View Full Version : Mathematical model of ranger damage before and after proposed proc changes
Bayler_x
02-16-2006, 11:03 AM
<div></div>Mathematical model of ranger damage before and after proposed proc changes<b>SYNOPSIS</b>:There are changes on the beta server that greatly reduce the procing oportunities available to rangers. While ranger damage output could certainly use some tuning, I believe that these changes will have a far more damaging effect than intended. I constructed a spreadsheet to model the (rather complex) damage output done by rangers in the current system and the proposed new system being tested. This post is a discussion of my findings and methodology.The spreadsheet containing my data model is here:<a href="http://home.comcast.net/%7Eshader_eq2/ranger_damage_model.xls" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~shader_eq2/ranger_damage_model.xls</a>My model shows that rangers after the changes will be doing <strike><font color="#ff0000">45%</font></strike> <font color="#996600">55%</font> of their current damage.<b>DISCUSSION</b>:<hr size="2" width="100%"><font color="#996600"><i>EDIT 2006-02-16:Changed the following on the spreadsheet:+ Fixed problem where double and triple fire hits were always using the first hit damage, instead of the progressively larger values. (Noted by Calaglin/Pinski.)+ Fixed a proc rate typo. I had had Gleaming Strike set to a nominal (examine-window) proc rate of 50%, rather than 5%.+ Added a new tab, "Beta Changes - Feb 16" based on new information. It assumes that Quick Shot is capable of producing all of the other proc types, but double and triple shot arts don't proc Quick Shot or anything else on the 2nd or 3rd hit. (Noted by Calaglin/Pinski.)Recomputed the table shown below with the new changes.</i></font><hr size="2" width="100%">My spreadsheet is based around the idea of calculating the "expected damage" of any given attack or combat art. That is, for every possible combination of some damage event (proc, regular hit, or quick strike), the damage that a proc would do is multiplied by the probability of it happening. Then, all of those weighted damages are summed up to determine the expected damage of the attack as a whole.For instance, right now the third hit from our Triple Fire line of attacks can trigger a Quick Shot (an extra attack caused by our offensive stance), and that Quick Shot can trigger a poison. In order for that particular damage event to happen, all three triple fire shots have to hit (if one misses, the next ones don't have any chance), the Quick Shot has to proc, and the poison has to proc. So the expected damage of just that one part - poison proc from a Quick Shot on the third hit of a Triple Fire - is the damage it would do multiplied by the probability that all those prerequisits happened.It's not a perfect model. It makes some assumptions, and it's based off of the data I used. (Which was from my own examine windows.) The model assumes you're using poison, offensive stance, an imbued bow, and have 1 other type of proc. (For my data, the extra proc was the paladin buff Call of Glory.)Here are the numbers I came up with. (But if you want, download the spreadsheet and plug in your own.) All data below is what I use as a level 47 ranger with a legendary bow and using legendary DD poisons.<font face="Courier New"><strike> Current Beta 1 Beta 2, Dmg, DPS, Dmg, DPS, Dmg, DPSTriple Fire (master2) 3134, 52, 794, 13, 525, 8Sharp Shot (adept3) 2204, 110, 510, 25, 418, 20Leg Shot (adept3) 1115, 111, 247, 24, 247, 24Autoattack 1085, 155, 764, 109, 764, 109Miracle Arrow (adept1) 1330, 22, 510, 8, 510, 8Hidden Fire (adept3) 2025, 22, 1350, 15, 1350, 15Trick Arrow (adept1) 1180, 39, 360, 12, 360, 12Crippling Arrow (adept1) 1310, 21, 490, 8, 490, 8Culling the Herd (adept3) 1646, 27, 826, 13, 826, 13TOTALS <font color="#ff0000">562 230 221</font></strike></font><font face="Courier New" color="#996600">, Current,, Beta Feb16*,, Beta Feb16**,combat art, Dmg, DPS, Dmg, DPS, Dmg, DPSTriple Fire (master2), 2595, 43.24, 854, 14.23, 835, 13.92Sharp Shot (adept3), 1584, 79.22, 391, 19.53, 379, 18.93Leg Shot (adept3), 798, 79.78, 219, 21.93, 207, 20.73Autoattack, 767, 109.63, 767, 109.63, 637, 91.05Miracle Arrow (adept1), 1012, 16.87, 472, 7.86, 453, 7.55Hidden Fire (adept3), 1707, 18.97, 1290, 14.34, 1248, 13.86Trick Arrow (adept1), 862, 28.75, 321, 10.71, 303, 10.09Crippling Arrow (adept1), 993, 16.54, 452, 7.53, 433, 7.21Culling the Herd (adept3), 1329, 22.15, 788, 13.13, 769, 12.82Total,, 415.14,, 218.89,, 196.16</font><font color="#996600"></font><font color="#996600">* The first set of beta columns assume a very-high-DD poison is used.</font><font color="#996600"></font><font color="#996600">** The second set of beta columns assume a very-high-DoT poison is used.</font>The DMG column numbers are the expected damage for one activation of the attack. The DPS column numbers are the DMG values, divided by the recast times. So in a constantly fighting situation where every CA is used as soon as its timer is up, and no autoattack chances are missed, the model predicts <strike>562</strike> <font color="#996600">415 </font>DPS currently, and either <strike>230 DPS or 221 DPS once the changes go live, depending on certain assumptions.