionality of buffs, procs, etc that boost the assassin and not the ranger than it is with our fundamentals like CA's and auto-attack.<div></div><hr></blockquote>I'm very interested in this post. Maybe Ranvarenaya has a point about buffs favouring the way other classes work over a Ranger? Maybe it's the buffs that usually boost other classes dps aren't very Ranger friendly in their mechanics.SD isn't some bum guild, so their parse holds some weight and it clearly shows their Ranger as a top DPS class, no?

Ishbu

08-02-2006, 05:47 PM

<blockquote><hr>scl wrote:I'm very interested in this post. Maybe Ranvarenaya has a point about buffs favouring the way other classes work over a Ranger? Maybe it's the buffs that usually boost other classes dps aren't very Ranger friendly in their mechanics.SD isn't some bum guild, so their parse holds some weight and it clearly shows their Ranger as a top DPS class, no?<hr></blockquote>No. There are tons of factors to consider. He clearly stated that they did not try to maximize dps or anything. Rangers have dps and haste mods for themselves, so without giving the same bonuses to other similar classes its not a fair comparison. Wich is what he was getting at. The other classes when buffed properly (I say properly because they should be getting these buffs) would undoubtedly surpass the ranger given the same buffs. Then since this is deathtoll for all we knkow the conjuror on that parse could have been the victim whom the little trap wurms aggro everytime they spawn, so he could have been dieing repeatedly. And thats just one example of what could be going on.It was made clear that the guild did not know this was going to be posted up here, so anyone of those classes could have been not really paying attention. I know for a fact that a few members of second dawn are pretty much constantly talking to people cross server and elsewhere while clearing through trash, so unless the guild makes a point of focusing on dps, its not always going to be true. I think its obvious the ranger was trying to parse well and was still beat by two people who quite possibly, were unaware of the intentions for this parse. Now Im not saying this particular ranger is bad. What I am saying is that even without optimizing dps, the ranger did not beat a couple other classes AND should the dps have been optimized I am quite sure the swash, brigands, and conjuror would have beaten the ranger as well.Take a look at the DT parse calaglin posted of ours. Comparing the two you will see that we had more total dps, but the ranger still out dps'd me. If I was there paying attention and not busy doing other things do you really think a ranger is going to out dps a conjuror? Heck no. All this shows is that when the ranger was really trying, they still cant be other classes even under non optimized conditions. Based on the fact the ranger had an inquisitor in the group, I would asume a lot of time the inquisitor was hasting as well as constantly providing their dps buff, so that group isnt horrible for the ranger, just a little lacking. BTW, he mentioned this included wipes to the new tarinax. That can really throw off your dps in several ways.

MystaSkrat

08-02-2006, 06:05 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Teksun wrote:<BR> Raids would still prefer assassins because they can put hate on a tank. Always good in a raid, even if it's not the MT. We bring NOTHING original, nothing unique.<BR><BR>I always considered the Ranger to be the master puller. We have the range for it, we have the shots for it, we have the deagro for it. But thats still not enough to make us worthwhile. I honestly think we need one shot, either add it to sniper for long recast, or trick shot and even lower damage on that, that removes social agro from the encounter. Make us the kings of the pull. Give us something.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I only use my hate xfer on <EM>maybe </EM>1 out of 10 raids, period. That's definately not why I'm on a raid. And we have long distance non-agro pulling, it's called Surveillance :smileyhappy:

scl

08-02-2006, 06:18 PM

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Ishboozor wrote:<blockquote><hr>scl wrote:I'm very interested in this post. Maybe Ranvarenaya has a point about buffs favouring the way other classes work over a Ranger? Maybe it's the buffs that usually boost other classes dps aren't very Ranger friendly in their mechanics.SD isn't some bum guild, so their parse holds some weight and it clearly shows their Ranger as a top DPS class, no?<hr></blockquote><i>Explained some stuff.</i><hr></blockquote>Ah, ok. I think I must have read the post wrong! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Thanks for the explination.

Sirlutt

08-02-2006, 06:54 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Teksun wrote: Raids would still prefer assassins because they can put hate on a tank. Always good in a raid, even if it's not the MT. We bring NOTHING original, nothing unique.I always considered the Ranger to be the master puller. We have the range for it, we have the shots for it, we have the deagro for it. But thats still not enough to make us worthwhile. I honestly think we need one shot, either add it to sniper for long recast, or trick shot and even lower damage on that, that removes social agro from the encounter. Make us the kings of the pull. Give us something. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote>I only use my hate xfer on <em>maybe </em>1 out of 10 raids, period. That's definately not why I'm on a raid. And we have long distance non-agro pulling, it's called Surveillance :smileyhappy:<hr></blockquote>Surveilance doesnt work as well as it used to lately I am finding... after the social agro changes it tends to bring ads if they are close enough.You dont transfer some of your hate to a low hate producing class in your group so you can go a little harder ?.. </div>

Spite

08-02-2006, 06:55 PM

MystaSkrat

08-02-2006, 06:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Surveilance doesnt work as well as it used to lately I am finding... after the social agro changes it tends to bring ads if they are close enough.<BR><BR>You dont transfer some of your hate to a low hate producing class in your group so you can go a little harder ?..<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This is weird, but I've found that Surveillance (the level 70 one) doesn't get social agro, but any of the lower tier ones does..... wierd.</P> <P>And nope, never use my hate xfer on a non tank unless I don't have a troub, it's not needed. Our tanks have coercer and dirge hate buffs, I have a troub and deagro poisons, hate xfer is just something for rangers to point at and say it's utility :smileyhappy:</P>

MystaSkrat

08-02-2006, 06:57 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> FiftyK wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Teksun wrote:<BR> Raids would still prefer assassins because they can put hate on a tank. Always good in a raid, even if it's not the MT. We bring NOTHING original, nothing unique.<BR><BR>I always considered the Ranger to be the master puller. We have the range for it, we have the shots for it, we have the deagro for it. But thats still not enough to make us worthwhile. I honestly think we need one shot, either add it to sniper for long recast, or trick shot and even lower damage on that, that removes social agro from the encounter. Make us the kings of the pull. Give us something.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I only use my hate xfer on <EM>maybe </EM>1 out of 10 raids, period. That's definately not why I'm on a raid. And we have long distance non-agro pulling, it's called Surveillance :smileyhappy:<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Long Distance pulling my [Removed for Content]. Surveillance is not long distance ANYMORE.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>35M is still pretty long. And you can back well out of 35m range once you cast it. It's still long range.</DIV>

TaleraRis

08-02-2006, 07:23 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Surveilance doesnt work as well as it used to lately I am finding... after the social agro changes it tends to bring ads if they are close enough.<BR><BR>You dont transfer some of your hate to a low hate producing class in your group so you can go a little harder ?..<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This is weird, but I've found that Surveillance (the level 70 one) doesn't get social agro, but any of the lower tier ones does..... wierd.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>That's what I've found from other rangers near my level. My Surveil does pull aggro and I was told Improved Surveil does as well. Surveillance seems to be the only one that is reliable, or at least is reported as reliable.<BR>

Deml

08-02-2006, 07:32 PM

Skratch is right. Surveillance is a great pulling skill that doesn't generate social agro. The range descrease from 50m to 35m hurt, but not as much as it initially sounds. You can still use it to pull all of labs, dragons in ToS and a bunch of crap in DT if you want.

Sirlutt

08-02-2006, 07:34 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sirlutt wrote: <div>Surveilance doesnt work as well as it used to lately I am finding... after the social agro changes it tends to bring ads if they are close enough.You dont transfer some of your hate to a low hate producing class in your group so you can go a little harder ?..</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>This is weird, but I've found that Surveillance (the level 70 one) doesn't get social agro, but any of the lower tier ones does..... wierd.</p> <p>And nope, never use my hate xfer on a non tank unless I don't have a troub, it's not needed. Our tanks have coercer and dirge hate buffs, I have a troub and deagro poisons, hate xfer is just something for rangers to point at and say it's utility :smileyhappy:</p><hr></blockquote>thats good to know.. i have not used it at all seeing as the others were broken</div>

Peston

08-02-2006, 07:48 PM

lol... Rangers do have a hate transfer... we just transfer it to the thin air around us. <span>:smileyhappy:Level 53 - Primal Agility @ Adept3 reduces hate accumulated in combat by 39%Granted we don't get an upgrade for T7... it still works great. <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span></span><div></div>

LoreLady

08-02-2006, 07:51 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>Peston wrote:lol... Rangers do have a hate transfer... we just transfer it to the thin air around us. <span>:smileyhappy:Level 53 - Primal Agility @ Adept3 reduces hate accumulated in combat by 39%Granted we don't get an upgrade for T7... it still works great. <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Never had a problem with any of our utility (I even put that stupid bird to use - found afew scenario's where id use it in raids)My problem is just the gap between dps in both classes. But hey, im still playing the wait and see card.</div>

ChaosUndivided

08-02-2006, 08:24 PM

<P><SPAN><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT color=#ffffff>In my Guilds defense of that DT Parse, Our #1 Assasin was missing. Our Groups were horribly optimized. The Necro didn’t even have a troub for spell and proc buffs. The Conjurer was in an off tank group. The Second Brigand was an alt basically with legendary gear and our assassin was eating for half the raid. It was basically a pretty bad setup for dps, it was commented about several times but because DT is so easy, no one really cared and we continued on our way. </FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#ffffff size=3></FONT></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT color=#ffffff>But I think this touches on a larger issue as well, If we assume Assasins and Rangers had the same dps (which they don’t). Then The POTENTIAL for assassin dps is much higher. The game is filled with Melee Only Proc buffs and Melee only Proccing Items. This imbalance at a very core level will always assure assasins as better than rangers. Assuming Equal DPS, assasins will always benefit more from buffs and procs than rangers ever will. SO take an assassin as his potential dps is much higher.</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>

Peston

08-02-2006, 08:42 PM

I agree LoreLady <span>:smileyhappy:</span>Decided to play that card myself.<div></div>

MystaSkrat

08-02-2006, 08:44 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ChaosUndivided wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT color=#ffffff> our assassin was eating for half the raid. </FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>lol that's a pretty big meal :smileytongue:

Gareorn

08-02-2006, 09:07 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Teksun wrote:<BR> Raids would still prefer assassins because they can put hate on a tank. Always good in a raid, even if it's not the MT. We bring NOTHING original, nothing unique.<BR><BR>I always considered the Ranger to be the master puller. We have the range for it, we have the shots for it, we have the deagro for it. But thats still not enough to make us worthwhile. I honestly think we need one shot, either add it to sniper for long recast, or trick shot and even lower damage on that, that removes social agro from the encounter. Make us the kings of the pull. Give us something.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I only use my hate xfer on <EM>maybe </EM>1 out of 10 raids, period. That's definately not why I'm on a raid. And we have long distance non-agro pulling, it's called Surveillance :smileyhappy:<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I wouldn't exactly call 35m long distance. Now, when it was 50m it was pretty awesome. Plus it requires line of sight. I use miracle arrow for pulling quite more frequently, and can do it without generating social aggro with the right angles. I can pull the roamer behind Slav in Lab with miracle. Trying to do the same with surveillance, I always get the "you can not see target" warning.</P> <P>Yes, we pull pretty good, but my wife's Templar is a much better puller with that dancing hammer. I find it odd that healers can pull more efficiently than scouts. lol.</P> <P>My point being, the little bit of utility we do bring, can all be done by another class, often more effectively. Our utility is just as big an issue as our DPS. Both need some serious tweaking. Look at from a guild's point of view. Many guilds are in need of a particular class in order to complete some of the more complicated raids. Usually, this comes in the form of a mystic/defiler, coercer/enchanter, etc. But there is no real need for a ranger in any guild. And, although this has abosolutely no effect on me personnally, there are those who it does effect.</P>

MystaSkrat

08-02-2006, 09:22 PM

35M is plenty long for just about any encounter in the game, and I even said, if you run away while you cast it, you can get almost 50m out of it. Pets get agro, Surveillance doesn't , that's why it's good.

Colossaltitan

08-02-2006, 09:49 PM

<DIV>Ish, in the DT parse, we got Tarinax on our third pull, but didn't have that many adds to deal with, so hopefully it didn't throw things off <EM>too</EM> much.<BR><BR>Yeah, the group setups were bad(/sigh, lol). I think however if the Ranger and the Assassin had the same buffs (or if the Ranger had DPS, and the Assassin had Haste, as that would better benefit them), they'd still be parsing about the same. A better comparison is when we'll have a more solid group setup and our slackin<STRONG> </STRONG>Assassin is back.<BR><BR>Our Assassin definetly had the better group than our Ranger, but Ranv managed to keep up.<BR><BR>As for deaths, Morlander and I (Wizard&Necromancer) died the most. >_<</DIV><p>Message Edited by Colossaltitan on <span class=date_text>08-02-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:50 PM</span>

USAFJeeper

08-02-2006, 09:51 PM

Problems with Surveillance.. LOS requirement, and if it doesnt get aggro how does the monster know to come running over and kick your butt? It does usually avoid social aggro though. Meh, the number of times I have been needed on a raid for Surveillance is um.. None! They invite me because of my sparkling personality and witty banter!

LoreLady

08-02-2006, 09:54 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>USAFJeeper wrote:<div></div>Problems with Surveillance.. LOS requirement, and if it doesnt get aggro how does the monster know to come running over and kick your butt? It does usually avoid social aggro though. Meh, the number of times I have been needed on a raid for Surveillance is um.. None! They invite me because of my sparkling personality and witty banter!<hr></blockquote>But im a big ugly troll, with no whit.. I guess im screwed then! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div>

USAFJeeper

08-02-2006, 09:57 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>But im a big ugly troll, with no whit.. I guess im screwed then! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Its the mohawk for me, chicks dig it! Just say no to SOGA! Oh, and to rerail, Swashes conjurers, necros and assassins beat me like a red headed step child on raids!

Serventof Wrath

08-02-2006, 10:12 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> USAFJeeper wrote:<BR> Problems with Surveillance.. LOS requirement, and if it doesnt get aggro how does the monster know to come running over and kick your butt? It does usually avoid social aggro though. Meh, the number of times I have been needed on a raid for Surveillance is um.. None! They invite me because of my sparkling personality and witty banter!<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have pulled several mobs with Surveillance. It doesn't get Social Agro. And the reason it knows to come kick your butt is because when you cast it it puts you on the mobs hate list. If the mob is standing around scratching its butt with no one on its hate list then all of a sudden you lower your hate with it well guess what you're now on the hate list and you're the only one on the hate list. Luckily the MT can pull the agro off you with just about any action since you're really low on the hate list a single taunt or arrow hit will lead it right over to the tank. Just pray you're not asked to use it on casters cause they like to stand still and cast before they chase and that sucks.

Ranvarenaya

08-02-2006, 10:19 PM

I still haven't made up my mind on the whole issue. It would be a little absurd for me to emphatically claim that ranger's are lacking, if only for the fact that I'm always in the same slot on the zone-wide parse (even went back to some logs in the last week of May, same basic breakdown). Though I'm consistently behind assasins and often behind Malignx, I'm always ahead of everyone else. That would lead me to believe that any problem with the ranger class is not so glaring and cataclysmic as some would argue. I can't blindly accept that we're bad at dps when the direct evidence right in front of me contradicts it.On the other hand, recent close examination of parses and conversation with Calaglin make it also absurd for me to decide that Ranger's are definitely fixed. I can't come to the conclusion that we are great at dps when the direct evidence right in front of is incomplete and has so many mitigating circumstances.I'd say I started reading this thread fairly neutral about the whole topic, spent a good 15 pages leaning about 70/30 in favor of Lockeye's statement, and am now leaning about 70/30 in the opposite direction. BTW, I love how the pic in Malignx's sig has a molestache, totally appropriate.<div></div>

LoreLady

08-02-2006, 10:25 PM

Colossaltitan

08-02-2006, 10:26 PM

Ranv, ask for the same group ask Dark, or Tash, tonight and see how you do.<BR><BR>If you can own in a crappy group imagine where you'd be in a good group. :p<p>Message Edited by Colossaltitan on <span class=date_text>08-02-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:26 PM</span>

Ixnay

08-02-2006, 11:13 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Diernes wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ixnay wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Diernes wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>So wrong, and perfect example of why the communities opinion of SK is so warped. We may not be the best tank, but a SK is all about finesse and a well played one can do very well.<BR><BR>Where the hell do you get the notion that SK is worst DPS of the fighters thats just plain incorrect. You obviously havent seen a SK played correctly, we do DPS at least at the level of a bezerker.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Another contestant.</P> <P>If you are gonna talk smack, at least have the cajones to provide your guild and character name.</P> <P>Thanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>And what does my character name or guild have to do with anything, and I wasnt talking smack I was talking reason ....<BR><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Because if you insist on remaining anonymous, you are either a coward unwilling to backup what you say, and are perhaps lying about what you claim. You could be either doing that because you enjoy creating controversy on these boards, or are trying to promote some unknown agenda. </P> <P>Or, you completely lack the experience to make the statements you are making. How do we know you aren't a level 8 sk? If you are a level 8 sk, do you think we should credit your opinions as fact, and give your words the same weight on technical issues affecting the SK class as we would give to experienced people who play level 70 SKs? </P> <P>What you posted are opinions, you didn't back up anything you said with any fact. How do we know you are qualified to give those opinions, or what you base them on? We don't. Therefore, if you don't have the cajones to reveal who you are in game, your opinion means nothing, and you are just wasting our time by polluting this thread with your mindless nonsense.</P> <P>You completely lack credibility when you hide your identity, and people like me should point out that people like you are complete cowards who lack credibility. If you weren't a coward, or if you were actually qualified to give the opinions you gave, you would have stated your SK character name and guild name when I suggested that you provide it, rather than dodging the issue with another pointless and defensive post.<BR></P>

Sirlutt

08-02-2006, 11:13 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>Ranvarenaya wrote:I still haven't made up my mind on the whole issue. It would be a little absurd for me to emphatically claim that ranger's are lacking, if only for the fact that I'm always in the same slot on the zone-wide parse (even went back to some logs in the last week of May, same basic breakdown). Though I'm consistently behind assasins and often behind Malignx, I'm always ahead of everyone else. That would lead me to believe that any problem with the ranger class is not so glaring and cataclysmic as some would argue. I can't blindly accept that we're bad at dps when the direct evidence right in front of me contradicts it.On the other hand, recent close examination of parses and conversation with Calaglin make it also absurd for me to decide that Ranger's are definitely fixed. I can't come to the conclusion that we are great at dps when the direct evidence right in front of is incomplete and has so many mitigating circumstances.I'd say I started reading this thread fairly neutral about the whole topic, spent a good 15 pages leaning about 70/30 in favor of Lockeye's statement, and am now leaning about 70/30 in the opposite direction. BTW, I love how the pic in Malignx's sig has a molestache, totally appropriate.<div></div><hr></blockquote>My points are thus :For what it measures, I think Lockeyes data is correct. Its what it doesnt measure where the issues lie.I dont think the gap is as pronounced as some make it out to be, and i think its highly situational depending on gorup makes ups, gear, player skill etc etc. Posting and comparing parses doesnt prove the issue one way or another because there isnt enough common controlled variables between them. The very things that make it situational, make it difficult to get concrete hard proven evidence. There most definately is some kind of issue, but not all of us agree on where it is, and how much it is. I personally think the DPS issue while it favors assassins and other T1 classes, doesnt favor them as much as some people beleive it does. Opinion, not fact. I also think the bigger disservice to Rangers is their lack of defining utility.Suggestions on that include removing totally the minimum range for Rangers and bows, eliminating their arrow costs and giving them defining pull abilities that allow them to safely pull mobs from a distance without social agro.Getting fixes to an entire class based on how it performs in a fraction of the game is going to be tough. Not saying its not needed, just ackowledging the fact that ballancing rangers based on how they perform in certain raid scenarios isnt likely to happen, needed or not.Thats pretty much it, and i think from the last 5 pages i've seen alot of peopel agreeing arounf some of the same points, and differing around some of the same points but i dont think I see many people straight out saying there is no issue at all at any level of the game.</div>

LoreLady

08-02-2006, 11:27 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Ranvarenaya wrote:I still haven't made up my mind on the whole issue. It would be a little absurd for me to emphatically claim that ranger's are lacking, if only for the fact that I'm always in the same slot on the zone-wide parse (even went back to some logs in the last week of May, same basic breakdown). Though I'm consistently behind assasins and often behind Malignx, I'm always ahead of everyone else. That would lead me to believe that any problem with the ranger class is not so glaring and cataclysmic as some would argue. I can't blindly accept that we're bad at dps when the direct evidence right in front of me contradicts it.On the other hand, recent close examination of parses and conversation with Calaglin make it also absurd for me to decide that Ranger's are definitely fixed. I can't come to the conclusion that we are great at dps when the direct evidence right in front of is incomplete and has so many mitigating circumstances.I'd say I started reading this thread fairly neutral about the whole topic, spent a good 15 pages leaning about 70/30 in favor of Lockeye's statement, and am now leaning about 70/30 in the opposite direction. BTW, I love how the pic in Malignx's sig has a molestache, totally appropriate.<div></div><hr></blockquote>My points are thus :For what it measures, I think Lockeyes data is correct. Its what it doesnt measure where the issues lie.I dont think the gap is as pronounced as some make it out to be, and i think its highly situational depending on gorup makes ups, gear, player skill etc etc. <font color="#ff0000">The gap is the only thing we have disagreed on.. Thats why I posted another persons data (wich is missing milignant mark) as well as my own. To give a secondary perspective and a variance.</font>Posting and comparing parses doesnt prove the issue one way or another because there isnt enough common controlled variables between them. The very things that make it situational, make it difficult to get concrete hard proven evidence. <font color="#ff0000">No, but id love to see any ranger hold 1.8k dps in labs/lyceum etc.</font>There most definately is some kind of issue, but not all of us agree on where it is, and how much it is. I personally think the DPS issue while it favors assassins and other T1 classes, doesnt favor them as much as some people beleive it does. Opinion, not fact. I also think the bigger disservice to Rangers is their lack of defining utility.<font color="#ff0000">Reason I snap at you because of utility, is because then it takes away from brigands, bards, enchanters etc.</font>Suggestions on that include removing totally the minimum range for Rangers and bows, eliminating their arrow costs and giving them defining pull abilities that allow them to safely pull mobs from a distance without social agro.<font color="#ff0000"> I actually like your first sentance.. Uninterupted bow shots regardless of CA would be nice.</font>Getting fixes to an entire class based on how it performs in a fraction of the game is going to be tough. Not saying its not needed, just ackowledging the fact that ballancing rangers based on how they perform in certain raid scenarios isnt likely to happen, needed or not.<font color="#ff0000">Never said it was easy to ballance classes.. Just it needs to be done.</font>Thats pretty much it, and i think from the last 5 pages i've seen alot of peopel agreeing arounf some of the same points, and differing around some of the same points but i dont think I see many people straight out saying there is no issue at all at any level of the game.</div><font color="#ff0000">About a comment you made earlier on people making it seem really big.. It is about a 15-25% diffrence in total damage after cast time, however the amount of potential dps is an unknown variable.Btw, I will go and publicy give you an apolagy for yesterday.. It was an overall bad day for me, and many people out there felt my wraith.</font><hr></blockquote></div>

leafnin

08-02-2006, 11:41 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ranvarenaya wrote:<BR>I still haven't made up my mind on the whole issue. It would be a little absurd for me to emphatically claim that ranger's are lacking, if only for the fact that I'm always in the same slot on the zone-wide parse (even went back to some logs in the last week of May, same basic breakdown). Though I'm consistently behind assasins and often behind Malignx, I'm always ahead of everyone else. That would lead me to believe that any problem with the ranger class is not so glaring and cataclysmic as some would argue. I can't blindly accept that we're bad at dps when the direct evidence right in front of me contradicts it.<BR><BR>On the other hand, recent close examination of parses and conversation with Calaglin make it also absurd for me to decide that Ranger's are definitely fixed. I can't come to the conclusion that we are great at dps when the direct evidence right in front of is incomplete and has so many mitigating circumstances.<BR><BR>I'd say I started reading this thread fairly neutral about the whole topic, spent a good 15 pages leaning about 70/30 in favor of Lockeye's statement, and am now leaning about 70/30 in the opposite direction. <BR><BR>BTW, I love how the pic in Malignx's sig has a molestache, totally appropriate.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>My points are thus :<BR><BR>For what it measures, I think Lockeyes data is correct. Its what it doesnt measure where the issues lie.<BR><BR>I dont think the gap is as pronounced as some make it out to be, and i think its highly situational depending on gorup makes ups, gear, player skill etc etc. <BR><BR>Posting and comparing parses doesnt prove the issue one way or another because there isnt enough common controlled variables between them. The very things that make it situational, make it difficult to get concrete hard proven evidence. <BR><BR>There most definately is some kind of issue, but not all of us agree on where it is, and how much it is. I personally think the DPS issue while it favors assassins and other T1 classes, doesnt favor them as much as some people beleive it does. Opinion, not fact. I also think the bigger disservice to Rangers is their lack of defining utility.<BR><BR>Suggestions on that include removing totally the minimum range for Rangers and bows, eliminating their arrow costs and giving them defining pull abilities that allow them to safely pull mobs from a distance without social agro.<BR><BR>Getting fixes to an entire class based on how it performs in a fraction of the game is going to be tough. Not saying its not needed, just ackowledging the fact that ballancing rangers based on how they perform in certain raid scenarios isnt likely to happen, needed or not.<BR><BR>Thats pretty much it, and i think from the last 5 pages i've seen alot of peopel agreeing arounf some of the same points, and differing around some of the same points but i dont think I see many people straight out saying there is no issue at all at any level of the game.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I think that it seems harder to nail down DPS potential because what buffs/debuffs work for a Sin/Brig/Swashie might not work for Rangers due to weapon types and where the damage comes from (CA/Autoattack/procs/etc). How much actual DPS increase is shown from that buff? Are we wasting these do to cast times?, gear?, what? We know what Ranger Smith does with his gear/CAs/AAs and buffs in his raid setup but is it the BEST the class can do and not just what Smith's capable of. There in lies the problem what is the BEST damage we can do in each raid zone?</P> <P>Falcon/Peregrian</P>

