New Proc Information

[Ranja]

<div><span class="headline">Beta Update Notes : February 14, 2006<i> 2/14/2005 8:15 pm</i></span>*** Combat ***- Procs will only occur on the first successful attack of a single combat art, not each attack.<hr></div><p>Can someone confirm this? If this is true Rangers are done as a class.</p><p> </p><p>Elbryan60 Ranger</p>

[Tideri]

<div>There is a God!</div>

[NG23985_01]

<div>This change will help, but it ultimately wont matter - Rangers will still be significantly overpowered as a DPS class.</div>

[Tideri]

<div>I have to disagree, they do the DPS that they do, because of procs.</div>

[Jai1]

<div></div>Making imbued rings worthless?

[MadBarman]

<div></div>This change is mainly to do with abilities that hit multiple times being used in conjunction with limited proc skills.Example:Thundering fists give 5 procs of magic damage. Rapid swings hits for 5 hits. So the procs go off on every swing.However If 2 of the procs were used up on autoattacks before Rapid swings there should only be 3 procs left. The problem at the moment is the skill will cause procs on all multiple attacks that land even if you should run out of procs halfway thru.Hope that makes sense.<div></div><p>Message Edited by MadBarman on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">07:00 AM</span></p>

[Cael]

<blockquote><hr>NG23985_01 wrote:<div>This change will help, but it ultimately wont matter - Rangers will still be significantly overpowered as a DPS class.</div><hr></blockquote><p>Youre VERY wrong, this is a death blow to Ranger DPS. Kind of proves how little people know about classes they ridicule</p>

[Ranja]

<div></div><p>This change is mainly to do with abilities that hit multiple times being used in conjunction with limited proc skills.Example:Thundering fists give 5 procs of magic damage. Rapid swings hits for 5 hits. So the procs go off on every swing.However If 2 of the procs were used up on autoattacks before Rapid swings there should only be 3 procs left. The problem at the moment is the skill will cause procs on all multiple attacks that land even if you should run out of procs halfway thru.Hope that makes sense.</p><hr>No it does not make sense. Poison is not a limited proc ability. If I shoot triple shot, I have three arrows that land. Each arrow is covered in poison. Why can't the poison proc three times. You example above makes sense in regards to Zerkers buit makes no sense in regards to poison procs.<p>Elbryan60 Ranger</p><p> </p><p>p.s. and to the stupid assassin that said "there is a God!" This affects you too or are you that excited to be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Why don't you want your damage abilities raised rather than rejoicing in the nerfiing of another class. This attitude disgusts me in MMOs and it the single reason it is driving me away. We team as groups you want each class to be able to do their job the best. I want assassins doing as much damage as us, I want sorcerors doing that as well. Pre CU-13 when we were swinging nail files and shooting stalks of celery, we never said nerf anyone . We simply wanted to be brought up with the rest of the DPS classes. Is it because the Ranger community is more mature than the rest maybe? But enough with rejoicing in the nerfage of other clasess. Becuase soon or later it is going to be your class. </p>

[MadBarman]

Just to add, poison is a limited proc effect. They have 200 procs available. If you have 2 procs left and use triple shot you will currently get an extra proc free.And to make my position clear, I don't like the change. I would much prefer the problem is actually fixed and not just worked around.<div></div>

[Kala Asuras]

<div></div>I have not posted much but do know my class well.  Offensive procs are the lifeblood of a ranger DPS.  This is why you see so many of us, even with the expansion into T7, trying to get T5 fabled pieces that have such procs.  Grey armour? that is fine if it can add a proc like the Cryptic Coat.  Honestly if the devs feel like procs are not supposed to function like they were in the past that is fine, but all the hassle they went through to balance classes took place with the previous system in place.  If they are going to make a sweeping change like this without realizing the result, namely that Rangers, with nothing to offer groups or raids other than DPS, go from Tier 1 DPS to essentialy the bottom of the heap, this will ruin the game for many of us.  I have never been one of the 'sky is falling all i can do is quit' people but these changes are not acceptable without other changed to balance the impact. Change procs, fine.  I wouldn't mind not paying for my DPS as i have had to in the past.  But look at the result, CAs would need to be increased in damage 2 to 3 fold.Stream of Arrows is not worthless as it does not proc.  30 seconds of no procs.  I noticed cheapshot not working as well, this was on solo mobs 3 levels below me.  The patch notes said that procs will only happen on the first attack of a CA. It seems to be worse than what they stated in the update notes.  They may be counting the CA for their cast length instead of the delay on the bow.  I logged in last night after the patch but before they put up the notes and noticed something wrong right away.  I messed around and came up with these numbers, not enough to make a conclusion but it is a cause for worry.Culling the Weak23 shots4 poison procs5 quick shot procs2 gleaming strikesPrecise Shot10 shots2 poison procs4 quick shot procs0 gleamig strikesTripple Arrow26 shots1 poison proc!!2 quick shot procs1 gleaming strikesNow compair those to the regular ranged auto attack.Auto Attack39 shots27 poison procs32 quick shot procs7 gleaming strikes<div></div><p>Message Edited by Kala Asuras on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:26 AM</span></p>

[Kizee]

<div>How does this effect autoattack?</div><div> </div><div>Does it mean that procs only go off when you use CA's and will never fire on autoattack damage?</div>

[MadBarman]

Procs will still work on autoattacks as they do now. This only effects applied procs and combat arts that hit multiple times<div></div>

[Smi]

<div></div>Wow.  Seriously, this is some brilliant game design.For the record, I am now triple whammied as a 60 alchemist (poison is about to be practically useless), a 60 jeweler (imbued rings are about to be completely useless), and most especially as a 60 ranger.First, all sense of accomplishment and fun has been sucked out of the class.  I have a valian bow.  Thus, I'm completely done with all raiding as the game currently stands.  Pre LU19, I scoured the item database looking for items with interesting or unique procs, giving my character a sense of item progression and fun.  No more of that!  Fun?  We can't have that.Also, they removed pretty much the most significant soloing tool at our disposable in Stream of Arrows.  Soloing in a tight place?  Who do you think you are, every other DPS class in the game?Now, if this change goes live, we'll have all of the drawbacks (consumables, range required to do anything, no utility, single slot item progression) and not even be a match for summoners in DPS. How is it, with the hardest encounters in the game only being beatable by like 1 or 2 guilds and only as recently as this month can you suddenly decide to go on a completely devestating nerfing spree?Pre LU-19, I was very much looking to KoS.  Now I'm not even sure I'll be continuing my subscription, much less sending you guys the extra fixed-cost of the expansion.  Great job on planning out your changes!  Also thanks so much for wasting my time spending months hunting for rare proc'ing items, I really appreciate it.  Oh and also thanks for having me go out and waste money making a 2nd imbued strength ring.   Great game design guys, just awesome.<div></div>

[Ezariel]

<div></div><p>Stop messing with proc rates!  The only class that is overpowered with procs at the moment is rangers.  And yes rangers do need to be brought down a few notches.  Just see all the parses where rangers are parsing 1200+ dps constantly in raids, while other dps classes are lucky to get 800.  I'm sorry if it offends rangers, but I've played one and I've seen how it really is and I am honest and say that rangers are so far above every other class at the moment that its just not even funny. </p><p>The problem with changing proc rates across the board is that other classes rely on procs as well.  By bringing rangers down a notch you bring them down a notch as well and absolutely nothing changes in the end.  Sure rangers are lower, but as a result so is everyone else. </p>

[Dagator]

<div></div><div>Agree with above poster Smirk, as I am in nearly the same boat.</div><div> </div><div>You know what is funny though, I have never heard anyone in a raid give me crap about putting out too much dps.  You know, like, hey ranger, we cannot have you because you do too much dps.  But on the forums thats usually all I see, is that how overpowered rangers are, and when we get a bad beat like this one that appears to be coming, people are happy.  So for those griefers out there, the next time you are in a raid after these changes occur, with a ranger or two, and wipe, you can be thankful they nerfed our dps, (providing we will even get into raids anymore)...</div><p>Message Edited by Dagator on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:04 PM</span></p>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>MadBarman wrote:<div></div>This change is mainly to do with abilities that hit multiple times being used in conjunction with limited proc skills.Example:Thundering fists give 5 procs of magic damage. Rapid swings hits for 5 hits. So the procs go off on every swing.However If 2 of the procs were used up on autoattacks before Rapid swings there should only be 3 procs left. The problem at the moment is the skill will cause procs on all multiple attacks that land even if you should run out of procs halfway thru.Hope that makes sense.<div></div><p>Message Edited by MadBarman on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">07:00 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Actually, they fixed this in a previous beta-patch, since procs are "triggered spell effects.""- Triggered spell effects will now only trigger as many times as they are supposed to, even if the trigger action happens multiple times at once."So now, they're making it so you don't get the extra procs of it, for example, Prismatic Discord line for Illusionists procs up to 3 times on a melee swing on somebody in the group. If you toss it on a Bruiser who uses their Crushing Fury line(8 hits), and all 8 hits connect, well you get 8 procs on the live server. After the above patch got applied it was limited to 3 procs, now it's down to 1 proc off of Crushing Fury.But anyway, it's obvious this patch is about making scouts do lower damage to get them within range of mages, though what's next, when do the summoners get hit by that nerf stick?

[Graton]

this is very clearly another attempt to bring down ranger dps without devs coming out and saying 'we want to bring down ranger dps'.  it's clear that they probably never realized the inevitable outcome of attaching the proc rate of ca's to the delay of the weapon being used so why don't they investigate that mechanic rather than just throwing garbage at the wall and seeing what sticks. they have in the process of trying to deal with this nerfed fabled proc weapons and now greatly diminished the effectiveness of multi-hit ca's.  as an assassin i have one multi hit range attack which i use specifically because it gives me a great chance to get a proc in. it's dmg is extremely subpar compared to it's casting time and power. there will be literally no point in casting it with this change. i can't imagine rangers and assassins are the only classes to have these multi-hit attacks so this is going to hurt everybody.the next step will probably be to make 1/2 of raid mobs poison immune. i don't understand why they don't just take proc mechanics head on the way they did the combat revamp in lu 16.<div></div>

[Graton]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>bentgate wrote:<div></div><p>p.s. and to the stupid assassin that said "there is a God!" This affects you too or are you that excited to be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Why don't you want your damage abilities raised rather than rejoicing in the nerfiing of another class. This attitude disgusts me in MMOs and it the single reason it is driving me away. We team as groups you want each class to be able to do their job the best. I want assassins doing as much damage as us, I want sorcerors doing that as well. Pre CU-13 when we were swinging nail files and shooting stalks of celery, we never said nerf anyone . We simply wanted to be brought up with the rest of the DPS classes. Is it because the Ranger community is more mature than the rest maybe? But enough with rejoicing in the nerfage of other clasess. Becuase soon or later it is going to be your class. </p><hr></blockquote>so the ranger community is more mature than the assassin community based of the comments of one lvl 42 trouble maker in a single post? that guy does not represent the community and if you go to the assassin class board you will not see widespread calls to nerf rangers. there will always be insitgators in every class and you know as well as i do that while most rangers didn't want others nerfed in the past , there was at least one dope that made a "nerf them" comment in a post somewhere.while i agree with you that it would be nice to see assassins brought in line with rangers and then warlocks and wizards brought up as well, you have to see that this would make raid encounters awfully trivial. raid dps even on orange mobs is so high they don't last long enough to recycle 60 second refresh ca's. if there were now 4 classes doing that dps rather than one it would only be more ridiculous. that's why i think it's unlikely we'll see anyone scaled up. i think we're all more likely to be nerfed than anything.</span></div>

[NG23985_01]

<div>Don't give me that "blah blah 99% of our dmg comes from poisons" garbage argument. <img src="/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Ive parsed a ranger in my guild without poison AT ALL. He still did more than double the damage of my Warlock.</div><div> </div><div>I dont remember the hard numbers from the fights, but it was somewhere in the following area...</div><div> </div><div>Ranger, No Poison at all: 65,000 damageMe (Warlock): 25,000 damage</div><div> </div><div>Ranger, T6 rare poison: 85,000 damage</div><div>Me (Warlock): <20,000 damage</div>

[Ranja]

<div></div><hr>so the ranger community is more mature than the assassin community based of the comments of one lvl 42 trouble maker in a single post? that guy does not represent the community and if you go to the assassin class board you will not see widespread calls to nerf rangers. there will always be insitgators in every class and you know as well as i do that while most rangers didn't want others nerfed in the past , there was at least one dope that made a "nerf them" comment in a post somewhere.while i agree with you that it would be nice to see assassins brought in line with rangers and then warlocks and wizards brought up as well, you have to see that this would make raid encounters awfully trivial. raid dps even on orange mobs is so high they don't last long enough to recycle 60 second refresh ca's. if there were now 4 classes doing that dps rather than one it would only be more ridiculous. that's why i think it's unlikely we'll see anyone scaled up. i think we're all more likely to be nerfed than anything.<p></p><div><b><a target="_blank" href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=112187102"><font color="#c8c1b5">Graton</font></a></b>60 Assassin / 60 JewelerAncient VengeanceNajena</div><p></p><hr><p>You are correct Graton. I did not mean to lump everyone into the same basket. I hate generalizations and I do agree that it is more likely that we are brought down becasue you are correct that if we all did RAnger DPS there would be no need for any other class. Mobs would be dead in 15 seconds. That post just really got me - and I notice he has not responded since then. Rangers have been villified since the CU and posts like that with no helpful insight or comments really [Removed for Content] me off.</p><p>I generally hate the nerf word and I wish it would go away. And, I hate it more when other classes call for the nerf of any other class. This is a team game and every class should want every other class to perfom as expected. As long as we stay T1 DPS I don't care what changes happen. As long as I can do my job and am wanted on raids, groups, and I can solo when need be - it is ok.</p><p> </p><p>Elbryan60 Ranger</p><p> </p>

[Dojoc]

<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>NG23985_01 schrieb:<div>Don't give me that "blah blah 99% of our dmg comes from poisons" garbage argument. <img src="/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Ive parsed a ranger in my guild without poison AT ALL. He still did more than double the damage of my Warlock.</div><div> </div><div>I dont remember the hard numbers from the fights, but it was somewhere in the following area...</div><div> </div><div>Ranger, No Poison at all: 65,000 damageMe (Warlock): 25,000 damage</div><div> </div><div>Ranger, T6 rare poison: 85,000 damage</div><div>Me (Warlock): <20,000 damage</div><hr></blockquote>lol, you are really a bad warlock <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span> lol, 25k dmg vs a Ranger without poison, lolnoob</span></div><p>Nachricht bearbeitet von Dojocan am <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:05 AM</span></p>

[Cuz]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Smirk wrote:<div></div>Wow.  Seriously, this is some brilliant game design.For the record, I am now triple whammied as a 60 alchemist (poison is about to be practically useless), a 60 jeweler (imbued rings are about to be completely useless), and most especially as a 60 ranger.<hr></blockquote>I'm not going to comment on the ranger aspect, cuz well I don't know enoguh about it. The other two however I will debate. First off how are poisons going to be worthless? I'm just curious. Secondly, I think your jeweler will be better off in T7. It would appear that resist will be mostly coming from jewelry for T7. Also if you look the jewely seems (for the most part) to have 2 resists on them. So for raiders, or more hardcore players, they will probably stock up on multiple sets to maxmize the resists.

[Tideri]

<div>Actually I haven't responded because I'm at work and don't have the opportunity to respond to every post as they come in.  I'd like to see a point where Rangers actually have to work for their DPS and this is one step, hopefully more to follow.  I would LOVE for you to be able to have the same DPS as you do now, if it required more than point and click.  Additionally, procs have needed a fix, so finally something is happening.</div><div> </div><div>So, I'm a trouble maker because I have an opinion that goes against yours?  Well, if thats what makes me a trouble maker then get out the brand.  I am also aware that this change affects all classes, but the difference is that all of use might drop in DPS a bit, but it'll fix a mechanic that is obviously broken.  Oh, and just because I'm the only person here saying it, doesn't mean that alot of other classes don't think it.</div><div> </div><div>I'm sure your retort will focus on my level or other silly nonsense, but my opinion is just that.  If you wanna whine some more though, I'll be more than happy to listen.</div>

[Smi]

Because with the poison proc rate significantly reduced, poisons A.  become less important and B.  Last a lot longer which leads to C.  No demand for them for an alchemist, making my TRADEskill even more worthless.<div></div>

[Cuz]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Smirk wrote:Because with the poison proc rate significantly reduced, poisons A.  become less important and B.  Last a lot longer which leads to C.  No demand for them for an alchemist, making my TRADEskill even more worthless.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Where was it said that proc rates have changed?</p><p>A - Poisons will do damage less often, not become less important. Any extra damage a DPS class can get is important, or so I thought.</p><p>B - It's true that they will last longer. However how much longer? My swashie only has 2 multiple attack skills. True he's low level, so they might get more. What I'm saying is that on a global scope it might only mean that your poisons last 10% (it's a fictional number) longer than usual if you include all poison users.</p><p>C - They're lowering the proc rates on skills not lobotomizing poison users. It's not because of this change that they'll suddenly become stupid and through away extra DPS.</p><p>Finally you're alchemist was never worthless so I don't understand where the "more worthless" comes from.</p><p>I do feel for you and your ranger. It seems like it might be a big setback. However your alchemist should be ok <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Ranja]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Tiderius wrote:<div>Actually I haven't responded because I'm at work and don't have the opportunity to respond to every post as they come in.  I'd like to see a point where Rangers actually have to work for their DPS and this is one step, hopefully more to follow.  I would LOVE for you to be able to have the same DPS as you do now, if it required more than point and click.  Additionally, procs have needed a fix, so finally something is happening.</div><div> </div><div>So, I'm a trouble maker because I have an opinion that goes against yours?  Well, if thats what makes me a trouble maker then get out the brand.  I am also aware that this change affects all classes, but the difference is that all of use might drop in DPS a bit, but it'll fix a mechanic that is obviously broken.  Oh, and just because I'm the only person here saying it, doesn't mean that alot of other classes don't think it.</div><div> </div><div>I'm sure your retort will focus on my level or other silly nonsense, but my opinion is just that.  If you wanna whine some more though, I'll be more than happy to listen.</div><hr></blockquote><p>ACtually I dont have a retort. This thread shows that you do have a brain. And am not so idiot that rejoices in the misery of others. I have no problems with what you stated - it was your childish "There is a God" post that was stupid. If this was your original post, I would have been fine with it. Everything you said makes complete sense and I agree except for the fact that we dont have to work for our DPS. We dance around just as much as you.</p><p>These threads, like yours above, show intelligent and thought out design. Unlike "There is a God" which simply shows you rejoice in others misery.  I commend you for your intelligent and thought out post that actually expresses an opinion. keep me coming :smileyvery-happy:</p><p> </p><p>Elbryan60 Ranger</p><p> </p>

[Blackguard]

<div></div>We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be. I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected. If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on. As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc. Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type. These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc. As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc. Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages. While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game. While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp. Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play. Edit: Added clarification <div></div><p>Message Edited by Blackguard on <span class=date_text>02-15-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:47 PM</span>

[Tideri]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>bentgate wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Tiderius wrote:<div>Actually I haven't responded because I'm at work and don't have the opportunity to respond to every post as they come in.  I'd like to see a point where Rangers actually have to work for their DPS and this is one step, hopefully more to follow.  I would LOVE for you to be able to have the same DPS as you do now, if it required more than point and click.  Additionally, procs have needed a fix, so finally something is happening.</div><div> </div><div>So, I'm a trouble maker because I have an opinion that goes against yours?  Well, if thats what makes me a trouble maker then get out the brand.  I am also aware that this change affects all classes, but the difference is that all of use might drop in DPS a bit, but it'll fix a mechanic that is obviously broken.  Oh, and just because I'm the only person here saying it, doesn't mean that alot of other classes don't think it.</div><div> </div><div>I'm sure your retort will focus on my level or other silly nonsense, but my opinion is just that.  If you wanna whine some more though, I'll be more than happy to listen.</div><hr></blockquote><p>ACtually I dont have a retort. This thread shows that you do have a brain. And am not so idiot that rejoices in the misery of others. I have no problems with what you stated - it was your childish "There is a God" post that was stupid. If this was your original post, I would have been fine with it. Everything you said makes complete sense and I agree except for the fact that we dont have to work for our DPS. We dance around just as much as you.</p><p>These threads, like yours above, show intelligent and thought out design. Unlike "There is a God" which simply shows you rejoice in others misery.  I commend you for your intelligent and thought out post that actually expresses an opinion. keep me coming :smileyvery-happy:</p><p> </p><p>Elbryan60 Ranger</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>Thank you for your response as well, perhaps I should not have been so sarcastic in my first post.  Unfortunately, I am a jerk and don't usually think about things like being nice.  :smileyhappy:  That being said, thanks again for responding maturely as well.</p><p>As for Blackguard's response.  By stating that Ranger's are not supposed to be the highest DPS class are you insinuating that all Tier I DPS classes should be exactly the same or that one specific class should be doing more than the Ranger, e.g. Wizard or Warlock?</p>

[Smi]

" We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be."You know what?  I'm generally a very professional person, but I just have to actually say (even though it'll be edited).  [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] you."Crying" doom and gloom?  And then in the next sentence you go on to state unequivocably, yes, we are completely nerfing your class.  Well then gee, it's not exactly incorrect to call you on the doom and gloom then is it?A long time ago a developer specifically laid out the damage tiers.  Rangers and Wizards were at the top of the chart.  Gee, that would say that they ARE supposed to be tied for the highest DPS in the game, right?  After these changes, they won't even be remotely close.  And at the same time, they have required range for their arts (a huge tradeoff for the miniscule upgrade that leather/chain gives over cloth).  You've removed everything fun about the class by removing procs from items.  Hell, there's not a single [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] epic quest bow in the game, so every other class gets 2 level of prismatic items which have neat procs which they can use, none of that for the "overpowered" rangers who have to sit at range to do any damage.  You've removed ALL item progression, which is the BASIS for MUD/MMORPG play for us.  Are you an idiot?  Seriously?   How can you be so blind to how broken you have made this class?  <div></div>

[Tideri]

<div>As previously stated, I'm a jerk.  That being said, its probably not a good idea to insult one of the designers, especially since he is participating in the thread.  Devs are like groundhogs, except instead of shadows, they run away from mean people.</div>

[Graton]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Tiderius wrote:<div> </div><div>So, I'm a trouble maker because I have an opinion that goes against yours?  Well, if thats what makes me a trouble maker then get out the brand.  I am also aware that this change affects all classes, but the difference is that all of use might drop in DPS a bit, but it'll fix a mechanic that is obviously broken.  Oh, and just because I'm the only person here saying it, doesn't mean that alot of other classes don't think it.</div><div> </div><div>I'm sure your retort will focus on my level or other silly nonsense, but my opinion is just that.  If you wanna whine some more though, I'll be more than happy to listen.</div><hr>no, you're a trouble maker because you made a stupid one line post that did nothing other than bask in the misfortune of others , "wow, there is a god.". that's not a well-informed opinion, it's a taunt.also it doesn't fix a broken mechanic one iota. the broken mehanic is this, proc rate goes up or down with delay based on its ratio to 3 seconds. so a long bow with a delay of 7 seconds is more than twice as likely to proc as the stated percentage. conversely a weapon with a 1.5 delay is half as likely to proc as it's stated proc rate. this would work fine if the only dmg in the game was auto attack or auto range dmg. afterall slower weapons which swing less should have an added proc chance since they have fewer chances overall. this mechanic worked great in eq1 but it really doesn't in eq2.the problem comes with ca's. they are limited by casting time and recast time and have nothing to do with delay. despite that, your chance to proc on a ca is still based on the delay of the weapon in your mainhand or in your range slot (depending on the ca) vs 3 seconds. therefore range ca's have a very high proc precentage despite the fact that they can be chained together. so if i fire spitting asp, fel shot and then assailing blast even though this only took 7 seconds total let's say, i'm getting a proc chance per attack as if it took 28 seconds or 7 seconds per attack. for rangers who have more ranged ca's than assassins by chaining them they radically increase their proc rate above the stated numbers.this is the broken mechanic. the double proc on double attacks was actually intended and it's really the icing on the cake. that's why rather than trying to nerf rangers by removing weapon procs and double procs, they should tackle proc mechanics head on. it seems to me they have no choice but to separate ca's from auto range / auto attack and calculate proc separately. off the top of my head i can't possibly put together a balanced system but i can certainly see what's borked about procs and ca's and it isn't what they are changing.</blockquote></span></div>

[Lexan]

<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the <strong><font color="#cc0000">Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.</font></strong>If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.</p><p> </p><p>Which Class Is??????</p></blockquote>

[BtilTheMage]

<div>"Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be"</div><div> </div><div><font color="#cc0033">I'm so glad a dev finally came out and said this.</font></div>

[Smi]

That's all well and good, but he shouldn't run away, this is his job.  We are his customers, paying for a service (though that seems likely to change if they keep making changes without thinking them through).  He is making changes which impact characters that we've put 100s of hours into.  All the hours I sunk into T5 raiding, getting my prismatic, all of that was obliterated last patch by removing procs from my character.  Now they seek to completely remove any and all advantages of playing a ranger while leaving us with all of the drawbacks (required range, consumable items, light armor, no roots/stun/mez).  It's depressing, and telling people who have wasted all of this time investing into a character to just suck it up, too bad, so sad.  Well that is asinine. <div></div>

[leafnin]

<div>HAH! I was right 'normalization'  geez..guess your taking everything from WoW now aren't you BG?? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  They've been crying about hunters the same way didn't think it'd ever happen here.  Boy was I wrong.  What's next balancing the entire game based on PvP??  So if this mechanic is a bug that's being exploited why'd it take you 15 months to figure it out?  You'd think when you have most the scout/fighter classes doing it you'd have plenty of good data already to change it.  <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  (Looking forward to LU 30 for his pet, 30 sec reuse FD and Freeze traps.  Tha'ts if it doesn't imbalance PVP wouldn't want us to actually be able to stay ranged or anything.)<blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote></div>

[Kurizok]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>BtilTheMage wrote:<div>"Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be"</div><div> </div><div><font color="#cc0033">I'm so glad a dev finally came out and said this.</font></div><hr></blockquote>This patch, suprisingly will be dirge appreciation month.  All bow down to the mighty dirge.  j/k!

[LoreLady]

Will assassins and rangers still be ontop for single target DPS? - I realize that you dont wnat rangers to outdamage everyone. But, I dont want to be outdamaged on single target mobs by every mage, monk out there and go back to things before the combat changes. Is it possible to post a %age of dps on where you want all the classes to be - or a dps range. And - will we have to buy the best of the best poisons to stay even "on par" or above other classes.I dont mind taking a dps hit, simply because I knew I was overpowered when I am able to easilly look down on assassins. But, I dont want to be in a situation where I am paying 10gold a poison just to stay on the same dps line with wizards on a single target mob.

