Mathematical model of ranger damage before and after proposed proc changes

[Kenazeer]

<div></div><div></div><div><span><span></span>Forgive me; I succumbed to the troll momentarily.</span></div><p><span class="time_text"></span></p><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:36 PM</span></p>

[AfflictedOne]

<span><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>AfflictedOne wrote:<span>Highest damage I've seen parse from a ranger in PPR is close to 3K.  Highest damage I've seen parse from a chanter is nearly 4K and I've heard of 5K.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I've seen 9k, and it wasn't from a ranger, or a chanter, what's your point?  I already said (multiple times) that you can't take PPR failed raiders in to account, and you don't see 3k+ dps on anything else in that zone.  Thanks for proving my point again though :smileyhappy:<hr></blockquote>My point was that ppr is a terrible place to try to prove anything with parses.  I've made that comment in pretty much every post I see that uses it as a basis for dps.  What I have always found strange is how most people throw out the fact that rangers can do 3K in there but never mention the other lower tier classes that can do more.</span><div></div>

[MystaSkrat]

<div></div>Then we have the same point, pretty much.  I do feel the 3rd floor mobs in PPR are good for showing sustained DPS, but parses with failed raiders can get rediculous.

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:Now for Pran... Yes, developers is an often abused word on these boards. The people that write the core code, the people that write the UI code, the people that write the scripts that govern interactions... etc... are all concidered developers. That said they all do completely different things and might have completely different views of a situation. To toss in more static, the producers are also part of the development process and they probable have more influence than anyone else!So however long it takes, whenever it happens... Once one part of the system sees something that they think doesn't work, that's going to invoke changes in the system that I guarantee you will affect more than 1 person. And again, no its not something that most customers would prefer they just ignore. Yes, it sucks when you're the one getting the negative attention. Heck sometimes it sucks when you're getting positive attention when all you see if constant changes. But ultimately, I don't think anyone at SoE has it out for Rangers or any other class, it just happens that sometimes you have to tear down in order to rebuild on a firmer foundation. I guess some of you would like to hear that there's a way to do all this without affecting your wolrd at all... well in MMOs there isn't. You don't have an option to not download patches, you don't have an option to play only on your own computer. Thats one of the drawbacks to MMOs.... But again, there are plenty of single player games out there that you can have absolute control over. Sometimes you can't have the best of everything.<hr></blockquote><p>Right after I submitted my post I thought of the word "code writers" and realized that the description was completely out of line. The word I should have typed was <em>programmer.</em></p><p>I have worked with many programmers in my past lives and they take mucho grande pride in the product that they produced.  I would almost blush as i stood aside and watch them beam as their product performed flawlessly on the1st real life run.  Of course their code had been run through a rigourous verification and validation process, as well as multiple beta tests before it was ever placed into something the rest of the world would use.This is the software environment I am used to.  It is the software development that taxpayers get.  Why should consumers expect less????</p>

[Al]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>kartikeya wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Your right, its inflates some DPS class numbers because of the insane amount of damage they can release in the ~30 secs the encounter lasts on failed raiders, but showcases that rangers do more AE dps than us and at the very least the same amount of single and can sustain superior DPS for longer.<hr></blockquote><p>Uh. No. We have exactly two AE's, and only one of them is worth using at all. That AE is encounter based, as mentioned that means it hits every mob in the encounter. If it's a large encounter, plenty of DPS, sure. If it's a bunch of single mobs, or a bunch of two mob encounters, we only hit the encounter we are targeted on.</p><p>Oh, and this single ability? Has a 3 minute recast on it. 980-1634 damage at adept 1. Sure, it's nice, but no, I don't think it's utterly outclassing people in anything but these specific encounters where there are massive of mobs in a single encounter. Please, please investigate all of the facts before you start making wild statements like 'rangers out-dps everyone on AE too!'.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Outrageous claim? Its the truth. I play with rangers everyday raiding, maybe in a exp grp setting they are only good at AE every 3 mins but in any raid setting 3 mins is just about enough for every encounter you do that has any kind of decent hp involved with it.