USAFJeeper

08-02-2006, 11:45 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Serventof Wrath wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> USAFJeeper wrote:<BR> Problems with Surveillance.. LOS requirement, and if it doesnt get aggro how does the monster know to come running over and kick your butt? It does usually <U><STRONG>avoid social aggro</STRONG> </U>though. Meh, the number of times I have been needed on a raid for Surveillance is um.. None! They invite me because of my sparkling personality and witty banter!<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have pulled several mobs with Surveillance. It doesn't get Social Agro. And the reason it knows to come kick your butt is because when you cast it it puts you on the mobs hate list. If the mob is standing around scratching its butt with no one on its hate list then all of a sudden you lower your hate with it well guess what you're now on the hate list and you're the only one on the hate list. Luckily the MT can pull the agro off you with just about any action since you're really low on the hate list a single taunt or arrow hit will lead it right over to the tank. Just pray you're not asked to use it on casters cause they like to stand still and cast before they chase and that sucks.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Thanks info, but I was pointing out the relative useless value and noted it avoided social aggro. I pretty much understood how it worked though from the first day I tried it!</P> <P> </P>

Devizi

08-03-2006, 02:00 AM

I think the real problem at hand in EQ2 is Mystic vs. Defiler. Thats such trash that they get Bolster and Torpor...I mean really, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]! <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span> <div></div>

LoreLady

08-03-2006, 04:58 AM

<div><blockquote><blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <p>I think that it seems harder to nail down DPS potential because what buffs/debuffs work for a Sin/Brig/Swashie might not work for Rangers due to weapon types and where the damage comes from (CA/Autoattack/procs/etc). How much actual DPS increase is shown from that buff? Are we wasting these do to cast times?, gear?, what? We know what Ranger Smith does with his gear/CAs/AAs and buffs in his raid setup but is it the BEST the class can do and not just what Smith's capable of. There in lies the problem what is the BEST damage we can do in each raid zone?</p> <p>Falcon/Peregrian</p><hr></blockquote>Its easier than you think.. You take each ability one by one, take there total damage, devide it by there cast time to get a DPS value for that ability.. Then compare the two.. I have posted this info on the gap part 2.. Damage per ability is RELITIVELY the same, cast time per ability is about a 30% diffrence. While, factors like procs (offensive stance) - change this to 20-25%ish.</div>

Prandtl

08-03-2006, 08:12 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Its easier than you think.. You take each ability one by one, take there total damage, devide it by there cast time to get a DPS value for that ability.. Then compare the two.. I have posted this info on the gap part 2.. Damage per ability is RELITIVELY the same, cast time per ability is about a 30% diffrence. While, factors like procs (offensive stance) - change this to 20-25%ish.<BR><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Factors like procs still annoy me. The vanadium rings we all loved in T6 were changed from a full time buff to a proc effect. A proc effect off of MELEE. Very few worn items will proc off ranged, which gives an advantage to the melee classes. </P> <P>I am still curious as to why it was made melee only. It wasn't as if we weren't nerfed enough already<BR></P>

Ibixat

08-03-2006, 12:10 PM

all melee proc abilities need to be made to proc on both melee and ranged, it's basically as simple as that, do that and I don't think assassins will be crushing rangers on the parses all the time.Every proc spell and item just needs to be standardized, if it procs off CA's they are fine as they are, hostile spells fine, all on melee attack need to be changed to on attack.<div></div>

Katsugen

08-03-2006, 04:37 PM

<P>We can talk to death about how to fix rangers, but unless we can convince the dev's we don't scale we won't see any change. We need to give them hard evidence that proves our dps potential is infact less than assassins. We really need to come up with an analytical approach to quantifying potential dps. This will show how well rangers and assassins scale.</P> <P>I think we will find that as raid wide dps increases we will not see ranger dps scale at the same rate as assassins. </P> <P>-Katsugen</P>

snipes

08-03-2006, 05:13 PM

<DIV>The problem is you won't get any evidence because as the dev posted they have the evidence and it doesn't go with what your saying. Now I don't have a ranger and don't pretend to know one but from being at many guild raids parsing I see the data. We have 2 rangers that raid consistently ( halls of seeing , lyceum , labs, ascent, temple of scale) and Unless they are AFK or slacking they are almost ALWAYS in the top 5. The only 2 people that consistently out parse them is a necro and assassin, so the majority of the time they are well above the other 20 ish people. Granted though both rangers , the assassin and the necro all have almost all their master 1s .The major difference is in how you play the class because apparently if some rangers in various guilds are parsing good numbers and you can't , then its not the class. I have seen a necro that consistently parses over 1k while others on raids barely get 600. Does this mean the class is broke? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>( this isn't ment to bash anyone and maybe I'm biased,, Just from data that I've done from guild raids and various pick up groups with some good rangers I would have to agree with the dev). The biggest problem is rangers were so far above the top before all the changes that anything the devs do will gain a negative response ( which is understandable).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You might need some small tweaking but all Im saying is you will not find evidence to go against what the dev stated.</DIV><p>Message Edited by snipesbl on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:16 AM</span>

LoreLady

08-03-2006, 05:29 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>snipesbl wrote:<div></div> <div>The problem is you won't get any evidence because as the dev posted they have the evidence and it doesn't go with what your saying. Now I don't have a ranger and don't pretend to know one but from being at many guild raids parsing I see the data. We have 2 rangers that raid consistently ( halls of seeing , lyceum , labs, ascent, temple of scale) and Unless they are AFK or slacking they are almost ALWAYS in the top 5. The only 2 people that consistently out parse them is a necro and assassin, so the majority of the time they are well above the other 20 ish people. Granted though both rangers , the assassin and the necro all have almost all their master 1s .The major difference is in how you play the class because apparently if some rangers in various guilds are parsing good numbers and you can't , then its not the class. I have seen a necro that consistently parses over 1k while others on raids barely get 600. Does this mean the class is broke? </div> <div> </div> <div>( this isn't ment to bash anyone and maybe I'm biased,, Just from data that I've done from guild raids and various pick up groups with some good rangers I would have to agree with the dev). The biggest problem is rangers were so far above the top before all the changes that anything the devs do will gain a negative response ( which is understandable).</div> <div> </div> <div>You might need some small tweaking but all Im saying is you will not find evidence to go against what the dev stated.</div><p>Message Edited by snipesbl on <span class="date_text">08-03-2006</span> <span class="time_text">06:16 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Data ive done comparing ability per ability shows otherwise.. If our total damage is similar, but the time it takes to cast each spell is diffrent.. This results in a inballance.. Read the gap pt2.. I dont need to go and show dozens of parsings when I can eliminate several factors, like buffs, melee damage (equal), chance to hit, poisons, players.. Since it shows an imballance within the two classes with the CA's, a ranger and an assassin doing the same damage means the ranger is putting out more of these factors while the assassin is slacking.</div>

Mirdo

08-03-2006, 07:07 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> snipesbl wrote:<BR> <DIV>The problem is you won't get any evidence because as the dev posted they have the evidence and it doesn't go with what your saying. Now I don't have a ranger and don't pretend to know one but from being at many guild raids parsing I see the data. We have 2 rangers that raid consistently ( halls of seeing , lyceum , labs, ascent, temple of scale) and Unless they are AFK or slacking they are almost ALWAYS in the top 5. The only 2 people that consistently out parse them is a necro and assassin, so the majority of the time they are well above the other 20 ish people. Granted though both rangers , the assassin and the necro all have almost all their master 1s .The major difference is in how you play the class because apparently if some rangers in various guilds are parsing good numbers and you can't , then its not the class. I have seen a necro that consistently parses over 1k while others on raids barely get 600. Does this mean the class is broke? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>( this isn't ment to bash anyone and maybe I'm biased,, Just from data that I've done from guild raids and various pick up groups with some good rangers I would have to agree with the dev). The biggest problem is rangers were so far above the top before all the changes that anything the devs do will gain a negative response ( which is understandable).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You might need some small tweaking but all Im saying is you will not find evidence to go against what the dev stated.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by snipesbl on <SPAN class=date_text>08-03-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>06:16 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Might I ask what your rangers actually have to parse to top your raids DPS?</P> <P>In our raids, you won't be seen in the top 10 until you are hitting around 1.1k. In my previous guild I could top the parse most fights. I joined another guild, my dps went up but I dropped down the DPS rankings. If your Rangers are hitting around 1300 they will sometimes match our swashies and Brigs (who bring more utility) but still be behind Assassins, summoners, wizzies and situationally warlocks. </P> <P>How can you say we will not find evidence to against what the dev posted when it's already here in this thread? Have you not read the thread? You and whoever else may choose not to believe it, but it has been presented.</P> <P>The biggest problem is not that 'Rangers were so far above.... etc etc', the biggest problem is that all we bring to a raid is DPS. As such we should be on par with Assassins and, in the main, greater than classes with superior raid utility. We are not. You say yourself your Rangers can't beat your Assassin. We are 2 halves of the same coin. Should we not be able to best them at least on Occassion. And doesn't the fact your Necro does more DPS than the Rangers you consider well equipped and skilled tell you there's an issue?</P> <P>Also, checkout the DPS totals when the rest of your guild actually gets geared up...</P> <P>Mirdo.</P> <P><edit removed some silly spacings></P><p>Message Edited by Mirdo on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:11 PM</span>

Jay

08-03-2006, 07:44 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> snipesbl wrote:<BR> <DIV>The problem is you won't get any evidence because as the dev posted they have the evidence and it doesn't go with what your saying.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You might need some small tweaking but all Im saying is you will not find evidence to go against what the dev stated.</DIV> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Except we already did - it's even right here in this very thread. The point Lockeye stated (ranger DPS averages across entire servers in soloing, grouping, and raiding context are working as intended) and the point many of us are trying to make (that ranger DPS potential is lower than that of comparable classes on T7 raids) are not mutually exclusive. He's talking about average damage from all rangers in all contexts; we're talking about maximum potential damage from raiding rangers in T7 raid zones.</P> <P>I know you have some rangers that parse in the top 5 in your guild, but no single experience with a small group of rangers in a single guild is going to establish a constant. What any single person happens to see in their direct experience is only that - a single person's experience. It's not 'evidence' of what every ranger can accomplish on every raid.</P> <P>Again, the people reporting this problem are not making things up or imagining an issue that isn't really there. I just hope that hearing the same reports across multiple high-end guilds and many end-game raiders at least sparks some curiosity among Lockeye and the other designers. I know he's being straight with us about the serverwide DPS averages, but I have to hope that all these responses and the parses that the raid community has provided will make him wonder about (and investigate) our max potential in the T7 raid environment.</P>

Rahmn

08-03-2006, 08:03 PM

<P>I think the overall dps structure looks something like this:</P> <P>MinDPS MaxDPS</P> <P><---------------------------------------Necros-----------------------------></P> <P><----------------------------------Conjorurs------------------------------></P> <P> <------Assassins---------------></P> <P> <-----------Rangers-----></P> <P> </P> <P>I'm not gonna add the other high damage class because I'm sure that most of you can see my point. Rangers, by desgin, have a very narrow range of DPS in which they operate. While appearing to have the higher overall average DPS, they lack top end ability. Summoners for example, vary wildly according to the type of pet they use, timing of swarm pets etc... Assassins are just bad [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].</P> <P> </P> <P>Message Edited by Rahmn on <SPAN class=date_text>08-03-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:04 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Rahmn on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:04 AM</span>

Ishbu

08-03-2006, 08:04 PM

Take the top end guilds. Like the top 10 guilds in the world. These are the people who are min/maxing, doing the top end stuff with top end gear and top end raid set ups and players.NONE of them have rangers on the top of their parses. They all agree rangers are below where they should be.So my question to those rangers who say they are good enough is this: Are you content being about where you should be as far as the middle of the road goes and being sub par at the higher levels, or would you rather be balanced throughout?I know I would much rather have the capablities of my class to be the top dps rather than have the capablitiy to be top amongst average players but low compared to very skilled ones. Why settle for mediocrity? Nobody wants mediocrity, everyone wants something special.

Sirlutt

08-03-2006, 08:36 PM

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Ishboozor wrote:Take the top end guilds. Like the top 10 guilds in the world. These are the people who are min/maxing, doing the top end stuff with top end gear and top end raid set ups and players.NONE of them have rangers on the top of their parses. They all agree rangers are below where they should be.So my question to those rangers who say they are good enough is this: Are you content being about where you should be as far as the middle of the road goes and being sub par at the higher levels, or would you rather be balanced throughout?I know I would much rather have the capablities of my class to be the top dps rather than have the capablitiy to be top amongst average players but low compared to very skilled ones. Why settle for mediocrity? Nobody wants mediocrity, everyone wants something special.<hr></blockquote>I think we all agree that at the level your talking about, there appears to be some discrepency.i ask this then, and think about it not just from your own POV as a high end raider.What should be done specifically to fix the issue. I learnt along time ago in the army, dont complain about something if you dont have an answer to fix it. Keep in mind that the answer should not be something that causes Rangers to now jump above all other classes across ALL the data such as the data Lockeye compares. Classes shouldnt be balanced upon what happens in a small minority of the game play... ie Raiding, that woudl just shift the imbalance to another class at another level of gameplay and Rangers were already adjusted because across the larger areas of gameplay they were well above other classes.I'd love to see a fix, I'm just not sure what you could fix that wouldnt make the imbalance shift and be worse the other way.*Edit'd to fix shoddy typing*</div><p>Message Edited by Sirlutt on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:37 AM</span>

LoreLady

08-03-2006, 08:40 PM

<blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Ishboozor wrote:Take the top end guilds. Like the top 10 guilds in the world. These are the people who are min/maxing, doing the top end stuff with top end gear and top end raid set ups and players.NONE of them have rangers on the top of their parses. They all agree rangers are below where they should be.So my question to those rangers who say they are good enough is this: Are you content being about where you should be as far as the middle of the road goes and being sub par at the higher levels, or would you rather be balanced throughout?I know I would much rather have the capablities of my class to be the top dps rather than have the capablitiy to be top amongst average players but low compared to very skilled ones. Why settle for mediocrity? Nobody wants mediocrity, everyone wants something special.<hr></blockquote>I think we all agree that at the level your talking about, there appears to be some discrepency.i ask this then, and think about it not just from your own POV as a high end raider.What should be done specifically to fix the issue. I learnt along time ago in the army, dont complain about something if you dont have an answer to fix it. Keep in mind that the answer should not be something that causes Rangers to now jump above all other classes across ALL the data such as the data Lockeye compares. Classes shouldnt be balanced upon what happens in a small minority of the game play... ie Raiding, that woudl just shift the imbalance to another class at another level of gameplay and Rangers were already adjusted because across the larger areas of gameplay they were well above other classes.I'd love to see a fix, I'm just not sure what you could fix that wouldnt make the imbalance shift and be worse the other way.*Edit'd to fix shoddy typing*</div><p>Message Edited by Sirlutt on <span class="date_text">08-03-2006</span> <span class="time_text">09:37 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Its rather simple really..Casttime to vieled fire to 1.5s-2s instead of 3Snipers shot 2-3 s instead of 5sDamage on snaring shot to 700-1200, instead of 300-550ishCast time on tripple volly to 1sCast time on miracle arrow to 1sCast time on Culling of the weak to 1sAnd, if someone out there can prove that these suggestions are overpowering.. id love to hear the explination.<div></div>

Ishbu

08-03-2006, 08:43 PM

Raiding is where classes can achieve their peak levels of play. The most pure picture you can form of a classes dps abilities comes from raiding. Rangers are soley a dps class so that is where they should stem from.Now we can balance the class around what the class is capable of doing so that if someone is exceptional at their class they can shine. Or we can balance the class around the middle of the road so that if someone is exception at their class they still look sub par compared to other classes. To me it makes more sense to balance it around so that if you suck, you suck, and if your good, your good.There are many ways to fix rangers. All of them result in a dps upgrade. This could be done by any combination of lowering combat art recasts, making special ranger only bows with higher procs/damage, increasing combat art damage, increasing ranger behind the scenes passive auto attack values, etc. So the downside of my balancing might be that rangers plow through heroic mobs like they did in DoF somewhat. Is that even a problem? A wizard can basically one shot a solo mob every 45 seconds, doesnt seem like thats a problem. So what if rangers are a little better in your average xp group than the other dps classes (they should be anyways because other dps classes like summoners and rogues bring more to the table), at least then the class can say they are a viable dps class in all aspects of play rather than just the middle of the road.

Sirlutt

08-03-2006, 08:43 PM

Sounds interesting..i'd love to see the results of those changes ... dont think it would raise the non raiding rangers too much ?sounds like it might work though.. and looks pretty simple.<div></div>

LoreLady

08-03-2006, 08:50 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:Sounds interesting..i'd love to see the results of those changes ... dont think it would raise the non raiding rangers too much ?sounds like it might work though.. and looks pretty simple.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Hard part is getting heard and taken seriously.</div>

Sirlutt

08-03-2006, 08:54 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:Sounds interesting..i'd love to see the results of those changes ... dont think it would raise the non raiding rangers too much ?sounds like it might work though.. and looks pretty simple.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Hard part is getting heard and taken seriously.</div><hr></blockquote>yeah probably... they dont balance whole classes based on what a small section of the population does.. can you imagine the other classes and their requests if Rangers got upgraded because of a 15% deficit somtimes on some raids, but only for really well equiped Rangers ?.. it'd be a balance nightmare i think.</div>

snipes

08-03-2006, 08:56 PM

<DIV>Well keep whinning then cause the devs seem to not to worry about it</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Prandtl

08-03-2006, 08:58 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR>Sounds interesting..i'd love to see the results of those changes ... <BR><BR>dont think it would raise the non raiding rangers too much ?<BR><BR>sounds like it might work though.. and looks pretty simple.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Hard part is getting heard and taken seriously.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>yeah probably... they dont balance whole classes based on what a small section of the population does.. can you imagine the other classes and their requests if Rangers got upgraded because of a 15% deficit somtimes on some raids, but only for really well equiped Rangers ?.. it'd be a balance nightmare i think.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So rangers should just buck up and take one in the shorts for the team? I think not!

Prandtl

08-03-2006, 09:02 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> snipesbl wrote:<BR> <DIV>Well keep whinning then cause the devs seem to not to worry about it<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG>whine</STRONG> <BR><EM>v.</EM> <B>whined,</B> <B>whin·ing,</B> <B>whines </B><BR><I>v.</I> <I>intr.</I></P> <OL> <LI>To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.</LI> <LI>To complain or protest in a childish fashion.</LI> <LI>To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.</LI></OL> <P> </P> <P>I've seen none of this in this thread until you showed up. If your going to troll, at least spell "whining" correctly</P> <P> </P> <P>(edited to remove insult. My aplogies. The body of the post still stands, though)</P><p>Message Edited by Prandtl on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:42 PM</span>

LoreLady

08-03-2006, 09:02 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>snipesbl wrote:<div>Well keep whinning then cause the devs seem to not to worry about it</div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>Lol, how about saying something constructive? Or, posting something that will throw a wrench into everyones gears (wich I am actually kind of hoping someone does to prove me wrong). Otherwise your going to be looked at like a 12 yearold kid.</div>

Balerius

08-03-2006, 09:15 PM

<P>I basically agree with Ishbu, to raise ranger dps to a level equivalent to assassins on raids, who cares if ranger dps increases a bit more than desired in xp groups and or while solo? I'm not going to propose specific changes to specific CAs...it needs to be thoroughly analyzed...just throwing ideas out doesn't seem to be necessary. The fix doesn't even have to involve CAs at all.</P> <P>But there is another solution as well that might focus the fix to ranger raid dps where it should be: other class' buffs/procs. If done carefully, SoE could modify a number of buffs/procs that other classes use that would essentially only come into play when a ranger is in a raid group. For example:</P> <P>-- Agitate is currently melee only...why not change it to proc on ranged as well?</P> <P>-- Sorcerer/wizard procs are melee only...why not make them proc on ranged as well?</P> <P>-- Who says melee and ranged proc damage has to be the same anyway? SoE could have one proc % and/or damage amount from a melee attack and a different one for ranged attack.</P> <P>-- Currently, there are more +haste items and spells in the game than +dps items/buffs. Well, assassins get a +dps self-buff...so with +haste buffs/items and one of the few +dps buffs, they can (relatively) easily max both haste and +dps. Rangers on the other hand have a +haste self-buff. Thus while it's relatively easy to max haste...it's almost impossible for us to max +dps. Changing other classes buffs (such as giving another class(es) +dps buffs) could help correct this imbalance.</P> <P>At any rate...you get the idea. SoE could correct the ranger dps shortfall at upper end raids by focusing changes that would only come into play at those raids. And this does not have to mean that all of the "fixes" must be made directly to rangers...changes to other classes might achieve the same result in a more focused way.</P>

snipes

08-03-2006, 09:21 PM

<DIV>well 23 pages on here isn't going to help the cause either. Especially when the devs are saying everything is fine and other rangers are saying dps is where it should be. Just because everyone in the class can't parse in the upper section doesn't mean everything is messed up and needs boosted. Gear / stats / weapons / lvls / debuffs/ spell quality all go into effect when doing dps. Hell even luck factors in on getting those big crits and stuff. Then add in all the mob stats , resists , aes , etc etc. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What ya need to be doing is compiling parses or something over a long time and sending it to a dev/ sony whoever ( 10, 20 , 30 sessions). Use feedback/ bug etc. Coming on here complaining , whining, contradicting , fighting, throwing insults ( thnx for calling me an idiot, constantly telling people how ubber you and your guild is and everyone else sucks is not gonna help at all. </DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Nothing is an easy fix. </SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by snipesbl on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:28 AM</span>

LoreLady

08-03-2006, 09:28 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>snipesbl wrote:<div>well 23 pages on here isn't going to help the cause either. Especially when the devs are saying everything is fine and other rangers are saying dps is where it should be. Just because everyone in the class can't parse in the upper section doesn't mean everything is messed up and needs boosted. Gear / stats / weapons / lvls / debuffs/ spell quality all go into effect when doing dps. Hell even luck factors in on getting those big crits and stuff. Then add in all the mob stats , resists , aes , etc etc. </div> <div> </div> <div>What ya need to be doing is compiling parses or something over a long time and sending it to a dev/ sony whoever ( 10, 20 , 30 sessions). Use feedback/ bug etc. Coming on here complaining , whining, contradicting , fighting, throwing insults, constantly telling people how ubber you and your guild is and everyone else sucks is not gonna help at all. </div><hr></blockquote>Read the gap pt 2. The conclusion of that entire thing was, ranger and assassin's damages are similar.. The cast times are not, this creates a 20-30% imballance in overall DPS.. And, there have been plenty of parses put out there.. Perhaps you may want to read whats out there before commenting..We have a 30 page thread on the combat discussion labled "most useless class on raids and what would fix them" - two clear winners are rangers and shadowknights. We have another 8 page thread in the combat discussion with the link to the gap pt 2 called "two sets of data two diffrent people one conclusion, rangers are underpowered". Many of the posters in these threads are not rangers, but raiders.. And see first hand what is happening at each classes peak.While, there are many many factors into this game.. If you eliminate all of them and focus on CA's alone and determine they are imballanced, then a class is imballanced. A imballanced by CA's cannot be ballanced by means of aa's or you only lead to further imballance down the road.And, please post your name class and server please. We will have a discussion about this in more detail.</div>

snipes

08-03-2006, 09:37 PM

<DIV>No your missing my whole point completely cause your seeing what you want to see. I am not saying your class is good/bad/moderate. I am not saying you need boosted/ nerfed/ left alone. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am saying this is something that is not easy to do. If everything was so simple then there wouldnt be 20 some pages here would it. Everyone would be happy and playing the game. Maybe the devs are working on it or maybe they aren't, that is up to them to let everyone know ( which I do agree is very lacking most of the time). Im also saying that you need to send the data to them , push it , keep putting it in their faces, keep it fresh on their minds. Posting on here is great but its not the same.</DIV>

LoreLady

08-03-2006, 09:48 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>snipesbl wrote:<div>No your missing my whole point completely cause your seeing what you want to see. I am not saying your class is good/bad/moderate. I am not saying you need boosted/ nerfed/ left alone. </div> <div> </div> <div>I am saying this is something that is not easy to do. If everything was so simple then there wouldnt be 20 some pages here would it. Everyone would be happy and playing the game. Maybe the devs are working on it or maybe they aren't, that is up to them to let everyone know ( which I do agree is very lacking most of the time). Im also saying that you need to send the data to them , push it , keep putting it in their faces, keep it fresh on their minds. Posting on here is great but its not the same.</div><hr></blockquote>Ok on that point i'll agree with you.. However, the tone in your earlier post doesnt take kindly on the impressions your posts now give.. Acusing this community of being whiners only puts you in a bad light.. Calling someone a whiner when they are in a serious discussion about what needs to be done, and putting out information forth then agreeing with the community is rather... odd..Going through code and adjusting the cast timers etc is easy.. Testing it, and making sure that the changes are inline with assassins is not. Currently, we are in a state where we wish to get a developer to do what I did on a earlier post.. Look at the CA's of both classes, and determine that there is a problem in damage/potential damage (whatever you wanna call it).. </div>

Jay

08-03-2006, 09:50 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> snipesbl wrote:<BR> <DIV>No your missing my whole point completely cause your seeing what you want to see. I am not saying your class is good/bad/moderate. I am not saying you need boosted/ nerfed/ left alone. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am saying this is something that is not easy to do. If everything was so simple then there wouldnt be 20 some pages here would it. Everyone would be happy and playing the game. Maybe the devs are working on it or maybe they aren't, that is up to them to let everyone know ( which I do agree is very lacking most of the time). Im also saying that you need to send the data to them , push it , keep putting it in their faces, keep it fresh on their minds. Posting on here is great but its not the same.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, since we're not wasting anyone's time but our own (in your opinion), it doesn't really affect you at all and we're content doing what we can. But thanks for the concern, we appreciate the advice. Thanks for visiting! Have fun out there and GL in your travels.<p>Message Edited by Jay42 on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:51 PM</span>

snipes

08-03-2006, 09:52 PM

<DIV>well atleast Lorelady read it before she replied and for that I thank you.</DIV><p>Message Edited by snipesbl on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:58 AM</span>

Jay

08-03-2006, 09:58 PM

<P>So did I, you just didn't say anything that I needed to respond to directly. You made your point very clearly, I thanked you for it, the end. We know it's not easy to develop a game like this or adjust classes - why do you think we're trying to help them narrow down the parameters of the problem we're seeing? If it were as easy as flipping a switch, no class would have any problems at all, would it?</P> <P>Again, thanks for the concern. FWIW, dismissing all that we're saying and doing as "whining" is probably what got you the negative responses in the first place. Good luck in game!</P>

frostbane

08-03-2006, 11:39 PM

<DIV>Here is a parse from a raid back near the end of may! I know it's old but i don't have any parses since with a ranger in them that was either there for the whole raid, or wasn't dead half the raid!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Bord is a ranger, Ghyanissa is a ranger, Sasilk is a monk, Pelotte a conj, Darkstarpuncher is a Wizard, and Mallon and Aarandur are swashie's</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://webpages.charter.net/tootallshadow/5-24%20halls%20dmg.html" target=_blank>http://webpages.charter.net/tootallshadow/5-24%20halls%20dmg.html</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>oh and this is from a well equipped raid guild!</DIV>

MystaSkrat

08-04-2006, 12:00 AM

832 is your highest zone wide DPS, I think that's part of the problem with this thread. That was well equipped, you sure? Cuz your wizards suck.