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.<font color="#ffff00">As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.</font>Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Ummmm....my Swashy CAs are like 0.5 seconds...this doesn't really sound feasbile. Will there be a basement minimum on CA delay?<p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:59 AM</span></p>

[Zeijandi]

To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.  Personally, I didn't know about this proc bug, so never took advantage of it knowingly.  I stick a dmg poison on and start shooting.  Perhaps there can be some clarification as to how this, if it does, will effect the reaction of poisons to attacks made.<div></div>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Sounds Reasonable but i actually dont believe devs, as experience in the past with you guys and former devs in former games has shown.You listed Rangers in Tier1 damage, now youre saying we shouldnt be highest damage. I can live with not being highest, though i dont understand why conjurers for example (listed tier3/2 ?) should be Number one.I also dont understand why Wizards show have more group utility as rangers and more dps, but thats a different story.By Nerfing / Fixing the Procs you degraded Rangers from Tier1/Number1 to Tier3/Number4. You might want to test and parse it yoruself, bruiser do easily more dmg than us atm on beta servers and there goes my [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] ?Why does this bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] have to start so short be4 release ? This way you can almost say "sorry but we will [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] up scouts and especially rangers for some weeks, and at your bad luck we did it just at the release of KoS, so dont bother to log in because groups wont need you IN COMPARISON to balanced classes"I dont expect answers or replies, but i just think you should think before acting ... the old ACTION-CAUSE-THINKING, might be a good way to start.And as you might realise by now, im [Removed for Content] off and would definately like to show devs the devastating effects of poisoned arrows shot from english longbows.</span><div></div>

[Late]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Smirk wrote: Rangers and Wizards were at the top of the chart.  Gee, that would say that they ARE supposed to be tied for the highest DPS in the game, right?<font color="#ff3300">A Dev just told you this wasn't supposed to be the case. Why ask a question you already know the answer to?</font> After these changes, they won't even be remotely close.<font color="#ff0000">How about you wait till the changes are pushed live, experience them for yourself before you whine and moan?  Its not like you're going to be doing healer-class dps by any means.  God forbid you cant solo a triple up mob 2 levels below your current level anymore. I can see how this will make the game totally unplayable for you...... /rolleyes.We all knew this was coming, I don't see why this is such a shock.</font><div></div><hr></blockquote></span></div>

[Blackguard]

I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected. <div></div>

[TwistedFaith]

And these changes are being made 6/7 months after the combat changes because?Only one week to test the impact of these changes before the expansion is released as well, fantastic.So you let players roll up characters knowing full well that their character was completely operating at a different damage level and now 6/7 months later you've decided it's time to fix the problem. Well thats just fantastic, another home run for SoE customer relations.Care to post a updated list of where each class is supposed to be in terms of DPS? Most people assumed that the post by Moorguard was true and that Rangers were supposed to be T1 dps, seems that from what you have said thats not the case.

[Tideri]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Graton wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Tiderius wrote:<div> </div><div>So, I'm a trouble maker because I have an opinion that goes against yours?  Well, if thats what makes me a trouble maker then get out the brand.  I am also aware that this change affects all classes, but the difference is that all of use might drop in DPS a bit, but it'll fix a mechanic that is obviously broken.  Oh, and just because I'm the only person here saying it, doesn't mean that alot of other classes don't think it.</div><div> </div><div>I'm sure your retort will focus on my level or other silly nonsense, but my opinion is just that.  If you wanna whine some more though, I'll be more than happy to listen.</div><hr>no, you're a trouble maker because you made a stupid one line post that did nothing other than bask in the misfortune of others , "wow, there is a god.". that's not a well-informed opinion, it's a taunt.also it doesn't fix a broken mechanic one iota. the broken mehanic is this, proc rate goes up or down with delay based on its ratio to 3 seconds. so a long bow with a delay of 7 seconds is more than twice as likely to proc as the stated percentage. conversely a weapon with a 1.5 delay is half as likely to proc as it's stated proc rate. this would work fine if the only dmg in the game was auto attack or auto range dmg. afterall slower weapons which swing less should have an added proc chance since they have fewer chances overall. this mechanic worked great in eq1 but it really doesn't in eq2.the problem comes with ca's. they are limited by casting time and recast time and have nothing to do with delay. despite that, your chance to proc on a ca is still based on the delay of the weapon in your mainhand or in your range slot (depending on the ca) vs 3 seconds. therefore range ca's have a very high proc precentage despite the fact that they can be chained together. so if i fire spitting asp, fel shot and then assailing blast even though this only took 7 seconds total let's say, i'm getting a proc chance per attack as if it took 28 seconds or 7 seconds per attack. for rangers who have more ranged ca's than assassins by chaining them they radically increase their proc rate above the stated numbers.this is the broken mechanic. the double proc on double attacks was actually intended and it's really the icing on the cake. that's why rather than trying to nerf rangers by removing weapon procs and double procs, they should tackle proc mechanics head on. it seems to me they have no choice but to separate ca's from auto range / auto attack and calculate proc separately. off the top of my head i can't possibly put together a balanced system but i can certainly see what's borked about procs and ca's and it isn't what they are changing.</blockquote></span></div><hr></blockquote><p>First point... You misquoted me, might want to work on that.</p><p>Second, you're arguing with me on what part of a game mechanic is broken.  I never specified what was broken about it, I only said that the mechanic affected one class more than another.  Whatever you want, Hero, you just keep on arguing with me about something I agree on with you.</p><p>From both of the above posts I'd have to say that the next skill you might wanna level up is reading comprehension.</p><p>To Blackguard:  Thanks for the clarification</p><p>Message Edited by Tiderius on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:34 PM</span></p>

[Smi]

I suppose I should thank you Blackguard.  By so completely screwing over my class in the past month and showing no real understanding of how to reduce the damage output while still making the class interesting and competitive, you've at least managed to save me the cost of Kingdom of Sky.You have cancelled your subscription. Thank you for your patronage.<div></div>

[Memory]

I would suggest some ppl read this thread before posting aswell<a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=39&message.id=21646">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=39&message.id=21646</a>I am playing on beta and i am parsing multiple classes, rangers can be lucky to do Tier3 dmg, but not even compete to bruiser atm.Stream is broken aswell , cause a proc animation suspends the streams by seconds.Aas are broken (i.e. point blank shot has a 5-5m range which is like keeping us from using it, toxic expertise doesnt proc initial poison dmg at all, ..)This is more than just a nerf bat or fix, this is like destroying a class ... IF THIS GOES LIVE<div></div>

[Moorgard]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zeijandi wrote:<BR>To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</P> <P>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</P> <P>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</P> <P>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</P>

[Kreegan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:Care to post a updated list of where each class is supposed to be in terms of DPS? Most people assumed that the post by Moorguard was true and that Rangers were supposed to be T1 dps, seems that from what you have said thats not the case.<hr></blockquote><p>Did you not read this?</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected.</p></blockquote>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected.<div></div><hr></blockquote>nice way to fix us is to break our class down lower than tier 3any word if our CAs or anything else is going to do more dmg ? because atm we are lower tier3 (parsed)</span><div></div>

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Blackguard,</p><p>Thank you for clarrifying this situation. After 8 months of leveling by trhe bloody stumps of my bowfingers, unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, I finally found myself enjoying my character.  You make my decicion much easier</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Dear ************* ,This is an email to verify that the recent pre-order you placed at the Station Store has been cancelled. No charges have been billed to your credit card. If the cancellation of your order is in error, please visit the Station Store at <a target="_blank" href="http://store.station.sony.com/"><font color="#c8c1b5">http://store.station.sony.com</font></a> and place your order again.Thank you, and do visit us again!Sony Online Entertainment Inc.SOE Europe Limited for customers in the EU<a target="_blank" href="http://www.station.sony.com/"><font color="#c8c1b5">www.station.sony.com</font></a>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREORDER NUMBER: 8_____6PREORDER DATE: February 4, 2006-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>to think I spent an hour defending EQ2 to a friend last night, while watching him play WoW</p><p> </p>

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Smirk wrote:I suppose I should thank you Blackguard.  By so completely screwing over my class in the past month and showing no real understanding of how to reduce the damage output while still making the class interesting and competitive, you've at least managed to save me the cost of Kingdom of Sky.You have cancelled your subscription. Thank you for your patronage.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Buh-By Thank you for making EQ2 that much better. We appreciate your concideration.

[Cael]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Smirk wrote:I suppose I should thank you Blackguard.  By so completely screwing over my class in the past month and showing no real understanding of how to reduce the damage output while still making the class interesting and competitive, you've at least managed to save me the cost of Kingdom of Sky.You have cancelled your subscription. Thank you for your patronage.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Same here. You couldnt tone down the poisons, you couldnt tone down our CA's. Instead, you took a sledge hammer to your own game mechanics to nerf us into the stone age. Very nice and tactful.</p><p>Im done.</p>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote>and by this youre bringing rangers down to tier3, believe the numbers if ya dont believe the people.>40% of our dmg was the poison procs, taken them, means Tier3.So if you dont power up our CA or anything else we're [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ed</span><div></div>

[Kyralis]

<span><blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:And these changes are being made 6/7 months after the combat changes because?Only one week to test the impact of these changes before the expansion is released as well, fantastic.So you let players roll up characters knowing full well that their character was completely operating at a different damage level and now 6/7 months later you've decided it's time to fix the problem. Well thats just fantastic, another home run for SoE customer relations.Care to post a updated list of where each class is supposed to be in terms of DPS? Most people assumed that the post by Moorguard was true and that Rangers were supposed to be T1 dps, seems that from what you have said thats not the case.<hr></blockquote>Or you could read what Blackguard posted above you, realize that Rangers are supposed to be T1, and that they are currently T-ungodly-uber. Parses of 2x-3x the next highest on raids are not uncommon... and not at all what is in line with damage tiers.I don't know why it took them well over a year to understand the problem with combat arts and proc chance calculation, but it's nice that they're finally realizing that such a bug is the root of the current ranger imbalance.</span><div></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote>why not just lower the speed of the bows ?.. decrease the auto attack damage of the arrows a bit to compensate.I understand the mechanics behind it, and can see the hows and whys but your LU20 is nerfing the crap out of rangers in many respects.  The procs, the poison changes, I really dont want my ranger to be back to preLU13 where bow arts were useless and our DPS lower than a gnome swinging a sack of wet mud..just please please do things in moderation ... reduce it a little.. let the dust settle.. a little more.. etc etc.. massive nerfs just upset everyone.</span></div>

[Naithik]

<div>dont make me cry... rangers are one of the most wanted classes in raid. on our raids the highest DPS is always a ranger, who does at least 2x more than any other class.</div><div> </div><div>of course i can see why a lvl 53 wouldn't be wanted on a raid... but don't blame the class. Rangers, as they are right now, are really too powerful, and making them more balanced is an acceptable solution. They will still be extremely good dps</div>

[leafnin]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Good as long as I get the 'chance' to compete I'm golden.  I'm not a fan of one class being 'DPS King' myself.  I like being forced to tweak my character to get that extra point or two.  We'll see how it goes come LU 20.  If it works out ok and the classes can realistically compete I guess we'll all find out then how many of these people simply just can't play their class.</p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor</p><p> </p>

[TwistedFaith]

This is the first time I have ever thought of cancelling my account and i'v been a paying customer since the game was released.I'm normally not a knee jerk reaction type of person but i'm livid with the shear contempt shown by developers for paying customers who pour 100's of hrs into this game.

[Fireci]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>What about Stream of Arrows?  Will I only get 1 chance for a proc for a CA that lasts 30 seconds?</p><p>Also, saying that we should be on par with Wizards and such, why do we need to buy expensive poisons just to be able to keep up with them?  Shouldn't Casters have to buy or maintain regens in order to increase their dmg output?</p><p>I always liked the fact that if I wanted to have the best DPS possible, I had to invest in crafted arrows and rare poisons.  Now I'll have to do that just to compete with a class that has no consumables.</p><p> </p><p>Fireci - 60 Ranger - Najena</p>

[CrazedMut]

<div></div><p></p><hr><blockquote><p>Moorgard wrote:</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote><p>What about timed attack buffs such as Inspired Daring for Swashbucklers, where the <strong>whole point</strong> of the spell is that every attack adds extra damage. Is it only CAs with a set number of procs being fixed? Since swashbucklers have a few flurry attacks, this will see a drop in DPS enough for me to reply. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</p>

[Late]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><p>Blackguard,</p><p>Thank you for clarrifying this situation. After 8 months of leveling by trhe bloody stumps of my bowfingers, unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, I finally found myself enjoying my character.  You make my decicion much easier</p><hr></blockquote>If you were unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, you really must have a problem. I don't know what server you play on, but on mistmoore rangers are loved by all for their over the top dps.Oh, and I can see how it would be so terrible now (if the changes are done well) that you might be on par or slightly below a wizard dps-wise (gasp!) Their dps is just HORRIBLE! /sarcasm off.</span></div>

[OneBadAli]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Blackguard,</p><p><font color="#cc0000">Thank you for clarrifying this situation. After 8 months of leveling by trhe bloody stumps of my bowfingers, unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, I finally found myself enjoying my character.  You make my decicion much easier</font></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Dear ************* ,This is an email to verify that the recent pre-order you placed at the Station Store has been cancelled. No charges have been billed to your credit card. If the cancellation of your order is in error, please visit the Station Store at <a target="_blank" href="http://store.station.sony.com/"><font color="#c8c1b5">http://store.station.sony.com</font></a> and place your order again.Thank you, and do visit us again!Sony Online Entertainment Inc.SOE Europe Limited for customers in the EU<a target="_blank" href="http://www.station.sony.com/"><font color="#c8c1b5">www.station.sony.com</font></a>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREORDER NUMBER: 8_____6PREORDER DATE: February 4, 2006-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>to think I spent an hour defending EQ2 to a friend last night, while watching him play WoW</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>So you cant double sorcerer dps now, and your ready to quit over it? lol, good riddance then. Why dont you THOROUGHLY test the changes before whining like a school girl. Seriously, i thought mages complained about being inferior, this is just pathetic. Whine whine whine whine.  I cant double wizard dps now, so im tier 3 dps and i quit, wah wah.Seriously guys, grow up. These changes arent going to ruin your class, unless you consider not being able to double mage dps as "ruined".Your dps will still be higher then mages (although by not as much). You still have better mitigation then us, you can still match or beat our dps, you can still switch between damage types so as to always be an effective dps dealer (piercing, slashing etc). You are still superior to mages, and you are still superior in dps, just not by as much. So why dont you calm down, thoroughly test the changes, and see that your not tier 3 dps, your just tier 1 dps (not the tier above that like you were before these changes).Its not the end of the world, so drop the drama.</p><p>Message Edited by OneBadAlien on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:46 PM</span></p>

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><hr></blockquote>How will this be calculated. I am curious as a Swashy that has <strong>extremely</strong> low cast times on their CAs?

[Racmo]

Blackguard,   The numbers people are posting does not seem to back up what you're saying was done.  I think you might want to examine the testing methodology somewhat because there is a disconnect.On another note.  I played EQ2 since opening day off and on.  Played WoW also.  Left WoW permanently recently to come to EQ2 because of the changes I saw as positive here and the negative nerfs there.You guys are screwing up....bad.  I think you're taking a sledge hammer to a tack.  Might want to err on the side of caution.  Just my 2cents...and my montly subscription fee.<div></div>

[valkyrja]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Fireci wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>What about Stream of Arrows?  Will I only get 1 chance for a proc for a CA that lasts 30 seconds?</p><p>Also, saying that we should be on par with Wizards and such, why do we need to buy expensive poisons just to be able to keep up with them?  Shouldn't Casters have to buy or maintain regens in order to increase their dmg output?</p><p>I always liked the fact that if I wanted to have the best DPS possible, I had to invest in crafted arrows and rare poisons.  Now I'll have to do that just to compete with a class that has no consumables.</p><p> </p><p>Fireci - 60 Ranger - Najena</p><hr></blockquote>This argument is so tired.  Every other wizard I know would gladly shell out money to rival Ranger DPS. </span></div>

[Niuan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Autoattack damage make for such a small percentage of ranger dps....</font></p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Well...  I am growing tired of playing a game that changes the very CORE of its game mechanics Every expansion in the name of bug fixing. </p><p>EQ2 should change its name to EQBEATA2.  I expect some changes to try and bring the classes closer... But the entire obliteration of a class every expansion while hoisting the "never our intent" flag.</p><p>We are talking about mechanics in place since release.... comon now.</p>

[TwistedFaith]

<blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><hr></blockquote>How will this be calculated. I am curious as a Swashy that has <strong>extremely</strong> low cast times on their CAs?<hr></blockquote>Lets be honest with this being done 1 week before the expansion, scouts are going to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ED for months after whilst SoE decides who is supposed to be where.

[Aegori]

this has to be the biggest overreaction by players regarding a mechnic none of them have even tested yet... well done.To those that cancelled and are moving to WoW... good luck to you. Rangers/Hunters just had one of the biggest nerfs in their history within WoW.

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected.<div></div><hr></blockquote>as a ranger I agree... our DPS is too high.I'd prefer if you adjusted it in little bits though, rather than just nerf it completely... rather than halve it, reduce it by 10% until its at the right level .. these changes are going to lower ranges below the other classes by along way.in between rewriting your entire game mechanics how about throwing the guardians a bone.. and the templars.. and kicking your art/item teams [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] into putting in craftable Gi's for the brawlersyou should be ballancing your nerfs with some honey .. ballance the rangers by all means.. but help out some of the classes that so dearly need it.</span></div>

[Krooner]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Fireci wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>What about Stream of Arrows?  Will I only get 1 chance for a proc for a CA that lasts 30 seconds?</p><p>Also, saying that we should be on par with Wizards and such, why do we need to buy expensive poisons just to be able to keep up with them?  Shouldn't Casters have to buy or maintain regens in order to increase their dmg output?</p><p>I always liked the fact that if I wanted to have the best DPS possible, I had to invest in crafted arrows and rare poisons.  Now I'll have to do that just to compete with a class that has no consumables.</p><p> </p><p>Fireci - 60 Ranger - Najena</p><hr></blockquote><p>I tried to find the quote but couldnt.</p><p>I believe its suppose to work this way.</p><p>start fighting.</p><p>Multi hit CA with poison or damage proc up</p><p>whap-proc whap whap whap (3 second delay) whap-proc.</p><p>If your Combat art lasts more than 3 seconds then you should get more than one proc.</p>

[Racmo]

<span>-----------------------------------------This argument is so tired.  Every other wizard I know would gladly shell out money to rival Ranger DPS.-----------------------------------------Then you're missing the point.  The question you should ask, is...would you GLADLY shell that money out to keep your current DPS?</span><div></div>

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span>I understand the mechanics behind it, and can see the hows and whys but your LU20 is nerfing the crap out of rangers in many respects.  </span></div><hr></blockquote>Hey...don't forget us Swashies. He got hit in the [Removed for Content] pretty hard with them using the CA cast time. Think how that calcualtion will work on our .5 ,or whatever, cast time CAs. We can feel your pain....trust me. I bet Brigands also. This is a big hit for the scout DPS classes, although rangers take the brunt of it. :smileysad:<p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:57 AM</span></p>

[theorbell]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected.<div></div><hr></blockquote>/agree and appreciate the clarification.  i don't like the change, but it's understandable.  However, if what is being reported on beta is true, that the current "fix" waaaay overcompensated for ranger live server dps, you have more tweaking to do that i hope is resolved before KoS release.  After all the great stuff done for rangers at LU13, i'd hate to see what is now a desirable class ruined.

[Geothe]

<div></div><p>eh.</p><p>they completely changed ALL fighting mechanics like 3 days before the release of DOF.</p><p>and you are acting suprised that they are doing it again a week before the next expansion?</p><p>lol</p><p><img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>OneBadAlien wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Blackguard,</p><p><font color="#cc0000">Thank you for clarrifying this situation. After 8 months of leveling by trhe bloody stumps of my bowfingers, unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, I finally found myself enjoying my character.  You make my decicion much easier</font></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Dear ************* ,This is an email to verify that the recent pre-order you placed at the Station Store has been cancelled. No charges have been billed to your credit card. If the cancellation of your order is in error, please visit the Station Store at <a href="http://store.station.sony.com/" target="_blank"><font color="#c8c1b5">http://store.station.sony.com</font></a> and place your order again.Thank you, and do visit us again!Sony Online Entertainment Inc.SOE Europe Limited for customers in the EU<a href="http://www.station.sony.com/" target="_blank"><font color="#c8c1b5">www.station.sony.com</font></a>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREORDER NUMBER: 8_____6PREORDER DATE: February 4, 2006-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>to think I spent an hour defending EQ2 to a friend last night, while watching him play WoW</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>So you cant double sorcerer dps now, and your ready to quit over it? lol, good riddance then. Why dont you THOROUGHLY test the changes before whining like a school girl. Seriously, i thought mages complained about being inferior, this is just pathetic. Whine whine whine whine.  I cant double wizard dps now, so im tier 3 dps and i quit, wah wah.Seriously guys, grow up. These changes arent going to ruin your class, unless you consider not being able to double mage dps as "ruined".Your dps will still be higher then mages (although by not as much). You still have better mitigation then us, you can still match or beat our dps, you can still switch between damage types (piercing, slashing etc). You are still superior to mages, and you are still superior in dps, just not by as much. So why dont you calm down, thoroughly test the changes, and see that your not tier 3 dps, your just tier 1 dps (not the tier above that like you were before these changes).Its not the end of the world, so drop the drama.</p><hr></blockquote>seriously just [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] if you dont know whats being talked about.do you play a ranger on test to know the way the changes effect us ? no ? kinda obvious.im fully agree with being on the same line as wizzards and co, but atm we are down to insane low dmg, because over 40% of our former dmg came from poisons, another big chunk from procs, and both have practically been reduced to zero.In a group when fighting a heroic +++, my poison now procs 1-2 times.Parsed out my best dps at lv 70, maxed aa, fully mastered, fully legendary+ to be around 500. Decrease that to being average lv 60 and youre at about 350, welcome to tier3</span><div></div>

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Fireci wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>What about Stream of Arrows?  Will I only get 1 chance for a proc for a CA that lasts 30 seconds?</p><p>Also, saying that we should be on par with Wizards and such, why do we need to buy expensive poisons just to be able to keep up with them?  Shouldn't Casters have to buy or maintain regens in order to increase their dmg output?</p><p>I always liked the fact that if I wanted to have the best DPS possible, I had to invest in crafted arrows and rare poisons.  Now I'll have to do that just to compete with a class that has no consumables.</p><p> </p><p>Fireci - 60 Ranger - Najena</p><hr></blockquote>NO, SoA actually performs multiple attacks. He's refering to CAs that just say something like this is the description.Hits for 300Hits for 300Hits for 300.Each hit will not invoke a proc. This is 1 CA and will invoke 1 proc.I concider SoA more to be a momentary stance and shouldn't be affected.

[OneBadAli]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><hr></blockquote>How will this be calculated. I am curious as a Swashy that has <strong>extremely</strong> low cast times on their CAs?<hr></blockquote>Lets be honest with this being done 1 week before the expansion, scouts are going to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ED for months after whilst SoE decides who is supposed to be where.<hr></blockquote>No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish.

[TwistedFaith]

<blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Autoattack damage make for such a small percentage of ranger dps....</font></p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Well...  I am growing tired of playing a game that changes the very CORE of its game mechanics Every expansion in the name of bug fixing. </p><p>EQ2 should change its name to EQBEATA2.  I expect some changes to try and bring the classes closer... But the entire obliteration of a class every expansion while hoisting the "never our intent" flag.</p><p>We are talking about mechanics in place since release.... comon now.</p><hr></blockquote>Thats what has [Removed for Content] me off more than anything. I [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing hate the spin and just pure contempt shown to customers.It's not new this has been a problem throughout EQ2, the bizzare changes, the knock on effects that developers NEVER seem to account for, the list goes on.This expansion is imho vital for EQ2, Vanguard is getting closer and closer and this kind of crap from SoE doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.

[IllusiveThoughts]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>leafnin wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Good as long as I get the 'chance' to compete I'm golden.  I'm not a fan of one class being 'DPS King' myself.  I like being forced to tweak my character to get that extra point or two.  We'll see how it goes come LU 20.  If it works out ok and the classes can realistically compete I guess we'll all find out then how many of these people simply just can't play their class.</p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>/agree.  finally some intelligence amongst the dribble

[Niuan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>OneBadAlien wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><hr></blockquote>How will this be calculated. I am curious as a Swashy that has <strong>extremely</strong> low cast times on their CAs?<hr></blockquote>Lets be honest with this being done 1 week before the expansion, scouts are going to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ED for months after whilst SoE decides who is supposed to be where.<hr></blockquote>No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish.<hr></blockquote>Our beef is not that we will fall behind wizzards and warlocks...  Its the fact that after these changes will be tier 3 at best... we relie so heavily on poison procs its not even funny.

[Fireci]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>sparql wrote:<div><span><blockquote>This argument is so tired.  Every other wizard I know would gladly shell out money to rival Ranger DPS. </span></blockquote></div><hr></blockquote><p>That would be great if Wizards could.  I would support that.  Heck, would be kinda cool where the quality of their regents would determine the strength of their spells.</p><p>No worse feeling then going on a Raid and 3 hours in realizing I'm out of arrows and out of poison.  Chalk it up to not coming prepared, sure.  But I became pretty much useless after that.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Fireci - 60 Ranger - Najena</p>

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:Blackguard,   The numbers people are posting does not seem to back up what you're saying was done.  I think you might want to examine the testing methodology somewhat because there is a disconnect.On another note.  I played EQ2 since opening day off and on.  Played WoW also.  Left WoW permanently recently to come to EQ2 because of the changes I saw as positive here and the negative nerfs there.You guys are screwing up....bad.  I think you're taking a sledge hammer to a tack.  Might want to err on the side of caution.  Just my 2cents...and my montly subscription fee.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Translation...MG, you're posting in a ranger thread and not many rangers agree they're way overpowered... So that must mean your're wrong... Such uncany logic.Maybe you should go read some other threads and get a better perspective.And you certainly have a great track record... You left WoW... the easiest piece of crap out there because they made you poowa wittle fingas wuruk too haad... Now you come here and whine becasue SoE won't insta level you either... Too bad saaa sad, better tighten up tht bib of yours.