[Al]

<div></div><div><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>MystaSkratch wrote:</p><p>Rangers do more AE dps than us because both of ours are true AEs, with their 8 mob limitations, and rangers get at least one that's encounter only... so any encounter with more than 8 mobs, they are gonna probably do more dps.  While rangers are usually ahead of assassins on overall damage in a raid zone (due mostly to jousting mobs' AEs), PPR further accentuates that fact with it's many encounters of 20 mobs.  /wave Alza How you like Nek so far? :smileyhappy:</p><p></p><hr></blockquote>Yea if they made murderer's assault like SoA I would be mega happy <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Nek is good, got no complaints thus far, hope to duel you sometime <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> See ya around.</div>

[kartikeya]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Alza wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>kartikeya wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Your right, its inflates some DPS class numbers because of the insane amount of damage they can release in the ~30 secs the encounter lasts on failed raiders, but showcases that rangers do more AE dps than us and at the very least the same amount of single and can sustain superior DPS for longer.<hr></blockquote><p>Uh. No. We have exactly two AE's, and only one of them is worth using at all. That AE is encounter based, as mentioned that means it hits every mob in the encounter. If it's a large encounter, plenty of DPS, sure. If it's a bunch of single mobs, or a bunch of two mob encounters, we only hit the encounter we are targeted on.</p><p>Oh, and this single ability? Has a 3 minute recast on it. 980-1634 damage at adept 1. Sure, it's nice, but no, I don't think it's utterly outclassing people in anything but these specific encounters where there are massive of mobs in a single encounter. Please, please investigate all of the facts before you start making wild statements like 'rangers out-dps everyone on AE too!'.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Outrageous claim? Its the truth. I play with rangers everyday raiding, maybe in a exp grp setting they are only good at AE every 3 mins but in any raid setting 3 mins is just about enough for every encounter you do that has any kind of decent hp involved with it.<hr></blockquote>I admit my raiding experience has been limited, but how many encounters do you run into that have upwards of five mobs per encounter? (not pull). I get off a single 1k hit per encounter mob every three minutes IF they are close enough together. That's it. The only AE I have. It also draws aggro like mad if I'm not careful. If we're talking strictly AEs I just can't fathom how I, with one AE that has a long recast time, can possibly outdamage any DPS spellcaster with more than one AE.</div>

[Turtle]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:If 55% of Ranger damage is based on procs, there's more that needs to be fixed.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p><em><strong>LoL, no really?  I will never understand why people try and fix something without trying to get a full understanding of the situation.  Its kind of like a experiment for SOE , lets see what happens when we do this and we can fix the fallout later :smileywink:  Instead of...Ok we see a problem that needs to be fixed, but if we fix it what will be the repercussions.  Then fixing the issue and the repercussions at the same time.  I think its called <u>planning ahead</u>, sure you cant account for everything but gathering as much information about a situation usually goes hand-in-hand with common cense...I will leave it at that.  Thank you and have a great day! :smileyvery-happy:</strong></em></p><p>*Note: This message is not directed at Blackguard, but at Developers of EQII*</p>

[kartikeya]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Turtle wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p><em><strong></strong></em></p>*Note: This message is not directed at Blackguard, but at Developers of EQII*</blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>Something I've been forgetting in my posts, thank you Turtle. My frustration is not aimed at Blackguard. It's easy enough to forget (or just not realize) that someone designated as community relations is in no way responsible for what the developers are doing. I suspect his only ability to influence what they do whatsoever is limited entirely to him telling them what the customers are saying. He isn't the one who schedules updates, or chooses what goes into those updates. He only tells us what's going on...and he can only tell us what he's told. Unfortunately that means he ends up the proverbial whipping boy for any unpleasant bit of news he's obligated to pass on.</p><p>I don't expect Blackguard to know the ins and outs of every class in the game. He's the community relations person, not a programmer.</p><p> </p>