Ixnay

08-04-2006, 12:05 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> frostbane wrote:<BR> <DIV>Here is a parse from a raid back near the end of may! I know it's old but i don't have any parses since with a ranger in them that was either there for the whole raid, or wasn't dead half the raid!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Bord is a ranger, Ghyanissa is a ranger, Sasilk is a monk, Pelotte a conj, Darkstarpuncher is a Wizard, and Mallon and Aarandur are swashie's</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://webpages.charter.net/tootallshadow/5-24%20halls%20dmg.html" target=_blank>http://webpages.charter.net/tootallshadow/5-24%20halls%20dmg.html</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>oh and this is from a well equipped raid guild!</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Your link shows a raid wide parse for a full Halls of Seeing raid. Your parse shows a ranger with top DPS of 834 for the entire raid averaged, and the number two parser, who is also a ranger, with 692 DPS. Every other single person at that raid is parsing lower than 450 dps.</P> <P>This raid fought for 1:48 minutes total, and even then was far from clearing the zone. I can tell that you only got part way through by the fact that your parse shows the Elemental Warder fight as lasting two seconds, meaning you got flat owned in one attempt then didn't retry the encounter.</P> <P>There is no possible way this is a parse from a "well equipped raid guild", or if it is, you may want to rethink how you spend your evenings. This parse doesn't prove anything besides the fact that your guild needs raiding lessons.<BR></P>

Pins

08-04-2006, 12:13 AM

Please, ignore that parse, as it shows a raid guild who is now defunct, and non-existant. Amongst the fact that most of their members are now PvPing, and they are not anywhere near "well" equipped as most other guilds are now. Secondly, Halls of Seeing has been changed since then slightly. So if you are going to post a parse, make sure it is at least current(within the past 2 weeks).

Tseri

08-04-2006, 12:57 AM

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR> <P>Please, ignore that parse, as it shows a raid guild who is now defunct, and non-existant. Amongst the fact that most of their members are now PvPing, and they are not anywhere near "well" equipped as most other guilds are now. Secondly, Halls of Seeing has been changed since then slightly. So if you are going to post a parse, make sure it is at least current(within the past 2 weeks).<BR></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>Yeah, you really have to look to see any GC members around the server at all. Been that way for quite some time.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>

Jvaloth

08-04-2006, 01:42 AM

<P>nt</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Jvaloth on <span class=date_text>08-03-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:47 PM</span>

TaleraRis

08-04-2006, 01:53 AM

<blockquote><hr>Balerius wrote:<div></div> <p> Rangers on the other hand have a +haste self-buff. </p><hr></blockquote>We also have a +dps buff, the Instinct line. At my level it's currently Feral Instinct, 49% DPS for 36 seconds. Focus Fire also has a +dps of 62% for 10 seconds. The durations could probably use some work, but we do have them. I think the proc idea is something to consider. That could very possibly be where a large portion of the discrepancy lies, because even thought we utilize melee to obtain maximum DPS, we're not using melee to the extent assassins utilize their melee combat skills, so we don't benefit from the procs only affecting melee nearly as much as they do. I also don't think the proposed changes a few posts ago would make soloing rangers overpowered, speaking as a predominantly solo ranger. We're still limited by the distance we have to maintain from the mob to get any of these shots off, so sticking to ranged CA upgrades is a fair idea. The most it will mean is an extra shot on our 4 second root or Cheap Shot. Changing the cast timers will increase solo DPS, but not in such a manner as to be overpowering. <div></div>

Domiuk

08-04-2006, 06:34 PM

<DIV> <P> </P> <P>Belearius wrote</P> <P>"-- Currently, there are more +haste items and spells in the game than +dps items/buffs. Well, assassins get a +dps self-buff...so with +haste buffs/items and one of the few +dps buffs, they can (relatively) easily max both haste and +dps. Rangers on the other hand have a +haste self-buff. Thus while it's relatively easy to max haste...it's almost impossible for us to max +dps. Changing other classes buffs (such as giving another class(es) +dps buffs) could help correct this imbalance."</P> <P>An assasin sitting at 100% DPS and 50% haste is gonna thump a ranger on 100% haste and 50% DPS in auttoattack if ones using a 100 or less weapon and the others using 2 DW at 120. (lol and a ranger using the likes of grizzlefangles bow vs 2 fableds is playing a differant game)</P> <P>Ranged attack is less accurate too as there are less + ranged skills, missing a 1000+ dmg from a fabled bow will also further dent dps.</P> <P>Factor in above thats its easier to raise haste than DPS and that differance might be very high.</P> <P>Forget Combat arts for the mo, how does autoattack compare between the classes ? any of the above parsers (with a ranger on them <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> would work) </P> <P>Anybody care to post a comparison of assasin/ranger with a breakdown of Autoattack vs CA ?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P></DIV>

LoreLady

08-04-2006, 07:23 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>Domiuk wrote:<div> <p>Belearius wrote</p> <p>"-- Currently, there are more +haste items and spells in the game than +dps items/buffs. Well, assassins get a +dps self-buff...so with +haste buffs/items and one of the few +dps buffs, they can (relatively) easily max both haste and +dps. Rangers on the other hand have a +haste self-buff. Thus while it's relatively easy to max haste...it's almost impossible for us to max +dps. Changing other classes buffs (such as giving another class(es) +dps buffs) could help correct this imbalance."</p> <p>An assasin sitting at 100% DPS and 50% haste is gonna thump a ranger on 100% haste and 50% DPS in auttoattack if ones using a 100 or less weapon and the others using 2 DW at 120. (lol and a ranger using the likes of grizzlefangles bow vs 2 fableds is playing a differant game)</p> <p>Ranged attack is less accurate too as there are less + ranged skills, missing a 1000+ dmg from a fabled bow will also further dent dps.<font color="#ff0000">Ummmm... Got anything to back this up? There are alot of ranged stat mods out there, along with alot of melee stat mods. Maybe its in your own head.</font></p> <p>Factor in above thats its easier to raise haste than DPS and that differance might be very high.</p> <p>Forget Combat arts for the mo, how does autoattack compare between the classes ? any of the above parsers (with a ranger on them <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> would work) <font color="#ff0000">Auto attack seems to be the same as other classes, when im not doing the rangers dance that is.</font></p> <p>Anybody care to post a comparison of assasin/ranger with a breakdown of Autoattack vs CA ?<font color="#ff0000">Ummm.. Why? Whats it supost to prove? Auto attack is "supost" to be even with ranged or melee. Going CA vs CA gives an accurate comparison showing that rangers do have a gap.. But, I have already done that and shown there is a 25%ish gap.. Sokolov has done the same to show there is a gap.</font></p> </div><hr></blockquote></div>

Domiuk

08-04-2006, 08:13 PM

<DIV>Ranged attack is less accurate too as there are less + ranged skills, missing a 1000+ dmg from a fabled bow will also further dent dps."<FONT color=#ff0000>Ummmm... Got anything to back this up? There are alot of ranged stat mods out there, along with alot of melee stat mods. Maybe its in your own head"</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No I have not and in fact i am guessing based on my own experience (I have a guardian with 350 ranged and 415 crush i hit 100% with crush and maybe as little as 80% with ranged on a 70, i know you only sit at 370 ish so i assume you miss more than an assasin at 420 ish on a 70+ epic), hence i asked for the information.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <P>"Forget Combat arts for the mo, how does autoattack compare between the classes ? any of the above parsers (with a ranger on them <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0> would work) <FONT color=#ff0000>Auto attack seems to be the same as other classes, when im not doing the rangers dance that is."</FONT></P> <P>Twice i have asked this and twice you have stated that its the same , please I am simply asking for proof of that and not simply you and no one as yet has backed you up stating it is the same (frankly i dont believe it)</P> <P>Your last statement that aa is "suposed" to be the same is frankly my point , Is it ?</P> <P>A breakdown of a parser showing auto attack as the same and ca's being the differance proves your point of view very nicely but I note you still have not come up with one.</P><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>I am not stating you are wrong but i do think you are being very blinkered in your aproach to this.</FONT><BR></P></FONT></DIV>

MystaSkrat

08-04-2006, 08:31 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Domiuk wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No I have not and in fact i am guessing based on my own experience (I have a guardian with 350 ranged and 415 crush i hit 100% with crush and maybe as little as 80% with ranged on a 70, i know you only sit at 370 ish so i assume you miss more than an assasin at 420 ish on a 70+ epic), hence i asked for the information.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I sit at 392 ranged... put on the ring from Labs, nemesis gloves, and a truesilver tunic and I'm at 406. I sit at 401 piercing solo in offensive. I got an idea... let's pretend stat modifiers make a big difference unless you're talking about being in the negative due to defensive stance. What's +100 to piercing or ranged, 3% accuracy maybe? Hooray

Lexan

08-04-2006, 09:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Domiuk wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No I have not and in fact i am guessing based on my own experience (I have a guardian with 350 ranged and 415 crush i hit 100% with crush and maybe as little as 80% with ranged on a 70, i know you only sit at 370 ish so i assume you miss more than an assasin at 420 ish on a 70+ epic), hence i asked for the information.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I sit at 392 ranged... put on the ring from Labs, nemesis gloves, and a truesilver tunic and I'm at 406. I sit at 401 piercing solo in offensive. I got an idea... let's pretend stat modifiers make a big difference unless you're talking about being in the negative due to defensive stance. What's +100 to piercing or ranged, 3% accuracy maybe? Hooray<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They dont do much but......... If i have the warden buff its 100% noticable.

MystaSkrat

08-04-2006, 09:06 PM

<P>Yea, it's awesome for a tank, go in defensive and still have your offensive skills green :smileytongue:</P> <P>Warden buff is lame for a melee dps, as I don't miss 99% of the time anyway (unless it's orange then it still doesn't help a whole hell of a lot). Agitate > Primal Instinct</P>

Lexan

08-04-2006, 09:10 PM

<DIV>I noticed it in PPR on the ranger in t6. When we use to go in and smoke down the orange cons without the ring it was almost night and day to have the warden in the group. But your right the buff should always be on me when tanking <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

Lexan

08-04-2006, 09:13 PM

You know tho skratch and and i dont have proof. But i always seem to parse better in the secondary group in offencive with a warden buffing up the skills aswell. Maybe its just my imagination. Or maybe as a fighter i tend to miss more than a scout dont know.

Balerius

08-04-2006, 09:13 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Domiuk wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P> </P> <P>Belearius wrote</P> <P>"-- Currently, there are more +haste items and spells in the game than +dps items/buffs. Well, assassins get a +dps self-buff...so with +haste buffs/items and one of the few +dps buffs, they can (relatively) easily max both haste and +dps. Rangers on the other hand have a +haste self-buff. Thus while it's relatively easy to max haste...it's almost impossible for us to max +dps. Changing other classes buffs (such as giving another class(es) +dps buffs) could help correct this imbalance."</P> <P>An assasin sitting at 100% DPS and 50% haste is gonna thump a ranger on 100% haste and 50% DPS in auttoattack if ones using a 100 or less weapon and the others using 2 DW at 120. (lol and a ranger using the likes of grizzlefangles bow vs 2 fableds is playing a differant game)</P> <P>Ranged attack is less accurate too as there are less + ranged skills, missing a 1000+ dmg from a fabled bow will also further dent dps.<FONT color=#ff0000>Ummmm... Got anything to back this up? There are alot of ranged stat mods out there, along with alot of melee stat mods. Maybe its in your own head.<BR></FONT></P> <P>Factor in above thats its easier to raise haste than DPS and that differance might be very high.</P> <P>Forget Combat arts for the mo, how does autoattack compare between the classes ? any of the above parsers (with a ranger on them <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> would work) <FONT color=#ff0000>Auto attack seems to be the same as other classes, when im not doing the rangers dance that is.<BR></FONT></P> <P>Anybody care to post a comparison of assasin/ranger with a breakdown of Autoattack vs CA ?<FONT color=#ff0000>Ummm.. Why? Whats it supost to prove? Auto attack is "supost" to be even with ranged or melee. Going CA vs CA gives an accurate comparison showing that rangers do have a gap.. But, I have already done that and shown there is a 25%ish gap.. Sokolov has done the same to show there is a gap.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Autoattack is anywhere from 20%-30% of our total damage. It's not insignificant.</P> <P>You believe that any "fix" to ranger dps must be in the form of increases to our CA damage and/or decreases to cast times/recast times. Fine. But that might be hard for SoE to implement if they are overly concerned about unbalancing our class in solo/group play. I simply offered some alternative approaches that could be implemented that might reduce the need to change our CAs so that our dps is fixed in the raid environment ...where the problem really is.</P> <P>One of my points is that it is much easier for an assassin to be maxed in both haste and +dps than it is for a ranger to be maxed at both. Certainly at times we can be maxed...for example during focus fire...but that's hardly the same consistency as an assassin. The difference in damage over time due to autoattack adds up....it's not trivial. Does it explain all of the difference between an assassin's dps and a ranger's? Of course not. But it's one piece of the puzzle (like procs/buffs that are melee only) that explains the difference and that if changed can fix ranger dps without having to change our CAs.<BR></P>

Colossaltitan

08-04-2006, 09:50 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lexani- wrote:<BR> You know tho skratch and and i dont have proof. But i always seem to parse better in the secondary group in offencive with a warden buffing up the skills aswell. Maybe its just my imagination. Or maybe as a fighter i tend to miss more than a scout dont know.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It does help, raises your accuracy a little, but not nearly as noticable as it was in T6(because of all the orange cons) >_<.

Domiuk

08-04-2006, 10:14 PM

<DIV>Actually skratch your parsers seem to indicate you miss between 5 and 10% of the time vs named epic mobs and at well over 400 skill.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I ask again are we all certain that someone with a ranged skill at 370 or even 390 hits as often ? I am quite sure you could easily test this for us by simply dropping said items and stepping back and seeing how accurate you are with a slightly lower ranged attack.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am still to be convinced, not least of all cos i know at 350 skill i cant hit for toffee. (not entirely true but my accuracy takes a very noticable dive)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Oh and Falcogen in your guild im willing to bet he has very high mellee skills. be interested to know what class he is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again I am not trying to "have a go" at anybody or anything I am simply genuinely interested in helping to solve the problem. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Domiuk on <span class=date_text>08-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:19 AM</span>

Colossaltitan

08-04-2006, 10:20 PM

It does Raise your accuracy, most people claim it won't help, but it does :p. Just as Disruption does, it doesn't make huge noticable differences, but it does raise your accuracy/lower your resist rate.

LoreLady

08-04-2006, 10:22 PM

At 390 ranged, I have no problem hitting things. I'll look over my parsings to see the diffrence of auto attack with melee/ranged(goign to be hard to do since its all pierce) to see if theres a significant diffrence at 390 range to 415 pierce

MystaSkrat

08-04-2006, 10:26 PM

<P>Falco's a wizard, he's gonna have a pretty high hit rate :smileyhappy:</P> <P>I'm willing to bet I miss less than 2% of my combat arts against yellow mobs (brawlers not included), and the rest is missed auto attack. I'd actually assume a bow would have the advantage here due to less swings = less chances to miss. I don't think anyone's gonna hit 100% even with 1000 piercing.</P>

Domiuk

08-04-2006, 10:29 PM

<DIV>lol it never occured to me he might not be a mellee class <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and actually he only has a about a 99% hit rate.</DIV>

MystaSkrat

08-04-2006, 10:31 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Domiuk wrote:<BR> <DIV>lol it never occured to me he might not be a mellee class <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>and actually he only has a about a 99% hit rate.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Right, I said noone's probably gonna hit 100%, that meant any class :smileyhappy:

Domiuk

08-04-2006, 10:34 PM

<DIV>Oh and i got your hit rate from a complete dt parse you posted. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If your getting a 5-10% miss rate and upping it does increases accuracy...... thats maybe another 5% damage you could eek out <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

MystaSkrat

08-04-2006, 10:35 PM

Yea, but if I used a warden over a fury (only thing I could switch out to up melee skills), I'd lose out on a lot more than 5% dps from the accuracy.

Ixnay

08-04-2006, 11:44 PM

..<BR><p>Message Edited by Ixnay on <span class=date_text>08-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:45 PM</span>

massem

08-05-2006, 12:32 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Data ive done comparing ability per ability shows otherwise.. If our total damage is similar, but the time it takes to cast each spell is diffrent.. This results in a inballance.. Read the gap pt2.. I dont need to go and show dozens of parsings when I can eliminate several factors, like buffs, melee damage (equal), chance to hit, poisons, players.. Since it shows an imballance within the two classes with the CA's, a ranger and an assassin doing the same damage means the ranger is putting out more of these factors while the assassin is slacking.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>This type of analysis does not make sense unless you factor in also the recast time of each ability. <BR>

LoreLady

08-05-2006, 12:36 AM

<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LoreLady wrote: <div>Data ive done comparing ability per ability shows otherwise.. If our total damage is similar, but the time it takes to cast each spell is diffrent.. This results in a inballance.. Read the gap pt2.. I dont need to go and show dozens of parsings when I can eliminate several factors, like buffs, melee damage (equal), chance to hit, poisons, players.. Since it shows an imballance within the two classes with the CA's, a ranger and an assassin doing the same damage means the ranger is putting out more of these factors while the assassin is slacking.</div> <hr> </blockquote>This type of analysis does not make sense unless you factor in also the recast time of each ability. <hr></blockquote><font color="#cc0033">Thats why its been done at diffrent intervals to show that. God, I swear someones I wonder if people can read (yes I realize it is abit confusing).. But common, if your going to make these kinds of statements im getting out the dunce cap for you!.</font><font color="#cc0033"></font><font color="#cc0033"></font><font color="#cc0033">And to take the extra step to prove you a troll.. Im going to quote you to show you what kind of poster you are, and I dont consider trolls very smart.</font><hr size="2" width="100%">Grats - well done ... <img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16"> -1 goodGitano is stupid <span><img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16"> - troll 1</span><p>So in short you're upset because you can't have the DPS of a Wizard and the healing of a Templar in the same char ? <img src="../../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" border="0" height="16" width="16">- <font color="#ffff00">And btw Oakum is my poison supplier on my server, hes a bright person and has valid reasons for saying what hes said there.(yellows me commenting)</font></p>And where is the relevance of that ? Am i supposed to be annyoed or irritated by that post ? Funnily, I can only laugh ...Maybe for once you might want to try and stick to the topic ?<p>Lol Magus - that argument is not obvious, not logical and not correct. Kick yourself instead ...</p> <p>The only logical conclusion one could make from that is that healing should be sufficiently power efficient.</p> <p>Healers should be the best at their primary role - that is healing ... </p> <p>It is pretty difficult, not to say pointless, to try to have a meaningful and discussion when half the posts contains claims that one spell is vastly superior to another one when the only significant difference is that the so called "superior" spell has three times the power cost as the "inferior" one, and the other half contains nothing but flames and obvious attempts to derail the thread.</p><p>Mages should be the best at their primary role - that is dealing damage ...</p><hr size="2" width="100%"><p>I rest my case.. Massem = troll.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p> </div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class="date_text">08-04-2006</span> <span class="time_text">01:43 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>08-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:44 PM</span>

massem

08-05-2006, 12:50 AM

<DIV>I won't bite on that bait. But I'm sure you'll get this thread locked in not time Lorelady, if that is what you want ... Keep trying ...:smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Data ive done comparing ability per ability shows otherwise.. If our total damage is similar, but the time it takes to cast each spell is diffrent.. This results in a inballance.. Read the gap pt2.. I dont need to go and show dozens of parsings when I can eliminate several factors, like buffs, melee damage (equal), chance to hit, poisons, players.. Since it shows an imballance within the two classes with the CA's, a ranger and an assassin doing the same damage means the ranger is putting out more of these factors while the assassin is slacking.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>This type of analysis does not make sense unless you factor in also the recast time of each ability. <BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#cc0033>Thats why its been done at diffrent intervals to show that. God, I swear someones I wonder if people can read (yes I realize it is abit confusing).. But common, if your going to make these kinds of statements im getting out the dunce cap for you!.</FONT><FONT color=#cc0033><BR></FONT><FONT color=#cc0033><BR></FONT><FONT color=#cc0033>And to take the extra step to prove you a troll.. Im going to quote you to show you what kind of poster you are, and I dont consider trolls very smart.</FONT><BR> <HR width="100%" SIZE=2> <BR>Grats - well done ... <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0> -1 good<BR>Gitano is stupid <SPAN><IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0> - troll 1<BR></SPAN> <P>So in short you're upset because you can't have the DPS of a Wizard and the healing of a Templar in the same char ? <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0>- <FONT color=#ffff00>And btw Oakum is my poison supplier on my server, hes a bright person and has valid reasons for saying what hes said there.(yellows me commenting)<BR></FONT></P><BR>And where is the relevance of that ? Am i supposed to be annyoed or irritated by that post ? Funnily, I can only laugh ...<BR>Maybe for once you might want to try and stick to the topic ?<BR> <P>Lol Magus - that argument is not obvious, not logical and not correct. Kick yourself instead ...</P> <P>The only logical conclusion one could make from that is that healing should be sufficiently power efficient.</P> <P>Healers should be the best at their primary role - that is healing ... </P> <P>It is pretty difficult, not to say pointless, to try to have a meaningful and discussion when half the posts contains claims that one spell is vastly superior to another one when the only significant difference is that the so called "superior" spell has three times the power cost as the "inferior" one, and the other half contains nothing but flames and obvious attempts to derail the thread.</P> <P>Mages should be the best at their primary role - that is dealing damage ...</P><BR> <HR width="100%" SIZE=2> <P>I rest my case.. Massem = troll.<BR></P><BR> <P><BR></P> <P><BR></P> <P><BR></P> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by LoreLady on <SPAN class=date_text>08-04-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:43 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by LoreLady on <SPAN class=date_text>08-04-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:44 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR></DIV>

LoreLady

08-05-2006, 12:53 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div>I won't bite on that bait. But I'm sure you'll get this thread locked in not time Lorelady, if that is what you want ... Keep trying ...:smileyhappy:</div> <div> </div> <div> <hr> Its a troll when you say something without backing it up, and I clearly have <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.. And, as far as your first point, there are two sets of data on "the gap pt 2" one includes recasts.. And sokolov did something with his damage (not to sure what though - go read it for yourself, he explains it there).. And another shows total damage over cast time.. Sokolov is just missing mark in his, wich will come up to be an extra 10% then what it shows.</div></blockquote></div>

Jay

08-05-2006, 01:08 AM

<DIV>If you think he's a troll, why are you feeding him?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Seriously, you need to learn to ignore people that you disagree with, if you're just going to label them trolls. B/c like it or not, he's right that you're going to get this thread locked if you keep attacking people. He made one comment, and it was actually relevant. Don't let your personal feelings towards one poster or another color your responses to them, if you want these discussions to continue. </DIV>

massem

08-05-2006, 01:09 AM

<DIV> <DIV>Lorelady, how do you explain that the server wide (or maybe even game-wide) statistics presented by the devs are so vastly different from yours ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did the thought occur to you that the devs may be looking at the complete picture and you are looking only on a small piece of it ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The are loads of factors that needs to be considered - reducing it to only two (damage and casting time) like you try to do will result in a distorted picture. What about buffs, debuffs, range of the attack, proc rates, aggro management, power costs .... ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:24 PM</span>