[Racmo]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div>

[KagekDahung]

<div>I wish they would stop trying to balance the game around PvP. PvP has no space in EQ universe in my opinion because you have too many classes to try to balance for both PvP and PvE. Take Crusader spell change for example: you take away our ability to pull mobs while running( that other tanks get with the use of bows) because you don't want us casting offensive spells on the run in PvP. You balance us in one respect, and bring us out of balance in the other. Now the proc and the ring changes, don't tell me PvP wasn't the driving reason behind these two as well. Who had the brilliant idea of bringing in PvP in the first place? Is there no limit to you guys trying to copy WoW?</div><div> </div><div>You know, there's a reason why I'm playing EQ2 instead of WoW, its because EQII is different. Please don't try to copy WoW, otherwise you're going to make this game look as dumb as all the hundreds of Diablo clones out there.</div>

[Fireci]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:NO, SoA actually performs multiple attacks. He's refering to CAs that just say something like this is the description.Hits for 300Hits for 300Hits for 300.Each hit will not invoke a proc. This is 1 CA and will invoke 1 proc.I concider SoA more to be a momentary stance and shouldn't be affected.<hr></blockquote><p>Sweet, thanks Zald.  That's the clarification I was looking for.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Fireci - 60 Ranger - Najena</p>

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Warbird1 wrote:<div></div><blockquote> </blockquote><p>I tried to find the quote but couldnt.</p><p>I believe its suppose to work this way.</p><p>start fighting.</p><p>Multi hit CA with poison or damage proc up</p><p>whap-proc whap whap whap (3 second delay) whap-proc.</p><p>If your Combat art lasts more than 3 seconds then you should get more than one proc.</p><hr></blockquote>So. If I am reading this correctly, and they are still using the 3 second default, a swashie who uses a 25% poison and a .5 cast CA will have (0./3)*25%=4.2% chance to proc a poison attack on a CA....and only on the first hit? If that is the case, and stays that way, sign me up for the train out of town.<p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:56 AM</span></p>

[OneBadAli]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>OneBadAlien wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><hr></blockquote>How will this be calculated. I am curious as a Swashy that has <strong>extremely</strong> low cast times on their CAs?<hr></blockquote>Lets be honest with this being done 1 week before the expansion, scouts are going to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ED for months after whilst SoE decides who is supposed to be where.<hr></blockquote>No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish.<hr></blockquote>Our beef is not that we will fall behind wizzards and warlocks...  Its the fact that after these changes will be tier 3 at best... we relie so heavily on poison procs its not even funny.<hr></blockquote>I honestly dont think enough testing has been done, or even close to enough to be able to come on here right away and claim your t3 dps and that hell has officially frozen over. I can tell you this, if you are tier 3 dps after these changes (which i firmly believe you arent), it wont last.  SOE has made it apparently clear the tier structures for dps, they will make the appropriate changes to make sure their dps tiers are working as intended. So you will be tier 1 dps, you wont be above tier 1 dps anymore, and you shouldnt be below it (and wont...).

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:It's not new this has been a problem throughout EQ2, the bizzare changes, the knock on effects that developers NEVER seem to account for, the list goes on.This expansion is imho vital for EQ2, Vanguard is getting closer and closer and this kind of crap from SoE doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.</blockquote>And if you think Vangard won't have dramatic changes after release, you need to lay down that pipe and get back in rehab.

[valkyrja]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:<span>-----------------------------------------This argument is so tired.  Every other wizard I know would gladly shell out money to rival Ranger DPS.-----------------------------------------Then you're missing the point.  The question you should ask, is...would you GLADLY shell that money out to keep your current DPS?</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>If my current DPS were actually in-line with where it should be, yes.  So, if predators and sorcerors all did roughy the same amount of damage, I most certainly would.</span></div>

[Racmo]

------------------------------------------------------------------------MG, you're posting in a ranger thread and not many rangers agree they're way overpowered... So that must mean your're wrong... Such uncany logic.Maybe you should go read some other threads and get a better perspective.And you certainly have a great track record... You left WoW... the easiest piece of crap out there because they made you poowa wittle fingas wuruk too haad... Now you come here and whine becasue SoE won't insta level you either... Too bad saaa sad, better tighten up tht bib of yours.------------------------------------------------------------------------Hmmm...I did.  Read back and people have posted their test results in this thread and another one.I left WoW because there was no end game content and the fact that it was to easy.  I left EQ2 in the first place because group debt was stupid.  Guess I was right and you were wrong...no group debt.Now...your problem is that you don't realize EQ2 is trying to capture WoW's market share.  Your life is going to undergo much more change than mine, so good luck with your condescending personal attacks in that regard.I fail to see any proof that YOU have put forward.  You really should come down from that high you're on from seeing other people get nerfed....it comes around and your turn, no matter what class you are is coming.  Unlike you I will not call for a nerf to any class....also unlike you I won't get my rocks off when it happens to other people.<div></div>

[Aegori]

<blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:It's not new this has been a problem throughout EQ2, the bizzare changes, the knock on effects that developers NEVER seem to account for, the list goes on.This expansion is imho vital for EQ2, Vanguard is getting closer and closer and this kind of crap from SoE doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.</blockquote>And if you think Vangard won't have dramatic changes after release, you need to lay down that pipe and get back in rehab.<hr></blockquote>you have no idea what you're talking about. Vanguard is going to be the end all of MMOs. It's going to release without bugs and be prefectly balanced from the beginning. They will NEVER, i repeat NEVER nerf anything.*sniffs the nearest sharpie*

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote>See that's your problem... BACWARDS THINKING! Like MG said... if Sorc were too low in DPS, the solution can't always be just raise them up closer to Rangers... That's a BAD DECISION... I know, I know... the game should have been designed around your character specificlly, but but wasn't! So they're balancing Rangers around the rest of the game... imagine that.

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote>yea folks, read ranger boards.We knew that our dps was too high, and we surely can accept that we are made even with wizards and warlocks, but whats just going on is really [Removed for Content] me off.I never expected to read so much bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], people if you wanna know whats going on, create a ranger on beta servers and see for yourselves, then come back here and write down your opinion.i bet that you will have difficulties with lv 55 solo mobs...</span><div></div>

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>KagekDahungry wrote:<div>I wish they would stop trying to balance the game around PvP. PvP has no space in EQ universe in my opinion because you have too many classes to try to balance for both PvP and PvE. Take Crusader spell change for example: you take away our ability to pull mobs while running( that other tanks get with the use of bows) because you don't want us casting offensive spells on the run in PvP. You balance us in one respect, and bring us out of balance in the other. Now the proc and the ring changes, don't tell me PvP wasn't the driving reason behind these two as well. Who had the brilliant idea of bringing in PvP in the first place? Is there no limit to you guys trying to copy WoW?</div><div> </div><div>You know, there's a reason why I'm playing EQ2 instead of WoW, its because EQII is different. Please don't try to copy WoW, otherwise you're going to make this game look as dumb as all the hundreds of Diablo clones out there.</div><hr></blockquote>Wow you people bullin BS outta every crack you have today.This is NOT about PvP... its about PvE and overall classe balance and funcion on the whole.

[leafnin]

<div></div><p>Oh maybe one of the Devs/Community Managers can enlighten me....What about instant attacks (Anything 1 sec or less is pretty much insta cast)?  Where do they fit in for proccing?  From what I understand it's pretty impossible to 'normalize' those kinds of attacks.  You stand a better chance of winning EQ2 then proccing off those type of skills.  What's the min cast time delay?  2? 2.5? 3?  Just looking for some info as I have a feeling you don't haven't worked that out yet.  Thanks</p><p> </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor </p>

[frostbane]

<div></div><p>All i have to say is i'm glad procs are being fixed....rangers were GOD's because of it...and instead of upward balancing all the other scout classes they downward balanced the rangers.  Makes sense to me...nerf 1 class a bit, rather then re-tool 5 others to do more damage.</p><p>As it is rangers get WAY to much damage from poison procs, and the like...for instance we raided gates of Ahket the other night.  One of our rangers did 1.1 million dmg in 35 minutes of fighting....</p><p>of this 1.1 million damage</p><p>35% of it was declining periodic poison, for 391k dmg.</p><p>The next best damage ability was Quick Shot with 18% or 204k dmg.</p><p>Is that wrong? you bet....if rangers were meant to do a majority of their damage through poison.....they'd be warlocks</p>

[Daxtyr_AnnonTuri]

<span>WHY ?<blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: <font color="#ff0000">Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.</font>If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote>so can anyone tell me why a ranger should not be the top dps ?we have no mana restrictions on auto attack that i know of unless its a new one.  our combat CA's  are on par with spell casters time and recast time.Ohh yeah i forgot we use poison ... so we are 1 point ahead now ....wizzies have to sit and wait for mana/power ......  Ohh never mind no they dont this is eq2 everyone regens FAST.wizzies have a what 7k nuke at high end game ... or so i hear .... every 2-3 mins ?hmm i think you <font color="#ff0000"><b>Mr. Blackguar</b></font><font color="#ff0000"><b>d </b></font>are going to loose ALOT of people over this.anyways i think you are wrong and Rangers should be the highest DPS .... the only thing that stops us is if we run out of arrows .... and if we have a slow Bow ...Ohhh did i mention Ranger's  have NEVER had a aggro problem-my 2 cents which is more then i will pay for KoS-Dax</span>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote>See that's your problem... BACWARDS THINKING! Like MG said... if Sorc were too low in DPS, the solution can't always be just raise them up closer to Rangers... That's a BAD DECISION... I know, I know... the game should have been designed around your character specificlly, but but wasn't! So they're balancing Rangers around the rest of the game... imagine that.<hr></blockquote>yea sure, so if rangers are supposed to do 500 dps, then i want wizzards nerfed to our 500 dps aswell !lets see who cries then.this is such a load of bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].nerf one class to balance, then ya need to nerf other classes, etc.. -> vicious circle (same circle if ya just power up one class by another)so stop [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing around, we're not crying because we are nerfed, we are crying here because we are nerfed down to lower tier3 dps and not to be balanced with sorcerers.</span><div></div>

[OneBadAli]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Yes i must be the drama queen for pointing out the obvious. These rangers that are cancelling their accounts and whining, and claiming their tier 3 dps without thoroughly testing these changes, those arent the drama queens its me.It doesnt matter what the rangers said on their boards as far as what needed to happen to sorcerers. Pretty much every single class in the game has made it quite apparent that wizards and sorcerers in general were lacking in the tier 1 dps department.  We cant make the devs buff wizards, and the majority of sorcerers would like nothing more then to be able to do the damage rangers are doing. Unfortunately the devs make the calls, not us. We have made many constructive posts on the subject, and you know what? Never a reply from a dev. Which means they felt that sorcerer dps in general is where it should be, and ranger dps was out of hand (according to the recent statement by Blackguard).</p><p>So before you call someone a drama queen, why dont you read my posts, all my posts today on the subject. I think it sucks you got nerfed, but something had to be done to "attempt" to bring sorcerer dps back in line with ranger dps (considering we are both tier 1 dps, or suppose to be). Was nerfing the right thing? in my opinion, no. Its obvious that wizards werent getting buffed, so the end result is rangers got nerfed.Its not the end of the world, and rangers will be made tier 1 dps i can promise you that. You will not be tier 3, or tier 50 dps, u will be tier 1 dps (just not above tier 1).</p><p>So yeah call me a drama queen, i should go cry now, my feelings are hurt.</p>

[illum]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Tiderius wrote:<div>As previously stated, I'm a jerk.  That being said, its probably not a good idea to insult one of the designers, especially since he is participating in the thread.  Devs are like groundhogs, except instead of shadows, they run away from mean people.</div><hr></blockquote>After reading this comment, I had an amusing thought...I'm a dev myself, and most of my peers are usually the mean people lol...there's one dev here that makes all the QA and customer support people cry on almost a daily basis lol :smileyvery-happy:

[Aegori]

<blockquote><hr>frostbane wrote:<div></div><p>All i have to say is i'm glad procs are being fixed....rangers were GOD's because of it...and instead of upward balancing all the other scout classes they downward balanced the rangers.  Makes sense to me...nerf 1 class a bit, rather then re-tool 5 others to do more damage.</p><p>As it is rangers get WAY to much damage from poison procs, and the like...for instance we raided gates of Ahket the other night.  One of our rangers did 1.1 million dmg in 35 minutes of fighting....</p><p>of this 1.1 million damage</p><p>35% of it was declining periodic poison, for 391k dmg.</p><p>The next best damage ability was Quick Shot with 18% or 204k dmg.</p><p>Is that wrong? you bet....if rangers were meant to do a majority of their damage through poison.....they'd be warlocks</p><hr></blockquote>Thank you for making more sense than anyone in the entire history of MMO Forums.<p>Message Edited by Aegorian on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:05 PM</span></p>

[TwistedFaith]

<blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:It's not new this has been a problem throughout EQ2, the bizzare changes, the knock on effects that developers NEVER seem to account for, the list goes on.This expansion is imho vital for EQ2, Vanguard is getting closer and closer and this kind of crap from SoE doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.</blockquote>And if you think Vangard won't have dramatic changes after release, you need to lay down that pipe and get back in rehab.<hr></blockquote>Where's the logic behind making these sort of changes 1 week before the expansion?These are huge changes to classes and if reports from beta are correct then atm the effect of these on rangers is extreme.

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Daxtyr_AnnonTuri wrote:<span>WHY ?<blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: <font color="#ff0000">Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.</font>If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote>so can anyone tell me why a ranger should not be the top dps ?we have no mana restrictions on auto attack that i know of unless its a new one.  our combat CA's  are on par with spell casters time and recast time.Ohh yeah i forgot we use poison ... so we are 1 point ahead now ....wizzies have to sit and wait for mana/power ......  Ohh never mind no they dont this is eq2 everyone regens FAST.wizzies have a what 7k nuke at high end game ... or so i hear .... every 2-3 mins ?hmm i think you <font color="#ff0000"><b>Mr. Blackguar</b></font><font color="#ff0000"><b>d </b></font>are going to loose ALOT of people over this.anyways i think you are wrong and Rangers should be the highest DPS .... the only thing that stops us is if we run out of arrows .... and if we have a slow Bow ...Ohhh did i mention Ranger's  have NEVER had a aggro problem-my 2 cents which is more then i will pay for KoS-Dax</span><hr></blockquote>I so agree on this.most people are BSing out of every hole in the wall, just ridiculous.again:go play beta , create a ranger , enter KoS , get buffed to 60 , pick ya adept1 and crafted armor from the merch and try to fight some mobs, THEN YOU ARE WELCOME TO POST YOUR OPINION instead of your vague suggestions.</span><div></div>

[Racmo]

Zald,  You're all over the board man.  You need to get a grip on your anger.-----------------------------------------------See that's your problem... BACWARDS THINKING! Like MG said... if Sorc were too low in DPS, the solution can't always be just raise them up closer to Rangers... That's a BAD DECISION... I know, I know... the game should have been designed around your character specificlly, but but wasn't! So they're balancing Rangers around the rest of the game... imagine that.-----------------------------------------------I'm well aware of the options, but from what I'm reading and seeing from people posting actual test results the nerf is to much.  I'm not that selfish.  I'm not petty, and I don't want the game broken for me.  I think that you should take things in incremental steps and see what the actual numbers are.  Tell me what's the harm in buffing sorcerers a little and scaling back SCOUTS(not rangers) SCOUTS dps a little?  Reevaluating, letting the people that play the game see the difference and and if there is a need for one then tweak again?  And most people know where classes are.  Some people KNOW what and where they are in the scheme of things.  That was my suggestion.  I believe that what they are doing is to much.  It's not your opinion it's mind.  Back off on the sarcasm and personal attacks, it just makes you look petty and takes away from your argumentLose the anger and you'll find people will be more receptive to your posts<div></div>

[Daxtyr_AnnonTuri]

<span><blockquote><hr>Aegorian wrote:<blockquote><hr>frostbane wrote:<div></div><p>All i have to say is i'm glad procs are being fixed....rangers were GOD's because of it...and instead of upward balancing all the other scout classes they downward balanced the rangers.  Makes sense to me...nerf 1 class a bit, rather then re-tool 5 others to do more damage.</p><p>As it is rangers get WAY to much damage from poison procs, and the like...for instance we raided gates of Ahket the other night.  One of our rangers did 1.1 million dmg in 35 minutes of fighting....</p><p>of this 1.1 million damage</p><p>35% of it was declining periodic poison, for 391k dmg.</p><p>The next best damage ability was Quick Shot with 18% or 204k dmg.</p><p><font color="#ff0000"><b>Is that wrong? you bet....if rangers were meant to do a majority of their damage through poison.....they'd be warlocks</b></font></p><hr></blockquote>Thank you for making more sense than anyone in the entire history of MMO Forums.<p>Message Edited by Aegorian on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:05 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote></span>you sir are the reason cousins shouldn't marry

[Aegori]

<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:It's not new this has been a problem throughout EQ2, the bizzare changes, the knock on effects that developers NEVER seem to account for, the list goes on.This expansion is imho vital for EQ2, Vanguard is getting closer and closer and this kind of crap from SoE doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.</blockquote>And if you think Vangard won't have dramatic changes after release, you need to lay down that pipe and get back in rehab.<hr></blockquote>Where's the logic behind making these sort of changes 1 week before the expansion?These are huge changes to classes and if reports from beta are correct then atm the effect of these on rangers is extreme.<hr></blockquote>I think it would behoove us all if one of the raid guilds testing the high end KoS encounters would post a DPS breakdown. I'm not buying the half-[Removed for Content] data i've seen in this thread thus far.

[Aegori]

<blockquote><hr>Daxtyr_AnnonTuri wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Aegorian wrote:<blockquote><hr>frostbane wrote:<div></div><p>All i have to say is i'm glad procs are being fixed....rangers were GOD's because of it...and instead of upward balancing all the other scout classes they downward balanced the rangers.  Makes sense to me...nerf 1 class a bit, rather then re-tool 5 others to do more damage.</p><p>As it is rangers get WAY to much damage from poison procs, and the like...for instance we raided gates of Ahket the other night.  One of our rangers did 1.1 million dmg in 35 minutes of fighting....</p><p>of this 1.1 million damage</p><p>35% of it was declining periodic poison, for 391k dmg.</p><p>The next best damage ability was Quick Shot with 18% or 204k dmg.</p><p><font color="#ff0000"><b>Is that wrong? you bet....if rangers were meant to do a majority of their damage through poison.....they'd be warlocks</b></font></p><hr></blockquote>Thank you for making more sense than anyone in the entire history of MMO Forums.<p>Message Edited by Aegorian on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:05 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote></span>you sir are the reason cousins shouldn't marry<hr></blockquote>oh yea! well you're stupid!have we really gotten so angry that you'd stoop to belittling someone for wholly agreeing with a post? Suggest you focus you energy on testing this change and getting hard data to devs rather than waste your time on me. I cant undo these changes.

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------MG, you're posting in a ranger thread and not many rangers agree they're way overpowered... So that must mean your're wrong... Such uncany logic.Maybe you should go read some other threads and get a better perspective.And you certainly have a great track record... You left WoW... the easiest piece of crap out there because they made you poowa wittle fingas wuruk too haad... Now you come here and whine becasue SoE won't insta level you either... Too bad saaa sad, better tighten up tht bib of yours.------------------------------------------------------------------------Hmmm...I did.  Read back and people have posted their test results in this thread and another one.I left WoW because there was no end game content and the fact that it was to easy.  I left EQ2 in the first place because group debt was stupid.  Guess I was right and you were wrong...no group debt.Now...your problem is that you don't realize EQ2 is trying to capture WoW's market share.  Your life is going to undergo much more change than mine, so good luck with your condescending personal attacks in that regard.I fail to see any proof that YOU have put forward.  You really should come down from that high you're on from seeing other people get nerfed....it comes around and your turn, no matter what class you are is coming.  <b>Unlike you I will not call for a nerf to any class....also unlike you I won't get my rocks off when it happens to other</b> people.<div></div><hr></blockquote>And that's why you're wrong and your benefit to the game is meaningless. I will ALWAYS look for what's best for the GAME, not players. Ultimately the game supports its playbase NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Individual players will come and go, but the game itself will live as long as people care enough about it to keep it working properly. I'm not looking at this change or changes to my other chars in a shallow narrow perspective. I've never looked at my main character in that way. Go check any number of posts were I've understood and supported nerfs to my own class, because in all honesty, they were warrented... and so far none of those nerfs have "broken" any of my chars...Its sad to see people like you whine and cry about things that IS YOU TRIED you'd see some logic behind. Its also sad to see SoE make some decisions that are actually wrong, but so many of you whiners just rant and argue about irational crap, that no one hears the actaul good reasoning and logic for all the static.Look at the complete crap posted in this thread...- Rangers have always been unwanted and a weak class for raids and groups...- Rangers will do T3 damage due to what really is a small change for most players...

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Latero wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><p>Blackguard,</p><p>Thank you for clarrifying this situation. After 8 months of leveling by trhe bloody stumps of my bowfingers, unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, I finally found myself enjoying my character.  You make my decicion much easier</p><hr></blockquote>If you were unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, you really must have a problem. I don't know what server you play on, but on mistmoore rangers are loved by all for their over the top dps.Oh, and I can see how it would be so terrible now (if the changes are done well) that you might be on par or slightly below a wizard dps-wise (gasp!) Their dps is just HORRIBLE! /sarcasm off.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>I think you misinterpreted my comments, or I didn't word them quite as well as I should have.  Probably the latter. The 8 month period of time i refered to above was from when I started playing EQ2 in January of 05 up til LU13.  Up until that time we were the [Removed for Content] class of the game and pretty much worthless for groups.  After LU13 we moved to our current position of being loved by one and all.   At this time I have no problems whatsoever getting invited to groups or raids.</p><p>Next week?  Who knows.  I'll play for a few weeks and see how nerfed we were and what play style changed are needed; <strong>if</strong> we seem to be doing reasonabe T1 damage I'll re-purchase KoS and revert to my natural role of buffing groups with pathfinding.  But until then I am not parting with my hard earned money (yes, I have a job!) to buy something that I would not be satisfied with.</p>

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Memory01 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote>yea folks, read ranger boards.We knew that our dps was too high, and we surely can accept that we are made even with wizards and warlocks, but whats just going on is really [Removed for Content] me off.I never expected to read so much bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], people if you wanna know whats going on, create a ranger on beta servers and see for yourselves, then come back here and write down your opinion.i bet that you will have difficulties with lv 55 solo mobs...</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Hmmm, ok Props to the good posters...My Ranger is on main... I'll go log on to Test and see what its like their...But still if its as bad as you say, I'd push for fixes, not continuation of broken concepts.

[3C HAVOK]

Well i wanted to post in here to let all you rangers know that not all us wizzys are jumping for joy or gloating over you getting nerfed and us getting to the top of the dps list (we will still be second to summoners). Its tough to have have your class nerfed no one likes it. Im sorry that it is happening to you but you have to admit that you all had to have seen it comming. The parser data from rangers was way over the top. I hope that you dont end up at tier 2/3 dps but stay in top tier as i would love to go head to head with you guys as far as dps goes.    Playing a wizzy i know what its like to play a class that was underpowered. The thing is i never realy cared, I dont care how much damage that a ranger can do or how much damage a summoner can do or any of that. I woried about my class and what i was doing. I have never had a problem getting a group nor have i ever been turned down for a raid in my guild. Its the person playing the toon that makes it what it is.   I wihs my ranger friends the best of luck.<div></div>

[Aegori]

<blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Latero wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><p>Blackguard,</p><p>Thank you for clarrifying this situation. After 8 months of leveling by trhe bloody stumps of my bowfingers, unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, I finally found myself enjoying my character.  You make my decicion much easier</p><hr></blockquote>If you were unwanted in raids and unloved by groups, you really must have a problem. I don't know what server you play on, but on mistmoore rangers are loved by all for their over the top dps.Oh, and I can see how it would be so terrible now (if the changes are done well) that you might be on par or slightly below a wizard dps-wise (gasp!) Their dps is just HORRIBLE! /sarcasm off.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>I think you misinterpreted my comments, or I didn't word them quite as well as I should have.  Probably the latter. The 8 month period of time i refered to above was from when I started playing EQ2 in January of 05 up til LU13.  Up until that time we were the [Removed for Content] class of the game and pretty much worthless for groups.  After LU13 we moved to our current position of being loved by one and all.   At this time I have no problems whatsoever getting invited to groups or raids.</p><p>Next week?  Who knows.  I'll play for a few weeks and see how nerfed we were and what play style changed are needed; <strong>if</strong> we seem to be doing reasonabe T1 damage I'll re-purchase KoS and revert to my natural role of buffing groups with pathfinding.  But until then I am not parting with my hard earned money (yes, I have a job!) to buy something that I would not be satisfied with.</p><hr></blockquote>I can respect posts like this. At least give it a chance before screaming bloody murder <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Well played sir.

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:It's not new this has been a problem throughout EQ2, the bizzare changes, the knock on effects that developers NEVER seem to account for, the list goes on.This expansion is imho vital for EQ2, Vanguard is getting closer and closer and this kind of crap from SoE doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.</blockquote>And if you think Vangard won't have dramatic changes after release, you need to lay down that pipe and get back in rehab.<hr></blockquote>Where's the logic behind making these sort of changes 1 week before the expansion?These are huge changes to classes and if reports from beta are correct then atm the effect of these on rangers is extreme.<hr></blockquote>And if they made these changes 2 months before hell froze over you'd argue that as well... Timing doesn't matter. If they'd made the changes in LU18, you'd whine why so soon after LU16....