[BedlamX]

What the Heck I will weigh in on this nerf business and put it terms that I understand the situation to be. First the ranger and proc nerf IMHO is designed to reduce the dps which will increase the time required to kill a mob which it turn will increase the amount of time it takes to gain XP. This in turn will slow down the LVLing process thus causing you the end user to pay for an additional month or two of service to gain lvl 70. Eventually they will move on to the other classes if they havent already no one is safe.Someone mentioned in a previous post that SOE was just fixing a bug that was in from LU13. My question to that is why didnt they fix that in LU14 then? And why do they spring it on us a week before going live?  To get as many preorders as possible before dropping the hammer thats why.For all of the other classes who feel what SOE is doing to proc rates is ok.  I just want to remind you that if the roles were reversed you all would be crying too. OH yeah when I raid with all of ya and we kill the mob and the fables drop I have yet to hear 1 single commplaint about the ranger being to over powered.  It's all cake when you bennefit, but as soon as you arent benefiting from the Rangers DPS, your the first to complain. When I get invited to a raid its for one thing and one thing only, to kill and kill quick. Our class has virtually no utitlity buffs, Hell anyone can disarm traps these days I dont even get the chance to do that anymore. So just as soon as this goes live my raiding days are over, who wants a ranger that brings nothing to a group and cant kill as effective anymore.  I will spend my time soloing at a turtle's rate which will give exactly  what SOE wants, 2 more months of my $. Since I have already pre ordered the KOS pack I guess I will see what the live result will be.For those of us who plan on leaving the game, who could blame ya. I have 2 alts 1 jeweler 1 alchemist. Every change SOE has made recently has in someway effected my game play toward the negative.  I am bitter that I even fell into the KOS trap. For a game that is susposed to constantly evolve for the better SOE is doing their best to upset a major portion of its customer base and its all about the bean counting, ie SOE will disgruntle 50,000 players with this change and they leave, if they gain 50,001 new players it was all worth it.  SOE cares nothing about  the customers it already has  they figure they have us all hooked  because we have spent so much time progressing and aquiring items at great expence, we couldnt possibly leave. I gota tell ya they really have been pushing the envelope to see exactly what they can get away with. blah blah blah I could go on for weeks so I will stop now at least I got that off my chest. For those who leave I wish you well. For those who stay I wish you good luck. For those on the fence keep in mind that the chance of things getting better are pretty low.  Thanks for the VenkBedlamX

[terrified kill]

<div></div>i so love it when overpowered classes get nerfed <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> being rangers as the only overpowered class<div></div><p>Message Edited by terrified killer on <span class="date_text">02-19-2006</span><span class="time_text">07:05 AM</span></p>

[Faeril Shamand]

"For those of us who plan on leaving the game, who could blame ya. I have 2 alts 1 jeweler 1 alchemist. Every change SOE has made recently has in someway effected my game play toward the negative.  I am bitter that I even fell into the KOS trap. For a game that is susposed to constantly evolve for the better SOE is doing their best to upset a major portion of its customer base and its all about the bean counting, ie SOE will disgruntle 50,000 players with this change and they leave, if they gain 50,001 new players it was all worth it.  SOE cares nothing about  the customers it already has  they figure they have us all hooked  because we have spent so much time progressing and aquiring items at great expence, we couldnt possibly leave. I gota tell ya they really have been pushing the envelope to see exactly what they can get away with. blah blah blah I could go on for weeks so I will stop now at least I got that off my chest. For those who leave I wish you well. For those who stay I wish you good luck. For those on the fence keep in mind that the chance of things getting better are pretty low.  Thanks for the Venk"The wife and I cancelled the KoS pre-order and our subscription. She played a 60 warden/ 60 alchy and I a 60 Ranger/ 60 Woodworker.  All these nerfs to crafting, rings, rangers (30-50% dmg reduc) and even the AA system which gives lower tiers an easier chance over already level 60 players, the forced necessity for raiding, and as casual players with a family we do not have time to spend a whole day raiding just to get new decent items to replace the crud'tastic craftables we have now (so much for crafters making the best stuff), Oh well, it was, and for the most part is, a great game. But it is no longer the game the wife and I care to pay to play.  Maybe in a few months things will balance out and get better but I am starting to think that the managers from StarWars Galaxies have snuck into EQII and like little evil ghosts, are whispering their vile ideas to the EQII team.<div></div>