</strike> <font color="#996600">219 or 163 DPS depending on how high the DD factor on your poison is.</font> I don't claim that these are accurate real-life DPS values, but they're pretty solid compared to one another.These numbers show a <strike>61%</strike> <font color="#996600">47%</font> loss of damage, based on my data. One might argue that under the new system, a ranger would be wise to switch to a very-high-dot poison instead of a very-high-DD one. To adjust for this, let's go ahead and throw in some DPS for the Beta 2 case: let's assume that the DoT potion of Decrepid Stab (the legendary very-high-DoT poison for my tier) is in constant effect. That's 202 damage every 6 seconds, or 34 DPS. (That's a unrealisticly generous assumption, but it'll give us an upper bound.) <strike>In that case I'd be going from 562 to 255 DPS; so, 255 / 562 = 45%. The changes will cause me to end up doing only 45% of my current damage. (Or, in other words, I'd be losing 55% of my current damage.)</strike> <font color="#996600">The second set of Beta numbers above reflect the calculations assuming Decrepid Stab. So when we add in the 34 DPS to account for the DoT portion, the model suggest my damage will go from 415 DPS to (196+34)=230 DPS; so 230 / 415 = 55%. In other words, a loss of 45% of my current damage.</font>That's all for a grouped ranger. Now let's look at the solo ranger's case.Right now, a typical solo fight against a single no-arrow white mob goes something like this: + Open with Hidden Fire <strike>(2025)</strike> <font color="#996600">(1707)</font> or Culling the Herd <strike>(1646)</strike> <font color="#996600">(1309)</font>. + An autoattack shot goes off immediately <strike>(1085)</strike> <font color="#996600">(767)</font>. + I fire off Sharp Shot (<strike>2204</strike>) <font color="#996600">(1584)</font>. + The mob reaches me, and I use a Rip (500ish) and maybe melee for a second or two.So by this model's numbers, such a mob has about <strike>6000</strike> <font color="#996600">4500</font> hit points.What will be the best solo strategy after the changes? + Open with Hidden Fire (<strike>1350</strike>) <font color="#996600">(1290)</font>. + An autoattack instantly goes off (<strike>764</strike>) <font color="#996600">(767)</font>. + Shoot a Triple Fire (<strike>525</strike>) <font color="#996600">(854)</font>.The mob now reaches you, with <strike>a little over half of his health left.</strike> <font color="#996600">1/3 of his health left.</font> You can either stand there taking a beating and melee (not very rangery), or + Use cheap shot to stun him, run through him and fire Culling the Herd while moving <strike>(826)</strike> <font color="#996600">(78<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font>. + Stop and use Sharp Shot <strike>(41<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></strike> <font color="#996600">(391)</font>. + Backpeddel some more while firing Crippling Arrow <strike>(490)</strike> <font color="#996600">(452)</font>. + Let loose another ranged autoattack <strike>(764)</strike> <font color="#996600">(767)</font>.<strike>The mob reaches you again. You've done 5147 out of his 6000 hit points. At this point, short of kiting, your only option is to melee him to death (possibly turning on your defensive stance). He'll probably wear you down to 1/2 of your hit points.</strike><font color="#996600"> At this point the mob should be dead, or close to it.</font>Well, you won! Congratulations! Of course, <strike>you're half-dead</strike>, all of your timers are used up, and you'd better hope that with all the running you had to do, you didn't agro anything. Oh, and the strategy above only works against no-arrow or down-arrow mobs; if the mob has an up-arrow, your cheap shot won't last long enough to get away from the mob and shoot him. <font color="#996600"><i>Note from 2006-02-16 edit: okay, with these numbers the solo case doesn't look so horrible.</i></font>I'm sure there are lots of questions that I haven't answered here. I'll try to adress any that you might ask. In the mean time, I encourage anyone who's interested to download the spreadsheet and plug in your own numbers. I'm just a level 47 ranger, and the KoS beta testers are almost all 70's with raid gear. It would definitely be a good thing to see how these changes will affect rangers of all levels and play styles.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Bayler_xev on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:33 PM</span></p>
Prandtl
02-16-2006, 02:48 PM
<div></div><p>These results are stunning. No pun intended. </p>
pharacyde
02-16-2006, 03:45 PM
<div>Hmmm this data seems weird to me for triple fire. Even without the proccing it would sitll do around 1k+ damage. Just from reading what the spell does. I think you are putting the data on beta a bit low.</div>
Wow...All I can say is wow...thats REALLY [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], and kinda insulting to the devs; as if they don't know any of this. Wow...I'm actually kinda interested in it, I've never seen anyone be really THIS [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] over a game.