Zholain

08-05-2006, 02:19 AM

<div><blockquote><hr><font size="2">masseman wrote:</font> <div> <div><font size="2">Lorelady, how do you explain that the server wide (or maybe even game-wide) statistics presented by the devs are so vastly different from yours ?</font></div> <div><font size="2"> </font></div> <div><font size="2">Did the thought occur to you that the devs may be looking at the complete picture and you are looking only on a small piece of it ?</font></div> <div><font size="2"> </font></div> <div><font size="2">The are loads of factors that needs to be considered - reducing it to only two (damage and casting time) like you try to do will result in a distorted picture. What about buffs, debuffs, range of the attack, proc rates, aggro management, power costs .... ?</font></div> <div> </div> <div> </div></div><p><font size="2">Message Edited by masseman on <span class="date_text">08-04-2006</span> <span class="time_text">02:24 PM</span></font></p><hr></blockquote><font size="2">Despite the pain and effort involved, you <i>may</i> want to go back and read the entire thread. It has already been acknowledged that their data may be accurate, and that we are probably focusing on a very small piece of it. What is being said is that small piece throws the classes out of balance for one specific part of the game. Rangers offer nothing to a raid that another class can't offer, and in most cases another class can offer more....and in my experience, that is exactly what is happening.Those guys from Disso posting here...they aren't idiots...they're the best the game has to offer. I may not agree with everything they have to say, but you can not argue their knowledge and success. When it comes to the raiding game, no one does it better.</font></div>

LoreLady

08-05-2006, 02:22 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div> <div>Lorelady, how do you explain that the server wide (or maybe even game-wide) statistics presented by the devs are so vastly different from yours ?</div> <div> </div> <div>Did the thought occur to you that the devs may be looking at the complete picture and you are looking only on a small piece of it ?</div> <div> </div> <div>The are loads of factors that needs to be considered - reducing it to only two (damage and casting time) like you try to do will result in a distorted picture. What about buffs, debuffs, range of the attack, proc rates, aggro management, power costs .... ?</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><span class="time_text"></span> </div></div><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class="date_text">08-04-2006</span> <span class="time_text">02:24 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Because, the dev said average in all categories.. Meaning from levels 1-70, to small group ,solo, group, and raid.. There are alot more lower end raiders out there than there are top end raiders.. The top end raiders are rejecting rangers in there roster, and these are the ones that are giving the most outcry about it.. The diffrence in damage is subtle, the only reason I noticed it is because I have access to level 70 t1 dps classes.. And saw with my own eyes whats what, thats why I put in that first rangers vs assassins post.. Its not to hard to caclulate damage in your head and then look at cast time.. Although that first one had seperate STR values involved, and I lacked the tools to put my case together effectively.Sokolov did a great job putting in those other factors into his thingy, thats why I posted it as well.. To give myself a diffrent perspective, and others.. I am currently (well, going extreemly slow at it because I want to do other things and am lazy) with recycle them.. And a repost of whats already up there but on a spreadsheet (its actually alot more annoying and time consuming then you would think). The reason I snapped at you to begin with, is because you either A: dident read it all and commenting anyways. or B: Decided to make a personal attack against my data that dident include that. So, in my own mind. You were either lazy, or aggresive in that statement. And just FYI - Ranger has a temper.The fact remains, is that even though.. When the best of the best say "ok this is the trend at our level, and it is noticeable.. We have gone through steps to factor out skill of the player (comparing dps to others), buffs, gear, spell quality.. And come to that conclusion, then you have evidence to put forward.. And, the more the game progresses.. The more you will see things average out to that level. Everything we are saying and doing is but a warning sign tothe devs. If things arent ballanced now, immagine how they are going to be when this new expansion comes out. I highly doubt that things will be "on par" when it comes out.. If everything is done by a subclass level (dunno how the dietys are yet, but I think its a fairly safe bet that assassins will get the same as rangers) then sony will have to stop for a moment and change things.. Remember, sony put its breaks on rangers (and several other classes) back in LU 20.. They will have to do the same thing again in some form or another.. How long did it take them to realize that there was something wrong in the procs to begin with? If it takes them 7 months to realize somethings wrong, then my confidence in what the devs have for data is shot. </div>

massem

08-05-2006, 03:38 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <DIV> <DIV>Lorelady, how do you explain that the server wide (or maybe even game-wide) statistics presented by the devs are so vastly different from yours ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did the thought occur to you that the devs may be looking at the complete picture and you are looking only on a small piece of it ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The are loads of factors that needs to be considered - reducing it to only two (damage and casting time) like you try to do will result in a distorted picture. What about buffs, debuffs, range of the attack, proc rates, aggro management, power costs .... ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Because, the dev said average in all categories.. Meaning from levels 1-70, to small group ,solo, group, and raid.. <BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Yes that is exaclty what I was getting at - the game is balanced around the averages and not the top-end raiders which constitute maybe 5 to a maximum 10 % of the server populations. The imbalance in the top-end is clear however, and I agree with you about that, but that also means that the "low-end" rangers consequently must be doing better than the "low-end" assassins, since on average rangers are fine (if we trust also the parse data from the devs). </FONT><BR><BR>Sokolov did a great job putting in those other factors into his thingy, thats why I posted it as well.. To give myself a diffrent perspective, and others.. I am currently (well, going extreemly slow at it because I want to do other things and am lazy) with recycle them.. And a repost of whats already up there but on a spreadsheet (its actually alot more annoying and time consuming then you would think). <BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Even though you and Sokolov may have put in substantial effort in your comparison, I still think it is biased. You ignore the fact that Rangers is the only T1 DPS class that has enough hate management to handle their own aggro. For top-end raiders this CAN in fact be ignored, becuse these guild can roll with a perfect group setup. Casual family-style guilds (like the one I am in) usually roll with whatever we happen to have on-line at the moment, an that often means that DPS (other than rangers) have to hold back to avoid aggro. </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>You ignore the fact that rangers do (yes no surprise) mainly ranged DPS and assassins manly do jousting attacks. You ignore the fact that Ranger (and Assassin DPS) use much less power than caster DPS per point of damage dealt ... Basically you deliberately ignore all the upsides your class has </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>and focus solely on the downsides. This is not the way to do it if you want to be convincing in your argumentation. </FONT> </DIV> <DIV><BR>The reason I snapped at you to begin with, is because you either A: dident read it all and commenting anyways. or B: Decided to make a personal attack against my data that dident include that. So, in my own mind. You were either lazy, or aggresive in that statement. And just FYI - Ranger has a temper.<BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I did scan the whole 25 pages, but of course I did not read it all in detail. I responded to your post which I read in detail - that is why I qouted your post and not the entire 25 pages preceding that. I thought that would be obvious. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>The fact remains, is that even though.. When the best of the best say "ok this is the trend at our level, and it is noticeable.. We have gone through steps to factor out skill of the player (comparing dps to others), buffs, gear, spell quality.. And come to that conclusion, then you have evidence to put forward.. And, the more the game progresses.. The more you will see things average out to that level. Everything we are saying and doing is but a warning sign tothe devs. If things arent ballanced now, immagine how they are going to be when this new expansion comes out. I highly doubt that things will be "on par" when it comes out.. If everything is done by a subclass level (dunno how the dietys are yet, but I think its a fairly safe bet that assassins will get the same as rangers) then sony will have to stop for a moment and change things.. <BR><BR>Remember, sony put its breaks on rangers (and several other classes) back in LU 20.. They will have to do the same thing again in some form or another.. How long did it take them to realize that there was something wrong in the procs to begin with? If it takes them 7 months to realize somethings wrong, then my confidence in what the devs have for data is shot. </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Yeah it took the 7 months to fix the proc bug, but I don't remember seeing too much complaints about that from rangers before :smileyhappy:</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>Message Edited by masseman on <SPAN class=date_text>08-04-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:44 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:46 PM</span>

MystaSkrat

08-05-2006, 03:46 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> If it takes them 7 months to realize somethings wrong, then my confidence in what the devs have for data is shot.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Yeah it took the 7 months to fix the proc bug, but I don't remember seeing too much complaints about that from rangers before :smileyhappy:</FONT></DIV><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No, but there was complaints from other classes, but just from your response it's like you didn't even read her sentence. She's just saying maybe some of the data we've seen posted here isn't rock solid, and given the whole 7 month thing, I don't think it's unjustified.

massem

08-05-2006, 03:58 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> If it takes them 7 months to realize somethings wrong, then my confidence in what the devs have for data is shot.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Yeah it took the 7 months to fix the proc bug, but I don't remember seeing too much complaints about that from rangers before :smileyhappy:</FONT></DIV><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No, but there was complaints from other classes, but just from your response it's like you didn't even read her sentence. She's just saying maybe some of the data we've seen posted here isn't rock solid, and given the whole 7 month thing, I don't think it's unjustified.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>The section you quoted from me was an attempt at a joke .... Obviously the wrong forum for that. I apologize ...<BR><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:59 PM</span>

LoreLady

08-05-2006, 05:52 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LoreLady wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> masseman wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <div> <div>Lorelady, how do you explain that the server wide (or maybe even game-wide) statistics presented by the devs are so vastly different from yours ?</div> <div> </div> <div>Did the thought occur to you that the devs may be looking at the complete picture and you are looking only on a small piece of it ?</div> <div> </div> <div>The are loads of factors that needs to be considered - reducing it to only two (damage and casting time) like you try to do will result in a distorted picture. What about buffs, debuffs, range of the attack, proc rates, aggro management, power costs .... ?</div> <div> </div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Because, the dev said average in all categories.. Meaning from levels 1-70, to small group ,solo, group, and raid.. </div> <div><font color="#ff0000">Yes that is exaclty what I was getting at - the game is balanced around the averages and not the top-end raiders which constitute maybe 5 to a maximum 10 % of the server populations. The imbalance in the top-end is clear however, and I agree with you about that, but that also means that the "low-end" rangers consequently must be doing better than the "low-end" assassins, since on average rangers are fine (if we trust also the parse data from the devs). <font color="#ffff00">If a classes top potential dps is rather limited in comparison, and other classes cannot maintain "steady" dps (wich the other classes can).. Then fundemantoly, the class itself is unballanced. And, as I said before.. The damage diffrence is going to be FAR greater as this game progresses if they dont fix the base problem.</font></font>Sokolov did a great job putting in those other factors into his thingy, thats why I posted it as well.. To give myself a diffrent perspective, and others.. I am currently (well, going extreemly slow at it because I want to do other things and am lazy) with recycle them.. And a repost of whats already up there but on a spreadsheet (its actually alot more annoying and time consuming then you would think). </div> <div><font color="#ff0000">Even though you and Sokolov may have put in substantial effort in your comparison, I still think it is biased. You ignore the fact that Rangers is the only T1 DPS class that has enough hate management to handle their own aggro. For top-end raiders this CAN in fact be ignored, becuse these guild can roll with a perfect group setup. Casual family-style guilds (like the one I am in) usually roll with whatever we happen to have on-line at the moment, an that often means that DPS (other than rangers) have to hold back to avoid aggro. </font><font color="#ff0000">You ignore the fact that rangers do (yes no surprise) mainly ranged DPS and assassins manly do jousting attacks. You ignore the fact that Ranger (and Assassin DPS) use much less power than caster DPS per point of damage dealt ... Basically you deliberately ignore all the upsides your class has </font><font color="#ff0000">and focus solely on the downsides. This is not the way to do it if you want to be convincing in your argumentation. </font> <font color="#ffff00">I tried to give as fair thing as POSSIBLE, explain to me how its biased? I went out of my way to get a situation where assassins are on the lower side.. If anything, if you have read through it.. It is biased on the assassin end.. I went out of my way to add in where you would get the most for criticals.. The only thing I did wrong in there, is adding the cast times to AE's as well as single target.. And then adding in single target damage.. And im to lazy to edit it, because im working on something else.</font></div> <div>The reason I snapped at you to begin with, is because you either A: dident read it all and commenting anyways. or B: Decided to make a personal attack against my data that dident include that. So, in my own mind. You were either lazy, or aggresive in that statement. And just FYI - Ranger has a temper.</div> <div><font color="#ff0000">I did scan the whole 25 pages, but of course I did not read it all in detail. I responded to your post which I read in detail - that is why I qouted your post and not the entire 25 pages preceding that. I thought that would be obvious. <font color="#ffff00">Its not this thread, the gap pt 2.</font> </font></div> <div><font color="#ff0000"></font> </div> <div>The fact remains, is that even though.. When the best of the best say "ok this is the trend at our level, and it is noticeable.. We have gone through steps to factor out skill of the player (comparing dps to others), buffs, gear, spell quality.. And come to that conclusion, then you have evidence to put forward.. And, the more the game progresses.. The more you will see things average out to that level. Everything we are saying and doing is but a warning sign tothe devs. If things arent ballanced now, immagine how they are going to be when this new expansion comes out. I highly doubt that things will be "on par" when it comes out.. If everything is done by a subclass level (dunno how the dietys are yet, but I think its a fairly safe bet that assassins will get the same as rangers) then sony will have to stop for a moment and change things.. Remember, sony put its breaks on rangers (and several other classes) back in LU 20.. They will have to do the same thing again in some form or another.. How long did it take them to realize that there was something wrong in the procs to begin with? If it takes them 7 months to realize somethings wrong, then my confidence in what the devs have for data is shot. </div> <div><font color="#ff0000"></font> </div> <div><font color="#ff0000">Yeah it took the 7 months to fix the proc bug, but I don't remember seeing too much complaints about that from rangers before :smileyhappy:<font color="#ffff33">First day I played during DoF.. First thing that came out of my mouth " wonder how long till I get nerfed"</font></font></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class="date_text">08-04-2006</span> <span class="time_text">04:44 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class="date_text">08-04-2006</span> <span class="time_text">04:46 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote></div>

massem

08-05-2006, 12:46 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Yes that is exaclty what I was getting at - the game is balanced around the averages and not the top-end raiders which constitute maybe 5 to a maximum 10 % of the server populations. The imbalance in the top-end is clear however, and I agree with you about that, but that also means that the "low-end" rangers consequently must be doing better than the "low-end" assassins, since on average rangers are fine (if we trust also the parse data from the devs). <FONT color=#ffff00>If a classes top potential dps is rather limited in comparison, and other classes cannot maintain "steady" dps (wich the other classes can).. Then fundemantoly, the class itself is unballanced. And, as I said before.. The damage diffrence is going to be FAR greater as this game progresses if they dont fix the base problem.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#66ff00>I think you missed my points: if on average class A is performing as well as class B, and certain members of class B performs worse than certain members of class A, that means that the other members of class B must perform better than the other members of class A. </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR>Sokolov did a great job putting in those other factors into his thingy, thats why I posted it as well.. To give myself a diffrent perspective, and others.. I am currently (well, going extreemly slow at it because I want to do other things and am lazy) with recycle them.. And a repost of whats already up there but on a spreadsheet (its actually alot more annoying and time consuming then you would think).<BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Even though you and Sokolov may have put in substantial effort in your comparison, I still think it is biased. You ignore the fact that Rangers is the only T1 DPS class that has enough hate management to handle their own aggro. For top-end raiders this CAN in fact be ignored, becuse these guild can roll with a perfect group setup. Casual family-style guilds (like the one I am in) usually roll with whatever we happen to have on-line at the moment, an that often means that DPS (other than rangers) have to hold back to avoid aggro. </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>You ignore the fact that rangers do (yes no surprise) mainly ranged DPS and assassins manly do jousting attacks. You ignore the fact that Ranger (and Assassin DPS) use much less power than caster DPS per point of damage dealt ... Basically you deliberately ignore all the upsides your class has </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>and focus solely on the downsides. This is not the way to do it if you want to be convincing in your argumentation. </FONT> <FONT color=#ffff00>I tried to give as fair thing as POSSIBLE, explain to me how its biased? I went out of my way to get a situation where assassins are on the lower side.. If anything, if you have read through it.. It is biased on the assassin end.. I went out of my way to add in where you would get the most for criticals.. The only thing I did wrong in there, is adding the cast times to AE's as well as single target.. And then adding in single target damage.. And im to lazy to edit it, because im working on something else.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#66ff00>This is going in circles, read the red text again pls. Jousting, nr of mobs in encounters, aggro, etcetraetcetra ... </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR>The reason I snapped at you to begin with, is because you either A: dident read it all and commenting anyways. or B: Decided to make a personal attack against my data that dident include that. So, in my own mind. You were either lazy, or aggresive in that statement. And just FYI - Ranger has a temper.<BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I did scan the whole 25 pages, but of course I did not read it all in detail. I responded to your post which I read in detail - that is why I qouted your post and not the entire 25 pages preceding that. I thought that would be obvious. <FONT color=#ffff00>Its not this thread, the gap pt 2.</FONT> </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Yeah I assumed that, but the quoting was done from this thread. That is why I posted it here.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>The fact remains, is that even though.. When the best of the best say "ok this is the trend at our level, and it is noticeable.. We have gone through steps to factor out skill of the player (comparing dps to others), buffs, gear, spell quality.. And come to that conclusion, then you have evidence to put forward.. And, the more the game progresses.. The more you will see things average out to that level. Everything we are saying and doing is but a warning sign tothe devs. If things arent ballanced now, immagine how they are going to be when this new expansion comes out. I highly doubt that things will be "on par" when it comes out.. If everything is done by a subclass level (dunno how the dietys are yet, but I think its a fairly safe bet that assassins will get the same as rangers) then sony will have to stop for a moment and change things..<BR><BR>Remember, sony put its breaks on rangers (and several other classes) back in LU 20.. They will have to do the same thing again in some form or another.. How long did it take them to realize that there was something wrong in the procs to begin with? If it takes them 7 months to realize somethings wrong, then my confidence in what the devs have for data is shot.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Yeah it took the 7 months to fix the proc bug, but I don't remember seeing too much complaints about that from rangers before :smileyhappy:<FONT color=#ffff33>First day I played during DoF.. First thing that came out of my mouth " wonder how long till I get nerfed"</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#ffff33></FONT></FONT> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Yeah it was funny trying to duel a ranger for a while.</FONT><BR></DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Peston

08-05-2006, 10:08 PM

<div></div>Oh just stop masseman... you aren't contributing anything to this thread other than your almost ludicrous ability at being a pain in the bum.All I see is you twisting words to make "YOUR" point. Unless you can post facts (ie. parses, screen shots, etc.) than you've got nothing.Your fancy talk isn't getting you anywhere and as you put it, you and LoreLady are just "going in circles." All I have seen is opinion. Lorelady and others have givin actual parses of fights, skill break downs; have you? HA... So unless you have something to contribute to this thread, I suggest you go away, you aren't making matters any better.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Peston on <span class=date_text>08-05-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:09 AM</span>

Asismii

08-06-2006, 12:38 AM

Well this thread is super long, so im just gonna answer the first question =-) My parsings are always the top of the raid or not far from it.. like was said, it depends on the dps of your raid too, and the more dps they do, the more you do.. so maybe the rest of my guild sucks, but i dont tthink so.. this is including generally raiding with 2 assassins 3 brigs, a wiz, a warlock, 2 other rangers a conj and a necro as primary dps.. i might be forgetting someone, but that's off the top of my head... i am one of the top parsing rangers on my server (befallen) and have yet to be beaten by any other ranger consistantly in parses, but i havent parsed against many rangers =-) but i have parsed against quite a few other raiding guild rangers.... so all in all, i dont think im doing too bad.. we just need to adapt to what sony throws at us, and keep plucking the arrows. =-D <div></div>

massem

08-06-2006, 01:43 AM

<P>Peston, I suggest you stop reading the forums unless you can bare reading posts from people disagreeing with you. Its called discussion forums because it is supposed to be centered around "discussion". </P> <P>However this thread should probably be locked, since any argumentation that is not in agreement with the politically correct "rangers suck all over" whine is met with personal attacks and rudeness. Haven't been playing for 2 months and I had almost forgot what an ugly place the ranger forums can be.<BR></P> <P>There has been numerous raid parses that show that all rangers do not "suck all over", one or two posted by me. Usually such parses are met with disbelief and more personal attacks so I do not see any point in providing new data. </P> <P>Have a nice day ...</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Peston wrote:<BR> Oh just stop masseman... you aren't contributing anything to this thread other than your almost ludicrous ability at being a pain in the bum.<BR><BR><BR>All I see is you twisting words to make "YOUR" point. Unless you can post facts (ie. parses, screen shots, etc.) than you've got nothing.<BR><BR>Your fancy talk isn't getting you anywhere and as you put it, you and LoreLady are just "going in circles." <BR><BR><BR><BR>All I have seen is opinion. Lorelady and others have givin actual parses of fights, skill break downs; have you? HA... <BR><BR><BR>So unless you have something to contribute to this thread, I suggest you go away, you aren't making matters any better.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Peston on <SPAN class=date_text>08-05-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:09 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-05-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:47 PM</span>

Gareorn

08-06-2006, 02:54 AM

<P>Please don't feed the troll. Everyone here knows this guy has a long history of pushing people's buttons. He comes to the Ranger forums for one purpose only. And, we all know what that purpose is.</P>

Pins

08-06-2006, 03:11 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Asismii wrote:<BR>Well this thread is super long, so im just gonna answer the first question =-)<BR><BR>My parsings are always the top of the raid or not far from it.. like was said, it depends on the dps of your raid too, and the more dps they do, the more you do.. so maybe the rest of my guild sucks, but i dont tthink so.. this is including generally raiding with 2 assassins 3 brigs, a wiz, a warlock, 2 other rangers a conj and a necro as primary dps.. i might be forgetting someone, but that's off the top of my head... i am one of the top parsing rangers on my server (befallen) and have yet to be beaten by any other ranger consistantly in parses, but i havent parsed against many rangers =-) but i have parsed against quite a few other raiding guild rangers.... so all in all, i dont think im doing too bad.. we just need to adapt to what sony throws at us, and keep plucking the arrows. =-D<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Please do not just say you are topping the parse all the time. SHOW you are topping the parse with parses.

massem

08-06-2006, 03:30 AM

If you mean me you just did .. IHave I provoked the wrath of the Ranger whiners ? - now I am in trouble lol ...<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gareorn wrote:<BR> <P>Please don't feed the troll. Everyone here knows this guy has a long history of pushing people's buttons. He comes to the Ranger forums for one purpose only. And, we all know what that purpose is.</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Peston

08-06-2006, 04:17 AM

I was not aware of that Gareorn, thank you for letting me know.<div></div>

MystaSkrat

08-06-2006, 04:21 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Asismii wrote:<BR> so maybe the rest of my guild sucks, but i dont tthink so.. this is including generally raiding with 2 assassins 3 brigs, a wiz, a warlock, 2 other rangers a conj and a necro as primary dps.. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Please do not just say you are topping the parse all the time. SHOW you are topping the parse with parses.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>2 assassins, a wizard, a conjuror, and a necro. You're a ranger, topping the parses, but you don't think anyone else that plays those classes suck? I too, would like to see these parses.<BR>

Ixnay

08-06-2006, 08:03 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR>2 assassins, a wizard, a conjuror, and a necro. You're a ranger, topping the parses, but you don't think anyone else that plays those classes suck? I too, would like to see these parses.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'll just say what everyone else is thinking!</P> <P>Show me those parses, and I'll show you 2 assassins, a wizard, a conjuror and a necro that suck!<BR></P>

LoreLady

08-06-2006, 08:19 PM

Ok, here is what we have to look at.. Is what are assassins doing to maintain high dps and we are not.. I am eliminating all 45 sec + abilities, and eliminating longblade/masked attack (same attack) and emberstrike/puncture blade (same attack) no point in comparing similar varaibles.The second set of numbers is DPS over recast time.<font face="Courier New">Deadly Wound(20s)(24d) 1431 71.55</font><font face="Courier New">Flowing Wound(30s)24d) 2063 68.8</font><font face="Courier New">Scraping Blow(10s)(12d) 713 71.3</font><font face="Courier New">Contrived Weapon(20s) 902 45.1 </font><font face="Courier New">Malignant Mark(30s) 3805 126.8 </font><font face="Courier New"> 8914 383.55</font><font face="Courier New">Arrow Rip(20s) 802 40.1 </font><font face="Courier New">Lunging Joust(20s) 815 40.75 </font><font face="Courier New">Shocking Thrust(10s) 588 58.8 </font><font face="Courier New">Snaring shot (10s) 533 53.3 </font><font face="Courier New">Mortal Reminder (30s) 2128 70.93</font><font face="Courier New"> 4856 263.88 Now, so I dont appear biased.. Since I added the damage of malignant mark at its max, I am goign to do the same for focus aim (this is goin to be a pain <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />)Focus aim(1 min) 2838 47.3 Malignant mark(30sx2) 7610 126.8383.55263.88==119.67I propose that at the very least we boost snaring shot to the damage of 800-1200 giving a sustained DPS reading of 80-120.While, cast times still need to be looked at.. Its quick and easy for me to put up this post to atleast justify the snaring shot damage change.</font>

MystaSkrat

08-06-2006, 08:35 PM

Without saying what the STR and what tier the spells are scribed at, none of that really means anything. I'm sitting here solo, and Malignant Mark adds up to 200 more than what you got, if I add all 5 at max damage, which never happens anyway. I think your variables are a little too variable. And I really don't know why you're comparing Mark to any ranger spell since you don't get anything similar, honestly.