[Arhan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Axor wrote:<div></div><p>Im Raid leader of my guild, and i parse 99% of them.</p><p>so far i can assure you that ranger dps comes in a 50% from proccs, 35% of poison and the rest of self buff and other proccs like weapon proccs, shield, etc.</p><p>Im at work and cant post it but im talking about raids, godking, Goaa, Coaa etc... i will try to find some data later on.</p><hr></blockquote>Ok, I finally have had some time to look into some hard stats of our damage.   I am also Raid Leader of my guild and I parse 99% of our raids.  Currently rangers damage is anywhere between 41-50% of there damage is based on poison anq quick shot procs.  This change is buckling.  The as I said this % I am looking at is only based on quick shot and poison damage alone i'm not talking the nice proc buffs other classes offer us or brutal bashings.  Last night on the fire witch in Courts 56% <strong>YES 56%</strong> of my damage was on adeste's poison and quick shot alone.  Change the proc and your looking at some very [Removed for Content] [Removed for Content] off Rangers.  Think about all our multiable attack abilities that give us a chance to proc.  [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] why [Removed for Content] on the rangers?  Scale down our the damage on Combat Abilities or better yet tweak poison damage so were in line with others don't render us almost completely useless by lowering our proc rate.  All rangers were good at is killing things quickly, disarming traps, pathfinding and 3 debuffs.  Why take away the shining point of our class?:smileymad:  We should get something major in return for this change if this goes live.

[Niuan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Arhan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr></blockquote>Ok, I finally have had some time to look into some hard stats of our damage.   I am also Raid Leader of my guild and I parse 99% of our raids.  Currently rangers damage is anywhere between 41-50% of there damage is based on poison anq quick shot procs.  This change is buckling.  The as I said this % I am looking at is only based on quick shot and poison damage alone i'm not talking the nice proc buffs other classes offer us or brutal bashings.  Last night on the fire witch in Courts 56% <strong>YES 56%</strong> of my damage was on adeste's poison and quick shot alone.  Change the proc and your looking at some very [Removed for Content] [Removed for Content] off Rangers.  Think about all our multiable attack abilities that give us a chance to proc.  [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] why [Removed for Content] on the rangers?  Scale down our the damage on Combat Abilities or better yet tweak poison damage so were in line with others don't render us almost completely useless by lowering our proc rate.  All rangers were good at is killing things quickly, disarming traps, pathfinding and 3 debuffs.  <font size="4" color="#ff0000">Why take away the shining point of our class?:smileymad:  We should get something major in return for this change if this goes live.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Yes...  I agree we should get something back...  Ya know those fluffy pet spells we get, ya know the ones the hawk... bear... tiger.  Change them to lapdancers! </p><p>Ok on the serious tip now...  We should have CA damage increased to bring us back up.  Also perhaps remove the distance restriction on bow CAs.  These will help.</p>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<div></div><p>I dont know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the original poster was using the recast + cast timers and then calculating the dps.</p><p>In order to get a fair equivilant you would need to only factor the cast timer + refresh in a typical fight.  Add to the fact that you cant just add the calculated dps with recast together, and arrive at a dps figure.  Because during a fight your dps is actually higher, as only the cast timer + refresh are needed to get the next ca off.</p><p> </p>