[Niuan]

<blockquote><hr>Aegorian wrote:<blockquote><hr>frostbane wrote:<div></div><p>All i have to say is i'm glad procs are being fixed....rangers were GOD's because of it...and instead of upward balancing all the other scout classes they downward balanced the rangers.  Makes sense to me...nerf 1 class a bit, rather then re-tool 5 others to do more damage.</p><p>As it is rangers get WAY to much damage from poison procs, and the like...for instance we raided gates of Ahket the other night.  One of our rangers did 1.1 million dmg in 35 minutes of fighting....</p><p>of this 1.1 million damage</p><p>35% of it was declining periodic poison, for 391k dmg.</p><p>The next best damage ability was Quick Shot with 18% or 204k dmg.</p><p>Is that wrong? you bet....if rangers were meant to do a majority of their damage through poison.....they'd be warlocks</p><hr></blockquote>Thank you for making more sense than anyone in the entire history of MMO Forums.<p>Message Edited by Aegorian on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:05 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I would love to see the parse file on that fight....  I parse on a dailey basis... I use long delay bows... master abilities.... and still am not top DPS all the time.  Classes that beat me out about 50% of the time are bruisers and wizzards.  Warlocks and wizzards obliterate Rangers if multimob encounter IMO.</p><p>numbers are numbers.... parse files are not tell alls anyway.  Alot is the person behind the keyboard.   I don't understand why so many people who are not rangers are taking so much personal satisfaction from this change.  If you go to the ranger boards you will nothing but positives to guys agreeing you should do more damage. </p><p>Again I will accept a change to try and even the damage between the tier 1 classes... but something has to put in to accomidate the poison proccing change.  It will be detrimental to rangers.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Poids]

I think it's funny... one and a half year into the game and they are still fixing basic game mechanics. They're fooling everyone into thinking they know their class when in reality, they're just playing a broken class that is not supposed to be like it is.I wonder what my class is supposed to be, and if it's completely based on bugs. Guess only time will show, because that's what it takes for them to fix stuff, time, and lots of it.<div></div>

[OneBadAli]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Memory01 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote>See that's your problem... BACWARDS THINKING! Like MG said... if Sorc were too low in DPS, the solution can't always be just raise them up closer to Rangers... That's a BAD DECISION... I know, I know... the game should have been designed around your character specificlly, but but wasn't! So they're balancing Rangers around the rest of the game... imagine that.<hr></blockquote>yea sure, so if rangers are supposed to do 500 dps, then i want wizzards nerfed to our 500 dps aswell !lets see who cries then.this is such a load of bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].nerf one class to balance, then ya need to nerf other classes, etc.. -> vicious circle (same circle if ya just power up one class by another)<font color="#cc0000">so stop [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing around, we're not crying because we are nerfed, we are crying here because we are nerfed down to lower tier3 dps and not to be balanced with sorcerers.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Its just a knee-jerk reaction in my opinion. Rangers arent seeing the rediculous amount of procs going off that their use to, so all of a sudden they are tier 3 or tier 50 dps and their class is ruined and they want to quit.Well like i said, thoroughly test these changes, parse raid situations, parse grouped mobs, parse single named mobs, making sure you have sorcerers in the parse, making sure you have summoners and other classes in all the parses. Then add them all up, break down the damage, then come on here and say your tier 3 dps.This just wont be the case, the first thing any class does when they get a nerf is cry bloody hell and say they quit and their class isnt fun, and the game is ruined.Well thats just not the case, you see if every wizard in the game (or sorcerer for that matter) had the same knee jerk reactions as you rangers there would be no wizards left in this game. Sorcerers have endured being inferior for months and months, yes we complained, yes at times we whined, but we also made constructive posts on the topic trying to get our class fixed. I suggest you do the same IF there is a problem, but whining, and quiting, and flaming, just wont get the changes made that need to (if there is any for that matter).<p>Message Edited by OneBadAlien on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:18 PM</span></p>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>Memory01 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote>yea folks, read ranger boards.We knew that our dps was too high, and we surely can accept that we are made even with wizards and warlocks, but whats just going on is really [Removed for Content] me off.I never expected to read so much bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], people if you wanna know whats going on, create a ranger on beta servers and see for yourselves, then come back here and write down your opinion.i bet that you will have difficulties with lv 55 solo mobs...</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Hmmm, ok Props to the good posters...My Ranger is on main... I'll go log on to Test and see what its like their...But still if its as bad as you say, I'd push for fixes, not continuation of broken concepts.<hr></blockquote>as far as i know the changes are not on test yet, only on beta -- but i can be wrong on that.</span><div></div>

[lilmohi]

<p>I suspect that since this change primarily affects rangers, that odds are rangers will not be brought back in line where they belong but nerfed down into the T2 or even T3 damage range.  I understand that bugs need to be fixed but i really hope it doesn't take a couple months for rangers to get balanced to where they are supposed to be.  That said, and i can't stress this enough, when evaluating the dps of the T1 classes, please also look at the utility they bring to the table.  Wizards for example have a number of group buffs (ie Fist of the Tyrant,Blazing Grandeur, Frostshield) that directly increase the dps of their group mates but doesn't actually calculate into their own dps.</p><p>I presume you have a scientific method of calculating the dps of a given class.  But does it take in to account the buffs that improve the dps of groupmates?  As things stand if you balanced all T1 dps classes so they do the exact same dps while soloing, then put them each in a group of 5 generic tanks you would see a significant disparity between the groups with a predator vs a group with a sorcerer.</p><p>I know this is an issue that has been heatedly debated between the sorcerers and predators so what is the answer?  Take away all group buffs?  Give everyone similar group buffs? </p><p> </p>

[Aegori]

<blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<blockquote><hr>Aegorian wrote:<blockquote><hr>frostbane wrote:<div></div><p>All i have to say is i'm glad procs are being fixed....rangers were GOD's because of it...and instead of upward balancing all the other scout classes they downward balanced the rangers.  Makes sense to me...nerf 1 class a bit, rather then re-tool 5 others to do more damage.</p><p>As it is rangers get WAY to much damage from poison procs, and the like...for instance we raided gates of Ahket the other night.  One of our rangers did 1.1 million dmg in 35 minutes of fighting....</p><p>of this 1.1 million damage</p><p>35% of it was declining periodic poison, for 391k dmg.</p><p>The next best damage ability was Quick Shot with 18% or 204k dmg.</p><p>Is that wrong? you bet....if rangers were meant to do a majority of their damage through poison.....they'd be warlocks</p><hr></blockquote>Thank you for making more sense than anyone in the entire history of MMO Forums.<p>Message Edited by Aegorian on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:05 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I would love to see the parse file on that fight....  I parse on a dailey basis... I use long delay bows... master abilities.... and still am not top DPS all the time.  Classes that beat me out about 50% of the time are bruisers and wizzards.  Warlocks and wizzards obliterate Rangers if multimob encounter IMO.</p><p>numbers are numbers.... parse files are not tell alls anyway.  Alot is the person behind the keyboard.   I don't understand why so many people who are not rangers are taking so much personal satisfaction from this change.  If you go to the ranger boards you will nothing but positives to guys agreeing you should do more damage. </p><p>Again I will accept a change to try and even the damage between the tier 1 classes... but something has to put in to accomidate the poison proccing change.  It will be detrimental to rangers.</p><p> </p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Understandable you feel that way, but if the proc damage is what was putting you well over the top in terms of T1 DPSers, wouldnt the simplest fix be to reduce it and leave your other abilities intact? (i'm also assuming this change puts you guys in line with the other T1 DPS classes and doesnt take you below them... if that's the case, i can agree with you).Edit: just to clarify, it seems like procing is the root of the issue given that rangers have so many multi-attack arts. changing procing to adjust to this fact seems appropriate given most scout classes dont have those multi-attack abilities (at least not a lot of them). Reducing the overall affect of poisons would impact the 4 scout classes that use them as opposed to just the singular class that was shining in terms of DPS.<p>Message Edited by Aegorian on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:22 PM</span></p>

[Ezariel]

<div><p>Lets face it, this needed to be done.  Yes, arrow damage and CA's will most likely need to be adjusted somewhat.  But without bringing ranger proc rates back down to par with everyone elses, that is impossible to do.</p><p>With the ridiculous proc chance on bows it was not uncommon at all for me while playing my ranger to see the following :</p><p>Use triple fire</p><p>first arrow in CA hits and procs 600+ dmg poison + gleaming strike</p><p>quick shot hits and procs poison + gleaming strike</p><p>second arrow from CA hits and procs poison + gleaming strike</p><p>quick shot hits and procs poison + gleaming strike</p><p>third arrow from CA hits and procs poison + gleaming strike</p><p>quick shot hits and procs poison + gleaming strike</p><p>Auto attack kicks in after CA (with no delay) and immediately fires an arrow and procs poison + gleaming strike</p><p>That is 14 procs in less than 2 seconds.  And it happened a lot.  I could not run with high quality particles active when playing my ranger.  The sheer proc spam would crash my computer.  Factor in the actual damage of the CA and quick shot procs and a legendary poison and I was known for almost killing ^^^ heroic xp mobs in one shot.  And yes, nerfing poison is not enough.  There does need to be some balancing and auto attack dmg and CA dmg will need to be brought up.  But I am sure after they have had time to analyze what effect the loss of massive amounts of procs has had, they will do so.</p></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>frostbane wrote:<div></div><p>Is that wrong? you bet....if rangers were meant to do a majority of their damage through poison.....they'd be warlocks</p><hr></blockquote>wrong... they'd be predators.. like they are.It is true that poisons make up a large part of our DPS, I can certainly tell when mines worn off.  In fact between weapon procs (about 30% of my damage) and poison (about 40%) this nerf is going to hit us significantly.... going from a 7.0 weapon speed to using CA's is going to reduce it significantly.. parsing in beta has shown up to a 80% decrease in the amount of procs .. so lets see.. an 80% decrease in 70% of my damage ? thats a 56% decrease over all .. over HALF the damage a ranger does will possibly be gone .. do rangers do over double the DPS of other Tier 1 classes? .. I dont think so.. there are many situational aspects that would lead us to lead by alot.. but not double .. DPS is situational .. there are times when the other DPS classes are very close to us... when we get the nerf they will be FAR above us..I do not doubt for a second that Ranger DPS needs a reduction, it does.  Against single targets, its pretty fricking amazing .. but to halve it.. or more .. is by far an over reaction ..If its slow weapons that are the issue, then speed them up.  reduce their AA damage and speed them up..  if it attacks once every 7 seconds for 700 damage (100 DPS) then make it once every 3.5 seconds for 250 damage (71 DPS) and at the same time, make a 10% upwards adjustment on the other T1 classes and your working towards ballance... meeting in the midde.</span></div>

[Racmo]

Zald, I'm not going to argue with you any more.  You have somehow taken things I didn't say and applied them to me.  I refuse to argue with someone who puts words in my mouth.  I also refuse to argue with someone as angry as you.  Enjoy the high you get from seeing other people upset. In the end I will play the game because it's fun to me...not to you...to me. I can assure you that I have quite an extensive backgroun in MMOs.  Nerfs come and go.  I'll either see this one and decide not to play or that it's not a big deal.  I have found out however that people that are beta testing (and I've been one of those) have a valid point most of the time.Quit taking the high road.  You want your class on the top of the DPS meter and you know what I have no problem with that as I've stated before, but you want everyone else to suffer for your time that you spent when you weren't there and should have been.You're angry over something...good luck with it.  I'm out.Remember this anger, when it comes around and you're back under the chopping block...and I honestly hope that you don't have to deal with people like you.<div></div>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>OneBadAlien wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Memory01 wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I never noticed that.  People being petty that is.  I know on the ranger board everyone conceded sorcerers needed a boost and actively supported it, reduce casting times would have been a big  help imho.  So no, I don't think they've been selfish.  I just think you have this misperception of being persecuted by the people you play the game WITH, not the people that actually did this to you. "Devs".   You been a drama queen all your life or is it a recent development?<div></div><hr></blockquote>See that's your problem... BACWARDS THINKING! Like MG said... if Sorc were too low in DPS, the solution can't always be just raise them up closer to Rangers... That's a BAD DECISION... I know, I know... the game should have been designed around your character specificlly, but but wasn't! So they're balancing Rangers around the rest of the game... imagine that.<hr></blockquote>yea sure, so if rangers are supposed to do 500 dps, then i want wizzards nerfed to our 500 dps aswell !lets see who cries then.this is such a load of bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].nerf one class to balance, then ya need to nerf other classes, etc.. -> vicious circle (same circle if ya just power up one class by another)<font color="#cc0000">so stop [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing around, we're not crying because we are nerfed, we are crying here because we are nerfed down to lower tier3 dps and not to be balanced with sorcerers.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Its just a knee-jerk reaction in my opinion. Rangers arent seeing the rediculous amount of procs going off that their use to, so all of a sudden they are tier 3 or tier 50 dps and their class is ruined and they want to quit.Well like i said, thoroughly test these changes, parse raid situations, parse grouped mobs, parse single named mobs, making sure you have sorcerers in the parse, making sure you have summoners and other classes in all the parses. Then add them all up, break down the damage, then come on here and say your tier 3 dps.This just wont be the case, the first thing any class does when they get a nerf is cry bloody hell and say they quit and their class isnt fun, and the game is ruined.Well thats just not the case, you see if every wizard in the game (or sorcerer for that matter) had the same knee jerk reactions as you rangers there would be no wizards left in this game. Sorcerers have endured being inferior for months and months, yes we complained, yes at times we whined, but we also made constructive posts on the topic trying to get our class fixed. I suggest you do the same IF there is a problem, but whining, and quiting, and flaming, just wont get the changes made that need to (if there is any for that matter).<p>Message Edited by OneBadAlien on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:18 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>ive played for about 10hours+ with the recent changes, ive had groups on test and ive parsed every single bit of them with ACT.the fact im stating lower tier3 is because the bruiser i group with everyday now easily outdmges me (parsed as i said).so how about you dont waste time with posting proposals or suggestions why crying nerf, go test it out and see for yourself.well since whining and flaming and quitting and more flaming seemed to have worked for wizies im giving it a try.</span><div></div>

[Bayler_x]

<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. <font color="#ff0000">However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.</font>As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote>To call this a bug is, frankly, <b>insulting.</b>  It's a game mechanic.  It's been there since the game's launch, and through the combat upgrade.  It may be a poorly designed mechanic - one with unintended consequences - but it's the way the game was implemented: the way it's always been.  Please don't try to downplay a change in the fundemental mechanics of the game by dismissing it as a bug.The implications that people who recognized and utilized this mechanic are <i>exploiting</i> a bug is even more insulting.  We made choices based on game mechanics.  It was never a secret: I can dig up dozens of posts of advice to young rangers about how to get the most of their abilities, that specifically explain this game behavior.  I can show you several quite scholarly discussions about these mechanics - parses on chain of procs, the implications for poison use, equipment selection, etc. <b>This is not a bug fix; this is a change in basic mechanics.</b>If you feel that ranger damage is out of line and want to fix it, I support you.  But please take some responsibility and admit that you need to make changes to the game design, instead of calling every single ranger an exploiter.If you do want to adjust ranger damage, please consider discussing it with the community.  Just like the original mechanic had an unforseen impact on the class capabilities (that, by the way, the LU#13 changes compounded), these heavy-handed changes are quite likely to cause way more problems than you're expecting.And please, when you do test whatever changes you put into effect, please test them for rangers (and other classes) of *all* levels, instead of just the level 60-70 raiders in the KoS beta program.  Don't forget about the level 20's!</span><div></div>

[KagekDahung]

<div></div><p>Posted by Zald:</p><p>--------------------------------------</p><p>Wow you people bullin BS outta every crack you have today. This is NOT about PvP... its about PvE and overall classe balance and funcion on the whole.</p><p>--------------------------------------</p><p>Oh? And the fact that we've had this for 6 months and they didn't change it, and now that they are releasing PvP, they all of the sudden decided that rangers should not have the top dps in the game doesn't ring any bells in your head? Or the rings change. That 30 extra strength was making us REALLY overpower those mobs. Geee, I hit for 6 extra damage on that auto attack, how those mobs tremble before my mighty imbued rings. The only reason I see why tradeskilling should not be equal to raiding is such a big issue of all the sudden is because people that spend time killing epic mobs instead of spend time harvesting for 2 days to get the rares should not be disadvantaged when fighting those people with tradeskilled items. And the Crusader change is obvious.</p><p>Message Edited by KagekDahungry on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:28 PM</span></p>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Bayler_xev wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.If you want further clarification on the proc changes we've been making, especially the first one, read on.As you know, there are many weapons in game that proc extra damage when they land an attack in combat (for example, imbued crafted weapons). In order to ensure that no style of weapon was more likely to proc than any other, we base a weapon's chance to proc on its delay. In other words, a slower weapon has a higher chance to proc because it lands fewer attacks; a faster weapon has a lower chance to proc on each hit because it lands its attacks more often. This keeps dual-wield, one-handed, and two-handed weapons on par with each other in their chance to proc.Some buffs also provide a chance to proc extra damage on a successful attack. Because we even out the proc chance based on delay, such buffs work equally well regardless of weapon type.These buffs also have a chance to proc via combat arts. <font color="#ff0000">However, there is a bug on the live servers in that the proc chance for combat arts was also being calculated based on the delay of whatever weapon was equipped. Some players have been using this to their advantage by deliberately equipping slow weapons in order to give their fast-casting combat arts a better chance to proc.</font>As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.Certain classes will feel the effects of this change more than others. Scouts (especially rangers) were more likely to benefit from this bug than other melee classes, which contributed to scout damage being higher overall than it should have been--especially in relation to mages.While no class likes to see a reduction in the damage it does, the alternative would be to not only increase the damage output of other classes to compensate, but also to proportionately increase the health pools of NPCs to account for this rise in player damage. The second option would involve a lot more changes and would be prone to introducing other imbalances into the game.While not doing anything about this bug would be preferable to some, we cannot ignore the progressively more significant effect it is having as the game evolves. Fixing this issue will help bring many of the classes back into their intended range of damage output as we discussed around the time of LU13 and the combat revamp.Keep in mind that if you play a melee class but don't rely on a slow weapon to generate extra procs, this fix should have little impact on your style of play.<div></div><hr></blockquote>To call this a bug is, frankly, <b>insulting.</b>  It's a game mechanic.  It's been there since the game's launch, and through the combat upgrade.  It may be a poorly designed mechanic - one with unintended consequences - but it's the way the game was implemented: the way it's always been.  Please don't try to downplay a change in the fundemental mechanics of the game by dismissing it as a bug.The implications that people who recognized and utilized this mechanic are <i>exploiting</i> a bug is even more insulting.  We made choices based on game mechanics.  It was never a secret: I can dig up dozens of posts of advice to young rangers about how to get the most of their abilities, that specifically explain this game behavior.  I can show you several quite scholarly discussions about these mechanics - parses on chain of procs, the implications for poison use, equipment selection, etc. <b>This is not a bug fix; this is a change in basic mechanics.</b>If you feel that ranger damage is out of line and want to fix it, I support you.  But please take some responsibility and admit that you need to make changes to the game design, instead of calling every single ranger an exploiter.If you do want to adjust ranger damage, please consider discussing it with the community.  Just like the original mechanic had an unforseen impact on the class capabilities (that, by the way, the LU#13 changes compounded), these heavy-handed changes are quite likely to cause way more problems than you're expecting.And please, when you do test whatever changes you put into effect, please test them for rangers (and other classes) of *all* levels, instead of just the level 60-70 raiders in the KoS beta program.  Don't forget about the level 20's!</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>you are exactly right..its not like as a ranger I have a choice of a 2.0 speed bow, and 3.0 and a 7.0 and deliberately choose the 7.0 .. the speed on bows suck .. reduce it, and their damage and leave the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] procs  working of weapon speed.. i do agree with making it proc once per CA though.. as a ranger in T6 you have ONE bow thats of any use.. an imbued legendary crafted...</span></div>

[Cornbread Muffin]

<div></div><div>Blackguard,</div><div> </div><div>I really like the concept of this change, though it affects me as both a bruiser and a ranger. What I don't like is using cast times for CAs to proc. For almost every class except casters, who (sadly) have ridiculously long cast times this means there's not going to be a whole lot of use for procs.</div><div> </div><div>Here's a breakdown of my bruiser stuff:</div><div><hr></div><p>Where before (using 1.5DW weapons and 3.8s 2h weapons respectively) a CA would use these formulas:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>(1.5/3.0)*proc% = .5 * listed proc percentage (So, 5% for engulf, 2.5% for imbues, etc.)(3.8/3.0)*proc% = 1.26 * listed proc percentage (So, 12.6% for engulf, 6.3% for imbues, etc.)</p></blockquote><p>They will now us casting time (.5 seconds for most, 2 seconds for AEs) so a CA would use these formulas:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>(0.5/3.0)*proc% = .16 * listed proc percentage (So, 1.6% for engulf, .83% for imbues, etc.)(2.0/3.0)*proc% = .66 * listed proc percentage (So, 6.6% for engulf, 3.3% for imbues, etc.)</p></blockquote><p></p><hr><p>As you can see there isn't a whole lot of proc chance going on for the cast times I have. It really sort of makes our offensive stance pretty crappy now that I think about it. The M1 T7 version of our offensive stance has a proc that averages 518.5 damage. If I use a 10 CA lineup my offensive stance proc will give me, on average, the following results:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>((.5/3.0)*.1 * 518.5 * 10) = 86.4</p></blockquote><p>I guess that just doesn't seem very useful to me...86 damage out of a T7 master. I think the best solution is to use the baseline of 3.0 as the proc rate adjustment for all CAs (netting a result of 1). Since casters have longer cast times you could then balance this out by giving a larger proc percentage for spells cast. So where something that works on CAs and AAs would have a 10% proc rate, something going off on spells could have 30%, 3x the damage, or something of that nature.</p><p>There really isn't an easy solution when working with weighted numbers, but I think without further review this [needed] change shifts it too far in the other direction and makes some abilities not worth their weight.</p><p> </p>

[Kazora]

<div></div><div>well phooey, just finished recruiting all these rangers and now theyre not going to be overpowered anymore, thanks a lot :smileyindifferent:  oh well, atleast they can do most of their damage from range, which is even more special as a melee now since brigands are gonna get it up the butt</div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Cornbread Muffin wrote:<div></div><div>Blackguard,</div><div> </div><div>I really like the concept of this change, though it affects me as both a bruiser and a ranger. What I don't like is using cast times for CAs to proc. For almost every class except casters, who (sadly) have ridiculously long cast times this means there's not going to be a whole lot of use for procs.</div><div> </div><div>Here's a breakdown of my bruiser stuff:</div><div><hr></div><p>Where before (using 1.5DW weapons and 3.8s 2h weapons respectively) a CA would use these formulas:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>(1.5/3.0)*proc% = .5 * listed proc percentage (So, 5% for engulf, 2.5% for imbues, etc.)(3.8/3.0)*proc% = 1.26 * listed proc percentage (So, 12.6% for engulf, 6.3% for imbues, etc.)</p></blockquote><p>They will now us casting time (.5 seconds for most, 2 seconds for AEs) so a CA would use these formulas:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>(0.5/3.0)*proc% = .16 * listed proc percentage (So, 1.6% for engulf, .83% for imbues, etc.)(2.0/3.0)*proc% = .66 * listed proc percentage (So, 6.6% for engulf, 3.3% for imbues, etc.)</p></blockquote><p></p><hr><p>As you can see there isn't a whole lot of proc chance going on for the cast times I have. It really sort of makes our offensive stance pretty crappy now that I think about it. The M1 T7 version of our offensive stance has a proc that averages 518.5 damage. If I use a 10 CA lineup my offensive stance proc will give me, on average, the following results:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>((.5/3.0)*.1 * 518.5 * 10) = 86.4</p></blockquote><p>I guess that just doesn't seem very useful to me...86 damage out of a T7 master. I think the best solution is to use the baseline of 3.0 as the proc rate adjustment for all CAs (netting a result of 1). Since casters have longer cast times you could then balance this out by giving a larger proc percentage for spells cast. So where something that works on CAs and AAs would have a 10% proc rate, something going off on spells could have 30%, 3x the damage, or something of that nature.</p><p>There really isn't an easy solution when working with weighted numbers, but I think without further review this [needed] change shifts it too far in the other direction and makes some abilities not worth their weight.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>and then accuse those darn pesky casters of having the cahones to DELIBERATELY cast longer casting spells so they proc more !!.. like those dam rangers used to do with their bows back in the day.. SPLOITERS !</span></div>

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Racmoor wrote:Zald, I'm not going to argue with you any more.  You have somehow taken things I didn't say and applied them to me.  I refuse to argue with someone who puts words in my mouth.  I also refuse to argue with someone as angry as you.  Enjoy the high you get from seeing other people upset. In the end I will play the game because it's fun to me...not to you...to me. I can assure you that I have quite an extensive backgroun in MMOs.  Nerfs come and go.  I'll either see this one and decide not to play or that it's not a big deal.  I have found out however that people that are beta testing (and I've been one of those) have a valid point most of the time.Quit taking the high road.  You want your class on the top of the DPS meter and you know what I have no problem with that as I've stated before, but you want everyone else to suffer for your time that you spent when you weren't there and should have been.You're angry over something...good luck with it.  I'm out.Remember this anger, when it comes around and you're back under the chopping block...and I honestly hope that you don't have to deal with people like you.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Wow talk about mis-quoting... where'd you get any of this? I never asked for anyone to suffer, if you're suffering you should see someone about that.I never asked any class to be the "best" at DPS. I personally don't think there should be a "best" in all circumstances.BTW, I'm not angry. I'm quite at peace with the world. I've acknowledged that without beta testing, ya can't know how "bad" things are... But 90% of the posts on this thread were made by people that hadn't experienced the change 1st hand so...Anyway, Play for fun... I agree with you 100%. If my main gets nerfed, you probably will find me rallying behind a realistic solution, not siding with the masses just becasue its "cool", not Raging against the machine, not being complaicent with unwarranted nerfdome. But you also won't find me lying or exagerating things just to keep imbalance in place.If you feel I've posted anything that isn't reflective of your position... Sorry, my bad, that's not my goal. Some of my posts weren't entirely directed at you, some were in part or entirely reflective of other attitude expressed in this thread.

[TwistedFaith]

<blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:It's not new this has been a problem throughout EQ2, the bizzare changes, the knock on effects that developers NEVER seem to account for, the list goes on.This expansion is imho vital for EQ2, Vanguard is getting closer and closer and this kind of crap from SoE doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.</blockquote>And if you think Vangard won't have dramatic changes after release, you need to lay down that pipe and get back in rehab.<hr></blockquote>Where's the logic behind making these sort of changes 1 week before the expansion?These are huge changes to classes and if reports from beta are correct then atm the effect of these on rangers is extreme.<hr></blockquote>And if they made these changes 2 months before hell froze over you'd argue that as well... Timing doesn't matter. If they'd made the changes in LU18, you'd whine why so soon after LU16....<hr></blockquote>My point is with the expansion kicking off there wont be time to fix any issues that will arise from this change.It took SoE 6 months to fix assasins.<p>Message Edited by valleyboy1 on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:39 PM</span></p>

[Za]

<blockquote>My point is with the expansion kicking off there wont be time to fix any issues that will arise from this change.It took SoE 6 months to even bring them up to line.<hr></blockquote>My point was that there's never a good time to make changes that some will feel isn't warranted or has some negative affect on them.One of the facts about MMOs is that your char will go through flux. Its like sports teams... sometimes your teams in the Superbowl, sometimes you watch the game just cuz you're a fan.No one likes seeing their star get hurt the week before the big game, but that's life... SoE lives it and lives by it just like the rest of us.