This sort of model is entirely worthless.Until you actually play test it, your data is nothing but blind assumptions.<div></div>
Amise
02-16-2006, 04:38 PM
<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Bayler_xev wrote:Well, you won! Congratulations! Of course, you're half-dead, all of your timers are used up, you'd better hope that with all the running you had to do, you didn't agro anything. Oh, and the strategy above only works against no-arrow or down-arrow mobs; if the mob has an up-arrow, your cheap shot won't last long enough to get away from the mob and shoot him.<div></div><hr></blockquote>This is almost exactly what soloing is like for an averagely-geared assassin at <u>any</u> level. And believe me it's not a whole lot easier with above-average gear either unless you're fighting green solo cons.</span><div></div>
<div></div><p>Mathematical models are nice to play with, but yours doesnt seem to reflect real number that are happening in practise. maybe your model is missing some parameter or calculating wrong or maybe some stuff simply isnt doing what we suppose it to do in theory.</p><p><em>My model shows that rangers after the changes will be doing <font color="#ff0000">45%</font> of their current damage.</em></p><p>This indicates that ranger would be going to lose 55% of their damage. Assuming that even after the change ranger will still do some proc damage, just to a lesser amount, lets say 1/5 of what they are procing now, this would mean that currently 70% of ranger damage comes alone from poison and procs if your mathematical model is correct. Which is not the case.</p><p>Your model is flawed.</p>
tom1301
02-16-2006, 06:33 PM
>...this would mean that currently 70% of ranger damage comes alone from poison and procs if your >mathematical model is correct. Which is not the case.Ehm.... it simply .... *IS* the case.Well you might discuss if it is 50% or 70%. But its within that area. Of course, if you have Master1 on all your combat arts and do not use a legendary high DD - low DoT poison it might be lower.Greetings,tom1301<div></div>
<span><blockquote><hr>tom1301 wrote:>...this would mean that currently 70% of ranger damage comes alone from poison and procs if your >mathematical model is correct. Which is not the case.Ehm.... it simply .... *IS* the case.Well you might discuss if it is 50% or 70%. But its within that area. Of course, if you have Master1 on all your combat arts and do not use a legendary high DD - low DoT poison it might be lower.Greetings,tom1301<div></div><hr></blockquote>Mind posting some logs or something? I sincerely doubt that 50% of your damage comes from procs. Also, as BG (?) said, in the beta, Rangers were doing 4000 DPS. With this, it's going to shorten it to where it should be.</span><div></div>
<div></div>I'd really be surprised if the changes affect DPS to that extend. I would imagine they have been testing it. Rangers are still in their Teir 1 model, athough I don't know who to model a Tier 1 after.