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div><p>I dont know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the original poster was using the recast + cast timers and then calculating the dps.</p><p>In order to get a fair equivilant you would need to only factor the cast timer + refresh in a typical fight.  Add to the fact that you cant just add the calculated dps with recast together, and arrive at a dps figure.  Because during a fight your dps is actually higher, as only the cast timer + refresh are needed to get the next ca off.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>I was under the impression that recast = refesh</p><p>therefore recast timer + cast timer is the same thing as cast timer + refesh</p>

[Bayler_x]

<span><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div><p>I dont know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the original poster was using the recast + cast timers and then calculating the dps.</p><p>In order to get a fair equivilant you would need to only factor the cast timer + refresh in a typical fight.  Add to the fact that you cant just add the calculated dps with recast together, and arrive at a dps figure.  Because during a fight your dps is actually higher, as only the cast timer + refresh are needed to get the next ca off.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Hmm.  I'm not sure if I'm entirely understanding what you're saying.It is true, that I used combat arts' recast delay as a basis for their DPS, whereas I should have used recast+cast_time, since you can't start the next one until 60 seconds after you finish the first.  That is a flaw, and probably throws off the numbers for double-shot and leg-shot a little. As for adding up the DPS figures from the individual arts: It's not perfect, but I figured it was a good enough estimate, for comparing pre- and post-change.  It's based on the assumption that you're using every ranged art and autoattack as soon as you can, without ever missing any oportunities, and without doing anything else.  At my level that's a fair estimate of group ranger combat, but it doesn't apply equally through all levels.  The goal was to show sustained damage output, rather than burst, of course.I realized another flaw in my calcs, too: I forgot haste.  If you factor in haste, autoattack should be a stronger factor, thus narrowing the gap between old and new damage.  I'm not sure how significant that is though.Thanks for pointing out the shortcomings in my calcs.  I really did intend for the community to polish up the numbers, so that we could present them to the devs.  As of today, though, I don't feel like there's much point in redoing the spreadsheet.  The players have spoken about the magnitude of the change.  The devs have stopped by and presumably heard our reservations.  And tomorrow it goes live.  We'll see what happens from there.  No more point in theoretical models.</span><div></div>

[K'aldar]

<span><blockquote><hr>Domyr Farseeker wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote:ah i thought that was from beta or something.. screw what i said then.   still i can confidently say that an assassin parsing that good vs a ranger  is rare.  whether you can play better than myself and others, or your situation was just so 100% ideal for that, or what.  most rangers don't have to be played well at all to achieve dps like that, and i know if i ever hit that high it'd be with a hell of alot of work involved.  maybe now they'll just have to work a bit to get dps like that, with procs lessening their dps they can spam CA's more often without getting aggro.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>LOL. This is just classic.</p><p>When you thought the numbers reflected Ranger damage <em>after</em> the changes, you thought they were just fine. They put rangers exactly where they should be you said. The proof is in the pudding you might say.</p><p>When you find out that they're <em>current</em> numbers from <em>live</em> servers, you say their flawed because they don't reflect your biased opinion. Couldn't possibly mean that the changes they've already made have brought Rangers in line, could it? No...you even insinuated that the assassin that posted them might not be very good at playing his class.</p><p>That's BS - they're the same freaking numbers. First they were proof positive that this was a good change and Rangers were over reacting. Now they're flawed and don't mean anything.</p><p>Classic.</p><p> </p><p>Edit....</p><p>Oh yeah...Then you go on to show how very little you actually know about Rangers at all by stating how easy it is to be a Ranger. Stand back and press some buttons. They don't know how good they've got it. More dribble a wannabe ranger expert.</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Domyr Farseeker on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:21 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>first of all, sorry this quote is from so far back, haven't read this thread in awhile...now to the point, i didnt' insinuate the assassin was not very good at playing the class, quite the opposite really. i implied that he must have been VERY GOOD to beat a ranger like that.  even in the perfect situation its hard to outdps a ranger.   as to finding out about it being live instead of beta, well, honestly i can't say i've ever seen a parse liek that, nor have i ever read one preLU20 til now.  and btw, ya might want to talk to your fellow rangers a bit more, because its some of them that's saying its too easy to play a ranger.p.s. really could have said all that without flaming me, maybe could work on an attitude adjustment before replying to this post. i'd appreciate it.</span><div></div>