[Kulaf]

<div></div><p>What's the problem here?</p><p>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.</p>

[Cornbread Muffin]

<div></div><p>Oh, and for those who asked about swashies, a .2 second CA using a 25% proc chance would have an adjusted value of 1.6% chance to proc.</p><p>Therefore, if you have a 25% poison that does 400 damage it will, on average, add 6.4 damage to each CA.</p>

[Racmo]

<p>---------------------------------------------What's the problem here?</p><p>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.---------------------------------------------</p><p>It's just my opinion and I admit that it could be cynical, but I have seen no nerfs in the games I've played recently that weren't denied as being a nerf, but a bug fix instead.  Nerfs actually do cause unhappiness in the player base so "customer relations" avoid that connotation at all costs.  I can't believe a "bug" of this magnitude that so unbalances rangers would be allowed to go on as long as it has in their words.  So I believe that they're spinning it.  It's ok, it's their prerogative I suppose.</p><p>Want to balance it, call it that...some people will not agree with you, but at least it's the truth.</p><p>What's probably more truthful is that "This was initially planned, but they did not realize the impact on the game play this design would have, so it was a mistake".  A bug is something that was not initially designed to operate the way it is.  Not something that didn't give the results the design was expected to.  That's called a flaw in the design, not a bug.</p><p></p><p></p><div></div>

[Crychtonn]

<div></div><div></div><p>To Moorguard and Blaackguard (provided your still monitoring this thread):</p><p>I can agree that changes needed to be made but I can't agree with the change you implimented.  You stated that proc rate is standardized on a 3 sec delay formula to even out the chance of procs for various weapon delays.  This system does work for what it was created for.  Currently the proc formula uses this weapon delay formula to calculate proc hits from CA's also.  The change you have introduced changes this to work off CA <font color="#ffff00">casting</font> time and does not factor in the CA's delay i.e. refresh time.  By using delay time in one formula and casting time in another you significantly punish all classes with fast casting CA's.  This is even more of a hit with fast cast and long delays compared to slow cast and short delays.  If this stays in the current format Assassins, Brigands and Swashbucklers will never proc anything on a CA attack.</p><p>An alternative that would be fairer to all classes would be to eliminate the formula altogether in regards to CA's.  On auto attacks the formula stays the same.  On CA's the percentage chance to proc is the stated value with no adjustments up or down.  This would still signifcantly lower Ranger DPS because poisons would proc at the stated 25% instead of the current 58.25% rate.  But it would not nearly eliminate the chance to proc like the system introduced now does.  This type of change would be alot easier for people to take and in my opinion makes alot more sense.</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Crychtonn on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:00 PM</span></p>

[DaigleD]

<div></div><p>Ok, so for anyone here who has never played a ranger, let me explain a bit why this HAS to be one of the worst changes ever implimented in everquest history.</p><p>First of all, rangers did their dps because of procs.</p><p>Correct me if i'm wrong but the delay of the 7sec bow, coupled with the 30% chance to proc on our offensive stance, created somewhat of 70% chance to proc poisons / effects etc on each arrow fired.</p><p>Now with that in mind, we have multiple CA's with multiple arrows shot at once, including stream of arrows.  This is what made our dps so elite because if our precise shot (2 arrows) and triple arrow (3 arrows) were used and lets just say we had a regular ranged attack arrow shot at the same time,  that equates to 3-4 arrows.  Meaning 3-4 arrows EACH had a 70% chance to proc offensive stance, poison, and whatever other melee successful procs we had available.</p><p>With the current changes, and bows not factoring into the % chance to proc anymore our DPS will be essentially nil.  We will now only have the % chance to proc as whatever the % of the poison, and only upon the first arrow shot within each CA.  THIS makes stream of arrows a piece of crap.  Also if you consider poisons with a 25% chance to proc VS our previous 70% ish chance to proc things, that cuts our dps basically in HALF.  And for anyone about to say " oh well quit complaining your auto attack hasn't been affected "  WHO CARES NO RANGER WITH HALF A BRAIN EVER USES AUTO ATTACK and if we do have to start using it now, that means we will have to spend a buttload of money on high end arrows to do more damage costing nearly 4g a stack as opposed to the ones we use now costing 3sp a stack.  The cost of arrows will be absolutely insane considering we use upwards of 8-10k arrows per raid.</p><p>Now for all of you people out there crying nerf on us rangers for so long, whining and complaining, well here you go, you got it.  But let me ask ALL of you this ... WHAT WILL YOU EVER WANT A RANGER FOR .... they will be essentially USELESS in raids and grouping situations. </p><p>Despite what everyone who doesn't play the ranger class believes, we will no longer be tier 1 dps like we're supposed to be.  We have been smashed in the face as far as dps is concerned making our classes basically pointless to even play anymore.</p><p>The reason people wanted rangers around was because of DPS, what other purpose do they serve? Nothing what-so-ever.  All that really needed to be done was to lower the % chance of the ranger offensive stance to 10% to be on the same level as an assassin.  There was nothing else that needed to be done.</p><p>Thanks SOE, really</p>

[Niuan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>What's the problem here?</p><p>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.</p><hr></blockquote><p>This is not a flame... I just want to try and show you how important this change is to rangers...</p><p>1.  Poison procs are to rangers like pets are to necros or plate armor is to guardians.</p><p>2.  The flaw has been known since day 1 of release.  The whole class has been shifted, items created, CAs made with this "bug" in mind.  This bugs DPS potintial has been in consideration when determingevery aspect what we know as the ranger today.</p><p>3.  To simply fix the bug without looking back at CA damage, ranger loot tables, Utility etc is unacceptable.</p><p>I remember posts back at LU13 by blackguard defending ranger damage potential saying that we ARE Tier 1 DPS.  Now the change in disposition saying that WE ARE NOT suposed to be doing the most damage...  Kind of a flip flop if ya ask me.</p><p> </p>

[Lexan]

<div>Since your nerfing the hell out of everything thats ranger.  Can i have my weapon procs back from ranged?  I mean they wont go off anyway i just miss them <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div>

[Memory]

i do agree that the changes sound reasonable and i dont have a problem with changes at all.<font size="6" color="#cc0000">i dont [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing care how we are doing our Tier 1 damage, as long as we DO !</font>So i think Devs just need to rethink this whole mess of bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], because you screwed this up.think about all causes that happen to your actions taken.an example:we need to fix the bug with procs and poisons => [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] rangers drop down too low of dps => we need to up their CA damage (or whatever) in order to keep them Tier1<div></div>

[TwistedFaith]

<blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>What's the problem here?</p><p>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.</p><hr></blockquote>This 'BROKEN' game mechanic has been in the game since release.It's insulting to call it a bug and then also insinuate that rangers were exploiting a bug to do more damage than they should have beem.

[leafnin]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>What's the problem here?</p><p><strong>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period</strong>.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Just to point one thing out about this whole thing (not to attack you Kulaf)...Anyone remember when a Dev came on the boards a long while back and posted the formula for procs and acted like that was completely normal for it to be that way?  If it was so broke then why was it handled like it was a normal part of the game  /wonder. </p><p>  Now it may be seen differently now (hey I can't help it that change happens) , but for those to post like they ALWAYS knew it was broke where were you pre LU 13?  You didn't care then because it didn't threaten you..now it does.</p><p> </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor </p>

[Lexan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>leafnin wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>What's the problem here?</p><p><strong>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period</strong>.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Just to point one thing out about this whole thing (not to attack you Kulaf)...Anyone remember when a Dev came on the boards a long while back and posted the formula for procs and acted like that was completely normal for it to be that way?  If it was so broke then why was it handled like it was a normal part of the game  /wonder. </p><p>  Now it may be seen differently now (hey I can't help it that change happens) , but for those to post like they ALWAYS knew it was broke where were you pre LU 13?  You didn't care then because it didn't threaten you..now it does.</p><p> </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor </p><hr></blockquote>Excellant point.  We need a forum troll to dig up that thread from the dev team please <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr><span><hr>To call this a bug is, frankly, <b>insulting.</b>  It's a game mechanic.  It's been there since the game's launch, and through the combat upgrade.  It may be a poorly designed mechanic - one with unintended consequences - but it's the way the game was implemented: the way it's always been.  Please don't try to downplay a change in the fundemental mechanics of the game by dismissing it as a bug.The implications that people who recognized and utilized this mechanic are <i>exploiting</i> a bug is even more insulting.  We made choices based on game mechanics.  It was never a secret: I can dig up dozens of posts of advice to young rangers about how to get the most of their abilities, that specifically explain this game behavior.  I can show you several quite scholarly discussions about these mechanics - parses on chain of procs, the implications for poison use, equipment selection, etc. <b>This is not a bug fix; this is a change in basic mechanics.</b>If you feel that ranger damage is out of line and want to fix it, I support you.  But please take some responsibility and admit that you need to make changes to the game design, instead of calling every single ranger an exploiter.If you do want to adjust ranger damage, please consider discussing it with the community.  Just like the original mechanic had an unforseen impact on the class capabilities (that, by the way, the LU#13 changes compounded), these heavy-handed changes are quite likely to cause way more problems than you're expecting.And please, when you do test whatever changes you put into effect, please test them for rangers (and other classes) of *all* levels, instead of just the level 60-70 raiders in the KoS beta program.  Don't forget about the level 20's!</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>/agree 100%</p><p>On the dearly departed scoutssanctuary.com we would spend hours and days of game time parsing out fights and discussing our results in the forums for the sole purpose of improving how we and others played our toons.  Simply having an understanding of how the combat models work and how to maximize damage potential is not exploiting a bug... It's common sense and good gameplay. </p><p>I hope the devs put as much time and effort into understanding each class and tradeskill as people like Shader have put into theirs.   /salute</p>

[Mastera]

I think its quite obvious that rangers need a dps decrease.  Although, I hope its only in moderation and that procs don't become an irrelevant addition.<div></div>

[Nimana]

<div></div><p>As a ranger (my main is a fury, but I have a ranger alt) I've seen this coming. Changing the way poison procs probably is the most reasonable way to reduce ranger dps to ensure it is in line with assasins/mages (I guess the dps of conjurors and necros will have to be adjusted too). Boosting the dps of the other tier 1 classes would only further tivialize game content. I am a bit conserned about soloability though, and from what I hear from rangers on beta, ranger dps may have been hit a bit too hard. I'm quite sure SoE will get this right though, but I guess it may take some time.</p><p>I think all rangers should appreciate that our dps had to be toned down a bit. We should be happy to be tier 1 dps on par with mages and assassins. I still see the need for some more balancing (as mentioned, the pet classes in my view provide too much dps in group/raid settings along with great solo abilities), but I do think SoE has taken a step in the right direction!</p>

[Dahlrek]

<div></div>Calling it a bug fix is splitting hairs.  It was a well-understood often-discussed game mechanic that they didn't explicitly design because they lacked foresight or math skills or both.  Until they decide they don't like it, it's a feature; once they change their minds, it's a bug.  Such is the wonder of MMOs.Should it go live as-is, the "change" coupled with the other proc system change will in fact cost my Bruiser ~15% of my solo dps.  It sucks, but I'll survive.My concern is for the point of 2H weapons.  Currently, the use of 2H weapons primarily centers around maximizing procs.  Players can make the concious decision to go 2H instead of DW, and situationally this can be either smart or not-so-smart.  After this change proc rate will be fully normalized, and the line will look something like this:DW: Higher auto-attack dps, configurability, damage consistency2H: Frontloaded auto-attack damage, less work to aquire, ? better for AE auto-attack skills ?So with the exception perhaps of Berserkers, are 2H now essentially pointless?  What mechanic am I not aware of that makes the loss of DW's clear advantages worthwhile?<div></div>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Nimanael wrote:<div></div><p>As a ranger (my main is a fury, but I have a ranger alt) I've seen this coming. Changing the way poison procs probably is the most reasonable way to reduce ranger dps to ensure it is in line with assasins/mages (I guess the dps of conjurors and necros will have to be adjusted too). Boosting the dps of the other tier 1 classes would only further tivialize game content. I am a bit conserned about soloability though, and from what I hear from rangers on beta, ranger dps may have been hit a bit too hard. I'm quite sure SoE will get this right though, but I guess it may take some time.</p><p>I think all rangers should appreciate that our dps had to be toned down a bit. We should be happy to be tier 1 dps on par with mages and assassins. I still see the need for some more balancing (as mentioned, the pet classes in my view provide too much dps in group/raid settings along with great solo abilities), but I do think SoE has taken a step in the right direction!</p><hr></blockquote>Actually no dev has shown any sympathy for rangers that are worried to stay Tier3 dps as it is on beta.No Official word, nothing.Im not that confident, not at all, not after ive seen how they swing their nerf .. err fix bat without thinking about the effects.Im sure that every ranger saw that coming, that we would get toned down a bit to be in line with other T1 dps, but we have been broken down way below T2 and dont even get a response on that.<font size="4">I for myself just clearly say if you dont manage to nerf procs and poisons and keep rangers in T1 simultanously, then you should postpone the fix until you can.<font size="3">theres no sense in not learning from mistakes made in the past.i just thought that our devs would have the guts to admit when they made a mistake ...</font></font></span><div></div>

[MystaSkrat]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.<hr></blockquote>So my 0.5 second cast skills will probably never proc anything, ever?  Wow, great job.  How about you put a minimum delay in there somewhere?

[Icarii_Raven`Lyon]

<div>I cant speak much of rangers, as I dont play one, but I would like to inquire on the comments made that conjurers had higher dps than the other dps classes. I currently have a conjurer, wizard and assassin all within 1 level of each other. Now granted, the conjurer can solo better than the other 2 as she has a pet, but she by no means out dpses them, not by a long shot. I would even place the assassin first, as she can do continuous damage, where as the wizard is hindered by mana, and currently she goes through a ton of mana, very fast.</div><div> </div><div>I do not, however, see my conjurer out dpsing either the assassin or the wizard any time this century.</div>

[Ishbu]

<div></div>If multiple attack CA's are now going to function more like DoTs where they can proc on the initial cast but not the subsequent tic's (think of the subsequent attacks like subsequent tics), then they should also gain the property that if the initial attack hits, the DoT is on, period.  In other words, if the first attack hits, all subsequent ones do as well, there is no chance of them missing.   They may do more or less damage, but they will hit.

[Lexan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Icarii_Raven`Lyon wrote:<div>I cant speak much of rangers, as I dont play one, but I would like to inquire on the comments made that conjurers had higher dps than the other dps classes. I currently have a conjurer, wizard and assassin all within 1 level of each other. Now granted, the conjurer can solo better than the other 2 as she has a pet, but she by no means out dpses them, not by a long shot. I would even place the assassin first, as she can do continuous damage, where as the wizard is hindered by mana, and currently she goes through a ton of mana, very fast.</div><div> </div><div>I do not, however, see my conjurer out dpsing either the assassin or the wizard any time this century.</div><hr></blockquote>All i can say is your wrong.  I've raided, ive grouped, and i know as well as does anyone else who has played with a parser.  But you know what i hope they dont change them as i dont want to be in PPR killing cattle for 4 hours to get the actual real loot in the end!!! 

[overfloat]

<div></div><p>Regardless of the timing, I'm glad this issue is being addressed. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Separating CA proc rates from normalised autoattack proc rates is something a lot of us have been requesting for a long time -- not with the intention of nerfing any particular class(es) but because it was obviously an issue that was overlooked when the proc mechanics were initially developed and implemented. Proc rates have long been a source of contention and balancing difficulty. Allowing only the mainhand to proc (no DW offhand procs) was the first step -- to help balance procs between weapon wield types -- and this change is the second step in addressing the <u>root</u> cause of proc imbalances.</p><p>Will rangers suffer the worst? You can't sugar-coat is: yes, they will. Why? Because they use arguably the longest-delay weapons in the game (longbows), giving both their autoattack and their CAs the highest possible proc rates. As a somewhat subjective observation...</p><blockquote><hr>frostbane wrote:<div></div><p>As it is rangers get WAY to much damage from poison procs, and the like...for instance we raided gates of Ahket the other night.  One of our rangers did 1.1 million dmg in 35 minutes of fighting....</p><p>of this 1.1 million damage</p><p>35% of it was declining periodic poison, for 391k dmg.</p><p>The next best damage ability was Quick Shot with 18% or 204k dmg.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm guessing frostbane plays on AB and is looking at the same parse as me. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Indeed, on several occasions my parses have shown our same rangers consistently getting ~35% of their total damage (over the course of a raid) from poison procs, and an additional 18~20% of their total damage from Quick Shot procs (remembering that Quick Shot procs can, themselves, proc poison). That's ~55% of their total damage output coming from just two sources, and both of those procs! Undeniably, this proc change is going to bring that damage proportion crashing down.</p><p>Do I think rangers "deserve to be nerfed"? I think that would be an unfair and vindictive way to put it, but I <u>do</u> think the proc rate issue needs to be addressed in order to allow the Devs tighter control over subclass DPS. Having a subclass relying <em>so</em> heavily on procs -- essentially just single, cross-class spells with a <em>chance</em> to do damage -- makes controlling and balancing DPS much more difficult. Currently, a single tweak to one of those procs will impact several different subclasses, all to varying degrees. So I think this change needs to happen. I do believe rangers are exceeding their intended DPS as a byproduct of the current proc mechanicism (Blackguard even came out and stated it in so many words), but I haven't been asking for these proc changes just to be vindictive towards rangers. I fully expect that ranger CAs will need a little tweaking after the proc change is implemented in order to make sure they still fall within their intended DPS range, but this will allow more targeted control for the Devs.</p><p> </p><p>My only concerns off-the-bat about CA mechanisms clashing with the new proc system, irrespective of parse data, are these:</p><ul><li><strong>Stream of Arrows</strong> (ranger) and <strong>Hail of Steel</strong> (swashbuckler) : these toggle CAs were recently changed to utilise multiple casts (one per shot/throw) ... I would just like to be sure that these shots/throws will indeed be treated as <u>individual</u> casts, and <u>each</u> afforded the chance to proc based on their individual cast times. It would seem like a no-brainer that this is how they would function, but you know how bugs can be. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></li><li><strong>Cacophony of Blades</strong> (dirge) and <strong>Inspired Daring</strong> (swashbuckler) : these are short-duration buffs that are meant to <em>add damage </em>to every melee strike within the duration, not have a "chance to proc" on each strike a limited number of times. However, they were actually implemented using a proc mechanic (basically with a 100% chance to proc), which meant they lost all their offhand procs LU#18. (i.e. a full 50% effectiveness from LU#13 to LU#18, whereas all other "true" procs kept the same effectiveness from LU#13-LU#1<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. This new change will also remove all procs but one from any flurry attacks used, further reducing their effectiveness. If the Devs believe these two buffs were overpowered at LU#13 and needed to have their potency reduced, I'll gladly accept their word on it; as it stands, though, the Devs have not addressed the changes to either buff, which leaves the dirge and swashbuckler communities believing that the huge reductions to these two CAs were accidental byproducts of other mechanic changes rather than purposeful modifications. Inspired Daring, which states it will "add damage to every melee attack", will now only add damage to autoattacks made with one of two hands and only the first melee strike of any flurry attack. Any word on the issue would be appreciated!</li></ul>

[KagekDahung]

<div></div><div>Penny Arcade has a comic today that is somewhat relevant to this topic, since it deals with the popularity EQII:</div><div> </div><div><a target="_blank" href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic">http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic</a></div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Way to go Sony, maybe if your designers used more gray matter before implementing radical changes you would not need to give your games away for free.</div>

[ChaosUndivided]

<div></div><font color="#ff3300"></font><blockquote><hr>Lexani- wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>leafnin wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>What's the problem here?</p><p><strong>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period</strong>.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Just to point one thing out about this whole thing (not to attack you Kulaf)...Anyone remember when a Dev came on the boards a long while back and posted the formula for procs and acted like that was completely normal for it to be that way?  If it was so broke then why was it handled like it was a normal part of the game  /wonder. </p><p>  Now it may be seen differently now (hey I can't help it that change happens) , but for those to post like they ALWAYS knew it was broke where were you pre LU 13?  You didn't care then because it didn't threaten you..now it does.</p><p> </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor </p><hr></blockquote>Excellant point.  We need a forum troll to dig up that thread from the dev team please <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote><p>You mean this one?</p><p></p><hr><div>Actual proc rates on weapons depend on a ratio of the delay of the weapon and the displayed chance to proc. The actual chance to proc is:</div><div> </div><div>(Weapon Delay / 3.0 Delay ) * Proc Percentage.</div><div> </div><div>You can think of every procing weapon has having its proc percent chance to trigger every 3 seconds. That way, a longsword and a dagger will proc the same amount over time, even though a dagger may swing faster and yield a smaller proc chance per hit.</div><p></p><div>===========================Jared SweattEverQuest II Spells and Combat Designer</div><p><span><font size="4"><strong><font color="#ff0000"><span class="date_text">04-04-2005</span><span class="time_text">10:55 AM</span></font></strong> </font></span></p><p></p><hr>Yup look at that date, Too bad we've been exploiting for so long.

[LoreLady]

Currently on my parser (advanced combat tracker) - numbers tend to go like this with classesRangers 450-750 dpsAssassins 350-450 dpsWizards/warlockers 400-500 dps (in group)300-400 dps  single targetRogues 350-500 dps - Problem if SoE continues to change what they are changing.Enchanters - 250-400 dpsSummoners and necros -300-450 dps (another potential problem)Zerkers tend to be on the 300-400 dps line as well when tanking - another problem.- These are estimates on numbers that I have gone through with group by group. Later today, I am going to compile  what my DPS is without poison, then with my offensive on only.I see a number of potential problems occuring with this change. What I would suggest  instead of this change - is lock the monk proc ability with there 5 hit ability if you deem it to powerfull, and keep procs doing what damage they do.Also - this should give you an idea on how much procs do, and try and give an average dps on regular abilities. I am doing this by hand from my parser so please bear with me - this was from my ranger, level 59 ranger - using adeste's poison, and an ironwood longbow with an all my abilities adept 3'd.DPS          Poison    CA proc  Weapon proc644                 39%       19%         0%781               49%           19%     3%719               36%         23%         4%164               52%         20%         7%368               38%         23%         6%396               30%           19%         5%377               0               7%            5%  736               27%            33%         3%285               39%            14%      0%560               38%            18%      0%509               47%          21%         9%438               35%         22%         5%605               50%         7%          0%315               31%         10%         4%495               39%         10%         7%459               41%         24%         3%715               50%         17%         0%=503 dps      35%       16%               3.5% Now - let me translate this on what I have done. I have taken the DPS over the battle, and then devided on what damage is to what, a %age of the damage of poison, the arrow frenzy proc, and then our bow proc with the ironwood bow.Now the point I am trying to get at here, is at nearly fight there was a double shot involved, a single shot, and then power shot (we had a high dps group at the time). Should you take away that ability, you are essentially lowering rangers to the point of where we shouldent be lowered. Also - did you notice a pattern, ranger dps doesnt stay high it peaks fades and wanes and peaks again depending on the combanation of abilities we use. We also had a rogue in our group who was outdamaing me for about 1/8ths of the fights out there, and then averaging back out to about 350-400 dps.Tomarrow, I am going to do the same thing but this time I am not going to use any poisons only my melee procs - with what SoE has said, it seems like these should average out.What needs to be done isent to nurf multi procs, it is to take the proc %age and keep it there - and to keep a standard proc rate with everyone. This would boost assassins to be onpar with rangers while slightly nurfing rangers (I dont mind taking a hit, I realise it is comming) what I am afraid of, is sony overseeing damage done.Also - I would like to point out to everyone, here are my ranged attack damages, delays and refresh'sDebilitating arrow adept 3 - 512 -853 - 1.5 sec delay -1 min recastculling of the weak adept 3 -816-1360 -1.5 sec delay - 1 min recast Tripple arrow adept 3 - 136-228, 273-456, 410 -684 - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastPrecise shot adept 3 - 196-327, 196-327 - 1 sec delay - 20 second recastStealthy fire Master 2 - 1542-2570 - 3 sec delay - 1 min 30 second recast.Confusion arrow adept 3 - 416 dmg - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastMiracle arrow adept 3  476 dmg - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastSnaring shot master 1 204-340  - 1 sec delay - 20 second recastSniper shot adept 3 3574-5956 - 5 sec delay - 15 min recastStream of arrows (leaving this out for those who are nonrangers). - I will touch base on this alittle later.Now if you look at all these abilities you will quickly realize how much procs effect us, and how much we will need a revamp or a boost in damage. For those of you who think we fire off hundreds of CA's per round thats mistaken, for a good ranger we utilize the abilities we have by combining the best constant DPS - a good ranger is not a ranger who peaks there dps, but keeps a steady flow. Realisticly we use 4-5 abilities for the average dps groups - and 2-4 for the very high end ones.  Snaring shot, and precise shot are almost always used in a fight - to get a good constant source of dps - we must pick from what is left, and if you are going to lower our DPS that doesnt give us much to work with. Even in the best dps groups with rest I find myself running out of abilities to use - (Several times running out of stream as well and having to go melee)Now here is the thing - stream of arrows can easilly be outdamaged. Now for rangers to have to use this ability with half the fights (they are going to take alot longer now) this will put is on a subpar level.The next post's I post will be rangers without any procs or poisons and our DPS, and then DPS with stream of arrows only against ^^^ mobs.

[Lexan]

<div><blockquote><hr>ChaosUndivided wrote:<div></div><font color="#ff3300"></font><blockquote><hr>Lexani- wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>leafnin wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>What's the problem here?</p><p><strong>There is a fix going in for a broken mechanic of the game.....period</strong>.  The fact that only one class is apparently seriously affected is not the issue......this is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>That said......I would argue that this should not go live until any class impacted by this change has a full evalluation to bring them back into line with the damage class they are supposed to reside in.</p><p>But bottom line this needs to be addressed as it will only compound as the game advances.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Just to point one thing out about this whole thing (not to attack you Kulaf)...Anyone remember when a Dev came on the boards a long while back and posted the formula for procs and acted like that was completely normal for it to be that way?  If it was so broke then why was it handled like it was a normal part of the game  /wonder. </p><p>  Now it may be seen differently now (hey I can't help it that change happens) , but for those to post like they ALWAYS knew it was broke where were you pre LU 13?  You didn't care then because it didn't threaten you..now it does.</p><p> </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor </p><hr></blockquote>Excellant point.  We need a forum troll to dig up that thread from the dev team please <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote><p>You mean this one?</p><p></p><hr><div>Actual proc rates on weapons depend on a ratio of the delay of the weapon and the displayed chance to proc. The actual chance to proc is:</div><div> </div><div>(Weapon Delay / 3.0 Delay ) * Proc Percentage.</div><div> </div><div>You can think of every procing weapon has having its proc percent chance to trigger every 3 seconds. That way, a longsword and a dagger will proc the same amount over time, even though a dagger may swing faster and yield a smaller proc chance per hit.</div><p></p><div>===========================Jared SweattEverQuest II Spells and Combat Designer</div><p><span><font size="4"><strong><font color="#ff0000"><span class="date_text">04-04-2005</span><span class="time_text">10:55 AM</span></font></strong> </font></span></p><p></p><hr>Yup look at that date, Too bad we've been exploiting for so long.<hr></blockquote>BINGO!!!!</div><div> </div><div><img alt="For The Love Of God Please Play Our Game" src="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2006/20060215.jpg"></div>

[scivias]

I welcome the change, something similar was suggested by me only weeks ago.And to all the rangers out there, please realize that this change is surely not to stand alone. Balancing supposed Tier1 classes was neigh impossible to achieve earlier, since the issue wasn't based on simple things like recast timer oder actual damage per combat art. This change isn't to "nerf da rangerz" but to bring them in line with other classes "the way their damage calculates" .. after that is done, and some actual numbers are crushed, I have no doubt that balance will be achieved through the easy way, that is by adjusting CA damage and recast timers.And in the end Tier1 will be Tier1, and there will be much rejoice <img src="http://www.elementmagie.de/rauchen.gif">Come on guys, you don't actually believe that rangers will be stuck in tier3 just for the sake of it?<div></div>

[Kulaf]

<div></div><p>Well a lot of people replied to my post.....good I hoped it would inspire a bit of thinking but I think some of you missed the point:</p><p>1) This "mechanic" has NOT been in since release.  Heck poisons were not even in the game and working correctly at release.  If you meant to say it's been in since the Combat Revamp.....well say that instead.</p><p>2) Rangers are supposed to be top tier in damage output.  Why do you care how SOE gets you there?  If they take away random proc damage and replace it with hard melee damage from your bows.......wouldn't that be a good thing?</p><p>I know every time there is a class change that people panic.  Heck I played a Bard in EQ1 and no one nows better than I how a patch can totally mess up your class.  Just have some faith that this will be retified in such a way that your class will still do tier 1 damage and still be desired in group while still correcting a game mechanic.</p><p>If the current system on Test is not working as it should to get Rangers where they need to be......they will get there.</p><p>I know calm and clear thinking is not the opperating mode of the day.....but try it on for size.</p>

[Gailstryd]

<div></div>All I have to say is Karma is going to be a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] for the mages.