LoreLady

08-06-2006, 08:37 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div>Without saying what the STR and what tier the spells are scribed at, none of that really means anything. I'm sitting here solo, and Malignant Mark adds up to 200 more than what you got, if I add all 5 at max damage, which never happens anyway. I think your variables are a little too variable. And I really don't know why you're comparing Mark to any ranger spell since you don't get anything similar, honestly.<hr></blockquote>When I did this, it was at 428 str unbuffed on both ends. And, I know your close to your str cap self buffed..</div>

Sirlutt

08-06-2006, 09:09 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div>Without saying what the STR and what tier the spells are scribed at, none of that really means anything. I'm sitting here solo, and Malignant Mark adds up to 200 more than what you got, if I add all 5 at max damage, which never happens anyway. <font color="#ff0000"> I think your variables are a little too variable.</font> And I really don't know why you're comparing Mark to any ranger spell since you don't get anything similar, honestly.<hr></blockquote>Stream of Arrows is supposed to the the spell thats similar to Mark (but in its own way) .. its currently fubared though. I agree with the red stuff.</div>

LoreLady

08-06-2006, 09:14 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div>Without saying what the STR and what tier the spells are scribed at, none of that really means anything. I'm sitting here solo, and Malignant Mark adds up to 200 more than what you got, if I add all 5 at max damage, which never happens anyway. <font color="#ff0000"> I think your variables are a little too variable.</font> And I really don't know why you're comparing Mark to any ranger spell since you don't get anything similar, honestly.<hr></blockquote>Stream of Arrows is supposed to the the spell thats similar to Mark (but in its own way) .. its currently fubared though. I agree with the red stuff.</div><hr></blockquote>Meh, I just dont like throwing plain opinion in without doing anything to back it up. And since I try and avoid basing my data on parsings.. Id rather base my data to something someone can replicate.</div>

Sirlutt

08-06-2006, 09:56 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div>Without saying what the STR and what tier the spells are scribed at, none of that really means anything. I'm sitting here solo, and Malignant Mark adds up to 200 more than what you got, if I add all 5 at max damage, which never happens anyway. <font color="#ff0000"> I think your variables are a little too variable.</font> And I really don't know why you're comparing Mark to any ranger spell since you don't get anything similar, honestly.<hr></blockquote>Stream of Arrows is supposed to the the spell thats similar to Mark (but in its own way) .. its currently fubared though. I agree with the red stuff.</div><hr></blockquote>Meh, I just dont like throwing plain opinion in without doing anything to back it up. And since I try and avoid basing my data on parsings.. Id rather base my data to something someone can replicate.</div><hr></blockquote>the issue with that data is, were the assassin and ranger of the same race, with the same stats, equipment, spell levels etc etc.. to compare that data you need to make sure EVERYTHING that could possibly lower or raise those numbers is exactly the same.. otherwise the data is flawed.Was Stream of Arrows in that ?</div>

MystaSkrat

08-06-2006, 10:48 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sirlutt wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>the issue with that data is, were the assassin and ranger of the same race, with the same stats, equipment, spell levels etc etc.. to compare that data you need to make sure EVERYTHING that could possibly lower or raise those numbers is exactly the same.. otherwise the data is flawed.<BR><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Here's what I figure... Shade of Ghazi is a good testing ground. It's a spawn where there's no real AEs, no adds, just pure dps. And you can decide when you want to fight him. One of you guilds that loves to buff your rangers up and have them at the top of the parse go do a Ghazi fight with an uber buffed ranger then come and compare here. I doubt a ranger can hit 2kdps over a 2 minute fight, but maybe I'm wrong... If you can you're definately not broken :smileyhappy:</P> <P><IMG src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/ghazi1.jpg"></P> <P>If his stupid AE didn't teleport I'd have had higher >.< But, the point is, an optimally buffed and played assassin can hit 2k for 2 minutes on that fight, shouldn't an optimally buffed and played ranger be close?</P>

massem

08-06-2006, 11:57 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <P><BR>Here's what I figure... Shade of Ghazi is a good testing ground. It's a spawn where there's no real AEs, no adds, just pure dps. <BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong, if you want to know the overall DPS capability you should take into account also AE fights. Entire raidzone averages would make sense, although the dev data that was posted is better since it includes also non-raiding players. On average rangers are fine - on isolated cases like you pick out they are not.</P> <P>With your logic, Warlocks DPS would be inferior to Wizard DPS since they cannot reach as high single-target DPS as a Wizard. They compensate that with better AE. I forgot what the skills are called, but typically a ranger blows my assassin out of the water with his AEs. But maybe its just me that suck ...</P> <P> </P>

LoreLady

08-07-2006, 12:15 AM

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> MystaSkratch wrote: <div></div> <p>Here's what I figure... Shade of Ghazi is a good testing ground. It's a spawn where there's no real AEs, no adds, just pure dps. </p> <p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Wrong, if you want to know the overall DPS capability you should take into account also AE fights. Entire raidzone averages would make sense, although the dev data that was posted is better since it includes also non-raiding players. On average rangers are fine - on isolated cases like you pick out they are not.</p> <p>With your logic, Warlocks DPS would be inferior to Wizard DPS since they cannot reach as high single-target DPS as a Wizard. They compensate that with better AE. I forgot what the skills are called, but typically a ranger blows my assassin out of the water with his AEs. But maybe its just me that suck ...</p> <hr></blockquote>Cept the only wrench into your gears.. Is you still seem to think that rangers can hold ranged dps, assassins get just as powerful (just not as many) ranged attacks as rangers do. So, you still connot say that as a viable retort.PS next person who says everything I do is not viable [Removed for Content] off and keep your yap shut.. Unless you want to try and bend the numbers doing your own thing to show your own conclusion.. Dont bring opinion in when two things that are equal going in.. And Btw, if I do everything - lowest/highest you name it.. Im still going to get the same answer.. And, I have done all this crap over and over again in diffrent ways, showing diffrent things.. I try and keep opinion out of any debate.. If things were diffrent and rangers were able to keep up with assassins it would show nomatter what I did, but since no matter what I do nomatter what way I try and do it that gives rangers/assassins a fair playing field I always seem to get snude remarksHostilities aside.. The two things you have to look at, are dps per cast time, and dps per recast and then decide from there, and then decide how both classes do on dps spikes per ability, and then look how each class has the ability to maintain it.. The conclusion is simple, all you have to do is take the time to look at both of them and do the math in your head, thats how I came to this conclusion back int he day.. I am still comming to this conclusion now.</div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>08-06-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:25 PM</span>

massem

08-07-2006, 12:36 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <P><BR>Here's what I figure... Shade of Ghazi is a good testing ground. It's a spawn where there's no real AEs, no adds, just pure dps. <BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wrong, if you want to know the overall DPS capability you should take into account also AE fights. Entire raidzone averages would make sense, although the dev data that was posted is better since it includes also non-raiding players. On average rangers are fine - on isolated cases like you pick out they are not.</P> <P>With your logic, Warlocks DPS would be inferior to Wizard DPS since they cannot reach as high single-target DPS as a Wizard. They compensate that with better AE. I forgot what the skills are called, but typically a ranger blows my assassin out of the water with his AEs. But maybe its just me that suck ...</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Cept the only wrench into your gears.. Is you still seem to think that rangers can hold ranged dps, assassins get just as powerful (just not as many) ranged attacks as rangers do. So, you still connot say that as a viable retort.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>My argument did not point at <EM>ranged vs. close-up DPS</EM>, rather it was about <EM>AE versus single-target DPS</EM>.</P> <P>On the other hand, I do know that the ranged attacks my assassin gets are pretty good, I was under the impressions that rangers had a bit better, but thats the field where you are the expert and I won't argue.</P> <P>My main hangup is that DD is not equal to DPS. I don't see (many) Warlocks crying blood over that Wizards happened to get Ice Comet and they got Devastation - they are both awesome spells. Those who did are likely to have already respec'ed as a Wizard.</P> <P> </P>

MystaSkrat

08-07-2006, 12:39 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Wrong, if you want to know the overall DPS capability you should take into account also AE fights. Entire raidzone averages would make sense, although the dev data that was posted is better since it includes also non-raiding players. On average rangers are fine - on isolated cases like you pick out they are not.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>AEs don't effect me and it can interupt ranged attacks, so I'd have the advantage then anyway. I'm not gonna pretend that AEs are something you have to joust if you know what resists are. Which is why I picked this fight. I'm aware a full zone parse is better, but guess what? We've provided ones where rangers wouldn't come close to our top dps, but it's <EM>never</EM> their fault. Regardless, this encounter is a perfect one to use, you can say it doesn't measure DPS capabilities, and I'll argue that it does. 2 classes that are supposed to be similar, on a fight with little variables, sounds like the perfect experiment environment to me.

massem

08-07-2006, 01:00 AM

<DIV>I will reword a bit to make it easier to understand, maybe I my wording was confusing, since both Lore and you misunderstood.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What I am saying is that rangers can deal more damage when the encounter is a multiple target encounter, and </DIV> <DIV>an assassin can deal more damager when the target encounter consists of a single mob. Notice the symmetry</DIV> <DIV>with Warlocks/Wizards ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And I don't buy the argument that the AEs that the mobs deal out are irrelevant, even though it may be to you</DIV> <DIV>if you have good gear to optimize resists for any encounter. Most family style guilds still have big problems with AE from encounters like for example Lord Vyemm, and rely on handcrafted jeweller recipes for resist gear, which can cause significant stat loss.</DIV> <DIV>And please, everyone without multiple sets of fabled gear do no necessarily "suck at playing" their class.</DIV>

MystaSkrat

08-07-2006, 01:02 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What I am saying is that rangers can deal more damage when the encounter is a multiple target encounter, and</DIV> <DIV>an assassin can deal more damager when the target encounter consists of a single mob. Notice the symmetry</DIV> <DIV>with Warlocks/Wizards ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Rangers have 3 (i think) AEs, Assassins have 2. Where's this balance in AE and Single target damage supposed to be? Seems we're both mainly single target to me...<BR>

massem

08-07-2006, 01:18 AM

<DIV>Some of the attacks they have deal signicantly more AE damage than assassins.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Remember Warlocks also have more or less the same number (give or take one or two) of single target attacks as wizards, its just that the wizard one deal more damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I wouldnt call ranger an AE specialist, rather an "allround" DPS. Assassins on the other hand are DD specialists, since the AE damage we can do (my alt is an assassin) is rather modest with Wizards standards. If timers up a ranger can do comparable AE DPS to a wizard, assassins do not even come close. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-06-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:21 PM</span>

Crychtonn

08-07-2006, 01:27 AM

<P>Rangers have two AE's same as assassins.</P> <P>Selection is out of encounter, requires stealth, has a 3 sec cast time (not including time spent dropping into stealth) and is on a one minute recast.</P> <P>Rain of Arrow is encounter, has a cast time of 2 sec and on a three minute timer.</P> <P> </P> <P>Rangers tend to out DPS assassins on AE fights simply because ranger AE's do higher damage but are on longer recast. Most AE fights are so short assassins don't get the chance to recast their AE attacks. If an AE fight lasts longer then 45 sec assassins can pull even or ahead of rangers in an AE fight. But since most AE fights never last that long it makes it appear rangers are better at AE's.</P> <P> </P>

LoreLady

08-07-2006, 02:50 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div> <p>Rangers have two AE's same as assassins.</p> <p>Selection is out of encounter, requires stealth, has a 3 sec cast time (not including time spent dropping into stealth) and is on a one minute recast.</p> <p>Rain of Arrow is encounter, has a cast time of 2 sec and on a three minute timer.</p> <p>Rangers tend to out DPS assassins on AE fights simply because ranger AE's do higher damage but are on longer recast. Most AE fights are so short assassins don't get the chance to recast their AE attacks. If an AE fight lasts longer then 45 sec assassins can pull even or ahead of rangers in an AE fight. But since most AE fights never last that long it makes it appear rangers are better at AE's.</p> <hr></blockquote>Id like to state that this information is false. Heres how AE's are - I did another post on this and heres how it wentInstantly, the ranger did more damage, but after the 1 min mark the assassin spiked above the ranger, and again at the 1 min 30 mark.. At the 2 min mark (with perfectionist) - the ranger spiked above the assassin, and held it till the 2 30 min mark, then the assassin spikes higher at the 3 min mark.. AE's are ballaned.</div>

massem

08-07-2006, 02:59 AM

<P>Aah my old friend Crychtonn again - it seems roles are reversed now since you made your valuable contributions on the wizard DPS threads around half a year ago. We were fixed after all, despite yours and other ranger's lies and derailment attempts...:smileyhappy:</P> <P>So you say that when parses show rangers on top it is simply a mathematical anomaly, and those parses should be discarded .... wtg ... did anyone hear about fundamentalism ?</P> <P>I remind you that rangers are still in much much better shape than the wizards of 6-12 months ago that you said were just fine at that time. Wizards could at that time only dream of the 1000+ DPS that a ranger easily achieves now. </P> <P> </P>

LoreLady

08-07-2006, 03:11 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <p>Aah my old friend Crychtonn again - it seems roles are reversed now since you made your valuable contributions on the wizard DPS threads around half a year ago. We were fixed after all, despite yours and other ranger's lies and derailment attempts...:smileyhappy:</p> <p>So you say that when parses show rangers on top it is simply a mathematical anomaly, and those parses should be discarded .... wtg ... did anyone hear about fundamentalism ?</p> <p>I remind you that rangers are still in much much better shape than the wizards of 6-12 months ago that you said were just fine at that time. Wizards could at that time only dream of the 1000+ DPS that a ranger easily achieves now. </p> <hr></blockquote>Just as the wizard easilly achieves 2k? (or close to it).. Any wizards holding about 1kish dps, need to have alot of things changed about there play style or spells. A wizard going all out (thats near mastered) - can quite easilly do 2k dps.. And a ranger pulls out every stop hes got to reach 1kish dps..Its this simple, if your assassin's or wizards are not beating the ranger you either need to get them more masters, regroup so that agro is not a problem, or this person needs lessons.. Currently as a ranger im the top dps in my guild.. however, my guild has gone back several steps due to peoples RL's and summer.. And we nolonger have our wizard or assassin (or atleast I have not seen them on in a matter of months), and I am currently better geared/mastered then both.. And still cannot touch there average dps. On the other hand though, many people are holding back due to agro.. I dont. (new MT's will cause people to start holding back).</div>

massem

08-07-2006, 03:23 AM

<P>Perhaps part of the reason you don't need to hold back is that your personal aggro reducer is better than any other T1 DPS class in the game ? Perhaps part of reason you don't hold back is that your attacks are so power efficient that you don't have to worry about power management ? </P> <P>During DoF very few, if any Wizards could go above 1000 DPS on single targets - at that time rangers were always above and peaked upwards 1400-1500 if I remeber correctly. </P> <P>2000 DPS on single target for a wizard requires group setups that are utopian for family style guilds (if you talk single target), especially during the summer off-peak season as you say. 1200-1600 is probably average single target DPS for a wizard, and its pretty close to what an average ranger can do. </P> <P>You had your time as flavour of the month during DoF - and I wouldn't be surprised if you are back there after the release of EoF, but at least then my assassin should be fully geared so I can ditch my wizard if it gets too bad. <BR></P><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-06-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:25 PM</span>

Tseri

08-07-2006, 05:01 AM

<P>You don't play a Ranger even as an alt, do you?<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <P>Perhaps part of the reason you don't need to hold back is that your personal aggro reducer is better than any other T1 DPS class in the game ? Perhaps part of reason you don't hold back is that your attacks are so power efficient that you don't have to worry about power management ? </P> <P><FONT color=#cc0099>~~If I end a fight with more than half of my power I either had a heart, shard, manastone, and mental breach poison (or any combination of those), or the fight was very short. Our personal agro reducer is almost pointless to master because we don't do enough comparative damage to make anymore than 39% (adept3) useful. Other classes that are doing more damage are going to grab the agro much faster than we are. So following that line of reasoning, should they do less damage? No, we should do more damage. Make Elude and Surveillance useful for their purposes...deagro.</FONT></P> <P>During DoF very few, if any Wizards could go above 1000 DPS on single targets - at that time rangers were always above and peaked upwards 1400-1500 if I remeber correctly. </P> <P><FONT color=#cc3399>~~Yes, we know. If I remember correctly most of us loved it, but the majority agreed that we were overpowered and needed to be adjusted. Not knee jerk nerf batted thoough.</FONT></P> <P>2000 DPS on single target for a wizard requires group setups that are utopian for family style guilds (if you talk single target), especially during the summer off-peak season as you say. 1200-1600 is probably average single target DPS for a wizard, and its pretty close to what an average ranger can do. </P> <P><FONT color=#cc0099>~~I consider myself above average. I still have my newbish moments and I'm not as well geared as I hope to eventually be, but I work my hiney off for my DPS. I would say that my average is 1000 - 1200. I do occasionally hit 1600 dps but that is on very short AE fights, of which the assassin can still either match my DPS or out damage me. Generally in this situation the wizard is out damaging me too. 2000 dps isn't going to happen for me even if I had 100% haste and dps.</FONT></P> <P>You had your time as flavour of the month during DoF - and I wouldn't be surprised if you are back there after the release of EoF, but at least then my assassin should be fully geared so I can ditch my wizard if it gets too bad. <BR></P> <P>Message Edited by masseman on <SPAN class=date_text>08-06-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:25 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

LoreLady

08-07-2006, 08:16 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <p>Perhaps part of the reason you don't need to hold back is that your personal aggro reducer is better than any other T1 DPS class in the game ? Perhaps part of reason you don't hold back is that your attacks are so power efficient that you don't have to worry about power management ?<font color="#ff0000">Power efficient? Im the first to run out of power over my assassin/wizard even with mental breach.</font> </p> <p>During DoF very few, if any Wizards could go above 1000 DPS on single targets - at that time rangers were always above and peaked upwards 1400-1500 if I remeber correctly. <font color="#ff0000">Just as melee need that 100% dps/haste mod.</font></p> <p>2000 DPS on single target for a wizard requires group setups that are utopian for family style guilds (if you talk single target), especially during the summer off-peak season as you say. 1200-1600 is probably average single target DPS for a wizard, and its pretty close to what an average ranger can do.<font color="#ff0000"> 1200-1600 is not your average ranger, but the best geared kind. </font> </p> <p>You had your time as flavour of the month during DoF - and I wouldn't be surprised if you are back there after the release of EoF, but at least then my assassin should be fully geared so I can ditch my wizard if it gets too bad. <font color="#ff0000">I fear EoF, if theres offballance here - there is going to be much bigger off ballance in EoF. Or, they are going to regear rangers to be onpar with seperate abilities rather than fix the base of the problem.. Much like they did with rangers in eq1, cept fixing a problem to them was making us do an epic 2.0.</font></p><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class="date_text">08-06-2006</span> <span class="time_text">04:25 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote></div>

Crychtonn

08-07-2006, 08:32 AM

<DIV>Lorelady how many AE fights ever last over your one minute mark and allow assasins to spike ?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Masseman you were great at spouting out false information back then and you're still doing it. I could careless on anything you post based on past experience knowing 90% of it is false, misleading and exaggerated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Mirdo

08-07-2006, 10:32 AM

<DIV>Just don't feed the trolls. They've been here before and are back again - ignore them. They just want threads locked and bring nothing to the discussion - they will use conjecture and opinion with no substance to de-rail threads. It's very easy to skip over their posts once you know who they are :smileywink:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mirdo.</DIV>

massem

08-07-2006, 12:30 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Masseman you were great at spouting out false information back then and you're still doing it. I could careless on anything you post based on past experience knowing 90% of it is false, misleading and exaggerated.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Boy the truth seems to hurt for you ... <BR>

massem

08-07-2006, 12:37 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <P>Perhaps part of the reason you don't need to hold back is that your personal aggro reducer is better than any other T1 DPS class in the game ? Perhaps part of reason you don't hold back is that your attacks are so power efficient that you don't have to worry about power management ?<FONT color=#ff0000>Power efficient? Im the first to run out of power over my assassin/wizard even with mental breach.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Then most likely you either got no power regen gear whatsoever, or your wizards are afk or have bard/chanter power regen. </FONT> </P> <P>During DoF very few, if any Wizards could go above 1000 DPS on single targets - at that time rangers were always above and peaked upwards 1400-1500 if I remeber correctly. <FONT color=#ff0000>Just as melee need that 100% dps/haste mod.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>A wizard doesn't need 1 buffer class to do good DPS - we need 3. Illu power regen, trouba spell haste+procs and dehate. Just a dirge or a coercer can do a pretty good job on buffing a ranger himself. </FONT></P> <P>2000 DPS on single target for a wizard requires group setups that are utopian for family style guilds (if you talk single target), especially during the summer off-peak season as you say. 1200-1600 is probably average single target DPS for a wizard, and its pretty close to what an average ranger can do.<FONT color=#ff0000> 1200-1600 is not your average ranger, but the best geared kind. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2000+ DPS is not the best geared wizard either - its the best geared wizard in the optimal group setup.</FONT></P> <P>You had your time as flavour of the month during DoF - and I wouldn't be surprised if you are back there after the release of EoF, but at least then my assassin should be fully geared so I can ditch my wizard if it gets too bad. <FONT color=#ff0000>I fear EoF, if theres offballance here - there is going to be much bigger off ballance in EoF. Or, they are going to regear rangers to be onpar with seperate abilities rather than fix the base of the problem.. Much like they did with rangers in eq1, cept fixing a problem to them was making us do an epic 2.0.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Considered rolling an alt ? Just don't do like Crychton and roll a second flavour of the month class so you have the alt nerfed at the same time as the ranger. </FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

LoreLady

08-07-2006, 06:43 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LoreLady wrote: <div> <blockquote> <hr> masseman wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <p>Perhaps part of the reason you don't need to hold back is that your personal aggro reducer is better than any other T1 DPS class in the game ? Perhaps part of reason you don't hold back is that your attacks are so power efficient that you don't have to worry about power management ?<font color="#ff0000">Power efficient? Im the first to run out of power over my assassin/wizard even with mental breach.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Then most likely you either got no power regen gear whatsoever, or your wizards are afk or have bard/chanter power regen. </font> <font color="#ff0000">Please dont make statements unless you can back them up, I have ft 10 (chose HP as my racial) and consistantly use mental breach poisons, and dont my prissy 2. Again, dont comment on anything you dont know about.</font></p> <p>During DoF very few, if any Wizards could go above 1000 DPS on single targets - at that time rangers were always above and peaked upwards 1400-1500 if I remeber correctly. <font color="#ff0000">Just as melee need that 100% dps/haste mod.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">A wizard doesn't need 1 buffer class to do good DPS - we need 3. Illu power regen, trouba spell haste+procs and dehate. Just a dirge or a coercer can do a pretty good job on buffing a ranger himself. </font></p> <p>2000 DPS on single target for a wizard requires group setups that are utopian for family style guilds (if you talk single target), especially during the summer off-peak season as you say. 1200-1600 is probably average single target DPS for a wizard, and its pretty close to what an average ranger can do.<font color="#ff0000"> 1200-1600 is not your average ranger, but the best geared kind. </font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">2000+ DPS is not the best geared wizard either - its the best geared wizard in the optimal group setup.<font color="#ff0000">1600 is as high as the ranger goes (cept for spikes), you clearly stated that wizards can go 2000+. </font></font></p> <p>You had your time as flavour of the month during DoF - and I wouldn't be surprised if you are back there after the release of EoF, but at least then my assassin should be fully geared so I can ditch my wizard if it gets too bad. <font color="#ff0000">I fear EoF, if theres offballance here - there is going to be much bigger off ballance in EoF. Or, they are going to regear rangers to be onpar with seperate abilities rather than fix the base of the problem.. Much like they did with rangers in eq1, cept fixing a problem to them was making us do an epic 2.0.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffff00">Considered rolling an alt ? Just don't do like Crychton and roll a second flavour of the month class so you have the alt nerfed at the same time as the ranger.<font color="#ff0000">I have a hard time getting intersted in another class, cant get into assassin, tried dirge, afew healers, tanks.. I just dont enjoy them, I have been a ranger since the pen and papper days, eq1 days, and now the eq2 days.. Its my thing.</font> </font></p> <p></p> <hr> </blockquote></div> <hr> </blockquote><hr></blockquote></div>

Jay

08-07-2006, 09:01 PM

<P>Well, this thread sure has gone downhill in a hurry. But did anyone else notice the cool rasta color scheme a few pages back? I was pretty into that, so I put on some Bob Marley and broke out the catnip. Feelin irie, mon?</P> <P>PS: Actual post content changed to protect the innocent.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Somebody wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Somebody Else wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah AEs blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah ranger dance blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah - jousting, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah! Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah melee blah blah, blah blah! <FONT color=#ffff00>Blah?? Blah blah, blah! Blah blah blah... blah blah blah. Blah blah! Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah DPS. Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah parses blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah utility blah blah blah blah, blah ranged weapons blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah blah Fabled bows blah, blah blah.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#66ff00>Blah blah blah blah: Blah blah, blah blah! So blah blah serverwide blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah Devs blah blah, blah blah, blah. Blah blah...blah blah, blah! Blah blah, blah self-buffs blah. Blah! Blah blah blah blah data blah blah the gap pt 2 blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah melee dmg blah blah blah.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

Crychtonn

08-07-2006, 09:30 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <P>Perhaps part of the reason you don't need to hold back is that your personal aggro reducer is better than any other T1 DPS class in the game ? Perhaps part of reason you don't hold back is that your attacks are so power efficient that you don't have to worry about power management ?<FONT color=#ff0000>Power efficient? Im the first to run out of power over my assassin/wizard even with mental breach.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Then most likely you either got no power regen gear whatsoever, or your wizards are afk or have bard/chanter power regen. </FONT> </P> <P>During DoF very few, if any Wizards could go above 1000 DPS on single targets - at that time rangers were always above and peaked upwards 1400-1500 if I remeber correctly. <FONT color=#ff0000>Just as melee need that 100% dps/haste mod.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>A wizard doesn't need 1 buffer class to do good DPS - we need 3. Illu power regen<FONT color=#339900> (1) </FONT>, trouba spell haste+procs and dehate <FONT color=#339900>(2) where is #3 ??</FONT>. Just a dirge or a coercer can do a pretty good job on buffing a ranger himself. </FONT></P> <P>2000 DPS on single target for a wizard requires group setups that are utopian for family style guilds (if you talk single target), especially during the summer off-peak season as you say. 1200-1600 is probably average single target DPS for a wizard, and its pretty close to what an average ranger can do.<FONT color=#ff0000> 1200-1600 is not your average ranger, but the best geared kind. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2000+ DPS is not the best geared wizard either - its the best geared wizard in the optimal group setup. </FONT><FONT color=#339900>Your numbers and gap between them look to be in reverse of what they were in DoF. Guess you should start lobbing to get wizards nerf'd.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#339900>At least we know why you haven't started a rally to get assassins nerf'd since they now out dps you wizard. That's your alt.</FONT></P> <P>You had your time as flavour of the month during DoF - and I wouldn't be surprised if you are back there after the release of EoF, but at least then my assassin should be fully geared so I can ditch my wizard if it gets too bad. <FONT color=#ff0000>I fear EoF, if theres offballance here - there is going to be much bigger off ballance in EoF. Or, they are going to regear rangers to be onpar with seperate abilities rather than fix the base of the problem.. Much like they did with rangers in eq1, cept fixing a problem to them was making us do an epic 2.0.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Considered rolling an alt ? Just don't do like Crychton and roll a second flavour of the month class so you have the alt nerfed at the same time as the ranger. </FONT><FONT color=#339900>Don't even try and pull that fotm crap. My ranger was created the 2nd day this game was out. And my conjuror was made long before DoF came out and was L49.8 when it did. I made him because I wanted a toon I could solo well with. Something rangers were very poor at doing, along with everything else.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#339900></FONT></P> <P></P><FONT color=#339900>Wait don't you have a wizard and an assassin now ? Doesn't that make you a FotM player.</FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Prandtl