[Prandtl]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Domyr Farseeker wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote:ah i thought that was from beta or something.. screw what i said then.   still i can confidently say that an assassin parsing that good vs a ranger  is rare.  whether you can play better than myself and others, or your situation was just so 100% ideal for that, or what.  most rangers don't have to be played well at all to achieve dps like that, and i know if i ever hit that high it'd be with a hell of alot of work involved.  maybe now they'll just have to work a bit to get dps like that, with procs lessening their dps they can spam CA's more often without getting aggro.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>LOL. This is just classic.</p><p>When you thought the numbers reflected Ranger damage <em>after</em> the changes, you thought they were just fine. They put rangers exactly where they should be you said. The proof is in the pudding you might say.</p><p>When you find out that they're <em>current</em> numbers from <em>live</em> servers, you say their flawed because they don't reflect your biased opinion. Couldn't possibly mean that the changes they've already made have brought Rangers in line, could it? No...you even insinuated that the assassin that posted them might not be very good at playing his class.</p><p>That's BS - they're the same freaking numbers. First they were proof positive that this was a good change and Rangers were over reacting. Now they're flawed and don't mean anything.</p><p>Classic.</p><p> </p><p>Edit....</p><p>Oh yeah...Then you go on to show how very little you actually know about Rangers at all by stating how easy it is to be a Ranger. Stand back and press some buttons. They don't know how good they've got it. More dribble a wannabe ranger expert.</p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by Domyr Farseeker on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:21 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>first of all, sorry this quote is from so far back, haven't read this thread in awhile...now to the point, i didnt' insinuate the assassin was not very good at playing the class, quite the opposite really. i implied that he must have been VERY GOOD to beat a ranger like that.  even in the perfect situation its hard to outdps a ranger.   as to finding out about it being live instead of beta, well, honestly i can't say i've ever seen a parse liek that, nor have i ever read one preLU20 til now.  and btw, ya might want to talk to your fellow rangers a bit more, because its some of them that's saying its too easy to play a ranger.p.s. really could have said all that without flaming me, maybe could work on an attitude adjustment before replying to this post. i'd appreciate it.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Perhaps everyone should work on that attitude adjustment. We all can't be uber like you, sport

[K'aldar]

 /shrug, if you say so.<div></div>

[Shrike01]

<div></div>Bottom line is poeple, Rangers dont like the Nerf.  Hell no one likes to get nerfed. and the Fact is that SOE is overrun with PR idiots that dont know a thing about customer relations.  they should of asked more from actuall players instead of in game GM's since they tend to be in uber raid guild with extrodinary equipped characters.  The average character is going to be smashed because they cannot afford to buy nor can they do the large raids, and get the best gear.  If SOE would just do their [Removed for Content] homework better, and  then not just toss this crap down our throats last minute it might be easier to swallow.  As it is, with this server merges and last minute nerfing I am along with many others quickly considering other options.  this isnt EQ1 and at this point in time their are many many other apealling games out there.  Beware WHO YOU STEP ON SOE, when it comes down to it we are the customers and if you do not improve customer relations you might find we could become someone elses customers quickly.

[Mimzel]