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:Currently on my parser (advanced combat tracker) - numbers tend to go like this with classesRangers 450-750 dpsAssassins 350-450 dpsWizards/warlockers 400-500 dps (in group)300-400 dps  single targetRogues 350-500 dps - Problem if SoE continues to change what they are changing.Enchanters - 250-400 dpsSummoners and necros -300-450 dps (another potential problem)Zerkers tend to be on the 300-400 dps line as well when tanking - another problem.- These are estimates on numbers that I have gone through with group by group. Later today, I am going to compile  what my DPS is without poison, then with my offensive on only.I see a number of potential problems occuring with this change. What I would suggest  instead of this change - is lock the monk proc ability with there 5 hit ability if you deem it to powerfull, and keep procs doing what damage they do.Also - this should give you an idea on how much procs do, and try and give an average dps on regular abilities. I am doing this by hand from my parser so please bear with me - this was from my ranger, level 59 ranger - using adeste's poison, and an ironwood longbow with an all my abilities adept 3'd.DPS          Poison    CA proc  Weapon proc644                 39%       19%         0%781               49%           19%     3%719               36%         23%         4%164               52%         20%         7%368               38%         23%         6%396               30%           19%         5%377               0               7%            5%  736               27%            33%         3%285               39%            14%      0%560               38%            18%      0%509               47%          21%         9%438               35%         22%         5%605               50%         7%          0%315               31%         10%         4%495               39%         10%         7%459               41%         24%         3%715               50%         17%         0%=503 dps      35%       16%               3.5% Now - let me translate this on what I have done. I have taken the DPS over the battle, and then devided on what damage is to what, a %age of the damage of poison, the arrow frenzy proc, and then our bow proc with the ironwood bow.Now the point I am trying to get at here, is at nearly fight there was a double shot involved, a single shot, and then power shot (we had a high dps group at the time). Should you take away that ability, you are essentially lowering rangers to the point of where we shouldent be lowered. Also - did you notice a pattern, ranger dps doesnt stay high it peaks fades and wanes and peaks again depending on the combanation of abilities we use. We also had a rogue in our group who was outdamaing me for about 1/8ths of the fights out there, and then averaging back out to about 350-400 dps.Tomarrow, I am going to do the same thing but this time I am not going to use any poisons only my melee procs - with what SoE has said, it seems like these should average out.What needs to be done isent to nurf multi procs, it is to take the proc %age and keep it there - and to keep a standard proc rate with everyone. This would boost assassins to be onpar with rangers while slightly nurfing rangers (I dont mind taking a hit, I realise it is comming) what I am afraid of, is sony overseeing damage done.Also - I would like to point out to everyone, here are my ranged attack damages, delays and refresh'sDebilitating arrow adept 3 - 512 -853 - 1.5 sec delay -1 min recastculling of the weak adept 3 -816-1360 -1.5 sec delay - 1 min recast Tripple arrow adept 3 - 136-228, 273-456, 410 -684 - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastPrecise shot adept 3 - 196-327, 196-327 - 1 sec delay - 20 second recastStealthy fire Master 2 - 1542-2570 - 3 sec delay - 1 min 30 second recast.Confusion arrow adept 3 - 416 dmg - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastMiracle arrow adept 3  476 dmg - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastSnaring shot master 1 204-340  - 1 sec delay - 20 second recastSniper shot adept 3 3574-5956 - 5 sec delay - 15 min recastStream of arrows (leaving this out for those who are nonrangers). - I will touch base on this alittle later.Now if you look at all these abilities you will quickly realize how much procs effect us, and how much we will need a revamp or a boost in damage. For those of you who think we fire off hundreds of CA's per round thats mistaken, for a good ranger we utilize the abilities we have by combining the best constant DPS - a good ranger is not a ranger who peaks there dps, but keeps a steady flow. Realisticly we use 4-5 abilities for the average dps groups - and 2-4 for the very high end ones.  Snaring shot, and precise shot are almost always used in a fight - to get a good constant source of dps - we must pick from what is left, and if you are going to lower our DPS that doesnt give us much to work with. Even in the best dps groups with rest I find myself running out of abilities to use - (Several times running out of stream as well and having to go melee)Now here is the thing - stream of arrows can easilly be outdamaged. Now for rangers to have to use this ability with half the fights (they are going to take alot longer now) this will put is on a subpar level.The next post's I post will be rangers without any procs or poisons and our DPS, and then DPS with stream of arrows only against ^^^ mobs.<hr></blockquote>those numbers seem correct. so maybe some people show some believe in them.comparison. my lv 70 ranger on beta (fully aa, fully master1 t6+t7, fully legendary/fabled t7) is stuck at about 500 dps.nice vision of future eh ?</span><div></div>

[Lexan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>Well a lot of people replied to my post.....good I hoped it would inspire a bit of thinking but I think some of you missed the point:</p><p>1) This "mechanic" has NOT been in since release.  Heck poisons were not even in the game and working correctly at release.  If you meant to say it's been in since the Combat Revamp.....well say that instead.</p><p>2) Rangers are supposed to be top tier in damage output.  Why do you care how SOE gets you there?  If they take away random proc damage and replace it with hard melee damage from your bows.......wouldn't that be a good thing?</p><p>I know every time there is a class change that people panic.  Heck I played a Bard in EQ1 and no one nows better than I how a patch can totally mess up your class.  Just have some faith that this will be retified in such a way that your class will still do tier 1 damage and still be desired in group while still correcting a game mechanic.</p><p>If the current system on Test is not working as it should to get Rangers where they need to be......they will get there.</p><p>I know calm and clear thinking is not the opperating mode of the day.....but try it on for size.</p><hr></blockquote>Yes because they have done such a wonderful job for wizzards and warlocks why should we worry?

[Niuan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>LoreLady wrote:Currently on my parser (advanced combat tracker) - numbers tend to go like this with classesRangers 450-750 dpsAssassins 350-450 dpsWizards/warlockers 400-500 dps (in group)300-400 dps  single targetRogues 350-500 dps - Problem if SoE continues to change what they are changing.Enchanters - 250-400 dpsSummoners and necros -300-450 dps (another potential problem)Zerkers tend to be on the 300-400 dps line as well when tanking - another problem.- These are estimates on numbers that I have gone through with group by group. Later today, I am going to compile  what my DPS is without poison, then with my offensive on only.I see a number of potential problems occuring with this change. What I would suggest  instead of this change - is lock the monk proc ability with there 5 hit ability if you deem it to powerfull, and keep procs doing what damage they do.Also - this should give you an idea on how much procs do, and try and give an average dps on regular abilities. I am doing this by hand from my parser so please bear with me - this was from my ranger, level 59 ranger - using adeste's poison, and an ironwood longbow with an all my abilities adept 3'd.DPS          Poison    CA proc  Weapon proc644                 39%       19%         0%781               49%           19%     3%719               36%         23%         4%164               52%         20%         7%368               38%         23%         6%396               30%           19%         5%377               0               7%            5%  736               27%            33%         3%285               39%            14%      0%560               38%            18%      0%509               47%          21%         9%438               35%         22%         5%605               50%         7%          0%315               31%         10%         4%495               39%         10%         7%459               41%         24%         3%715               50%         17%         0%=503 dps      35%       16%               3.5% Now - let me translate this on what I have done. I have taken the DPS over the battle, and then devided on what damage is to what, a %age of the damage of poison, the arrow frenzy proc, and then our bow proc with the ironwood bow.Now the point I am trying to get at here, is at nearly fight there was a double shot involved, a single shot, and then power shot (we had a high dps group at the time). Should you take away that ability, you are essentially lowering rangers to the point of where we shouldent be lowered. Also - did you notice a pattern, ranger dps doesnt stay high it peaks fades and wanes and peaks again depending on the combanation of abilities we use. We also had a rogue in our group who was outdamaing me for about 1/8ths of the fights out there, and then averaging back out to about 350-400 dps.Tomarrow, I am going to do the same thing but this time I am not going to use any poisons only my melee procs - with what SoE has said, it seems like these should average out.What needs to be done isent to nurf multi procs, it is to take the proc %age and keep it there - and to keep a standard proc rate with everyone. This would boost assassins to be onpar with rangers while slightly nurfing rangers (I dont mind taking a hit, I realise it is comming) what I am afraid of, is sony overseeing damage done.Also - I would like to point out to everyone, here are my ranged attack damages, delays and refresh'sDebilitating arrow adept 3 - 512 -853 - 1.5 sec delay -1 min recastculling of the weak adept 3 -816-1360 -1.5 sec delay - 1 min recast Tripple arrow adept 3 - 136-228, 273-456, 410 -684 - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastPrecise shot adept 3 - 196-327, 196-327 - 1 sec delay - 20 second recastStealthy fire Master 2 - 1542-2570 - 3 sec delay - 1 min 30 second recast.Confusion arrow adept 3 - 416 dmg - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastMiracle arrow adept 3  476 dmg - 1.5 sec delay - 1 min recastSnaring shot master 1 204-340  - 1 sec delay - 20 second recastSniper shot adept 3 3574-5956 - 5 sec delay - 15 min recastStream of arrows (leaving this out for those who are nonrangers). - I will touch base on this alittle later.Now if you look at all these abilities you will quickly realize how much procs effect us, and how much we will need a revamp or a boost in damage. For those of you who think we fire off hundreds of CA's per round thats mistaken, for a good ranger we utilize the abilities we have by combining the best constant DPS - a good ranger is not a ranger who peaks there dps, but keeps a steady flow. Realisticly we use 4-5 abilities for the average dps groups - and 2-4 for the very high end ones.  Snaring shot, and precise shot are almost always used in a fight - to get a good constant source of dps - we must pick from what is left, and if you are going to lower our DPS that doesnt give us much to work with. Even in the best dps groups with rest I find myself running out of abilities to use - (Several times running out of stream as well and having to go melee)Now here is the thing - stream of arrows can easilly be outdamaged. Now for rangers to have to use this ability with half the fights (they are going to take alot longer now) this will put is on a subpar level.The next post's I post will be rangers without any procs or poisons and our DPS, and then DPS with stream of arrows only against ^^^ mobs.<hr></blockquote><p>I agree with your numbers... Yes Rangers can can devastating peaks of DPS if we mash all our CAs at once... But that damage can't be sustained.  The number that should be looked at is extended DPS.  Advanced combat tracker does an excellent job at that.  while the ranger has the highest DPS number he often does not have the highest EXT DPS number because of these peaks and deep valleys.</p><p>without the poisons helping on the peaks... We will be all valleys hehe</p>

[Dojoc]

<div></div><p>Really nice move BG, MG or xxx dev whatever</p><p>Changing core game mechanics:</p><div>Actual proc rates on weapons depend on a ratio of the delay of the weapon and the displayed chance to proc. The actual chance to proc is:</div><div> </div><div>(Weapon Delay / 3.0 Delay ) * Proc Percentage.</div><div> </div><div>You can think of every procing weapon has having its proc percent chance to trigger every 3 seconds. That way, a longsword and a dagger will proc the same amount over time, even though a dagger may swing faster and yield a smaller proc chance per hit.</div><p></p><div>===========================Jared SweattEverQuest II Spells and Combat Designer</div><p><span><font size="4"><strong><span class="date_text">04-04-2005</span><span class="time_text">10:55 AM</span></strong> </font></span></p><p>and now call them a BUG, is really crappy .. iam so sry for you</p><p> </p><p>you've learned nothing, really nothing from the past nerfing one class by another instead of improving the other which lack</p><p>after 15 months and you cannot balanced the classes in this game, ha lol, suprise suprise</p><p>nearly 450 days acc age, more than 257d,15h playtime with my ranger and you noticed it now, called it a bug`? lol</p><p>see ya in V:SoH</p>

[Reposa]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useles by any means.</p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote>MG, I think everyone understands the change on proc buffs with a certian number of charges.   Such as Storming Palm, a Monk buff that gives us up to 8 procs.. which can proc up to 12 times if timed right with our 5 hit combo, or 15 times if timed right with our AoE.The change to those proc buffs is understandable, and needed.  No doubt.The problem I see with the overall change is, if technically, I'm swinging 5 times, or spinning around and punching 8 different mobs, why do I not have a chance to proc weapon effects off of each and everyone of those hits?  It makes no sense, to say, ok, my weapon only works once per CA, even if the CA hits X number of times or X number of targets.Should try to figure out a way to keep the % chance of proccing on multiple hit CAs/AoEs, while still getting rid of the "extra" procs on proc buffs with specific charges.</span><div></div>

[Dojoc]

<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><font color="#ff0000">Blackguard schrieb:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.</font>So BG, which class is supposed to be #1 DPS<p>Wizzis? then nerf them to zero group buff, 1 debuffs and let them be pure dps</p><p>Warlocks? see above</p><p>noone will take preds, why should they, they dont have groupbuffs, manadrain, frostshield etc</p><p>unless `you think these 2 classes should be #1 dps. nerf them down to zero utility or to say it better, as much as ranger/assa's has</p><p>but you wouldnt do this .. why? then all 4 tier1 classes are doing the same, providing nothing then dmg ... then you can nerf them to one class, b/c for what do we have 4 classes if they're doing all the same, right?</p></blockquote>

[Crychtonn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>Well a lot of people replied to my post.....good I hoped it would inspire a bit of thinking but I think some of you missed the point:</p><p>1) This "mechanic" has NOT been in since release.  Heck poisons were not even in the game and working correctly at release.  If you meant to say it's been in since the Combat Revamp.....well say that instead.</p><p>2) Rangers are supposed to be top tier in damage output.  Why do you care how SOE gets you there?  If they take away random proc damage and replace it with hard melee damage from your bows.......wouldn't that be a good thing?</p><p>I know every time there is a class change that people panic.  Heck I played a Bard in EQ1 and no one nows better than I how a patch can totally mess up your class.  Just have some faith that this will be retified in such a way that your class will still do tier 1 damage and still be desired in group while still correcting a game mechanic.</p><p>If the current system on Test is not working as it should to get Rangers where they need to be......they will get there.</p><p>I know calm and clear thinking is not the opperating mode of the day.....but try it on for size.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Did you forget that Rangers were stuck in teir 3 up and until LU13.  Going back to being out done by half the fighter classes, all the scouts and mages isn't something I look forward to returning to.</p><p> </p>

[valkyrja]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Dojocan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><font color="#ff0000">Blackguard schrieb:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.</font>So BG, which class is supposed to be #1 DPS<p>Wizzis? then nerf them to zero group buff, 1 debuffs and let them be pure dps</p><p>Warlocks? see above</p><p>noone will take preds, why should they, they dont have groupbuffs, manadrain, frostshield etc</p><p>unless `you think these 2 classes should be #1 dps. nerf them down to zero utility or to say it better, as much as ranger/assa's has</p><p>but you wouldnt do this .. why? then all 4 tier1 classes are doing the same, providing nothing then dmg ... then you can nerf them to one class, b/c for what do we have 4 classes if they're doing all the same, right?</p></blockquote><hr></blockquote>The point is, there should be 4 T1 DPS classes.  Wiz, War, Assassin, Ranger.  Not in any order.  In some cases, one will be better than the others. As it stands now, Ranger is T1 all by himself. However, you do bring up a point I never considered.  Why is it that if I buff a group member, the extra damage is awarded to them?  If I cast an Ice Shield on the tank, shouldn't I get the 500pts everytime it triggers?</span></div>

[Reposa]

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>sparql wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Dojocan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><font color="#ff0000">Blackguard schrieb:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.</font>So BG, which class is supposed to be #1 DPS<p>Wizzis? then nerf them to zero group buff, 1 debuffs and let them be pure dps</p><p>Warlocks? see above</p><p>noone will take preds, why should they, they dont have groupbuffs, manadrain, frostshield etc</p><p>unless `you think these 2 classes should be #1 dps. nerf them down to zero utility or to say it better, as much as ranger/assa's has</p><p>but you wouldnt do this .. why? then all 4 tier1 classes are doing the same, providing nothing then dmg ... then you can nerf them to one class, b/c for what do we have 4 classes if they're doing all the same, right?</p></blockquote><hr></blockquote>The point is, there should be 4 T1 DPS classes.  Wiz, War, Assassin, Ranger.  Not in any order.  In some cases, one will be better than the others. As it stands now, Ranger is T1 all by himself. However, you do bring up a point I never considered.  Why is it that if I buff a group member, the extra damage is awarded to them?  If I cast an Ice Shield on the tank, shouldn't I get the 500pts everytime it triggers?</span></div><hr></blockquote>Does it matter who gets the damage?  The point is, it's there.  It's A LOT of extra utility to the group/raid, and just because you don't see it on your parse, does not make it worthless.  Sorcerers have to get over the fact that they show up lower on parses than Predators.  Most of the time Sorcerers are the reason Predators are so high.When a dev posted the DPS Teirs, no where did he/she mention that's how it would show up on parses, and no where did he/she mention that the DPS you add does not count towards your current Teir.If all of that damage counted towards the people who gave those buffs, then there would be a lot more dead Sorcerers on raids.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Reposado on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:21 PM</span></p>

[Crychtonn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:As of Live Update #20, combat arts will base their chance to trigger a proc on the casting time of the art itself. Weapon delay will no longer affect any combat art's chance to trigger a proc.<hr></blockquote>So my 0.5 second cast skills will probably never proc anything, ever?  Wow, great job.  How about you put a minimum delay in there somewhere?<hr></blockquote><p>Or they could have just kept it the way it was and put a maximum delay in.  Even better just gone and reduced the delay on a long bow from 7 sec to 3 or 4 sec.  Instant Ranger DPS decrease and it doesn't completely screw them and doesn't screw with all the other scouts.  But that would have been to easy I guess.</p><p>It's not just a Ranger nerf it's a general Scout nerf.</p><p> </p>

[Kulaf]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Dojocan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><font color="#ff0000">Blackguard schrieb:We'll continue to work with procs until we're comfortable with how they function. To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.</font>So BG, which class is supposed to be #1 DPS<p>Wizzis? then nerf them to zero group buff, 1 debuffs and let them be pure dps</p><p>Warlocks? see above</p><p>noone will take preds, why should they, they dont have groupbuffs, manadrain, frostshield etc</p><p>unless `you think these 2 classes should be #1 dps. nerf them down to zero utility or to say it better, as much as ranger/assa's has</p><p>but you wouldnt do this .. why? then all 4 tier1 classes are doing the same, providing nothing then dmg ... then you can nerf them to one class, b/c for what do we have 4 classes if they're doing all the same, right?</p></blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>He already clarified that here:</p><p>"I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected."</p>

[MystaSkrat]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote> </blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc [poison] with every swing.</p><hr></blockquote>No, we don't.  Remember, you changed it so poison only procs off of the primary hand.  I guess it makes sense that we can poison every arrow in our inventory, yet can't figure out how to poison the weapon in our secondary hand -- oh wait, it doesn't.

[Kulaf]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>Well a lot of people replied to my post.....good I hoped it would inspire a bit of thinking but I think some of you missed the point:</p><p>1) This "mechanic" has NOT been in since release.  Heck poisons were not even in the game and working correctly at release.  If you meant to say it's been in since the Combat Revamp.....well say that instead.</p><p>2) Rangers are supposed to be top tier in damage output.  Why do you care how SOE gets you there?  If they take away random proc damage and replace it with hard melee damage from your bows.......wouldn't that be a good thing?</p><p>I know every time there is a class change that people panic.  Heck I played a Bard in EQ1 and no one nows better than I how a patch can totally mess up your class.  Just have some faith that this will be retified in such a way that your class will still do tier 1 damage and still be desired in group while still correcting a game mechanic.</p><p>If the current system on Test is not working as it should to get Rangers where they need to be......they will get there.</p><p>I know calm and clear thinking is not the opperating mode of the day.....but try it on for size.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Did you forget that Rangers were stuck in teir 3 up and until LU13.  Going back to being out done by half the fighter classes, all the scouts and mages isn't something I look forward to returning to.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Did you miss the section of my previous post where I said this should not go live until all affected classes are brought to the damage tier they are designed for?

[Petrogly]

<div></div>The continual changes to combat are getting tiresome.  Its never good enough.  People doing to much damage. Lower it.  They do to much damage.  Change the whole combat system.  Oops taking monsters out to easily.  Lower damage.  Im sure this isnt the last time either.  Im staying with Everquest 2...until vanguard comes out.  Then im droppin it like a hot potato.

[Crychtonn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>Did you miss the section of my previous post where I said this should not go live until all affected classes are brought to the damage tier they are designed for?</p><p></p><hr></blockquote><p>It doesn't matter that you said it should not go live.  The fact is it <strong>is</strong> going live with LU20 and the expansion.</p><p> </p>

[Macrr]

<div>dont know if this has been answerd yet, i didnt read all the posts. but it was stated by moorguard in interviews around the time of LU13 that dps tree was ,T1 wiz/warlock, T2 conj/necro, THEN scouts. just the facts</div>

[leafnin]

<blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kulaf wrote:<div></div><p>Well a lot of people replied to my post.....good I hoped it would inspire a bit of thinking but I think some of you missed the point:</p><p>1) This "mechanic" has NOT been in since release.  Heck poisons were not even in the game and working correctly at release.  If you meant to say it's been in since the Combat Revamp.....well say that instead.</p><p>2) Rangers are supposed to be top tier in damage output.  Why do you care how SOE gets you there?  If they take away random proc damage and replace it with hard melee damage from your bows.......wouldn't that be a good thing?</p><p>I know every time there is a class change that people panic.  Heck I played a Bard in EQ1 and no one nows better than I how a patch can totally mess up your class.  Just have some faith that this will be retified in such a way that your class will still do tier 1 damage and still be desired in group while still correcting a game mechanic.</p><p>If the current system on Test is not working as it should to get Rangers where they need to be......they will get there.</p><p>I know calm and clear thinking is not the opperating mode of the day.....but try it on for size.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Did you forget that Rangers were stuck in teir 3 up and until LU13.  Going back to being out done by half the fighter classes, all the scouts and mages isn't something I look forward to returning to.</p><hr></blockquote>Did you miss the section of my previous post where I said this should not go live until all affected classes are brought to the damage tier they are designed for?<hr></blockquote><p>You and I both know that's not going to happen or do I need to bring up LU 13 or DoF as to perfect examples of their subpar testing process?<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Also poisons WERE in release.   I have a screenshots of me in Forest ruins with the old 5 poison load  on my 15 pred.  Whether they worked properly is up for discussion as SOE says they've never worked properly. </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor</p>

[Ishbu]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Macrros wrote:<div>dont know if this has been answerd yet, i didnt read all the posts. but it was stated by moorguard in interviews around the time of LU13 that dps tree was ,T1 wiz/warlock, T2 conj/necro, THEN scouts. just the facts</div><hr></blockquote>Around the time of LU13 Moorguard posted the dps tree saying sorcerer and predators were t1.  Summoners and rogues were t2.  Rogues and predators make up two thirds of all scouts.  Just the facts.<p>Message Edited by Ishboozor on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:56 PM</span></p>

[MystaSkrat]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Ishboozor wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Macrros wrote:<div>dont know if this has been answerd yet, i didnt read all the posts. but it was stated by moorguard in interviews around the time of LU13 that dps tree was ,T1 wiz/warlock, T2 conj/necro, THEN scouts. just the facts</div><hr></blockquote>Around the time of LU13 Moorguard posted the dps tree saying sorcerer and predators were t1.  Summoners and rogues were t2.  Rogues and predators make up two thirds of all scouts.  Just the facts.<hr></blockquote>Exactly.  Maccros, how can you post that and claim it's "just the facts?" LOL

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Ishboozor wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Macrros wrote:<div>dont know if this has been answerd yet, i didnt read all the posts. but it was stated by moorguard in interviews around the time of LU13 that dps tree was ,T1 wiz/warlock, T2 conj/necro, THEN scouts. just the facts</div><hr></blockquote>Around the time of LU13 Moorguard posted the dps tree saying sorcerer and predators were t1.  Summoners and rogues were t2.  Rogues and predators make up two thirds of all scouts.  Just the facts.<hr></blockquote>Exactly.  Maccros, how can you post that and claim it's "just the facts?" LOL<hr></blockquote>Because ill-informed opinions for some people pass as facts? :smileyvery-happy:

[Elro]

<div></div><p>Boner of Wonders proc FTW!</p><p> </p><p> </p>

[Belizarius]

<div></div><p>Issues that I see with this change.  Basically, a change that is being touted as a justified change to reduce Ranger DPS will in fact negatively impact a number of classes.</p><p>1) Ranger Stream of Arrows - a 30 second combat art, will only get 1 chance to proc.</p><p>2) Swashbuckler equivalent, Hail of Steel, likewise will only get 1 proc per 30 seconds.  I cannot comment on the Ranger CA, but for Swashies this will change HoS from being very useful, to barely worth using.</p><p>3) Illusionists, yes Illusionists.  Currently the only way they do acceptable DPS is by grouping with Bruisers and Monks, and proccing Havoc off their multi attack.  Illusionists DPS will be going down the toilet again with this change.</p>

[Moorgard]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Petroglyph wrote:<BR> The continual changes to combat are getting tiresome.  Its never good enough.  People doing to much damage. Lower it.  They do to much damage.  Change the whole combat system.  Oops taking monsters out to easily.  Lower damage.  Im sure this isnt the last time either.  <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Pretty much every live update has included changes that affect class balance from one perspective or another. You are correct that more changes will come in the future.</P> <P>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap.</P> <P>These issues needed to be addressed. While all of us would rather that the bugs in question had never been in the game this long, that doesn't take away from the need to fix them.</P> <P>People clamor for balance all the time. Well, balancing becomes much more difficult when you have to balance around significant bugs. Yes, we could have performed some workaround that might not have been as straightforward as this move, but ultimately that would just require even more workarounds in the future.</P> <P>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</P> <P>We have no desire to screw over any class. But sometimes these changes are necessary for the good of the game. It's never easy to hear that when you're on the receiving end of something you don't like, but unfortunately it has to happen sometimes.</P> <P>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</P>

[Andric_D]

Seems sensible change. Maybe now the faster bows will have some market, with longer range/slower ones beign used for AE raids and shorter/faster ones for grouping.Rangers knew somethign was goign to be done as their dps was too high - just take a glance through the last month or two o their forums - and as nerfs go this is more of a fix than a swing of the bat.<div></div>

[pera]

Question:  will this effect spell procs?  or abilites that would cause spells to proc?Lol well this is the first time that i can actualy be glad that troubadors dont use poison (not really :-/ *cries*) .<div></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Petroglyph wrote:<div></div>The continual changes to combat are getting tiresome.  Its never good enough.  People doing to much damage. Lower it.  They do to much damage.  Change the whole combat system.  Oops taking monsters out to easily.  Lower damage.  Im sure this isnt the last time either. <hr></blockquote><p>Pretty much every live update has included changes that affect class balance from one perspective or another. You are correct that more changes will come in the future.</p><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap.</p><p>These issues needed to be addressed. While all of us would rather that the bugs in question had never been in the game this long, that doesn't take away from the need to fix them.</p><p>People clamor for balance all the time. Well, balancing becomes much more difficult when you have to balance around significant bugs. Yes, we could have performed some workaround that might not have been as straightforward as this move, but ultimately that would just require even more workarounds in the future.</p><p>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</p><p>We have no desire to screw over any class. But sometimes these changes are necessary for the good of the game. It's never easy to hear that when you're on the receiving end of something you don't like, but unfortunately it has to happen sometimes.</p><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><hr></blockquote>as you repeat your point yet again.. so will i...As a ranger I agree our damage is too much.As a ranger I think your changes are excessive and will take us much lower on this "DPS" totem than intended... my fear is that you have continually slipped up and come out with these "oops thats not inteded" fiascos.. and this will be another.. you will nerf rangers below where you think they are because you guys continually aim to ballance based on Raiders and End Game content, you do have other players.and for god sake do something about the guardians and templars.. they have suffered long enough.  If its time to put the rangers in the penalty box then so be it, but throw the templars and guardians a bone.. they've been punnished long enough for their pre LU13 transgressions.</span></div>