<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>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 07:33 PM
<div></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>I have played a ranger from day one and that sounds about right</div><div> </div><div>Edit: Also, there have been times when it has just been too late or too early and I forget to use poisons(I know, stupid me) but it doesnt make all that big of a difference(maybe take time and a quarter more to kill something), and I buy the best poisons on the market for my level range.</div><p>Message Edited by DarkLegacy2005 on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:35 AM</span></p>
But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div>
Niuan
02-16-2006, 07:42 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 07:50 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.<hr></blockquote>I do play a ranger, and I agree with magus. You all are screaming the sky is falling when its just raining on our heads for once. Relax and enjoy the game. If the game gets harder, all the better. It isnt going to be game breaking for us, only a small percentage(like 10 - 25% at the most) which would put us in line with the other T1 classes. And if it drops you below T1, my question would be if you are playing it right...? I have 3 other buddies who play a warlock, assasin, and wizzy. I out class them in DPS by a long shot. Might be time to realize we are broken. Its not just them either. When grouped with others of those classes I still outclass them in DPS.
Niuan
02-16-2006, 07:56 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.<hr></blockquote>I do play a ranger, and I agree with magus. You all are screaming the sky is falling when its just raining on our heads for once. Relax and enjoy the game. If the game gets harder, all the better. It isnt going to be game breaking for us, only a small percentage(like 10 - 25% at the most) which would put us in line with the other T1 classes. And if it drops you below T1, my question would be if you are playing it right...? I have 3 other buddies who play a warlock, assasin, and wizzy. I out class them in DPS by a long shot. Might be time to realize we are broken. Its not just them either. When grouped with others of those classes I still outclass them in DPS.<hr></blockquote>If you don't realise that this will effect your dps by @ 50% as a ranger then I question your ability to play your ranger. I parse dailey and see first hand how critical of a nerf this is. To say anything else is simply lack of knowledge in your class.
<span><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, Raids I can see about 50% coming from procs. He's talking about procs though and then using a soloing situation to prove his point with theoretical numbers.</span><div></div>
Bayler_x
02-16-2006, 08:11 PM
<span><blockquote><hr>zitha wrote:<div></div><p>This indicates that ranger would be going to lose 55% of their damage. Assuming that even after the change ranger will still do some proc damage, just to a lesser amount, lets say 1/5 of what they are procing now, this would mean that currently 70% of ranger damage comes alone from poison and procs if your mathematical model is correct. Which is not the case.</p><p>Your model is flawed.</p><hr></blockquote>There's certainly value in applying a "common sense test" to any model. But you're trying to refute my model, constructed from actual game data and mechanics, with guesswork. Your 70% and 1/5 figures are out of nowhere.</span><div></div>
Bayler_x
02-16-2006, 08:12 PM
<span><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>I think you're missing the point. My model doesn't assume that all procs will be gone. It calculates exactly how often different proc situations will occur, and how much damage - over all - can be expected from them.</span><div></div>
LoreLady
02-16-2006, 08:25 PM
The average DPS that comes out of procs for my ranger (level 59 toon, with adept 3's and some master 1's) is 39% damage done with poison, 19% damage done with archers frenzy, and 4% with my bow proc - Compiled these stats with acouple of fights in a clops group using advanced combat tracker.His data isent entirely wrong with what he has come up with, however his data isent entirely right. I tend to average around that DPS.
Bayler_x
02-16-2006, 08:33 PM
Well, the DPS numbers I listed above are a theoretical max, based on the data from the examine windows. I don't claim that that's what a parser shows for DPS. I only used it as a way to compare before and after effects in a way that reflects how often a given art or attack can be used.It's worth mentioning that the examine data wasn't completely in line with my logs. My logs usually showed higher average damages for everything - CA hits, procs, autoattack hits - than what the examine window showed. But they were always pretty close, and seemed proportional. So again, I present these numbers for comparison with each other - not for comparison against real-world parses.<div></div>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 08:40 PM