<div></div><div>Hmm one can call the way the procs worked untill now a bug, an exploit or fundamental game mechanic, and it still wont make any difference. The fact is that the way procs have worked has been an important factor to scout dps; especially ranger dps. And, if it was a bug, it has not been a dramatic bug, or at least failed to be labelled as such by SOE. My reasoning for this is that a serious bug would not be allowed to live for so long on the live servers. SOE, by not doing anything with it, really was saying "we want this (untill we change our minds)". What SOE is doing could easily be called politics, and one definition of politics is what the politicians decide do to, and what they decide *not* to do. They have for so long decided not to do anything with ranger dps, and that is no irrationale or non-concious accident - it is deliberate politics.</div><div>However, now they *have* changed their minds and are doing radical changes to the way things work - today is judgement day. We will see how scout dps will be, especially ranger dps (since this has been the focus of so many threads lately).</div><div>I just dont understand what they are using the testservers for, if they havent tested how much procs accounted for in the ranger dps in various situations, and still seem to "learn" new things about the old system (which is their own creation) just days b4 the release.</div><div> </div><div>Im afraid that SOE is too liberal when it comes to changes. In situations like these I'd much rather prefer conservative implementation that would introduce changes a little bit at a time, so to allow the current system to easier adapt to the aforementioned changes. I'd also like to see facts from SOE rather than non-factual based, qualitative stipulations like "Rangers were never intended to do this much damage". At least SOE should do the following in that case:</div><ul><li>Internal testing - Devs test current system, and most importantly find out how procs fit into the generation of DPS for various classes. Dont speculate as a dev - find out and stick to facts.</li><li>An outline of what the devs would like to see instead, and at some point share this with their customers</li><li>Do step-tests in that direction, to see what is too much and what is too little - on the TEST servers.</li><li>Publish a fully tested patch onto the live servers - so you dont end up making the live servers test servers instead.</li></ul><p>Is this too much to ask? Or are deadlines more important than the content?</p><p>Message Edited by Mimzel on <span class="date_text">02-21-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:53 PM</span></p>

[Mirdo]

<div>Release dates are more important than content to the bean counters - especially with the impending release of another major MMO title very close.</div><div> </div><div>This title also competes with WoW - and the fact that SoE have pushed out 2 expansions now will in itself start to sway some people over - more high end content, more levels and shinies etc.</div><div> </div><div>There are some game companies that operate an 'it's finished when it's finished' policy. That gets as much criticism from some quarters as this poicy of hitting a publicised date - no matter how tested or untested a game / expansion might be.</div><div> </div><div>I personally prefer the 'it's ready when it's ready' approach but not all businesses and business models allow that approach.</div>

[klepp]

<div></div>rangers overpowered?  if so... barely lol..    if we dont dps what else do we do?  And you better believe we do it well when we spend 2 platinum a day on poisons! ha.... funny.. ignorance = bliss!

[Jaslath]

The sad part to me is you can almost tell who didn't play EQ1 just by their posts.Worse thing is that this is a new game but same ole development style.Now all we need is Abashi from pre-SoE EQ days to post  something about the 'Vision' and we'll be completely back to 1999.<div></div>

[higgs]

<div></div>I have been reading all the post that came out of this mathematical model and I guess I have a few questions that I have not seen answered.  First from reading some of the other posts the ranger class is supposed to be equal to the assassin class however, this doesn't seem to be true.  So the question arises why are rangers supposed to be so deadly?  The other question I have is that in all the complaining I still have yet to see what the goal is?  What I mean is that the rangers posting seem to want to one hit every mob in the game.  Seems that ranger are being unrealistic besides don't we have to wait till the patch is done to see what they have done to the class?  

[Mirdo]

<span><blockquote><hr>higgs wrote:<div></div>I have been reading all the post that came out of this mathematical model and I guess I have a few questions that I have not seen answered.  First from reading some of the other posts the ranger class is supposed to be equal to the assassin class however, this doesn't seem to be true.  So the question arises why are rangers supposed to be so deadly?  The other question I have is that in all the complaining I still have yet to see what the goal is?  What I mean is that the rangers posting seem to want to one hit every mob in the game.  Seems that ranger are being unrealistic besides don't we have to wait till the patch is done to see what they have done to the class?  <hr></blockquote>Where exactly have you seen Rangers asking to 1 hit mobs? I have seen Rangers getting angry because the data presented from Beta so far indicates we could end up in T2/T3 dps instead of T1? Did you actually read any of the posts - or is comprehension the issue?</span><div></div>

[ChiannieDev]

Mirdo is right.