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><hr></blockquote>Thanks very much for coming back by Moor. I guess we will see how this plays out, but I am not sure what change in strategy I, as a Swashy, could employ to overcome the big decrease to CA poison procs. We spam CAs as it is now to get our DPS with a minority coming from autoattack. So I decrease CA usage to get poisons to proc? Will that be enough to keep me where I was? After all, this was changed for the reason of Rangers being too high, not Swashies, so by all rights I am correct in assuming this wasnt meant to decrease my DPS? I guess we will see how this pans out, and how long it takes to "fix" if it doesn't seem right. Needless to say I am very apprehensive. While getting Rangers where they need to be in terms of DPS is probably good for the game, my DPS as a Swashy being a friendly-fire casualty may not increase the enjoyment of the game for me.<p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:23 PM</span></p>

[Belizarius]

<div></div><p>It won't just be hurting Rangers though.  Classes that were reasonably balanced will also be hurt.</p><p>Illusionist's <em>potential</em> DPS on raids (which nobody complained about being too high) is going to be cut in half.  If that's where it was supposed to be, then they will be a waste of space on raids once again.</p>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Petroglyph wrote:<div></div>The continual changes to combat are getting tiresome.  Its never good enough.  People doing to much damage. Lower it.  They do to much damage.  Change the whole combat system.  Oops taking monsters out to easily.  Lower damage.  Im sure this isnt the last time either. <hr></blockquote><p>Pretty much every live update has included changes that affect class balance from one perspective or another. You are correct that more changes will come in the future.</p><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap.</p><p>These issues needed to be addressed. While all of us would rather that the bugs in question had never been in the game this long, that doesn't take away from the need to fix them.</p><p>People clamor for balance all the time. Well, balancing becomes much more difficult when you have to balance around significant bugs. Yes, we could have performed some workaround that might not have been as straightforward as this move, but ultimately that would just require even more workarounds in the future.</p><p>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</p><p>We have no desire to screw over any class. But sometimes these changes are necessary for the good of the game. It's never easy to hear that when you're on the receiving end of something you don't like, but unfortunately it has to happen sometimes.</p><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><hr></blockquote>I dont know how many people posted that those changes seem reasonable, but the fact that you hit us down to lower Tier3 just sucks.and as long as you cant evaluate who is gonna be hit too hard you shouldnt bring out the changes in my point of view, its the basic stuff again:<b><u>think about reaction before action and you safe lots of rants and angry customers</u></b>so we can understand those changes are needed to ensure further balancing, but this further balancing is needed RIGHT after these changes, NOT like 3 months later.I bought a BMW for a certain reason and i want it to be a BMW all the time, when i have to stop by some garage for service i dont want to drive a TOYOTA for 3 months.hope youre still with me there <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />so now comes the question:<font size="5">how long is it going to take to evaluate if any class was hit too hard ?<font size="3"></font></font></span><div></div>

[pera]

With this recent change to procs (obviously directed at poisons)   any chance bards will get the ability to use poison?  our dps is pretty lame majority of the time.<div></div>

[Dasein]

<div><hr>you will nerf rangers below where you think they are because you guys continually aim to ballance based on Raiders and End Game content, you do have other players.<hr></div><p>Group and solo content is easy enough as it is. A reduction to ranger DPS will allow other classes a chance to actually contribute beyond having the pally put amends on the ranger and then letting him do all the work.</p>

[Incedio]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Petroglyph wrote:<div></div>The continual changes to combat are getting tiresome.  Its never good enough.  People doing to much damage. Lower it.  They do to much damage.  Change the whole combat system.  Oops taking monsters out to easily.  Lower damage.  Im sure this isnt the last time either. <hr></blockquote><p>Pretty much every live update has included changes that affect class balance from one perspective or another. You are correct that more changes will come in the future.</p><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap.</p><p>These issues needed to be addressed. While all of us would rather that the bugs in question had never been in the game this long, that doesn't take away from the need to fix them.</p><p>People clamor for balance all the time. Well, balancing becomes much more difficult when you have to balance around significant bugs. Yes, we could have performed some workaround that might not have been as straightforward as this move, but ultimately that would just require even more workarounds in the future.</p><p>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</p><p>We have no desire to screw over any class. But sometimes these changes are necessary for the good of the game. It's never easy to hear that when you're on the receiving end of something you don't like, but unfortunately it has to happen sometimes.</p><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Moorgard,</p><p>I agree with the premise that if the Rangers truely were so far ahead then things needed to be changed to keep everyone in line. However, I do have a simple question for you that I would like answered. When you look at Ranger DPS a lot of our DPS comes from using poisons. When you take into account damage done by classes are you also taking into account that raiding Rangers are using 16gp a pop vials of poisons to help crank up their DPS up to the levels that they are achieving?</p><p>The reason I ask this question is as a newer Ranger who recently started playing again I woud hope that our class rebalancing isn't going to be dependant upon expensive poisons to obtain the same DPS as the other T1 classes. If I have to start using T6+ Legendary poisons to get XP groups or to solo I would be very frustrated to say the least. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Caswydian wrote:<div><hr>you will nerf rangers below where you think they are because you guys continually aim to ballance based on Raiders and End Game content, you do have other players.<hr></div><p>Group and solo content is easy enough as it is. A reduction to ranger DPS will allow other classes a chance to actually contribute beyond having the pally put amends on the ranger and then letting him do all the work.</p><hr></blockquote>not anymore in KoS (at least compared to DoF) . lv 59 +++ heroic mobs got like 23500 hp, nameds got up to 60k</span><div></div>

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>perano wrote:With this recent change to procs (obviously directed at poisons)   any chance bards will get the ability to use poison?  our dps is pretty lame majority of the time.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Heck, why not? This change is going to affect pretty much everyone and result in an overall decrease of DPS in the game so we could use the extra DPS in groups. :smileyhappy:

[jay]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order.</p><hr></blockquote>Is there any chance you could take a look at enchanters then?  I think your tiers showed us somewhere in the 3rd or 4th rank, right behind conjurers.  Well, we're nowhere near that, especially coercers whose DPS depends primarily on reactive damage in a game where every class has a stun and stifle...

[hoop]

<div></div><p>you do know that conjurers do equal or more damage than rangers right, and they are T2 dps.</p><p>hoopdee 60 swash</p><p>Nektulos Dissolution</p><p> </p>

[KirikaNo]

<div>The fact that 40% of a Ranger's DPS came from poison procs and 20% came from offensive stance procs and other procs, this change looks like it was needed.  Rangers may, however, need some additional tweaking to make up for this lost DPS.  Ideally their damage spread would look more like Assassins, which is about 18-20% of DPS coming from poisons with another 5% or so from offensive stance procs and other procs.</div><div> </div><div>Looking at pie charts for Ranger DPS you'd see three or four colors, with one color (poison) constituting almost half of the pie.</div><div> </div><div>Looking at pie charts for Assassin DPS you'd see upwards of 20 colors, with several about equal between 10-15% and lots of little shots.</div>

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>hoopde wrote:<div></div><p>you do know that conjurers do equal or more damage than rangers right, and they are T2 dps.</p><p>hoopdee 60 swash</p><p>Nektulos Dissolution</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>That seems to escape them atm Hoop. Though I wouldn't be happy right now being a summoner and seeing the "nerf" battage being swung at an already T1 class. That can't be a comfortable feeling.<p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:33 PM</span></p>

[pera]

<span><blockquote><hr>jayd3 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order.</p><hr></blockquote>Is there any chance you could take a look at enchanters then?  I think your tiers showed us somewhere in the 3rd or 4th rank, right behind conjurers.  Well, we're nowhere near that, especially coercers whose DPS depends primarily on reactive damage in a game where every class has a stun and stifle...<hr></blockquote>I;ve seen illusionest do very good dps in groups with their abilites not really sure how well a coercer does.</span><div></div>

[DaLurk]

<blockquote><i><span>>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live.</span><span>> We're sorry for that.</span><span></span></i><hr size="2" width="100%"><i></i></blockquote>You are and I guess you will. <span>:smileyindifferent:</span><span></span><div></div>

[Memory]

<span>I just pasted a very good summarize of the situation and the feel for Tier1 Class from Ranger Boards:<blockquote><hr><span>Dejah wrote:<div>At the risk of being hanged, I am posting here.  I play a Wizard.</div><div> </div><div>Recently, my brother came back to EQ2, and he rolled a Ranger.  He started a month or so ago and the race was on to get him to 60 before the expansion hit.  While getting him to 60 I've learned a lot about the ranger class.  While rangers are (were?) awesome DPS, they lost any advantage they had once the mob got on to them.  Rangers can't cast bow abilities at point blank like casters can cast spells point blank, and while chain armor helps a little, a ranger is always in offensive stance and thus their defensive abilities are always gimped.  Ranger's also have 0 group buffs, the only way they can increase a raid's DPS is by doing it themselves, or by debuffing the mob.  And off the top of my head I only remember a heat debuff and a defense debuff.  I'm basically reiterating what every ranger has said here, that Ranger's offer very little utility to the group other than their DPS.  I don't consider out of combat abilities as real utility, because it doesn't help you win a fight (ie, evac, pathfinding, tracking, etc).</div><div> </div><div>Personally, the change to proc's isn't an unexpected one to me.  As a wizard, I was actually hoping to take advantage of the way they worked in the near future.  DoF introduced 4 spell proc items that I know about (two of which are primary hand weapons).  So simply from 3 DoF items I could eventually get 3 spell proc items.  I would only imagine that more of these types of items would be added with KoS.  I was looking forward to the day when I had 5 or so spell procs from items, dynamism, and the troubadour buff all making my procs proc like crazy like a ranger.  It would have been a sight to see for sure!  Imagine a wizard proc'ing 3 or 4 proc's every time they cast a spell; it would do insane things to wizard dps.  I knew though that this mechanic was bound to be fixed, because there is no way that SOE would let a wizard do that kind of extra damage simply by getting 4-5 specific items. </div><div> </div><div>I discussed with my brother the other day about our comparative DPS.  I told him that I didn't think Rangers needed a nerf, but I told him about my spell proc plans for the future.  I told him what SOE would probably do.  I also told him that if SOE did indeed fix proc's (I swear SOE was ease dropping in on our TeamSpeak server, because they did the two exact fixes I said they would probably do eventually) then they would have to boost the Ranger combat art damage to keep them inline with the tiers.</div><div> </div><div>Now as far as tiers go, prior to this change I didn't understand them.  I didn't know if they were still the intention or what.  I didn't know who was doing the right amount of damage or who was doing the wrong amount of damage.  I also didn't know if indirect damage (like a Wizard's Icebound Gift group spell proc or a troubadour group spell proc) was factored into these tiers.  I still don't know these things, but I have some guesses now. </div><div> </div><div>I think SOE believes that Sorcerer's DPS is where it should be.  The changes to the proc's bring Rangers more inline with Sorcerer's.  However, Ranger's Combat Arts will probably need a little boost still (I say probably because I'm not in beta and thus haven't seen the parses yet).  Ranger's should still be able to parse #1.  If that is not happening ever, then they need a boost in their Combat Art damage.  The reason Rangers perceive this as being nerfed down several tiers is because they are comparing it to classes that are not at their correct position for their tier.  If you feel bitter, feel free to call for a nerf of those classes, as it will happen regardless of whether or not you cry for it.</div><div> </div><div>I've addressed everything about this change except the change itself.  A lot of people don't understand what this change does to poisons for all scouts classes.  By using the skill's cast time to determine the chance to proc, and by limiting the chance to proc to only 1 time for a Combat Art, they are making the proc rate for all rogue and predator classes equal (ie, after 10min of fighting, all of them should have proc'd their poisons roughly the same number of times).  You may or may not be aware that Ranger's went through poisons a great deal faster than any other scout class because they were proc'ing far more often.  SOE's vision of the Ranger class is a scout that uses bows and arrows;  it is not their vision that Rangers are the "poison class" of the four scout classes that can use poison.  Poisons should and will benefit all four of the poison using scout classes equally after this update.  This is balance.  If this change creates an over-all imbalance in the DPS tiers due to weak Combat Art damage, then the Combat Arts will need to be improved.  Yes it sucks that your class is being changed in such a dramatic way.  Yes it sucks that SOE didn't pick up on this problem a long time ago when every player learned how to take advantage of it, and every player had already accepted it as how the thing was supposed to work. </div><div> </div><div>Voice your concerns by all means.  Post constructive criticism and fight for your right to be equal in damage with Assassins, Warlocks, and Wizards.  Or just play the game and have fun.  But if you're like me, and I think you are, then you feel passionately about your class and enjoy playing this game.  So stick around, give feedback, and make sure your fellow Rangers don't get left out in the cold. </div><div> </div><div>Finally, if you need a bright side to look at, think of it this way.  You won't go through as many poisons, thus saving you money.  Your damage won't rely on poison use as much, so your damage won't go down as much if you don't use poisons.  You're combat arts will probably receive a boost in damage.  And finally, you still have the best hate-reduction skills in the entire game.</div><div> </div><div>You're friendly neighborhood wizard,</div><div> </div><div>Dehah</div><div>Club Fu</div></span><span></span><div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Jayad]

<div></div><div></div><p>Yes, 50-60% of my dps comes from procs and poisons.  Now those will be "downsized" by 90%.  Thanks, SOE!  Can you explain how this has existed for 8 months, with lots of developers and high end game players talking about how it worked, yet you decide to "fix" it *now*?  My KOS pre-purchase is cancelled.  If this goes live, I am quitting, as I suspect many other frustrated Rangers will.</p><p>To all the people laughing at the Ranger nerf - I refuse to call it a "bug fix" - ....</p><p>You're next!</p><p>That means you, summoners and zerkers and ....</p><p>Message Edited by Xney on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:46 PM</span></p>

[IBSomnifer]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Petroglyph wrote:<div></div>The continual changes to combat are getting tiresome.  Its never good enough.  People doing to much damage. Lower it.  They do to much damage.  Change the whole combat system.  Oops taking monsters out to easily.  Lower damage.  Im sure this isnt the last time either. <hr></blockquote><p>Pretty much every live update has included changes that affect class balance from one perspective or another. You are correct that more changes will come in the future.</p><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap.</p><p>These issues needed to be addressed. While all of us would rather that the bugs in question had never been in the game this long, that doesn't take away from the need to fix them.</p><p>People clamor for balance all the time. Well, balancing becomes much more difficult when you have to balance around significant bugs. Yes, we could have performed some workaround that might not have been as straightforward as this move, but ultimately that would just require even more workarounds in the future.</p><p>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</p><p>We have no desire to screw over any class. But sometimes these changes are necessary for the good of the game. It's never easy to hear that when you're on the receiving end of something you don't like, but unfortunately it has to happen sometimes.</p><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><hr></blockquote><p>And to test these changes....didn't you think of doing this BEFORE IT GOES LIVE.  you TEST this sort of thing completely BEFORE they go live...you think 6 days is enough to do this?  Why wasn't this done weeks ago?  or hmm how about the 6 months since the LAST expansion when you KNEW there was a darn problem!   instead of waiting till now after we have enjoyed a good style of play...only to screw everyone so much later?  [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] it in the bud asap...don't wait.  "intended" is an excuse you guys have been using for being ...what lazy? over worked? just don't have the time? to get it done when you saw the problems months ago..or even when the game first started!</p><p>"The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap."</p><p>actually the teirs you said he he described are different...in yours you toss us down bellow wizards and warlocks...were as his we are all 4 equal in teir 1 dps...which is it? What do you "intend" us to be 6 months from now..then 1 year...cause we all know you can't make your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] minds up about anything.</p>

[TwistedFaith]

<div></div><font color="#ff6633"></font><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<p>Pretty much every live update has included changes that affect class balance from one perspective or another. You are correct that more changes will come in the future.</p><p><font color="#ff6633">The last few live updates have all reduced ranger dps, and now to hit rangers with a huge nerf/balance like this 6 days before the expansion, well it sucks basically. Six days of testing and you seriously expect players to believe that we're going to login on tuesday and our dps will be where it should be. </font><font color="#ff6633">We all know how long it took you to help the assasins out. I personally do not want to spend 3/4 months playing a game waiting for SoE to fix something that you were well aware off.</font></p><p><font color="#ff6633">Speaking from the point of view as a customer if I login on Tuesday and my DPS has been nerfed to that of a sub tier then i'm going to very annoyed and honestly I think i'll have everyright to be as well. If I login and my DPS is that off all the other T1 classes then great no problem, game on.</font></p><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap.</p><p><font color="#ff6633">I suggest you start looking at Conjurers then come back and re-write that statement.</font></p><p>These issues needed to be addressed. While all of us would rather that the bugs in question had never been in the game this long, that doesn't take away from the need to fix them.</p><p><font color="#ff6633">Why werent they addressed months ago though? The whole timing of this sucks and has put a serious downer on a expansion that I personally was looking forward to and I presume all other highend scouts were also.</font></p><p>People clamor for balance all the time. Well, balancing becomes much more difficult when you have to balance around significant bugs. Yes, we could have performed some workaround that might not have been as straightforward as this move, but ultimately that would just require even more workarounds in the future.</p><p>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</p><p>We have no desire to screw over any class. But sometimes these changes are necessary for the good of the game. It's never easy to hear that when you're on the receiving end of something you don't like, but unfortunately it has to happen sometimes.</p><p><font color="#ff6633">The main gripe people have is that you left this nerf/balance WAY too long. You can't honestly expect people to be anything but super annoyed if you give them serious DPS like Rangers have had for 6 months then 6 days before a long awaited expansion simply slice it in half, thats fricking crazy. </font></p><p><font color="#ff6633">Kudos for using the term 'screw over' also.</font></p><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><p><font color="#ff6633">Well considering your comments about rangers being in a <strong>stratosphere of damage all by themselves, </strong>i'm not holding my breath. </font></p></blockquote>

[KagekDahung]

<div></div><p>Originally by <span>Memory01</span></p><p><span><font color="#ffffff">-------------------------------------------------------</font></span></p>not anymore in KoS (at least compared to DoF) . lv 59 +++ heroic mobs got like 23500 hp, nameds got up to 60k<p><span><font color="#ffffff">-------------------------------------------------------</font></span></p><p><span><font color="#ffffff"></font></span> </p><p><span><font color="#ffffff">Well, now it sounds like they just want us to grind.</font></span></p>

[Carna]

<div></div><p>There's a problem with Ranger dps, sooooo.... we're going to nerf all the Scouts.</p><p>And the devs wonder why the playerbase is gun-shy.</p><p>Please get a clue. If there is a problem with the Rangers being in a Tier of their own then address that. Don't nerf all the Scout classes because of an issue with Rangers.... this <strong>will</strong> impact Rogues for whom CA attacks represent a fair proportion of their overall attacks.</p><p>Stand back... pause... look at what you're doing... and then ask yourself how it looks to all the other Scouts, some of whom are already dealy with a significant nerf of their own.</p><p>Rogue damage is Tier 2. Rogue do not outdamage Wizards or Assassins, and the Tier 2 stood in robes waggling their finger over there do <strong>considerably</strong> more damage... Rogue are already the bottom half of Tier 2. There is no justification in lowering the dps of the bottom half of the Tier 2.</p><p>Think. It's obvious to a lot of us you're not.... My gues is you're going to leave a smoking crater where the Ranger class is, which would be a shame.</p><p>On a parting note... EQ2 was not the wild success you thought it was going to be because of these sorts of stunts you pulled throughout EQ1... keep it up and you've a snowballs chance in hell of pulling off EQ3.... It can get worse. If you'd got it right you'd of had WoWs subscription base. Ask yourselves what you're doing wrong... this might be a good example.... Some people prefer EQ2 some WoW, there aren't 10s thousands of people walking around mumbling "Blizzard are the debil". There a lot of people giving Blizzard their money because of 6 years of you pulling these strokes.</p><p>Tweak Rangers. See how it pans out. Tweak some more if need be... don't overhaul a whole system that impacts 4 classes. That's stupid.</p>

[dea]

I look away from the forums for one day and wham! 9 page thread!So, I don't have time to read through all of this -- quick question hopefully someone will humor me: how does the "only proc on first hit of a CA" affect procs on AE attacks?Thanks.<div></div>

[TwistedFaith]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span>and for god sake do something about the guardians and templars.. they have suffered long enough.  If its time to put the rangers in the penalty box then so be it, but throw the templars and guardians a bone.. they've been punnished long enough for their pre LU13 transgressions.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>I'm a ranger also (obviously) and I totally agree with this statement and this is exactly why every single ranger who is reading posts by developers with words like 'we're going to keep a close eye on xxxx class to make sure they are where they should be' should be worried.</p><p>I know a LOT of guardians who simply quit the game after the combat changes and nothing has changed for them since then. It's TOTALLY insane what the combat changes did to that class. I'd love to see the stats for lvl 50 guardians who never progressed beyond 1/2 levels after the combat changes.</p><p>I know of 4 guardians myself that quit the game and another 5 who simply rolled another toon.</p>

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>deaks wrote:I look away from the forums for one day and wham! 9 page thread!So, I don't have time to read through all of this -- quick question hopefully someone will humor me: how does the "only proc on first hit of a CA" affect procs on AE attacks?Thanks.<div></div><hr></blockquote></div><div>The first mob you hit succesfully with a melee attack will be where the poison check is made. At least that is my understanding.</div><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:54 PM</span></p>

[pera]

I think a change like is is need to ever have any hope of mainting some kind of balance between rangers and the rest of the classes.  Did the devs wait to long to address this, yes extreamly too long,  It was well obvious months ago that this was a major issue.With that being said all scouts will need a decent ca/aa damage increase to even be on pair with other classes of their teir.   I really hope that this is considered instead of just blindly nerfing a whole class group set and waiting to see what happens.  I know personly this wont effect my class(well i prey to god it doest because then my dps will be gimper than temps :-/) but the after effect of this should really be closely watched both on beta and live when this hits.<div></div>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>deaks wrote:I look away from the forums for one day and wham! 9 page thread!So, I don't have time to read through all of this -- quick question hopefully someone will humor me: how does the "only proc on first hit of a CA" affect procs on AE attacks?Thanks.<div></div><hr></blockquote></div><div>The first mob you hit succesfully with a melee attack will be where the poison check is made. At least that is my understanding.</div><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:54 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote></span>Prepare for the Worse, Expect the Worst. - Its a Sony !<div></div>

[AfflictedOne]

<span><blockquote><hr>IBSomnifer wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Petroglyph wrote:<div></div>The continual changes to combat are getting tiresome.  Its never good enough.  People doing to much damage. Lower it.  They do to much damage.  Change the whole combat system.  Oops taking monsters out to easily.  Lower damage.  Im sure this isnt the last time either. <hr></blockquote><p>Pretty much every live update has included changes that affect class balance from one perspective or another. You are correct that more changes will come in the future.</p><p>The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap.</p><p>These issues needed to be addressed. While all of us would rather that the bugs in question had never been in the game this long, that doesn't take away from the need to fix them.</p><p>People clamor for balance all the time. Well, balancing becomes much more difficult when you have to balance around significant bugs. Yes, we could have performed some workaround that might not have been as straightforward as this move, but ultimately that would just require even more workarounds in the future.</p><p>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</p><p>We have no desire to screw over any class. But sometimes these changes are necessary for the good of the game. It's never easy to hear that when you're on the receiving end of something you don't like, but unfortunately it has to happen sometimes.</p><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><hr></blockquote><p>And to test these changes....didn't you think of doing this BEFORE IT GOES LIVE.  you TEST this sort of thing completely BEFORE they go live...you think 6 days is enough to do this?  Why wasn't this done weeks ago?  or hmm how about the 6 months since the LAST expansion when you KNEW there was a darn problem!   instead of waiting till now after we have enjoyed a good style of play...only to screw everyone so much later?  [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] it in the bud asap...don't wait.  "intended" is an excuse you guys have been using for being ...what lazy? over worked? just don't have the time? to get it done when you saw the problems months ago..or even when the game first started!</p><p>"The oft-quoted DPS tiers I talked about around LU13 are still the intended order. As BG clarified, rangers have been in a stratosphere of damage all by themselves, and this disparity would only be further amplified with the increased level cap."</p><p>actually the teirs you said he he described are different...in yours you toss us down bellow wizards and warlocks...were as his we are all 4 equal in teir 1 dps...which is it? What do you "intend" us to be 6 months from now..then 1 year...cause we all know you can't make your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] minds up about anything.</p><hr></blockquote>Actually the funniest part to me is they made the comment that upping the other classes dps to match rangers would also have to include an increase to mob hps.  Well hate to tell you guys but all the beta testing was done with all scouts and quite a few fighters doing way more dps than they will with these new changes.  So pretty much all the testing and balancing of zones/mobs is all for nothing now.   Cause now they are gonna have way too many hps.BTW it's pretty easy to come out with tiers of dps.  IE: preds/sorc = Tier 1.  But how about some raw numbers.  Should be easy enough to come by.  A Tier 1 dps with Legendary equipment/adept 3 spells should do x dps on single mobs or x dps on group mobs.   These numbers are easy enough to come by so why not throw these out there?  Just to say that x class should be tier x and not give any example of what actual numbers should look like is crazy.Oh and about how much more dps the rangers will do with the increased level cap.  Well guess what the bug that's been around since DOF where you have to keep increasing your stats to keep comparable damage is still in the game.  It's been six months and unlike the proc "bug" that has been mentioned by devs as being mechanic this is a known bug.  How about getting around to fixing this?  In the coming tier rangers get very few ranged attacks ( there's only 2 that's worth mentioning... which is nice... getting 10 levels and only looking forward to 2 combat arts but this is a different thread)  and have to increase their str by 70 to even reach the dps they were doing in T6.  So in other words they not getting much to increase their actual dps in T7 and unless they in good groups are prolly going to be doing less dps than in T6 because of a bug that has been mentioned as not a priority.</span><div></div>

[pera]

<i><span>"AfflictedOne wrote:BTW it's pretty easy to come out with tiers of dps.  IE: preds/sorc = Tier 1.  But how about some raw numbers.  Should be easy enough to come by.  A Tier 1 dps with Legendary equipment/adept 3 spells should do x dps on single mobs or x dps on group mobs.   These numbers are easy enough to come by so why not throw these out there?  Just to say that x class should be tier x and not give any example of what actual numbers should look like is crazy."</span></i><span>I;ve got to disagree with this a good portion of a persons dps comes from skill.  A ok skilled person say could do x dps but a well skilled person maybe could do twice as much as the ok skilled person.</span><div></div>

[Zeijandi]

<span><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zeijandi wrote:To me, this doesn't sound nearly as bad as what it first sounded like.  What I understood is that poisons would only proc when you started combat as opposed to having a chance to proc with every swing.<hr></blockquote><p>You still have a chance to proc with every swing. Proc rates for autoattacks are completely unaffected. This doesn't render poisons useless by any means.</p><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><p>In other words, if you have a buff that says it will proc five times, you'll still proc five times. The bug we fixed was that some people were getting far more than the indicated number of procs. The other bug we fixed being that the use of slow weapons would give arts a greater chance to proc, which was never our intent.</p><hr></blockquote>This all sounds good, but one thing I think I don't agree with.  Triple shot.  I understood triple shot to be a rapid firing of three arrows.  I think the combat art needs special attention in light of these new changes to allow for all arrows - if they make their successive successful attacks- to have a chance to poison their target.  Rangers who use this art aren't buffing their weapon and hoping it procs, they are charged for three arrows with this art.  It makes sense from what I suspect most of us think about this shot that we are pulling three seperate poisoned arrows out of our quiver and by virtue of magic or skill firing them very quickly.  Perhaps consider this. </span><div></div>