08-07-2006, 10:02 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jay42 wrote:<BR> <P>Well, this thread sure has gone downhill in a hurry. But did anyone else notice the cool rasta color scheme a few pages back? I was pretty into that, so I put on some Bob Marley and broke out the catnip. Feelin irie, mon?</P> <P>PS: Actual post content changed to protect the innocent.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Somebody wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Somebody Else wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah AEs blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah ranger dance blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah - jousting, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah! Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah melee blah blah, blah blah! <FONT color=#ffff00>Blah?? Blah blah, blah! Blah blah blah... blah blah blah. Blah blah! Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah DPS. Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah parses blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah utility blah blah blah blah, blah ranged weapons blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah blah Fabled bows blah, blah blah.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#66ff00>Blah blah blah blah: Blah blah, blah blah! So blah blah serverwide blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah Devs blah blah, blah blah, blah. Blah blah...blah blah, blah! Blah blah, blah self-buffs blah. Blah! Blah blah blah blah data blah blah the gap pt 2 blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah melee dmg blah blah blah.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>ROFL!</P> <P>Actually, I'm surprised it took masseman 25 pages to come troll this thread. Your slipping, mass!</P>

Dirtgirl

08-07-2006, 10:58 PM

<P><FONT color=#ffcc66>What I dont get is why we havn't seen Btilthemage back. Him and Mass, the two biggest Ranger forum baiting mage fanbois around.<BR></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffcc66>:smileysurprised: did I say that?</FONT></P>

Bledso

08-07-2006, 11:09 PM

<P>Next to basil - parsing is a top favorite seasoning for me</P> <P>In chicken, soups and pasta dishes it can't be beat..... I usually like to harvest fresh.....</P> <P>Parsing not parsley....... NVM....</P>

massem

08-07-2006, 11:16 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>LoreLady wrote:</P> <P>Perhaps part of the reason you don't need to hold back is that your personal aggro reducer is better than any other T1 DPS class in the game ? Perhaps part of reason you don't hold back is that your attacks are so power efficient that you don't have to worry about power management ?<FONT color=#ff0000>Power efficient? Im the first to run out of power over my assassin/wizard even with mental breach.</FONT></P><FONT color=#ff0000> <P><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#00cc00>Since you refuse to accept any argument not backed up by numbers, I dug some up. Compare Ranger's blade M1 (1381-2302) dmg for 134 power, for an average 27 dmg per power point, to Wizard Ball of Lava M1 (1321-2453) for 299 power, for an average 13 dmg per power point. </FONT></FONT><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#00cc00>Thus the ranger spell is more than twice as power efficient. I don't think I need to mention that rangers get another couple of hundred DPS from autoattack that Wizards miss out on. Feel free to check all the other spells, you might find one where the mana cost is actually balanced, but the majority of spells arent.</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#00cc00>Well I can respect your complaints on total DPS, but complaining about poor damage to power ratio is just redicolous, if you compare to other classes. </FONT></FONT></P></FONT> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Then most likely you either got no power regen gear whatsoever, or your wizards are afk or have bard/chanter power regen. </FONT> <FONT color=#ff0000>Please dont make statements unless you can back them up, I have ft 10 (chose HP as my racial) and consistantly use mental breach poisons, and dont my prissy 2. Again, dont comment on anything you dont know about.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000><FONT color=#00cc00>So you only have FT10 and the poison - you dont use power regen like I suspected .... Maybe try to find a few FT items. That could make a small difference if you really are limited by power consumption. I never met a ranger whose DPS was limited by power before though, but someone must be the first, and maybe you don't get a dirge in your raid group, or he doesn't have the power regen buff up.</FONT></FONT></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

Tseri

08-07-2006, 11:28 PM

<P>I was obviously completely overlooked in this post war between LL and Masstroll.</P> <P> </P> <P>LOOKIE! Two Rangers with DPS limited by POWER!</P> <P> </P> <P>I'm generally in a group with either a Trouby or Illusionist.</P> <P> </P> <P>I have power regen. I use mental Breach. There are even *gasp* power potions!</P> <P> </P> <P>Try again please.</P>

MystaSkrat

08-07-2006, 11:33 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Some of the attacks they have deal signicantly more AE damage than assassins.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This is that same fight. Remember, it's all single target. Cloaked Assault is an AE on a 30 sec recast that was only hitting one target the whole time. It's one of my highest damaging CA for that fight. I don't know where you're getting your opinions from, or maybe you're just making stuff up, but either way, it's wrong. Selection and Slaughtersault are essentially the same skill, but comparing Rain of Arrows to Cloaked Assault I think mine wins out anyway, I can cast it 4 times (5 with Exacting) for every 1 RoA (with perfectionist) and it's gonna average 2500+ per target every time I cast it.</P> <P><IMG src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/cloakedassault.jpg"></P>

massem

08-07-2006, 11:35 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crychtonn wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>A wizard doesn't need 1 buffer class to do good DPS - we need 3. Illu power regen<FONT color=#339900> (1) </FONT>, trouba spell haste+procs and dehate <FONT color=#339900>(2) where is #3 ??</FONT>. Just a dirge or a coercer can do a pretty good job on buffing a ranger himself. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ff0000>Sorry, my mistake there. I should have said 4 buffers, (#1) Fury for intbuff+power pool buff, (#2) Pallie for dehate (Amends) or Coercer/Dirge in MT group for MT hate buff, (#3) Illu for power regen+procs, and (#4) Trouba for dehate+spellhaste+procs. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2000+ DPS is not the best geared wizard either - its the best geared wizard in the optimal group setup. </FONT><FONT color=#339900>Your numbers and gap between them look to be in reverse of what they were in DoF. Guess you should start lobbing to get wizards nerf'd.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>By far the most references to rangers on the wizard DPS threads, where made by you and other rangers trolling those thread. Two other classes were as overpowered as rangers at that time, but they werent crying so much about nerfcalling and were only seldomly discussed in those threads. You brought the attention to the ranger class yourselves ... </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#339900>At least we know why you haven't started a rally to get assassins nerf'd since they now out dps you wizard. That's your alt.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00><FONT color=#ff0000>Why would I waste energy on that - if I wanted that, I would just leave the job to the ranger pros. This thread is a testament to that - lol ...</FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Considered rolling an alt ? Just don't do like Crychton and roll a second flavour of the month class so you have the alt nerfed at the same time as the ranger. </FONT><FONT color=#339900>Don't even try and pull that fotm crap. My ranger was created the 2nd day this game was out. And my conjuror was made long before DoF came out and was L49.8 when it did. I made him because I wanted a toon I could solo well with. Something rangers were very poor at doing, along with everything else.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#339900></FONT></P> <P></P> <P><FONT color=#339900>Wait don't you have a wizard and an assassin now ? Doesn't that make you a FotM player.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000> I rolled the assassin at a time when the only people actually believing Wizards was a viable raid DPS class was a handful of rangers trolling the wizard boards. The raid parses in DoF blatantly displayed how the combat revamp had failed to fix wizards as raid DPS. </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>So with the assassin it looks like I am guilty as charged. But wait ... if I wanted the FoTM predator at that time, shouldn't I have rolled a ranger ? </FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>And ... thanks Jay for the Funny and uplifting part - this forum seriously need some <FONT color=#33cc00>Jah</FONT> <FONT color=#ff0000>Jah</FONT> <FONT color=#ffff00>Love</FONT>. </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

massem

08-07-2006, 11:39 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Prandtl wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I'm surprised it took masseman 25 pages to come troll this thread. Your slipping, mass!</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>There has been so many ranger whine threads lately I don't bother to read them all. But there is a limit for everything and 25 pages is certainly enough.... Our friend LoreLady sure is busy ...</P> <P>Maybe I have been missing you and my other ranger friends from the wizard boards, and would like to exchange a few interesting points of view :smileyhappy:</P> <P>The funny thing is that you have been crying for dev posts on your perceived DPS shortage for ages, and you finally get the server wide parse data of the average mr Joe ranger compared to average Mr Joe's Wizard and Assassin. However, the truth is not comfortable and you brand the poor dev who dared post as a fabricator of parser and a liar, as you do with everyone else who dare post parse data that proves that it is indeed possible to do good DPS with a ranger. </P> <P>This is a historic moment that I think no other class got so far - you had you chance to open a serious discussion... and you blew it .... way to go ....<BR></P>

massem

08-08-2006, 12:12 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Some of the attacks they have deal signicantly more AE damage than assassins.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>This is that same fight. Remember, it's all single target. Cloaked Assault is an AE on a 30 sec recast that was only hitting one target the whole time. It's one of my highest damaging CA for that fight. I don't know where you're getting your opinions from, or maybe you're just making stuff up, but either way, it's wrong. Selection and Slaughtersault are essentially the same skill, but comparing Rain of Arrows to Cloaked Assault I think mine wins out anyway, I can cast it 4 times (5 with Exacting) for every 1 RoA (with perfectionist) and it's gonna average 2500+ per target every time I cast it.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Average dmg per mob for Rain of Arrows (M1) : (1891+3152)/2 = 2521<BR>Average dmg per mob for Cloaked assault (M1) : (554+924)/2 insta+ 6*168 over 12 seconds = 1747</P> <P>Damage figures from eq2idb in cas you wonder.</P> <P>On a group encounter you can forget that all the mobs last 30 seconds, probably all are dead in less than half of that. If you pull groups rapidly, you can use the recast for better DPS. </P> <P>On your typical junk mob AE encounter in a raidzone perhaps one or two of the mobs last more than 30 seconds, which would allow you to recast. For the assassin spell to become better the mobs need to stay alive on average 2521/1747 * 30 = 44 seconds.</P> <P>But I agree, when used on a single target that stay up minutes the assassin AE spells appear more efficient than the ranger spell. </P> <P>That is why I specified the ranger's timers having to be up to in my post above, because I know from experience that any argument made speaking against the suckiness of rangers will be nitpicked and twisted in and out. </P> <P><EM>Going to the extent of comparing the efficiency of and AE damage spell on single targets was however further away from something sensible than I could imagine, when I made that statement, but basically I agree with your point: On single target raid boss mobs the assassins AE spells are better than the Rangers. </EM></P> <P>I don't see what relevance your example has to the capability of dealing out AE damage though ... The only conclusion I can draw is that Assassins indeed are single-target specialists and rangers more of an allround type DPS, which was the point I made in my post higher up. </P> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-07-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:32 PM</span>

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 12:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Average dmg per mob for Rain of Arrows (M1) : (1891+3152)/2 = 2521<BR>Average dmg per mob for Cloaked assault (M1) : (554+924)/2 insta+ 6*168 over 12 seconds = 1747</P> <P>Damage figures from eq2idb in cas you wonder.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I wasn't wondering, but I'll take my parsers and numbers on my screen over eq2idb... But you'll agree at least, that Ranger AEs aren't exactly better than an assassins, especially in one sustained fight, and calling them AE and assassins single target dps doesn't really fit, right?<BR>

massem

08-08-2006, 12:35 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR>I wasn't wondering, but I'll take my parsers and numbers on my screen over eq2idb... But you'll agree at least, that Ranger AEs aren't exactly better than an assassins, especially in one sustained fight, and calling them AE and assassins single target dps doesn't really fit, right?<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I think we are basically in agreement, but I called Rangers "allround" in the sense of a mix between AE and DD, whereas assassins basically are DD specialists. The distinction between warlocks/wizard is much more notable, however the same trend is partly there.<BR>

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 01:11 AM

Well then, there ya go, assassins and rangers both have the same number of AEs. So what I said about a superbly buffed ranger doing 1800 - 2000 dps for a couple minutes on that encounter seems reasonable to me. If there's a gap, I'd sure like to see how big it is and at what point you have to stop justifying it by saying they aren't supposed to do single target dps when we have basicly the same CAs.

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 01:20 AM

<div><blockquote><blockquote><p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Average dmg per mob for Rain of Arrows (M1) : (1891+3152)/2 = 2521Average dmg per mob for Cloaked assault (M1) : (554+924)/2 insta+ 6*168 over 12 seconds = 1747</p><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class="date_text">08-07-2006</span> <span class="time_text">01:32 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Gotta put more context into this, I said that rangers have more damage on AE's on the first strike - then it jumps back and forth after that.. Forinstance - taking your numbers..2521 at 3 minutes (going to assume perfectionist is not there)1747 at 1 minute, 3491 at 2, 5241 at 3.. Not saying assassins are better at AE's at all and dont let yourself think otherwise..Comparing these two abilities alone wont get you anywhere without putting in intervals between those abilities.. If you wish to look further on this - read the gap pt 2.Also, numbers are skewed because not all the AE's are being taken into consideration. Since the abilities are even we stick to single target debates.</div>

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 01:27 AM

<div><blockquote><hr><blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <p>There has been so many ranger whine threads lately I don't bother to read them all. But there is a limit for everything and 25 pages is certainly enough.... Our friend LoreLady sure is busy ...</p> <p>Maybe I have been missing you and my other ranger friends from the wizard boards, and would like to exchange a few interesting points of view :smileyhappy:</p><hr></blockquote>Last thing you want to do is drag personal shots into this, and I avoid the wizard boards. And I dont take shots at the wizard community, I have posted in the wiz board once in the last 6 months in the wizard board and that was complimenting illusive on keeping the boards upbeat in the wizzy fourms and helping others out..Ok - you want to see whats what as far as power goes? Ok, compare ranger power consumption to wizard, compare the damages as well, and ontop of that feel free to compare the cast timers. This is at 428 str, from sokolov's chart (mine doesnt have power added)<img src="http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5622/rangerbd0.jpg">I dont know exaccly what he did at the 30-60 etc marks for damage, he explains it in his post in the gap pt 2.</div>

massem

08-08-2006, 01:59 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> Well then, there ya go, assassins and rangers both have the same number of AEs. So what I said about a superbly buffed ranger doing 1800 - 2000 dps for a couple minutes on that encounter seems reasonable to me. If there's a gap, I'd sure like to see how big it is and at what point you have to stop justifying it by saying they aren't supposed to do single target dps when we have basicly the same CAs.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I said, if the average lifetime of the AE mobs are less than 43 seconds, the ranger has superior AE. This is most often the case in my experience. Actually, usually the average lifetime is much less than that which makes the ranger AE better on average. </P> <P>Of course if you insist on evaluating AE attacks on the basis of a single-target epic encounter to evaluate AE attacks, you can turn the table around and prove whatever you want - but it still doesn't make sense ...<BR></P>

massem

08-08-2006, 02:08 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Ok - you want to see whats what as far as power goes? Ok, compare ranger power consumption to wizard, compare the damages as well, and ontop of that feel free to compare the cast timers. This is at 428 str, from sokolov's chart (mine doesnt have power added)<BR><BR><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>I havent looked through all the wizard spells in detail, but it seems that all ranger CAs have around half the power cost for the same damage as a wizard spell. This is nothing new, it has always been like that. Cast timers are similar but recast times much higher for rangers. And as said before, Wizards do not have any autoattack. I think it is clear that Wizards are much more dependent on power than rangers to do DPS.<BR>

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 02:23 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> Well then, there ya go, assassins and rangers both have the same number of AEs. So what I said about a superbly buffed ranger doing 1800 - 2000 dps for a couple minutes on that encounter seems reasonable to me. If there's a gap, I'd sure like to see how big it is and at what point you have to stop justifying it by saying they aren't supposed to do single target dps when we have basicly the same CAs.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I said, if the average lifetime of the AE mobs are less than 43 seconds, the ranger has superior AE. This is most often the case in my experience. Actually, usually the average lifetime is much less than that which makes the ranger AE better on average.</P> <P>Of course if you insist on evaluating AE attacks on the basis of a single-target epic encounter to evaluate AE attacks, you can turn the table around and prove whatever you want - but it still doesn't make sense ...<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I said that encounter was a good measure to show potential dps, you said it wasn't, and you're wrong. Not much more to it than that.

massem

08-08-2006, 02:28 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR><BR>I said that encounter was a good measure to show potential dps, you said it wasn't, and you're wrong. Not much more to it than that.<BR><FONT face=Century></FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Century>You posted your example in response to the statement "Some ranger AE attacks deal signifantly more AE damage than assassins" - from where did you get the idea that I was talking about potential single-target DPS on epic mobs ? Give it up .... </FONT>

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 02:40 AM

<div><blockquote><hr><blockquote> <div></div><font face="Century"></font> <hr> </blockquote><font face="Century">You posted your example in response to the statement "Some ranger AE attacks deal signifantly more AE damage than assassins" - from where did you get the idea that I was talking about potential single-target DPS on epic mobs ? Give it up .... </font><hr></blockquote>This is what this entire discussion is about, raid dps. No ranger out there is putting out information out in groups, we are putting this information because in a controlled enviroment rangers are falling short.. In the best raidguild's out there, they nolonger want rangers in there roster. Many of the people you see posting in places like "Most useless raiding class and what would fix them" are top end raiders.</div>

massem

08-08-2006, 03:01 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>This is what this entire discussion is about, raid dps. No ranger out there is putting out information out in groups, we are putting this information because in a controlled enviroment rangers are falling short.. In the best raidguild's out there, they nolonger want rangers in there roster. Many of the people you see posting in places like "Most useless raiding class and what would fix them" are top end raiders.<BR><BR><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So you mean "single-target" raid dps and not simply raid dps. In that case warlocks must be even more broken than rangers with your definition. Because they have bad single-target DPS and even worse power-to-mana ratio, as well as bad dehate. You don't see many of them complaining though, since all Warlocks who play well know they can blow anyone out of the water under the right conditions.</P> <P>Well if someone gets kicked out of a guild because he happens to play a class that used to be but is no longer overpowered, there must be other reasons as well. Frankly I think that whole discussion is a myth - never heard of anything like that. Anyone with enough to to invest to be a member of a top raidguild, would have time to level up a second char if that is really the problem. Levelling is not all THAT difficult in EQ2 ... Were a family style guild and we have several people with double level 70s ... </P> <P>The game does not necessarily need to be balanced around the "top end raiders" - basing it on averages works much better for most people and that is apparently what the devs are doing - if you go back and read the dev posts again you will se that.</P>

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 03:02 AM

<div><blockquote><hr><div></div> <blockquote> <hr> <hr> </blockquote> <p><b>I said, if the average lifetime of the AE mobs are less than 43 seconds,</b> the ranger has superior AE. This is most often the case in my experience. Actually, usually the average lifetime is much less than that which makes the ranger AE better on average. </p> <p><b>Of course if you insist on evaluating AE attacks on the basis of a single-target epic encounter to evaluate AE attacks, you can turn the table around and prove whatever you want - but it still doesn't make sense ...</b></p><hr></blockquote>Raid discussion, and conclusions again.. Makes perfect sense, AE's are ballance single target is not. Doesnt matter how you turn the table.. It always comes to that conclusion..Lists of things I have tried so far and came up with the same answer:Casting time/damage = gap between rangers/assassins, favoring assassinsRecycle time over damage = Gap between Rangers/assassins, favoring assassinsMaintained dps abilities (quick recasts) = Gap between rangers/assassins, favoring assassinsPower per ability = Relitively equalUtility between classes (debatable) = Relitively equalAE's between classes = Relitively equalSelf buffs = relitively equalDebuffs = Relitively equalAlso, on your post earlier.. I dont like to compare rangers and wizards per ability to per ability, there are to many variables in place that is not taken into account for the rangers dps (auto attack) and whatever way you strike the match its going to light up for the wizard.. You complain about the rangers power, rangers have a far less power pool than wizards, and no actuall abilities to regen power. Where as a wizard has abilities to regen power, and needs a diffrent group setup than a pred to do there max dps..The reason we compare rangers to assassins, is our subclass is the same and we do the same thing.. We can eliminate variables that will skew the data in several forms (auto attack) and look at the base damage in both classes. If there is a large diffrence in any of the categories above it needs to be looked at and rehashed.My main thing is that there IS a gap between the two classes and it needs to be looked at, I do state how much on CA's. However, I do not like to put a number to how much.. This is where parsings come in, if an assassin can hold 2k dps average for an hour at his best, a ranger doing 1.6k at his best is lacking in damage.Also, when I compare abilities to abilities 2 things need to be considered, actuall dps of the ability and recast.. Forinstance, culling of the weak has a 50ish dps/recycle time.. Where as it will do 1.4k dps when used. Where as snaring shot does 60ish damage/recycle time but doing 600 dps when used. In earlier posts I have concluded that the DPS ratings per ability are lacking by 20-30% overall (due to cast times). And that maintained DPS is falling short by 100 dps (maintained dps being all abilities with 30s or under recasts). Sokolov has concluded that with recycle times there is a 12% diffrence in CA's (without mark). So after this is included it becomes a much higher amount (I am going to say 10%ish due to assassin parsings I have seen, due to its randomness)And massemen, next time you want to call someone a troll consider this.. A troll is someone who says something bold without in any way shape or form backing it up.. A poster is someone who backs it up. And isbhu would be the biggest contradiction to this statement, never met someone whos a troll/poster all in one package <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div>

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 03:04 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> LoreLady wrote: <div>This is what this entire discussion is about, raid dps. No ranger out there is putting out information out in groups, we are putting this information because in a controlled enviroment rangers are falling short.. In the best raidguild's out there, they nolonger want rangers in there roster. Many of the people you see posting in places like "Most useless raiding class and what would fix them" are top end raiders. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p>So you mean "single-target" raid dps and not simply raid dps. In that case warlocks must be even more broken than rangers with your definition. Because they have bad single-target DPS and even worse power-to-mana ratio, as well as bad dehate. You don't see many of them complaining though, since all Warlocks who play well know they can blow anyone out of the water under the right conditions.</p> <p>Well if someone gets kicked out of a guild because he happens to play a class that used to be but is no longer overpowered, there must be other reasons as well. Frankly I think that whole discussion is a myth - never heard of anything like that. Anyone with enough to to invest to be a member of a top raidguild, would have time to level up a second char if that is really the problem. Levelling is not all THAT difficult in EQ2 ... Were a family style guild and we have several people with double level 70s ... </p> <p>The game does not necessarily need to be balanced around the "top end raiders" - basing it on averages works much better for most people and that is apparently what the devs are doing - if you go back and read the dev posts again you will se that.</p><hr></blockquote>Not a myth, and again.. We compare single target to our counterparts.. Since AE's are ballanced we focus on single target..And your trying to dodge the bullet with warlocks, simply because by your post.. You have yet to grasp what we are saying.</div>

massem

08-08-2006, 03:10 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>And your trying to dodge the bullet with warlocks, simply because by your post.. You have yet to grasp what we are saying.<BR></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Why would someone dodge when you are firing blinds ....<BR>

massem

08-08-2006, 03:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>LoreLady wrote:<BR><BR>Corrected table:</P> <P>Casting time/damage = <FONT color=#ff0000>Relatively equal when compensated for that assassins lose more time jousting</FONT></P> <P>Recycle time over damage = Gap between Rangers/assassins, favoring assassins<BR>Maintained dps abilities (quick recasts) = Gap between rangers/assassins, favoring assassins<BR>Power per ability = Relitively equal<BR>Utility between classes (debatable) = <FONT color=#ff0000>slight advantage ranger (miracle shot etc.)<BR></FONT>AE's between classes = <FONT color=#ff0000>Advantage Ranger (unless people insist on evaluating them on single target)</FONT><BR>Self buffs = relitively equal<BR>Debuffs = Relitively equal<BR><FONT color=#ff0000>Dehate = Advantage Ranger</FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Healing need due to AE = Advantage Ranger</FONT> </P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>Also, on your post earlier.. I dont like to compare rangers and wizards per ability to per ability, there are to many variables in place that is not taken into account for the rangers dps (auto attack) and whatever way you strike the match its going to light up for the wizard.. You complain about the rangers power, rangers have a far less power pool than wizards, and no actuall abilities to regen power. Where as a wizard has abilities to regen power, and needs a diffrent group setup than a pred to do there max dps..<BR><FONT color=#ff0000>Funnily you where very keen on discussing the wizard comparison until it became apparent how far out your statements were, but it is sort of off topic in this thread so lets leave it at that..</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason we compare rangers to assassins, is our subclass is the same and we do the same thing.. We can eliminate variables that will skew the data in several forms (auto attack) and look at the base damage in both classes. If there is a large diffrence in any of the categories above it needs to be looked at and rehashed.<BR><FONT color=#ff0000>Fair enough ...</FONT></DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> <DIV><BR>My main thing is that there IS a gap between the two classes and it needs to be looked at, I do state how much on CA's. However, I do not like to put a number to how much.. This is where parsings come in, if an assassin can hold 2k dps average for an hour at his best, a ranger doing 1.6k at his best is lacking in damage.<BR><FONT color=#ff0000>I remind you that IF your statistics show the correct picture, you are doing around 10-20% less DPS single target DPS than an assassin. You get instead better AE attacks (unless you insist on evaluating purely on single targets), better dehate, some minor utility spells, like trap and no-line of sight pulling. (I thought rangers had better debuffs than assassins, but I wont bother looking those up). </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>So even if we assume your analysis gives accurate results it seems like a fair deal to me. Most wizards would kill for a passive dehate like yours, or maybe even a hate transfer like the assassins have even though its use is more limited.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>We all know that statistics become more accurate the larger sample size is used, and Lockeye was posting his results based on the largest sample size there is - the server wide statistics. Rangers was placed on place 2.2. That is if I guess correctly, with assassins as number 1, wizards as nr 2, very closely rangers follow and warlocks trail quite a bit after (since they tend to die as soon as they unleash their power). Im sorry - you can stare on you excel sheet for as long as you like - you will only get more and more confused. ( i better correct this before you accuse me of not being able to read again - the excel sheet was not yours I just remebered). </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>And massemen, next time you want to call someone a troll consider this.. A troll is someone who says something bold without in any way shape or form backing it up.. A poster is someone who backs it up. And isbhu would be the biggest contradiction to this statement, never met someone whos a troll/poster all in one package <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I have backed everything I typed up - its just that you choose to ignore any argument that doesn't suit your view. </FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-07-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:26 PM</span>