[dea]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div><blockquote><hr>deaks wrote:I look away from the forums for one day and wham! 9 page thread!So, I don't have time to read through all of this -- quick question hopefully someone will humor me: how does the "only proc on first hit of a CA" affect procs on AE attacks?Thanks.<div></div><hr></blockquote></div><div>The first mob you hit succesfully with a melee attack will be where the poison check is made. At least that is my understanding.</div><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:54 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>If this is confirmed, this will be quite a significant change. For spell casters asking for more proc-on-hostile-spell or proc-on-beneficial-spell effects, keep in mind that your AE attacks and even AE heals would now be affected by this ability.</span></div>

[Memory]

well taking the current situation a lv 70 ranger is only slightly doing more dps than a lv 60 ranger. an estimate would be maybe 25%. although the lv 70 ranger got AA maxxed , fully mastered, fully legendary / fabled +AAs are broken anyway, but apart from that, we only have 2 good ones that increase our dmg, and the toxic expertise is broken and doesnt proc with poison <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> but that makes no sense either, since poison hardly ever procs , why do we need a chance to crit hit it ?<div></div>

[Poochymama]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>OneBadAlien wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><hr></blockquote>How will this be calculated. I am curious as a Swashy that has <strong>extremely</strong> low cast times on their CAs?<hr></blockquote>Lets be honest with this being done 1 week before the expansion, scouts are going to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ED for months after whilst SoE decides who is supposed to be where.<hr></blockquote>No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish.<hr></blockquote>Our beef is not that we will fall behind wizzards and warlocks...  Its the fact that after these changes will be tier 3 at best... we relie so heavily on poison procs its not even funny.<hr></blockquote><p>Wizards started off as t4 DPS and stayed that way for like 5 months and then moved up to t2 DPS for 3-4 months. After that they moved back down to t3 DPS and have stayed that way until now.</p>

[pera]

I'm curious with this massive change to the way procs work are they still going to leave poisons at their reduced proc % ?<div></div>

[Memory]

<span><blockquote><hr>Poochymama p wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>OneBadAlien wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>valleyboy1 wrote:<blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>You also have a chance to proc with every combat art that lands. The major change is that your chance to proc on an art is no longer affected by weapon delay.</p><p>The other change is that procs will only be triggered by the first attack of any art that consists of multiple attacks. But again, you can still proc on subsequent attacks, both from autoattack damage and other combat arts.</p><hr></blockquote>How will this be calculated. I am curious as a Swashy that has <strong>extremely</strong> low cast times on their CAs?<hr></blockquote>Lets be honest with this being done 1 week before the expansion, scouts are going to [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ED for months after whilst SoE decides who is supposed to be where.<hr></blockquote>No, SOE knows who is suppose to be where, hence the changes.Let me guess though ,it was ok for sorcerers to be inferior dps wise since DoF was released, but that doesnt matter cuz its not your class, right?You see sorcerers have been dealing with this issue forever, and have been inferior since god knows when. So instead of being selfish why dont you see the big picture. Nevermind, impossible to get someone to understand things from a logical (and fair) standpoint when they are that selfish.<hr></blockquote>Our beef is not that we will fall behind wizzards and warlocks...  Its the fact that after these changes will be tier 3 at best... we relie so heavily on poison procs its not even funny.<hr></blockquote><p>Wizards started off as t4 DPS and stayed that way for like 5 months and then moved up to t2 DPS for 3-4 months. After that they moved back down to t3 DPS and have stayed that way until now.</p><hr></blockquote>we agree that these methods suck and that wizzards would have needed more tweaking for a long time,but thats still no reason to have the devs do the same mistakes over and over again.</span><div></div>

[CrazedMut]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><blockquote> But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</blockquote><hr></blockquote>Moorguard, let me make you one promise. Nerf DW. Nerf Procs off secondary hand. Nerf Procs on Flurry attacks (even though thats the point of them). Nerf proc chance based on Weapon Delay. Do all these things, and I promise, NO I guarentee, I WILL pull aggro in raids due to my DPS and die, in the name of Swashbucklers everywhere, taking one for the team!

[Erendil]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote>Deleted</blockquote><p>Message Edited by Erendil on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:17 PM</span></p>

[Erendil]

<div>[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] forum bugs that cause repeat posts</div><p>Message Edited by Erendil on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:16 PM</span></p>

[Erendil]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>Rangers and other classes may need to change their strategies to maximize their potential after these changes go live. We're sorry for that. But as I said, we'll be watching the results of these changes closely and will make further adjustments as they are needed.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Change in strategies to maximize potential :</p><p>1. roll a new class</p><p>2. play a new game.</p><p>Why in the hell would i continue playing a ranger who has suck dps, no utility, and no more soloability??</p>

[Crychtonn]

<div></div><p>People would have a little more faith in you guys if you'd stop going from one extreme to another.  Granted the delay on a long bow gave ranged attacks an unfairly high percentage to cause procs.  But with this change all your doing is shifting that unfair advantage from ranged attacks to classes with long cast times and fast recast.  Rouges and Predators will almost never get a proc when using their melee CA's do to the .1-.5 sec casting time.  Casters on the other hand will get lots of procs off their 3-5 sec casts.  And whats worse is most melee class CA's have longer refresh times then Caster CA's.</p><p>If you plan to make cast time of CA's part of calculating the chance to proc then you also need to include refresh time in that equation.  To only use cast time and not factor in refresh time is making the same damm mistake you made to begin with.  The change your testing now doesn't balance the chance to proc it keeps it unbalanced and just shifts how benefits from a broken system.  Don't 'screw over' the entire Scout archtype just because of the delay on a long bow.  Simple fast and easy fix you could have and can still do is adjust the delay on the long bow.  It's the only weapon with an above average delay and lowering it would have lowered Ranger DPS without effecting other Scouts.</p><p> </p><p>Also making changes to CA's with multiple attacks to correct a bug in other classes buff skills is wrong.  These skill require a to hit check on each part of the attacks and because of that should have the chance to proc on each attack.  These are not DoT skills where if you hit the mob all subsequent parts of the skill hit.  If you are going to start to treat these skills as DoT's then they better automaticly hit with all the attacks the way DoT's do.  These skills are either a DoT or a series of attacks.  Pick which you'd like them to be and treat them accordingly.  Better yet fix the buff proc's to actually only go off the number of times they say they're suppose to.</p><p> </p>

[TwistedFaith]

<blockquote><hr>Memory01 wrote:well taking the current situation a lv 70 ranger is only slightly doing more dps than a lv 60 ranger. an estimate would be maybe 25%. although the lv 70 ranger got AA maxxed , fully mastered, fully legendary / fabled +AAs are broken anyway, but apart from that, we only have 2 good ones that increase our dmg, and the toxic expertise is broken and doesnt proc with poison <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> but that makes no sense either, since poison hardly ever procs , why do we need a chance to crit hit it ?<div></div><hr></blockquote>[Removed for Content] what a complete and utter mess.6 days before the expansion goes live and there's fire all over the place with this change.I cant wait to see the boards over the next few weeks.

[Carna]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Wizards started off as t4 DPS and stayed that way for like 5 months and then moved up to t2 DPS for 3-4 months. After that they moved back down to t3 DPS and have stayed that way until now.<hr></blockquote><p>I'd like to know what Tier 2 class is doing more damage than Wizards.... it's not Rogues so please be more specific. If Wizards are Tier 3 and Rogues do less damage than Wizards what would that make Rogues?</p>

[Lexan]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Carnagh wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Wizards started off as t4 DPS and stayed that way for like 5 months and then moved up to t2 DPS for 3-4 months. After that they moved back down to t3 DPS and have stayed that way until now.<hr></blockquote><p>I'd like to know what Tier 2 class is doing more damage than Wizards.... it's not Rogues so please be more specific. If Wizards are Tier 3 and Rogues do less damage than Wizards what would that make Rogues?</p><hr></blockquote>Summoners any more questions?  Our rogues out dps our wizard also btw sorry but its true.<p>Message Edited by Lexani- on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:20 PM</span></p>

[Jay]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:I suppose I should clarify my blunt statement a bit more. Rangers are currently in their own tier of damage versus single targets in group combat. Indeed, they are supposed to be in the top tier of damage along with the likes of Wizards, Warlocks, and Assassins, but as it stands now, they outshine each of those classes by too wide a margin. That is being corrected.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>...with a sledgehammer.</p><p>C'mon, Ryan. You've told us how you're going to reduce our DPS. Tell us how you plan for us to remain comparable to assassins and sorcerors.</p><p>Please? We're just asking for information here. After this LU, you will have reduced our bow damage by HALF, taken away many procs completely, reduced other procs to a fraction of their current rate, removed poisons from half our melee attacks, and dropped the frequency of ALL proc rates into the basement.</p><p>This will not bring just bring us back 'in line' with sorcerors and assassins. It'll put us behind summoners, rogues, maybe even brawlers.</p><p>You've told us before that we're supposed to be Tier 1 DPS, with assassins, warlocks, and wizards. This change will hit rangers the hardest, but it will hurt all scout classes significantly, so assassins and rogues are going to drop in DPS too. So the new Tier 1 will likely be: necros, conjurors, wizards, warlocks. Is this what you intend? Be straight with us here.</p><p>Look, rangers are a DPS class, and it looks like these changes will cripple our DPS beyond the point of 'balance.' If you're fixing all these 'bugs,' what other changes will you make to ensure our DPS stays where you intended it to be - alongside sorcerors? Are you restoring our autoattack damage? Increasing the overall damage from our CAs? Reducing our recast times? Increasing poison damage? Increasing bow range? Reducing autofire delay?</p><p>You're going to need to do something, b/c in typical Sony style, these changes will have repercussions FAR beyond the intended impact.</p><p>I hope you can explain this further. Thanks for taking the time to communicate with your player base.</p><p>(And thanks for posting that shoot-from-the-hip statement that will now get used for handy ranger-bashing for a year or more - that's Community Relations indeed. Can you at least sticky the 'clarification' in our forums so the trolls can find it easily?)</p>

[KagekDahung]

<div></div><p>Originally by Carnagh</p><p>--------------------------------------</p><p>Tweak Rangers. See how it pans out. Tweak some more if need be... don't overhaul a whole system that impacts 4 classes. That's stupid.</p><p>--------------------------------------</p><p>Its not just 4 classes. I've been relying on slow [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] weapons in order not to lag too far behing Breserker DPS with my Shadow Knight, now I guess I'm back with Guardians and Pallies in my dps, oh joy.</p>

[Carna]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Lexani- wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Carnagh wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Wizards started off as t4 DPS and stayed that way for like 5 months and then moved up to t2 DPS for 3-4 months. After that they moved back down to t3 DPS and have stayed that way until now.<hr></blockquote><p>I'd like to know what Tier 2 class is doing more damage than Wizards.... it's not Rogues so please be more specific. If Wizards are Tier 3 and Rogues do less damage than Wizards what would that make Rogues?</p><hr></blockquote>Summoners any more questions?  Our rogues out dps our wizard also btw sorry but its true.<p>Message Edited by Lexani- on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:20 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>So let me get this straight...</p><ol><li>It's ok for Summoners who are Tier 2 to do more damage than Wizards that are Tier1.</li><li>It's not ok for Rangers who are Tier 1 to do more damage than Wizards who are Tier 1.</li><li>Rogues who are Tier 2 need to have their damage reduced even though they do less damage as is than everybody else in Tier 1 <strong>and </strong>Tier2</li></ol><p>...have I got that right?</p>

[Crychtonn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Carnagh wrote:<div></div><blockquote>So let me get this straight...</blockquote><ol><li>It's ok for Summoners who are Tier 2 to do more damage than Wizards that are Tier1.</li><li>It's not ok for Rangers who are Tier 1 to do more damage than Wizards who are Tier 1.</li><li>Rogues who are Tier 2 need to have their damage reduced even though they do less damage as is than everybody else in Tier 1 <strong>and </strong>Tier2</li></ol><p>...have I got that right?</p><hr></blockquote><p>Apparently yes you have it right.</p><p> </p>

[Lexan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Carnagh wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Lexani- wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Carnagh wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Wizards started off as t4 DPS and stayed that way for like 5 months and then moved up to t2 DPS for 3-4 months. After that they moved back down to t3 DPS and have stayed that way until now.<hr></blockquote><p>I'd like to know what Tier 2 class is doing more damage than Wizards.... it's not Rogues so please be more specific. If Wizards are Tier 3 and Rogues do less damage than Wizards what would that make Rogues?</p><hr></blockquote>Summoners any more questions?  Our rogues out dps our wizard also btw sorry but its true.<p>Message Edited by Lexani- on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:20 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>So let me get this straight...</p><ol><li>It's ok for Summoners who are Tier 2 to do more damage than Wizards that are Tier1.</li><li>It's not ok for Rangers who are Tier 1 to do more damage than Wizards who are Tier 1.</li><li>Rogues who are Tier 2 need to have their damage reduced even though they do less damage as is than everybody else in Tier 1 <strong>and </strong>Tier2</li></ol><p>...have I got that right?</p><hr></blockquote>Yeah your getting [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ed 2 <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Jay]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Moorgard wrote:<div></div><p>By fixing these bugs, we get a much more accurate standard from which to decide if further changes are necessary. And if, after looking at the objective data we gather, it is determined that any class got hit too hard by this, we will make the adjustments necessary to get them where they need to be.</p><hr></blockquote><p>So rangers will once again be capable of adequately filling the role for which they were designed by... what, November 2006, maybe?</p><p>I agree with everything you're saying in your post, Steve - balance has to happen, bugs or unintended results of current mechanics have to be addressed. And yes, of course that hurts when it cripples your own class. Most of us who are (relatively) rational players realize and accept that. But you don't make small changes, test, tune them, go live, then make further changes as necessary. You make sweeping, massive alterations to the way the game has been functioning for over a year, and when you realize you went too far, you make sweeping, massive alterations to try to counteract the unexpected consequences. We were gimped fpr six months after launch, and these huge changes are what pushed us so far above others' DPS in the first place. Now you're kicking us back to the DPS basement to try and 'correct' your first mistake.</p><p>The pendum is getting old, man. I don't want to do more damage than everyone in the game, and I don't really care if sorcerors out-damage me. I just want to play the role for which I was intended, but given that my role was DPS and I don't have much in the way of other skills, you taking the DPS away means I have next to nothing.</p><p>We'd love to 'wait and see,' but we don't need to - it's pretty clear this LU will sentence us to another 3-9 months of ineffectiveness. We'll do all that we can to try and help you restore us to our former role, just try to make the next round of changes a little less drastic, okay?</p>

[Za]

<blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>hoopde wrote:<div></div><p>you do know that conjurers do equal or more damage than rangers right, and they are T2 dps.</p><p>hoopdee 60 swash</p><p>Nektulos Dissolution</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>That seems to escape them atm Hoop. Though I wouldn't be happy right now being a summoner and seeing the "nerf" battage being swung at an already T1 class. That can't be a comfortable feeling.<p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:33 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>hmm, maybe you;ve been too busy laughing and doing [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] damage to notice, but Summoners have been getting a constant stream of nerf over the last 3 LUs...

[Goozman]

<div>I'm no ranger but I find this change pretty weak and lame.</div><div> </div><div>First, like some poster said before, every arrow is poisoned, not just the first arrow.</div><div> </div><div>Second, poisons should be a bonus to damage, not factored into the balancing of classes. Poisoning is an extracurriculur activity, it's the classes' skills and spells that should be balanced. Whether poison damage should be lowered, however, is another debate... but this change is not a logical one.</div><div> </div><div>I would imagine that most would rather there be <font color="#ff0000">potions available to increase spell damage or add procs to spells so that other classes can reap the benefits of additional costly damage</font> vs mindless nerfing.</div>

[dea]

<div></div>OK, so we are all familiar with how the old proc equation used to work for melee procs. The way players understood it is like so:<font color="#ffff00"><i></i></font><blockquote><font color="#ffff00"><i>'attack' can be any of: auto-attack or combat art'effective_chance_to_execute' is evaluated for all procs applied to the target</i></font><font color="#ffff00"><i>effective_chance_to_execute(proc, attack) = listed_chance_to_execute(proc) * normalize_delay(weapon_used(attack))</i></font><font color="#ffff00"><i>normalize_delay(weapon) = delay(weapon) / (3.0 seconds)</i></font></blockquote>The result of a system like this is that it is very effective at normalizing proc rates for melee and ranged auto-attack because auto-attack is based on weapon delay. As immediately became obvious, this breaks down when using combat arts and allows significant advantages to the users of fast-casting and/or multi-hit combat arts when executed with a long delay weapon (long bow has a delay of 7.0 seconds, a great flail has a delay slightly greater than 3 seconds, 2 second delay dual-wield weapons have obvious proc advantages over 1.2 second delay dual-wield weapons).Now the system has changed many times. At at no time have we been updated how this equation is affected. I'd be very interested to understand how procs work currently.<blockquote>(1) With the combat update, dual-wield proc rates were increased -- <font color="#ffff00">there is no indication how this numerically affects their proc rates</font>(2) At some point on-hostile-spell procs were added -- <font color="#ffff00">there is no indication what metric is used to determine and/or normalize proc rates for spells</font>(3) Off-hand procs were removed for applied effects that were not inherent to the weapon <font color="#ff0000">†</font>(4) Now procs can only occur on the first hit of a multi-hit combat art <font color="#ff0000">‡</font><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ffffff">(5) Now combat art procs will be normalized differently -- <font color="#ffff00">can we get confirmation that they are normalized to a delay equal to (a) casting time, (b) recast time, (c) an equation that includes one or more of the former</font></font></font><font color="#ff0000">† <font color="#ffffff">No direct change to the proc equation, this simply limits which hits are eligible for proc checks for procs not tied to the weapon being used</font></font><font color="#ff0000">‡ <font color="#ffffff">No direct change to the proc equation, this simply limits which hits are eligible for any type of proc check.</font></font></blockquote>Before I can provide useful feedback about the new proc system I need to know how these changes have affected the proc equation. Gathering enough statistics to make educated guesses will simply take too long for me to provide meaningful feedback.The player proposed changes are essentially what has been done, allow auto-attack procs to remain normalized as they are now but limit the proc chance of combat arts in some way. The 'some way' becomes kinda fuzzy, and each player will tend to have their own opinion on it. Some classes have many combat arts with fast casting times (0.5 second casting times are fairly common for melee-range non-AE attacks) while other classes have combat arts and/or spells that require multiple seconds to cast. Another component of a combat art or spell to consider is its recast time.To all the Rangers out there: I fully support increasing your combat art damage appropriately to bring you back in line with Tier 1 damage output if this nerf hits you as hard as we expect it to.<div></div><p>Message Edited by deaks on <span class="date_text">02-15-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:08 PM</span></p>

[Dimgl]

<div>Thanks a lot Moorguard,</div><div> </div><div>As someone who felt compelled to use the RGF far longer than it should have been used, I am very thankful for the fact that now weapons can be chosen based on appearance or other gameplay-oriented choices, IE if you're an INT or STR build Shadowknight. This is even further highlighted by the new weaponsets coming out with KOS! Now you can really customize your appearance and playstyle a lot more, and NOT reduce your effectiveness, but actually increase it. Great job!</div><div> </div><div>I do have one question though, if you don't mind, if procs are going to work differently on multi-hit combat arts, how does that effect AOE abilities like most fighters PBAOE melee attacks? Do they count as single-hit combat arts or as multi-hit ones? How will this effect procs on "procced" melee attacks, for classes like berserkers' offensive stance, or their counter-attacks? Can those hits still trigger glimmering strike, a group lifetap proc, or other procs, etc?</div>

[Marillion]

Just for information:From a raiding guild point of view:Out best wizard, can keep within a small % of a ranger on named x4.A Berserker tanking can go past a ranger in dps.This change, will make rangers default to shortbow unless the longbow is much much better, due to more autoattack damage while using CA's.And this still doesn't fix the nerf to CoB that dirges suffered, that was suppose to have been fixed.

[KagekDahung]

<div></div><p>Originally by Dimglow:</p><div>Thanks a lot Moorguard,</div><div> </div><div>As someone who felt compelled to use the RGF far longer than it should have been used, I am very thankful for the fact that now weapons can be chosen based on appearance or other gameplay-oriented choices, IE if you're an INT or STR build Shadowknight. This is even further highlighted by the new weaponsets coming out with KOS! Now you can really customize your appearance and playstyle a lot more, and NOT reduce your effectiveness, but actually increase it. Great job!</div><div> </div><div>I do have one question though, if you don't mind, if procs are going to work differently on multi-hit combat arts, how does that effect AOE abilities like most fighters PBAOE melee attacks? Do they count as single-hit combat arts or as multi-hit ones? How will this effect procs on "procced" melee attacks, for classes like berserkers' offensive stance, or their counter-attacks? Can those hits still trigger glimmering strike, a group lifetap proc, or other procs, etc?</div><div> </div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div> </div><div>Hmmm, wierd. I'm a SK as well and I have a completly different view of this. Ok sure it sucks that RGF was the best choice for us for a long time, but now we're limited to an Axe if we want haste and hate or a Symbol in the offhand if we want to do the Int path for more dmg with spells. So we're now a lot more limited in what weapons we can be using. And great flail/scourge are not really options at all any more. What if I liked how Great Flails looked? I can't have it made for me AND it will be pointless to use one because we don't have any AA associated with it.</div>

[Carna]

<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Marillion wrote:Just for information:From a raiding guild point of view:Out best wizard, can keep within a small % of a ranger on named x4.A Berserker tanking can go past a ranger in dps.This change, will make rangers default to shortbow unless the longbow is much much better, due to more autoattack damage while using CA's.And this still doesn't fix the nerf to CoB that dirges suffered, that was suppose to have been fixed.</p><p></p><hr><p>You're [Removed for Content] in the wind. The devs have adopted the mindset that even Rogues are somehow doing more damage than Wizards and hence need to be nerfed... welcome to the other side of the looking glass where whine, rant and angst creates reality.</p><p>EQ1 worked on the dynamic that he who yelled loudest got nerfed last... why should EQ2 be any different?</p><p></p></blockquote>

[dea]

Ideally a change like this allows one to choose their weapon based on other factors (looks, front-loaded damage, fewer swings to limit riposte, etc) without putting themselves at a disadvantage with respect to procs from combat arts (which ignore the normal weapon equalizers, per-hit-damage and weapon-delay).<div></div>

[Icarii_Raven`Lyon]

<div>Okay, Im not sure how wizards are tier 3 dps. Id say my Dirge is tier 3, which im not complaining about, Ive got buffs/debuffs/etc. However, my 26 or 27 (i cant remember as I have too many alts, but its near there) can nuke w/ a master 1 for almost as much as my 56 dirges master 2 nuke.  If she can do that, at that level, im sure she will way pass that in her 50s. How does that make wizards tier 3?</div><div> </div><div>Then we also have some people claiming certian classes are tier 1, and other people claiming those same classes are tier 2 or 3. Now obviously not everyone is right, so can we atleast get numbers or atleast a common opinion? Again, havent tried a ranger, so cant say there, but it is rather impossible for conjurers/rogues/wizards to be tier 1/2/3 all at the same time which is the situation depending on who happens to voice their opinion.</div>

[pera]

wizards surely are t1 its just rangers are a teir above that.  In no way at all are sorcers t3 amt.<div></div>

[Shadowbain]

<div></div>I'm a level 60 Ranger on AB server, I've always played a ranger class in every MMORPG.  I've always been a litter set back by the amount of abilities granted to the ranger class in EQ2, its lacking. The only i mean only thing rangers can do in EQ2 is DPS, we have no group buffs or anything that beneficial to the group other then the amount of damage we can do to a single target. So haven said that rangers are 100% dependent on the proc rate they have to deal this damage and once LU20 come through and takes that away the average DPS of a ranger will be around 400dps. So why would you need a ranger in any group or raid if they not doing as much DPS as other classes and have no group benefits? and further more rangers wont be able to solo anything over a green one arrow because stuns wont proc and the damage from melee for a ranger is around the 200 - 250 DPS range and we take a ton of damage when hit. this will rune the ranger class and make them kinda useless. There will be no reason to play a ranger at all once the procs are taken away. 400 dps no group benefits and cant solo hmmmm can we say DEAD CLASS?

[Marillion]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Shadowbain wrote:<div></div>I'm a level 60 Ranger on AB server, I've always played a ranger class in every MMORPG.  I've always been a litter set back by the amount of abilities granted to the ranger class in EQ2, its lacking. The only i mean only thing rangers can do in EQ2 is DPS, we have no group buffs or anything that beneficial to the group other then the amount of damage we can do to a single target. So haven said that rangers are 100% dependent on the proc rate they have to deal this damage and once LU20 come through and takes that away the average DPS of a ranger will be around 400dps. So why would you need a ranger in any group or raid if they not doing as much DPS as other classes and have no group benefits? and further more rangers wont be able to solo anything over a green one arrow because stuns wont proc and the damage from melee for a ranger is around the 200 - 250 DPS range and we take a ton of damage when hit. this will rune the ranger class and make them kinda useless. There will be no reason to play a ranger at all once the procs are taken away. 400 dps no group benefits and cant solo hmmmm can we say DEAD CLASS?<hr></blockquote>Have to agree with Shadow, with the only thing they do is dps. Sorc's have a few group buffs that gives dps or protection to the group so they should be slightly higher.</span></div>

[IBSomnifer]

<div></div>I can't believe that I agree with a Eidolon debil, but yup.

[jimbrit]

<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>One simple question, who is then?</span><div></div>

[FrankMullen]

<div>According to SOE t1 should be wizzies/warlocks and rangers/assassins.</div><div> </div><div>Top should be wizzies/warlocks and on certain occasions rangers/assassins will be able to outdamage them.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>I can't remeber the link but that is what they said when LU 13 was implemented.</div>

[TalenMorg]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>jimbrit wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:To those crying doom and gloom for the Ranger class: Rangers are currently the higest DPS in the game. They are not supposed to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>One simple question, who is then?</span><div></div><hr>For the next 6 days or so its still rangers.....then we move to Tier 3 which is the new bottom of tier one......honestly  people....stop asking such questions it only serves to frustrate the paying customer and annoy the monkies...</blockquote></span></div>

[Blackguard]

In reviewing the DPS graphs by class on beta for the past week, then comparing them to the graphs of the days since the proc changes have gone to the beta servers, there has been a change in Ranger damage on Beta.  Prior to today, Rangers on the extreme end were capping out at 4000 damage per second. That is not a typo. Obviously, that kind of damage is rather insane.  At the same time as making the proc rate change, we also addressed some problems with the effectiveness of Achievements that were in large part causing the incredibly high DPS for Rangers. So, when the proc changes went to Beta, we simultaneously fixed the Achievements that were allowing Rangers to do 4000 DPS, and some players noticed a dramatic drop-off in damage. That said, the current graphs for today--meaning after all the proc rate changes--place Rangers right up there in their customary place with the other top tier damage dealers, exactly as they are on Live, but not beating the next closest class by 3x as they were on beta last week. Of course, we're going to be constantly monitoring the DPS graphs on Live, Test, and Beta, as always to make sure everything is behaving as expected and will take action if necessary. <div></div>