Ranvarenaya

08-08-2006, 04:44 AM

Masseman, just to clear up any misconception you might have about rangers never getting hit by an AE and not having to joust: A good dps'ing ranger is gonna spend 90% of their time in a raid at about 4.9 meters from the mob, right behind it, which is about exactly where every other scout/fighter dps class is gonna be. Granted, if we have a mob whose ae is such that it's better to just stay out of range we will, but so will everyone else. <div></div>

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 06:23 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR><BR>I said that encounter was a good measure to show potential dps, you said it wasn't, and you're wrong. Not much more to it than that.<BR><FONT face=Century></FONT> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face=Century>You posted your example in response to the statement "Some ranger AE attacks deal signifantly more AE damage than assassins" - from where did you get the idea that I was talking about potential single-target DPS on epic mobs ? Give it up .... </FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>No, I posted what's below before anyone said anything about Rangers being better at AEs. And any of your responses were made to that. We've since made it pretty clear that my post was accurate, and a ranger buffed to their full potential <EM>should</EM> be able to come close to that number on that encounter, the question is, can one? Not hard to go and look which posts were made first... And, this whole thread is about epic mobs for the most part, if you're not talking about raids, I'm not the one that's out of context.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Mystaskratch wrote:</P> <P><BR>Here's what I figure... Shade of Ghazi is a good testing ground. It's a spawn where there's no real AEs, no adds, just pure dps. And you can decide when you want to fight him. One of you guilds that loves to buff your rangers up and have them at the top of the parse go do a Ghazi fight with an uber buffed ranger then come and compare here. I doubt a ranger can hit 2kdps over a 2 minute fight, but maybe I'm wrong... If you can you're definately not broken <IMG height=16 src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" width=16 border=0></P> <P><IMG src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/ghazi1.jpg"></P> <P>If his stupid AE didn't teleport I'd have had higher >.< But, the point is, an optimally buffed and played assassin can hit 2k for 2 minutes on that fight, shouldn't an optimally buffed and played ranger be close?</P> <P></P> <HR><p>Message Edited by MystaSkratch on <span class=date_text>08-07-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:38 PM</span>

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 08:08 AM

All im asking for to be proven wrong, is give me a zone wide parse of a ranger holding 1.8k dps.. Or, a ranger in a 2 min fight holding that dps. These parsings are not from skratches alone..And btw massem, AE's IN BOTH CLASSES ARE EQUAL.. And the reason the entire wizard thing was braught up, is because you wanted to go out and say that rangers could go on forever on our minor power consumption.. Assassins can hold there dps while jousting (as shown in the parse above), jousting dps is not the issue here.. Rangers need to be up close and personal to the mob just as assassins do. There are no fights that cannot be jousted (well, one), so holding ranged isent the issue either.. The issue is single target dps from rangers vs assassins..If ya dont want a rangers opinion fine, join the worldwide assassin channel and ask them what they think.. A good chunk of them are raiders, they know whats going on.. You have shown (in several of your posts) that you dont.. And you admitidly say its fine for a ranger to hold 1.6k dps, while an assassin holds 2k (assuming both are at there top).. Lists of ignorant things massem has said about rangers..Holding ranged dpsMuch less power usage than assassinsMuch greater AE's than assassinsPotshots at me saying I troll the wizard boards (find me one troll post in the wizzy fourms of mine)Denying that there is agap in the first placeSaying hes in a family guild, and bringing what he does not know to the raiding tableI dont even bother to read the retorts out of them, just picking apart acouple of sentances to find out that there false.. Just do me a favor, stop posting opinion.

massem

08-08-2006, 11:41 AM

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div> <p>Hmm what are you smoking Lore ? You a really are a lord of misqouting ... Since you focus completely on personal attacks now I guess I'll switch to that mode as well :smileyhappy:</p> <p>The so-called "gap" is only there because you with stubborness of a 10-year old refuse to shift your focus from the single-target raid. The dev parses clearly shows that the Rangers are essentialy on par with other T1 classes, it just that they are no specialized on what you want them to do. The T1 classes are more or less balanced (except maybe for Warlocks, which have too big aggro problems at the moment). Not all warlocks were happy with being transformed into AE masters - most of them respecced as wizards now.</p> <p>Since you obviously can't read or are too stupid or stubborn to roll a class that is specialized on what you want to do (which seems to be melee DPS on single target) , I guess you'll just have to do with what you perceive is 10-20% too low DPS (in that respect) until you respec as an assassin or quit the game at the EoF release. Again - If you don't like to play a ranged DPS class, respec as an assassin. Whining on the boards will not help I assure you.</p> <p>If you want to make a complaint you could complain about there not being enough raid encounters where ranged DPS is an advantage - that would be an argument I could accept, and perhaps might agree with you on that one. I don't think casual raiders would appreciate upping of of AEs to kill assassins faster. With good resists people can eat the AE but not everyone has that. Again the game should be balanced araound the average players and not the 5% most active raiders.</p> <p>There clearly is no hope in shifting your viewpoint and helping you see the big picture, but I will hang in this discussion a bit more for the fun of it ...</p> <p></p> <hr> <blockquote> <p>LoreLady wrote:</p> <p>Lists of ignorant things massem has said about rangers:</p> <p>Holding ranged dps -- <font color="#ff0000">last time I looked rangers indeed did more ranged DPS than assassins. I never said that rangers do ONLY ranged DPS. Most of the DPS for an assassin is done up-close, and most the DPS for the ranger is done ranged - that is a fact and even your excel sheets support that statement. </font></p> <p>Much less power usage than assassins --<font color="#ff0000"> never said that, another one of your misquotes. I said rangers had much less power usage than wizards, you didn't agree until I banged it into your thick skull, another one of your misquotes. The entertaining thing is that you in other threads give "friendly" advice to other people about how to play their wizards (while insinuating that they don't know how to play) when your own experience is limited to a few hours play on a borrowed account - next time give good advice, or at least shut up when you don't know what you are talking about. I refrained from anwering that post since one flamewar at a time is enough .. </font></p> <p>Much greater AE's than assassins --<font color="#ff0000"> I said, Rangers indeed have much better AE than assassins if timers are up and "Some ranger AE attacks deal significantly more damage than assassins" - In my mind 40% more is significant, which is the case if the encounter goes down within 30 seconds -- here you actually quote correctly - its just that you intentionally misunderstand an misinterpret what I want to say. </font></p> <p>Potshots at me saying I troll the wizard boards (find me one troll post in the wizzy fourms of mine) --<font color="#ff0000"> Well this thread proves that you are a whiner and a troll doesnt it, - just look at you first response to me in this thread- you seriously need to find some valium ... Well I don't remember you posting on the wizard boards - I do remember you being active on the DPS threads in the combat forum though .... How many ranger whine threads did you start so far ? 5 ? 10?</font></p> <p>Denying that there is agap in the first place - <font color="#ff0000">Well my first posts in this thread indeed acknowledged there was a "gap" on the top-end single target - i just stated that the way classes are balanced should not necessarily such that the single-target DPS is equal over all T1 classes. Because of the other advantages of rangers, it would make them overpowered compared to the other T1 classes. The "gap" is only something you invented because you refuse to acknowledge the difference between AE damage, ranged damage and single-target close-up damage. </font></p> <p>Saying hes in a family guild, and bringing what he does not know to the raiding table - <font color="#ff0000">Why would members of family styles guilds automatically be ignorant ? I know very well what different classes can bring to the raiding table and occasionally organize raids in my guild. Most of us have backgrounds in high-end guilds from EQ though, but longer have enough time to raid every other night or more. </font></p> <p><font color="#ff0000"></font>I dont even bother to read the retorts out of them, just picking apart acouple of sentances to find out that there false.. Just do me a favor, stop posting opinion.</p> <p></p> <hr> </blockquote><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:28 AM</span>

massem

08-08-2006, 12:12 PM

<div></div><div></div> <p>Mysta : Here is my post that your quoted:</p> <p></p> <hr> <div><em>Wrong, if you want to know the overall DPS capability you should take into account also AE fights. Entire raidzone averages would make sense, although the dev data that was posted is better since it includes also non-raiding players. On average rangers are fine - on isolated cases like you pick out they are not.</em></div> <div> <hr> </div> <div> </div> <div> And your response:</div> <div> <hr> </div> <div><em>AEs don't effect me and it can interupt ranged attacks, so I'd have the advantage then anyway. I'm not gonna pretend that AEs are something you have to joust if you know what resists are. Which is why I picked this fight. I'm aware a full zone parse is better, but guess what? We've provided ones where rangers wouldn't come close to our top dps, but it's never their fault. Regardless, this encounter is a perfect one to use, you can say it doesn't measure DPS capabilities, and I'll argue that it does. 2 classes that are supposed to be similar, on a fight with little variables, sounds like the perfect experiment environment to me.</em></div> <div> <hr> </div> <div> </div> <div>You are responding as if you think I mean that you should include fights where the mobs cast AEs, which is also true but this is an argument why ranged DPS is better than close-up DPS. You claim it isnt because you can eat the mob AEs anyhow, but not everyone can do that. Take Lord Vyemm for example ...</div> <div>If ranger had 1500 ranged DS+500 close-up DPS and assassin had 500 ranged DPS and 1500 close-up DPS - which would be the better class ? There are reasons why the numbers do not not add up to exactly the same number - mainly the reasons are twolfold: #1 ranged DPS is easier to use than close-up DPS, advantage ranger because of more ranged DPS #2 AE DPS per target has a higher total damage potential than single target attacks, advantage ranger because of higher AE damage (situationally) My comment refers to that the Rangers themselves deal more AE damage than Assassins do, in multiple target encounters where mobs on average live less than 43 seconds. That is the case for all group mobs and most junk mobs in raid instances.</div> <p>I have already stated before that I agree with you that on single-target epics, the assassins AE attacks do more damage than rangers since they live substantially longer than 43 seconds. If this is still important to you, please explain to me why you say AE damage is not important? Do your raid leaders as a rule not allow AEs on raid encounters, and if so, for what reason ? </p> <p>You, in agreement with many other raiders state that mob AEs is not an issue, but that is not the case for the average assassin or ranger doing for example Labs in a pick-up raid. If you have ever organized a pickup raid you know that. </p><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:59 AM</span>

massem

08-08-2006, 02:08 PM

<div></div><div></div>Yes I know Rangers also have melee attacks (about 1/3 of the DPS) according to the famous excel sheets. The other 2/3 for rangers is ranged. Ranged DPS can be done from outside AE range if you so desire. I also do know that you joust to achieve your melee part of your DPS, its just that you can stay out of AE for longer than an assassin, thats the point I am making. Wizards probably also have around one third of the DPS short-ranged, and also need to joust to be able to lay the forge, fusion and firestorm which are 3 of our major damage spells, but we kan make most of our DPS safely from a distance. Therefore it is ok that the top DPS of a wizard is usually a little bit lower than an assassins, similarly to the rangers. Assassins have maybe around 20-25% range attacks but need to be up close for most of their DPS. Therefore, rangers can (if they are not geared up and backed up by healing to eat the AE) stay away and safely nuke away, similarly to a caster, who joust only maybe once or twice in a given boss encounter. I never said that ALL the ranger DPS is ranged, LoreLady is trying hard to give people that impression with his lies and misquoatations, but fact is that I have never said that. <blockquote><hr>Ranvarenaya wrote:Masseman, just to clear up any misconception you might have about rangers never getting hit by an AE and not having to joust: A good dps'ing ranger is gonna spend 90% of their time in a raid at about 4.9 meters from the mob, right behind it, which is about exactly where every other scout/fighter dps class is gonna be. Granted, if we have a mob whose ae is such that it's better to just stay out of range we will, but so will everyone else. <div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:48 AM</span>

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 04:53 PM

You're completely sidestepping my point here. Take a ranger, any [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]in ranger, and buff him. And let him go nuts on Shade of Ghazi. His dps should be close to what I can put out, or there's something wrong. Rangers have just as many single target CA as I do, there's no reason for thier single target dps to be far below mine, you can argue this all you want, but you're arguing with thin air, because I know what should be. As for the rest of your lecture on raids, I really don't think I need advice on raiding from <EM>anyone</EM>, and definately not from you lol :smileyhappy:

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 04:58 PM

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div><div></div> <p>Mysta : Here is my post that your quoted:</p> <p></p> <hr> <div><em>Wrong, if you want to know the overall DPS capability you should take into account also AE fights. Entire raidzone averages would make sense, although the dev data that was posted is better since it includes also non-raiding players. On average rangers are fine - on isolated cases like you pick out they are not.</em></div> <div> <hr> </div> <div> </div> <div> And your response:</div> <div> <hr> </div> <div><em>AEs don't effect me and it can interupt ranged attacks, so I'd have the advantage then anyway. I'm not gonna pretend that AEs are something you have to joust if you know what resists are. Which is why I picked this fight. I'm aware a full zone parse is better, but guess what? We've provided ones where rangers wouldn't come close to our top dps, but it's never their fault. Regardless, this encounter is a perfect one to use, you can say it doesn't measure DPS capabilities, and I'll argue that it does. 2 classes that are supposed to be similar, on a fight with little variables, sounds like the perfect experiment environment to me.</em></div> <div> <hr> </div> <div> </div><div> #1 ranged DPS is easier to use than close-up DPS, advantage ranger because of more ranged DPS #2 AE DPS per target has a higher total damage potential than single target attacks, advantage ranger because of higher AE damage (situationally) My comment refers to that the Rangers themselves deal more AE damage than Assassins do, in multiple target encounters where mobs on average live less than 43 seconds. That is the case for all group mobs and most junk mobs in raid instances.</div><hr size="2" width="100%"><p><font color="#ccffff">Cept, its a FACT that AE's are BALLANCED between classes, assassins agree with this, and so do rangers.. And, if you go back and read some of my other posts I have the data to prove this.</font></p>On raids, AE fights last anywhere from 1 min to 3. With the exception of certain targets.Also, in groups. Assassins cant burst it into one attack.. But they can spread it out over several encounters.. If a ranger gets into an AE fight and burns it thats it for the ranger, the assassin will still be doing AE's while the rangers are down.. Damage between the two (with recasts) are similar.And how is ranged dps easier to use? I still gotta go behind the mob.And AE dps potential is similar..Why is it that you go out and debate skratch whos an assassin telling you otherwise? And then compleatly ignore the 2k dps parse of his on an AE fight?And, a rangers flatout dps potential is at the 1.5k mark, the assassins is around the 2k mark.. If I had the extra 500 dps, I would not be saying anything.. I would be putting up parses to prove disso wrong.. Unfortunatly, thats not the case..</blockquote></div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:00 AM</span>

Kolorean Yorito

08-08-2006, 05:22 PM

On raids, with good debuffs on the mobs, everyone on somewhat equal footing, I usually parse near the top..usually the 5-8th spots, but there is a big gap between me and the top. I have a garbage bow, Grizzlefangs, gear wise I am pretty good, mostly fabled including the dirk of negitivity and the other fabled dagger from the lab (less dps than the dirk) I am usually in the low 600s, although I can be as high as the 800. I assume with a end game teir 7 bow, I will be averaging in the 800s..may even push a 1000, but the Necros, Assassins, Conjurors, Swashies, and sometimes Wizards out class me. I went 4/4/4/4/8 on AGI and I am 4/4/2 on INT right now, testing the posion line.I hate having to buy arrows, but o well, I stay way back, and on long, long, long fights like the Corselander, I am usually #1 or #2.<div></div>

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 05:30 PM

<div></div>Some posts anyone whos ignorant about rangers might want to read that gets the urge to post here.. <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=39&message.id=34568" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=39&message.id=34568 </a>Using STR values by both classes at 428.. With perfectionist/poise.. <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=108794" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=108794</a>This thread is generally with raiders, and ranges and shadowknights are clearly the two that get the most useless label.. (note, not many rangers posted themselves as this.. This is comming from upper end raiders)Also massem, give me your name/server.. Instead of beating around the bush, I want to talk to you directly.. Mine is Mortred/befallen<p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:53 AM</span>

Pins

08-08-2006, 06:36 PM

<blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Mysta : Here is my post that your quoted:</p><p></p><hr><div><em>Wrong, if you want to know the overall DPS capability youshould take into account also AE fights. Entire raidzone averages wouldmake sense, although the dev data that was posted is better since itincludes also non-raiding players. On average rangers are fine -on isolated cases like you pick out they are not.</em></div><div><hr></div><div> </div><div> And your response:</div><div><hr></div><div><em>AEs don't effect me and it can interupt ranged attacks, soI'd have the advantage then anyway. I'm not gonna pretend thatAEs are something you have to joust if you know what resists are. Which is why I picked this fight. I'm aware a full zone parse isbetter, but guess what? We've provided ones where rangerswouldn't come close to our top dps, but it's never their fault. Regardless, this encounter is a perfect one to use, you can say itdoesn't measure DPS capabilities, and I'll argue that it does. 2classes that are supposed to be similar, on a fight with littlevariables, sounds like the perfect experiment environment to me.</em></div><div><hr></div><div> </div><div>You are responding as if you think I mean that you should includefights where the mobs cast AEs, which is also true but this is anargument why ranged DPS is better than close-up DPS. You claim it isntbecause you can eat the mob AEs anyhow, but not everyone can do that.Take Lord Vyemm for example ...</div><div>If ranger had 1500 ranged DS+500 close-up DPS and assassin had 500ranged DPS and 1500 close-up DPS - which would be the better class ?There are reasons why the numbers do not not add up to exactlythe same number - mainly the reasons are twolfold: #1 ranged DPS is easier to use than close-up DPS, advantage ranger because of more ranged DPS#2 AE DPS per target has a higher total damage potential than singletarget attacks, advantage ranger because of higher AE damage(situationally)My comment refers to that the Rangers themselves deal more AE damagethan Assassins do, in multiple target encounters where mobs on averagelive less than 43 seconds. That is the case for all group mobs and mostjunk mobs in raid instances.</div><p>I have already stated before that I agree with you that onsingle-target epics, the assassins AE attacks do more damage thanrangers since they live substantially longer than 43 seconds. If thisis still important to you, please explain to me why you say AEdamage is not important? Do your raid leaders as a rule not allowAEs on raid encounters, and if so, for what reason ? </p><p>You, in agreement with many other raiders state that mob AEs is notan issue, but that is not the case for the average assassin or rangerdoing for example Labs in a pick-up raid. If you have ever organized apickup raid you know that.</p><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:59 AM</span><hr></blockquote>I'll take your Lord Vyemm issue, and say I as an Illusionist eat the 360 AE from Lord Vyemm, and if a Ranger is dying from it, his healers in his group suck. Thus, I'd say if a class could do 2000 DPS(1500 from ranged, 500 from melee), vs. another class that could do 2000 DPS(500 from rangd, 1500 from melee), I would say they are equal against Lord Vyemm. Btw, if you can't eat Lord Vyemm's AE then you should stop raiding, right now because you obviously suck.

LoreLady

08-08-2006, 07:04 PM

If only rangers did 1500 ranged, 500 melee to begin with.

massem

08-08-2006, 07:41 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> LoreLady wrote:<BR> <BR><BR><BR>Also massem, give me your name/server.. Instead of beating around the bush, I want to talk to you directly.. Mine is Mortred/befallen<BR> <P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Name is Splitpaw.Nagul </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> <BR></P>

massem

08-08-2006, 07:45 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR><BR><BR>I'll take your Lord Vyemm issue, and say I as an Illusionist eat the 360 AE from Lord Vyemm, and if a Ranger is dying from it, his healers in his group suck. Thus, I'd say if a class could do 2000 DPS(1500 from ranged, 500 from melee), vs. another class that could do 2000 DPS(500 from rangd, 1500 from melee), I would say they are equal against Lord Vyemm. Btw, if you can't eat Lord Vyemm's AE then you should stop raiding, right now because you obviously suck.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Now that was productive ... And as far as I can remeber the AE is a bit worse than that unless you capped resists at least ....<BR><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:48 AM</span>

massem

08-08-2006, 07:49 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> You're completely sidestepping my point here. Take a ranger, any [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]in ranger, and buff him. And let him go nuts on Shade of Ghazi. His dps should be close to what I can put out, or there's something wrong. Rangers have just as many single target CA as I do, there's no reason for thier single target dps to be far below mine, you can argue this all you want, but you're arguing with thin air, because I know what should be. As for the rest of your lecture on raids, I really don't think I need advice on raiding from <EM>anyone</EM>, and definately not from you lol :smileyhappy:<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>No you have decided that all that matters is single target DPS and that a distinction between ranged/up-close DPS is not necessary - I don't agree ... Its as simple as that ...<BR> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by masseman on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:04 AM</span>

Pins

08-08-2006, 08:02 PM

<blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:Now that was productive ... And as far as I can remeber the AE is a bit worse than that unless you capped resists at least ....<hr></blockquote>The AE is crush based, if you as a ranger or an assassin cannot take it, your healers suck in your group. There is no way I can even max my crushing resists, because I wear cloth armor. Obviously you haven't raided Vyemm often enough(once a week) to be making bold statements about his AE. In fact, I'd say everything I said is probably 10x as productive as you, because I base my info on facts, not obvious misconceptions.

massem

08-08-2006, 08:05 PM

<DIV>Im talking about the magic AE on pull.</DIV>

Dirtgirl

08-08-2006, 08:11 PM

<FONT color=#ffcc66>Any predator with 1/2 decent gear and enough sense to know what backup/secondary resist gear to hold on to and a couple potions on their hotbars should be able to take the AE twice without even having a group healer. And if your'e getting the AE more than twice, you're too slow....but if you are seeing it more than twice, vitality breach is your friend.</FONT>

Pins

08-08-2006, 08:24 PM

<blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<DIV>Im talking about the magic AE on pull.</DIV><hr></blockquote>Then don't stand in front of him! Who the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] stands in front of a dragon with a breath attack?

Jay

08-08-2006, 08:28 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Im talking about the magic AE on pull.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Then don't stand in front of him! Who the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] stands in front of a dragon with a breath attack?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>[Removed for Content]... well played, sir. </P> <P>It's too bad that the original point of this discussion (ranger DPS potential on raids) has been lost in the bickering about sorcerors and AE damage, but this post delivers. </P>

massem

08-08-2006, 08:30 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <DIV>Im talking about the magic AE on pull.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Then don't stand in front of him! Who the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] stands in front of a dragon with a breath attack?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you for the kind advice, I'll think about that next time ... <BR>

Rahmn

08-08-2006, 08:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><A href="http://masseman.JustGotOwned.com" target=_blank>http://masseman.JustGotOwned.com</A> <HR> masseman wrote: <DIV>Im talking about the magic AE on pull.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If you're dumb enough to stand in front of Vyemms frontal AoE, Energy Vortex I think. You deserve to die. And your tank sucks for the crappy pull. Anyway, we did an experiment on Vidicule(Lyceum boss) cause its a rather long single target fight with no AOE. Myself(Ranger), 2 assassins 1 swashie 1 coercer and a Defiler were in a single group to see who could do what on that mob. We are all pretty much geared the same, but they all have Claymore and/or Wyrmslayer, I have my Dragonbuster bow. At the end of a 6min and 42 second fight, we parsed like this.</P> <P>Assassin#1 850ish</P> <P>Swashie 830ish</P> <P>Ranger 820ish</P> <P>Assassin#2 810ish</P> <P>This was over a 6min and 42 single target level 74x4 raid mob.</P> <P>Maybe we all suck maybe we don't. Now don't get me wrong those 2 assassins usually out dps me on other mobs 1400 to my 1k or so. I guess this kinda show's that over the really long term fights all is equal. As a side note, the only reason assassin #1 won, was because he had decap up.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Rahmn on <span class=date_text>08-08-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:44 AM</span>

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 08:41 PM

On a 6 minute fight (except Chal'drak maybe) I can still do 1500 dps. I'm betting I could do 1500 dps over the course of a 20 minute fight. And lol @ mass using Vyemm as some sort of example. The only way to get out of his AE range is to go further than any bow can reach, so your entire point is nullified on that encounter anyway. Rangers don't do the same dps as me, I've yet to see any parse, anywhere on these forums, that suggests otherwise.

massem

08-08-2006, 08:45 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> On a 6 minute fight (except Chal'drak maybe) I can still do 1500 dps. I'm betting I could do 1500 dps over the course of a 20 minute fight. And lol @ mass using Vyemm as some sort of example. The only way to get out of his AE range is to go further than any bow can reach, so your entire point is nullified on that encounter anyway. Rangers don't do the same dps as me, I've yet to see any parse, anywhere on these forums, that suggests otherwise.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Do you consider yourself an average assassin ? Again, I think I said this 10 times now. -the game is balanced around averages or so it appears. I don't really think "Skratch" is a large enough sample size to make a reliable statistical analysis possible.<BR></DIV>

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 08:48 PM

No, I'm not average by any means, but I'm still laughing at you using Vyemm cuz it's one of the encounters that ranged v. melee dps doesn't matter :smileytongue:

Rahmn

08-08-2006, 08:51 PM

<DIV>I'd like to see an equally equiped equally well played ranger in the same group as you Skratch. Would be interesting.</DIV>

massem

08-08-2006, 08:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> No, I'm not average by any means, but I'm still laughing at you using Vyemm cuz it's one of the encounters that ranged v. melee dps doesn't matter :smileytongue:<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So if your average geared melee DPS eats AE - will they eventually need healing ? </P> <P>Eventually, if you have enough DPS that require healing, will that eventually create the need to include an extra healer in the raid ? <BR></P> <P>Would your raid have been doing higher DPS if that spot instead was filled with something else, for example a DPS, or buffer class ?</P> <P> </P>

Pins

08-08-2006, 09:01 PM

<blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>MystaSkratch wrote:<BR>No, I'm not average by any means, but I'm still laughing at you using Vyemm cuz it's one of the encounters that ranged v. melee dps doesn't matter :smileytongue:<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So if your average geared melee DPS eats AE - will they eventually need healing ? </P><P>Eventually, if you have enough DPS that require healing, will that eventually create the need to include an extra healer in the raid ? <BR></P><P>Would your raid have been doing higher DPS if that spot instead was filled with something else, for example a DPS, or buffer class ?</P><P> </P><hr></blockquote>Obviously they need healing ... But if a solo healer can't heal through the AE, there's something wrong with that healer.

Rahmn

08-08-2006, 09:02 PM

If your raiding, there almost no situation where one healer per group, except the MT group, is not sufficient. 5 healers per raid is pretty ideal. Even on Crucor(sp) with his nasty aoe's 1 healer per group was enough to kill him. I can't speak for the turledragon, haven't attempted him yet.

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 10:12 PM

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Rahmn wrote:<BR> <DIV>I'd like to see an equally equiped equally well played ranger in the same group as you Skratch. <BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So would I :smileyhappy:</DIV>

Dragonsviperz

08-08-2006, 10:27 PM

It can happen. Just have Kobal play Axkiva one time and we will all see how rangers compare to assassins. Well, we can compare Axkiva to me because the armor she wears I have as backups. Same gear basically.

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 10:42 PM

I really don't think Axkiva is equally equipped... the ranger would have to have Bazkul or the Warbow with Bazkul ammo for sure.

Dragonsviperz

08-08-2006, 10:52 PM

Get him a bow (never will happen) and he can be equally equiped with me if I use my backup armor. Her armor is all from the Claymore line basically.

MystaSkrat

08-08-2006, 10:55 PM

You're not me :smileytongue:

Dragonsviperz

08-08-2006, 11:02 PM

Rahmn

08-09-2006, 12:22 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> I really don't think Axkiva is equally equipped... the ranger would have to have Bazkul or the Warbow with Bazkul ammo for sure.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Pardon my noobness, but whats so good about the Bazkul ammo, other than its free(which in itself is great)?

MystaSkrat

08-09-2006, 12:37 AM

It's legendary ammo and hits harder than any adamantine arrow ever could.

Dirtgirl

08-09-2006, 12:42 AM

<FONT color=#ffcc66>And basically it's tier 8, much more effective, especially against mobs over level 70.</FONT>

Dragonsviperz

08-09-2006, 01:34 AM

<DIV>That ammo plus the Ancestral Sarnac Bow from HoS = 4k + hits with your arrows, and thats not even criting.</DIV>

Rahmn

08-09-2006, 01:54 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> It's legendary ammo and hits harder than any adamantine arrow ever could.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Hmm, that sounds highly desirable, I was gonna say Holy[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn][expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] Batman, but [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].

Crychtonn

08-09-2006, 03:15 AM

<P>You could also sub in Ichorstrand for Bazkul both produce T8 legendary ammo. I've yet to hear that one ammo is superior to the other. The hard one to get is the Sarnac bow from HoS because Venekor is a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] and only likes to drop one piece of junk every trip.</P> <P> </P> <P>On a side note - /applauds_masseman</P> <P> </P> <P>I knew it wouldn't take you long to self destruct and show off how ignorant you are to everyone here. Congratz you did an even better job then I could have imagined. Can't wait to see your next insightful post and then seeing it ripped to shreds <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P>

LoreLady

08-09-2006, 04:04 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div> <p>You could also sub in Ichorstrand for Bazkul both produce T8 legendary ammo. I've yet to hear that one ammo is superior to the other. The hard one to get is the Sarnac bow from HoS because Venekor is a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] and only likes to drop one piece of junk every trip.</p> <p>On a side note - /applauds_masseman</p> <p>I knew it wouldn't take you long to self destruct and show off how ignorant you are to everyone here. Congratz you did an even better job then I could have imagined. Can't wait to see your next insightful post and then seeing it ripped to shreds <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p> <hr></blockquote>Worst part is, I started to go in circles out of his completely false statements.</div>

massem

08-09-2006, 10:23 AM

<P>Ok, I give up - obviously noone is listening. </P> <P>I'll pretend to agree instead: Rangers suck ... :smileymad:</P>

Dragonsviperz

08-09-2006, 11:23 AM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <P>Ok, I give up - obviously noone is listening. </P> <P>I'll pretend to agree instead: Rangers suck ... :smileymad:</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Now that we have all come to agreement, what <EM>should </EM>happen to help the rangers out?

arkkon

08-09-2006, 12:32 PM

<DIV>Its in this thread, if you look hard enough.</DIV>

Teksun

08-09-2006, 04:44 PM

Just so there is no question about the importance of melee: I usually do NOT melee in raids. I strictly use CA's unless the tank loses agro. I will generate from 450-650 DPS in Labs. This is with half fabled (including Wurmslayer), and a few Masters.<div></div>

LoreLady

08-09-2006, 05:08 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>Teksun wrote:Just so there is no question about the importance of melee: I usually do NOT melee in raids. I strictly use CA's unless the tank loses agro. I will generate from 450-650 DPS in Labs. This is with half fabled (including Wurmslayer), and a few Masters.<div></div><hr>I hope your talking CA dps, otherwise you and I need to chat.</blockquote></div>

Serventof Wrath

08-09-2006, 05:23 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dragonsviperz wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> masseman wrote:<BR> <P>Ok, I give up - obviously noone is listening. </P> <P>I'll pretend to agree instead: Rangers suck ... :smileymad:</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Now that we have all come to agreement, what <EM>should </EM>happen to help the rangers out?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>up the damage on snaring shot</P> <P>lower cast timers on several of our ranged CAs</P> <P>fix/change the DR on bows: Long Bow change to <STRONG>ranger only</STRONG> and base DR/delay off 2H weapons with a very long range, Short Bows change to <STRONG>assassin only</STRONG> and base DR/delay off DW weapons with a very short range, and introduce a normal bow make open to any class that can currently use a bow but base DR/delay off 1H weapons with an average range. This would give rangers the DR of a 2H weapon but not allow other classes with double attack AAs to still out dps us while doing nothing but auto-ranged. This would also give assassins a crazy fast low DR bow that they would use from up close since they do more melee damage then ranged. Finally the normal bow option with DR based off 1H weapons still allows tank classes to use a bow for pulling or ranged (corsolander) type fights but not give them the fire power a ranger would bring to the fight.</P> <P>and as long as I'm making a wish list a stunned mob should never be able to parry a stealthed or flanking/rear attack<BR></P>

LoreLady

08-09-2006, 05:26 PM

<div><blockquote><hr>masseman wrote:<div></div> <p>Ok, I give up - obviously noone is listening. </p> <p>I'll pretend to agree instead: Rangers suck ... :smileymad:</p><hr></blockquote>Were listening, were just not buying your made up nonsense.. I will give you a tell whenever I can to try and explain to you what were saying to you.. But be warned, im not going to let any of your BS slide for a minute..Even sirlutt(spelling) agrees that rangers need fixing, and after talking to him in further detail where we are comming from (although his views are weird <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) we are at the same conclusion.</div>

Jay

08-09-2006, 05:33 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> LoreLady wrote: <P>I hope your talking CA dps, otherwise you and I need to chat.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>/rolls eyes</P> <P> </P>

LoreLady

08-09-2006, 05:35 PM

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Jay42 wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <p></p> <hr> LoreLady wrote: <p>I hope your talking CA dps, otherwise you and I need to chat.</p> <p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>/rolls eyes</p> <hr></blockquote>Ment that as in trying to help kaeros.. I know I have gotten PM's from some people asking for advice before hand.. And, when I have helped out friends in MoA.. I have seen some really sad sad looking dps comming out of several classes, that should never be that low int he first place. Like, watching a guardian or bard out dps an assassin, wizard, rouge etc on a consistant basis.</div><p>Message Edited by LoreLady on <span class=date_text>08-09-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:38 AM</span>

MystaSkrat

08-09-2006, 06:29 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Serventof Wrath wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>fix/change the DR on bows: Long Bow change to <STRONG>ranger only</STRONG> and base DR/delay off 2H weapons with a very long range, Short Bows change to <STRONG>assassin only</STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I want to help rangers out too, but this idea is stupid and I doubt anyone would ever agree to it, sorry. I'm not going to be forced to use a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ty shortbow for any reason.

Serventof Wrath

08-09-2006, 06:32 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Serventof Wrath wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>fix/change the DR on bows: Long Bow change to <STRONG>ranger only</STRONG> and base DR/delay off 2H weapons with a very long range, Short Bows change to <STRONG>assassin only</STRONG></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I want to help rangers out too, but this idea is stupid and I doubt anyone would ever agree to it, sorry. I'm not going to be forced to use a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ty shortbow for any reason.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>hey its just my wish list you don't have to like it</P> <P>thank you come again</P>

MystaSkrat

08-09-2006, 06:36 PM

Yea, I don't like it, and I doubt anyone else will either. I'm aware I don't have to like some random idea from some random guy, but thanks for clarifying it. Gimping all other classes ranged attacks to make rangers look better is a <EM>great</EM> idea, I don't know why they don't just do that! Yea...

Rahmn

08-09-2006, 06:36 PM

Just reduce all our 60s recast abilities, to 40 secs. That would include Rangers Blade, Culling, Devite, Selection, Amazing and Triple.

Serventof Wrath

08-09-2006, 06:51 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> Yea, I don't like it, and I doubt anyone else will either. I'm aware I don't have to like some random idea from some random guy, but thanks for clarifying it. Gimping all other classes ranged attacks to make rangers look better is a <EM>great</EM> idea, I don't know why they don't just do that! Yea...<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>hmmm....</P> <P>lets see i'm a ranger somewhere once upon a time that was supposed to mean something toward being really good with ranged bow attacks. then the devs did what they do best coughNERFcough because we were overpowered with proc damage. then they came back and said long bows should be equivalent to 2H melee weapons. now i can't use a 2H sword or great axe and would probably look silly in my chain armor trying yet every single class that can pick up a bow can use my long bow. for some reason that doesn't sit well with me personally. now if that one change would totally [Removed for Content] every other class then have i been totally gimped from the start because i can't use a 2H weapon. and yes i realize that is a stupid question and a pretty dumb way to look at it but so is your statement about gimping every class out there. especially since i said there should be a normal bow based off of 1H DR which is about what we have now with our long bows so every class would stay the same but long bows could finally be equivalent to DR of a 2H with out everyone getting the boost it would provide to rangers</P>

Jay

08-09-2006, 08:40 PM

<P>I certainly don't want to prevent other classes from using bows - that's a bit extreme - but it raises an interesting issue. We can't use 2H weapons at all, or (like all scouts) any crushing weapons. But whatever, that's a discussion for another time.</P> <P>I do think it would be nice if we got some effect that let us use bows better than other classes, though. Like an 'until cancelled' buff that would haste our ranged attacks by a small amount or increase ranged DPS by a slight modifier. It wouldn't fix everything, but a change like that would give us back some feeling of being unique as bow-wielders. </P>

Dragonsviperz

08-09-2006, 08:57 PM

Hmm, rangers should get an extra proc or effect for using a bow. Something of that nature. Like an apply poison type deal, but for rangers only.

Pins

08-09-2006, 09:11 PM

<blockquote><hr>Dragonsviperz wrote:Hmm, rangers should get an extra proc or effect for using a bow. Something of that nature. Like an apply poison type deal, but for rangers only.<hr></blockquote>They already have one on their offensive stance.

Rahmn

08-09-2006, 09:38 PM

<P>It's called Quick shot. Ad3, 30% chance to proc(ranged only) a 427 hit I believe. I was shown a zone wide parse of myself the other day, and this skill does about 54dps by itself. To put this in perspective, no other single CA, did more damage than this skill. Next in line was Rain with 36, and caustic poison with 34. Every other skill did less than 30dps zonewide. Which kinda points out that a good poison is very important and why the INT line of AP's makes more sense, atleast to me. Oh and as a side note when Stream of Arrows was running, it was doing 1191 damage every 1.5 sec, while auto attack range was doing 990 every 3.9 sec(I have a short bow). So Stream of Arrows has earned a nice spot on my hotkeys again.</P> <P>edit for clarification</P> <P>Message Edited by Rahmn on <SPAN class=date_text>08-09-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:43 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Rahmn on <span class=date_text>08-09-2006</span> <span class=time_text>10:45 AM</span>

MystaSkrat

08-09-2006, 09:48 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Serventof Wrath wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> Yea, I don't like it, and I doubt anyone else will either. I'm aware I don't have to like some random idea from some random guy, but thanks for clarifying it. Gimping all other classes ranged attacks to make rangers look better is a <EM>great</EM> idea, I don't know why they don't just do that! Yea...<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>hmmm....</P> <P> now if that one change would totally [Removed for Content] every other class then have i been totally gimped from the start because i can't use a 2H weapon. <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Why don't you stop typing for a second and look at how biased your idea is? You could never use 2H weapons, so they don't fall into the equation anywhere. You want to take longbows away from me, which gives me less proc %, less damage per arrow, and less range on my bow. Beginning to see why I wouldn't like it so much? Like I said, no need to [Removed for Content] other classes just to make yours look good, it's counterproductive.<BR>

Prandtl

08-09-2006, 09:56 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jay42 wrote:<BR> <P>I certainly don't want to prevent other classes from using bows - that's a bit extreme - but it raises an interesting issue. We can't use 2H weapons at all, or (like all scouts) any crushing weapons. But whatever, that's a discussion for another time.</P> <P>I do think it would be nice <STRONG>if we got some effect that let us use bows better than other classes</STRONG>, though. Like an 'until cancelled' buff that would haste our ranged attacks by a small amount or increase ranged DPS by a slight modifier. It wouldn't fix everything, but a change like that would give us back some feeling of being unique as bow-wielders.<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>This would be the most effective (and non-gimping of other classes) approach. Perhaps a bow DPS mod based on the players +ranged stat? We have higher ranged modifiers then any class in the game, so this would actually make it useful.<BR>

Serventof Wrath

08-09-2006, 10:09 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Serventof Wrath wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> Yea, I don't like it, and I doubt anyone else will either. I'm aware I don't have to like some random idea from some random guy, but thanks for clarifying it. Gimping all other classes ranged attacks to make rangers look better is a <EM>great</EM> idea, I don't know why they don't just do that! Yea...<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>hmmm....</P> <P> now if that one change would totally [Removed for Content] every other class then have i been totally gimped from the start because i can't use a 2H weapon. <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Why don't you stop typing for a second and look at how biased your idea is? You could never use 2H weapons, so they don't fall into the equation anywhere. You want to take longbows away from me, which gives me less proc %, less damage per arrow, and less range on my bow. Beginning to see why I wouldn't like it so much? Like I said, no need to [Removed for Content] other classes just to make yours look good, it's counterproductive.<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>hehehehe...</P> <P>well if a dev actually looked at that and said "wooo boy that sure is a good idea lets do that" then i guess if you really wanted that long bow you could always betray over to a ranger <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P> <P>and yes my comment was biased i would like my class to no longer be the 2nd most useless to take on raid... and yes nerfing or gimping other classes is counter productive but look at it from my point of view and imagine yourself looking at the parse after Corsolander and seeing that the zerker standing next to you that just did auto-ranged and AAs [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] near beat the "oh master of the bow" ranger. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> and then on the next named he pulls out his 2H sword and hits just under 1.1K dps while i bust my butt to hit right at 1K <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

MystaSkrat

08-09-2006, 10:22 PM

<P>You'll be glad to hear they're fixing Double Attack AAs so they don't work on ranged weapons soon. Since predators are like, the only subclass in the game that didn't even get the <EM>choice</EM> of a double attack AA, /rejoice.</P> <P>Also, betray to ranger? If I didn't want to be a ranger in DoF (even without the option), why on earth would I want to be one now? :smileytongue:</P> <P>Freeport > Qeynos</P>

Serventof Wrath

08-09-2006, 10:41 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MystaSkratch wrote:<BR> <P>You'll be glad to hear they're fixing Double Attack AAs so they don't work on ranged weapons soon. Since predators are like, the only subclass in the game that didn't even get the <EM>choice</EM> of a double attack AA, /rejoice.</P> <P>Also, betray to ranger? If I didn't want to be a ranger in DoF (even without the option), why on earth would I want to be one now? :smileytongue:</P> <P><STRONG>Freeport > Qeynos</STRONG></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Finally a point we can agree on. I have 3 evil toons and yes Freeport > Qeynos. I mean really the trails of Nek Forest have been subdued all the way to N'Marr's Ascent through the strength of the Overlord and his militia. While my low level qeynos alts still get jumped by bears on the trails in Thundering Steppes. Lazy Queen and her worthless guards /grumble...</P> <P>/derail off</P> <P>any way back to the subject we raided Labs and some other zones this weekend i could post the parses but they look just like the others here on fights where people were afk or talking in ventrilio i was on top. on fights where we were focused I was behind conj, assassin, necro, 5 year old girl scout, neighbor's dog, and 1 of the furys. Overall zone wide for labs I was in top 3 but where a month ago i was head and shoulders above certian classes now that they have more masters and fabled gear I'm getting passed by. <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

Dragonsviperz

08-09-2006, 10:50 PM

<P>I know you guys have Quickshot because that was atleast 50% of your dps in t6 from looking at parses. </P> <P>I just meant you guys should get something a little bit extra, either by increasing the damage on that proc, or by recieving a skill that is <EM>like</EM> Apply Poison. </P>

Jay

08-09-2006, 11:42 PM

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Serventof Wrath wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>any way back to the subject we raided Labs and some other zones this weekend i could post the parses but they look just like the others here <FONT color=#ffff33>on fights where people were afk or talking in ventrilio i was on top</FONT>. on fights where we were focused I was behind conj, assassin, necro, <STRONG><EM>5 year old girl scout, neighbor's dog, and 1 of the furys.</EM></STRONG> </P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>ROFL, ok that was good, very good. A much needed injection of humor (however embittered) for this poor, poor thread.</P> <P>Well played!<BR></P>

SIlly Muffin

08-09-2006, 11:49 PM

<P>Wow long thread.</P> <P>I have read a LOT of thsi thread and I think I shall add my .02</P> <P> </P> <P>One thing I have noticed a few people allude to is the RAID/GROUP organization and class mixes. In my experience, RAIDS are usually organized such that the MT/MA groups have usually the choice buffs and effects placed on them - those classes that happen to be in the MT/MA groups usually will do a LOT better DPS than those outside the groups. In many cases, these "main" groups wil have the MT/MA, a healer (or 2-3) and the rest proximal DPS (assassins/Rogues) for hate transfers or trouby for power buffs and proximity buffs -- as they have the highest priortiy to stay alive. Necros can nicely self/pet buff. </P> <P>Rangers typically are NOT placed in these groups and because we usually have ranged attacks, thr legacy of being a "DPS [Removed for Content]" and are thus not considered "main group" material. Thus we do not usually get the same cumulative buff effects that some of the other "main group" classes do. Indeed, not every guild will even have enough of mix of utility on every raid so some players will get the short end of the bumps-even optimal buffs for MT/MA groups. . </P> <P>I have found that if i am (by some rarity) in one of the main groups or by some luck in a support group with a good buff class I can have tremendous (up to 200-300) DPS gain!! In part esprcially if a the buff is a power boost is present so I can melee more during Ranged CA downtimes). </P> <P>The bottom line is that the raid mix and ranger position in the raid can have a potetially big effect on DPS. </P> <P>That being said... that may help some rangers a tad; but I may not get us the kind of DPS Lock is seeing. This is, as others have stated. maybe due to other major factors:</P> <P> 1) Fabled bows are almost unheard of at T7 and High End quest/ non-raid Bows are generally pretty bad compared to many melee weapons or similar availability. These FABLED really need to drop more often. My fellow guild raiders have more fabled melee weapons than I can shake a stick at ... only ONE person has even MET a player who has SEEN a T7 fabled bow. </P> <P> 2) There are some nice DW weapons but most raids (rightfully so) usually give them to the more melee oriented classes ([expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] / Rogue / Swash / Zerk) </P> <P> 3) The CA timers for rangers are far too long - I have several alts incudingl assassin, fury and a wiz - HANDS down the Ranger CAs are the slowest to recharge - especially the ranged ones. We either need faster timers (given that most Ranger CAs are not comparably high damage as other classes) or we need better damage ratings. </P> <P> 4) Top tier arrows can, help but lets face it, unless you either are rich, or have good TS alt business, most rangers CANNOT maintain that cost along with poisons and repairs... bring back Tolan's Bracers from EQ1 or Give Rangers some sort decent T7 arrow pulls </P> <P> 5) SoA is stil badly borked - when it does work it can give some great DPS but 9/10 times it seems to fizzle for no reason.</P> <P> </P> <P>I agree with the majority of the posters here in the notion that Ranger DPS is a tad low, despite what DEVs and a few naysayers imply. That is not to say that some gear differences, raidmixes and potion/arrow quality doesnt affect that DPS value. Yet I do NOT see Rangers getting anything near the high DPS ranges that i see posted here . Lock is right in one thing... in a 12-16 person raid I am usually in the Top 10, sometimes even top 5, yet in a 24 person raid, especially one with more than a few assassins/necros and brigands.. forgetaboutit!</P> <P>Muffin </P> <P> </P>

frisco4

08-10-2006, 02:15 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>Lockeye wrote:<div></div> <p>Despite the perception issues that have persisted since the Ranger balance changes to their DPS rankings, Rangers are performing very well in DPS across all categories. I constantly analyze data between solo, groups and raids of various sizes across all classes, and Rangers are performing between ranks 1-4 in DPS in all size categories, with an average ranking of 2.2 (just slightly above average T1 DPS).In my experience as a player that groups and raids with a few raid equipped Rangers, I haven't seen anything to indicate from their parsers that Rangers would be deficient in producing anything short of the top ranking DPS numbers for their group or raid, and it reflects what I see in Ranger serverwide performance across all player categories.</p><hr></blockquote>Dude, i luv ya man, but ya need to play the class that is not how rangers are. </div>

frisco4

08-10-2006, 02:22 AM

Let's get away from the numbers thing for a sec...Do you not think it's messed up that some of the major raiding guilds in this game DO NOT HAVE rangers and DO NOT WANT them? That right there shows you that the class is undesireable therefore broken. When you're not needed for raids, which is apparently all you care about balancing, there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Mabye you should stop looking at your "raw data"(Fully mastered and fabled out ranger on an in game test server? /laugh) and see what ACTUAL players think and do.<div></div>

Wil81115

08-10-2006, 02:58 AM

<P>so to sum up this entire thread...</P> <P>Raiding Rangers in some of LEADING raiding guilds in the game AND a couple of the LEADING guilds Worldwide without any Rangers, say and posted proof that we are NOT fine.</P> <P>When you have some of the BEST players in YOUR game, WORLDWIDE, saying you have issues, then you do. </P> <P>And yet we are still ignored.. :smileysad: that says alot about a company and its customer service..:smileysad:</P> <P> </P>

Crychtonn

08-10-2006, 10:14 PM

<P>Recurved bow from Cube mob has a DR of 94.1. Using legendary T8 ammo (ichorstrand) it hits for around 2.3K normal and 4.6K crits with 100% DPS buff. The bow has a big damage range so it tends to get 4.6K on nearly all crits with the current formula. The bow has a 7 sec delay if memory serves.</P> <P>The Ancient bow from Venekor has a DR of 106. I do not have or know anyone with this bow (venekor sucks [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]) and can only go off what I've been told for damage. What I've heard is it hits using the same T8 legendary ammo for around 3.5-4K and crits for around 6.5K. The bow has a 8 sec delay.</P> <P>Lets assume both bows are used at 100% haste:</P> <P>2.3 / 3.5 sec = 657 DPS</P> <P>4.6 / 3.5 sec = 1,314 DPS</P> <P> </P> <P>3.5 / 4 sec = 875 DPS</P> <P>6.5 / 4 sec = 1,625 DPS</P> <P> </P> <P>Going on average switching up from the Recurved to the Ancient bow would bump up a rangers DPS slightly over 200. They do loose the 5% damage proc from the Recurved though so the jump may end up being more like slightly under 200.</P> <P>Easy fix for rangers. Add more bows with these high damage ratings and make them actually obtainable. Every other class in this damm game can get multiples of great weapons from numerous mobs and zones. Rangers are stuck with ONE mob in ONE zone. And this ONE mob drops ONE item every kill and has a HUGE loot table making it near impossible to get.</P> <P>This may not get rangers equal to assassins but it'd sure get them a hell of alot closer. Maybe even close enough to make the difference tolerable.</P> <P> </P> <P>PS - Venekor is a big fat ugly green [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] dragon that I hate with every thread of my fiber.</P> <P> </P>