<div>This is bull that is gonna affect you by 50%. Are you completely wack? Thats as if they said 'poison is now cosmetic,' which is far from the case. Its making it so that the procs are based off the first strike of a CA. Not to mention its painfully obvious we as rangers needed a fix. Even moorgaurd pointed out rangers doing 4000 dps... DPS. Thats nuts.</div><div> </div><div>I have never, EVER, seen my poison account for more then 40% of my damage (and I buy the BEST poisons for my tier), and I parse ALL the time. So even if this cut this to 1/3, which I doubt it does, that means a drop of ~30%, but lets be pessimistic and say 35%. Even that sounds off beat. Example:</div><div> </div><div>If I have 10 CA's that all have 3 hits involved in them and are 3 second cast times, I effectively have one strike every second, right? This is not the case with Rangers, but we are being pessimistic about this, remember? This would pose the greatest drop theoretically. I have noticed that the CA's do on average a little more then the tick of a poison, or DD, depending on what you want. We are going to choose DD poison for this, hence if each hit did 100 damage, the DD on the poison would be roughly 80 or 90, but lets just say 90. Remember this is on average they are better... I know some are an exception.</div><div> </div><div>Lets pretend I have a 25% to hit on my poisons, so saying I have good luck and it goes 40%. That means on 12 hits, my poisons proc. Now it dots every 6 seconds for 1/4 the damage, but lets continue being pessimistic and say it dots every 4 seconds for 1/3 the damage. Only one poison can be on at any given time, so for simplicity's sake, it strikes an additional 1/3 normal poison damage every 4 seconds. That means:</div><div> </div><div>My damage =</div><div>30 Strikes * 100 damage due to CA's = 3000</div><div>12 Strikes * 90 damage due to poison = 1080</div><div>8 Stirkes * 30 damage due to dot = 240</div><div> </div><div>Total = 4320</div><div> </div><div>Where in the hell do I lose 50%? Poison isnt even equal to 50%. But you know what, we are being pessimistic, lets change this model so that poison = 50% of my damage. That means I need 1320 to = 3000, which is roughly a 3x jump. So now:</div><div> </div><div>My damage =</div><div>30 strikes * 100 (CA) = 3000</div><div>12 strikes * 270 (poison) = 3240</div><div>8 strikes * 90 (dot) = 720</div><div> </div><div>Total = 6960</div><div> </div><div>Now poison accounts for about 57% of my damage. Perfect pessimistic model, lets use it. Now lets say I only proc on the first hit of each CA. That means 40% of 10 hits, so 4 procs. The dot amount stays constant (isnt affected due to the fact that its over time and we are pretending the first hit lands a poison for simplicity's sake).</div><div> </div><div>My NEW damage =</div><div>30 strikes * 100 (CA) = 3000</div><div>4 strikes * 270 (poison) = 1080</div><div>8 strikes * 90 (dot) = 720</div><div> </div><div>Total = 4800</div><div> </div><div>Or rougly 70% of what it used to be. ON AN ENTIRELY PESSIMISTIC VIEWPOINT. Realistically, it should proc once every 6 seconds, do less damage then my average CA's, and dot for 1/4 of that damage.</div><div> </div><div><div>My damage =</div><div>30 Strikes * 100 damage due to CA's = 3000</div><div>12 Strikes * 90 damage due to poison = 1080</div><div>5 Stirkes * 23 damage due to dot = 115</div><div> </div><div>Total = 4320</div><div> </div><div>My NEW damage =</div><div>30 strikes * 100 (CA) = 3000</div><div>4 strikes * 90 (poison) = 360</div><div>5 strikes * 23 (dot) = 115</div><div> </div><div>Total = 3475</div><div> </div><div>Or roughly 80% of my original. So somewhere between 20 and 30% is what you can expect, but this is even still less accurate as I am assuming you are hitting with CA's that all have multiple strikes in them, not counting auto attack, and not counting other CA's you might be doing. All those should drop the % even more, probably enough to put it near the 20% range, which is a perfectly acceptable 'nerf' considering 4000 DPS on some rangers and the fact that I almost always do near 1.5x the other DPS classes I have grouped with.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>'The sky is falling, the sky is falling!'</div></div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div>
<span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.<hr></blockquote>I do play a ranger, and I agree with magus. You all are screaming the sky is falling when its just raining on our heads for once. Relax and enjoy the game. If the game gets harder, all the better. It isnt going to be game breaking for us, only a small percentage(like 10 - 25% at the most) which would put us in line with the other T1 classes. And if it drops you below T1, my question would be if you are playing it right...? I have 3 other buddies who play a warlock, assasin, and wizzy. I out class them in DPS by a long shot. Might be time to realize we are broken. Its not just them either. When grouped with others of those classes I still outclass them in DPS.<hr></blockquote>If you don't realise that this will effect your dps by @ 50% as a ranger then I question your ability to play your ranger. I parse dailey and see first hand how critical of a nerf this is. To say anything else is simply lack of knowledge in your class.<hr></blockquote>If you think that this will effect your DPS by 50% as a ranger, then I question your ability in math.First, during Autoattack it's going to be the same amount of procs as before this "nerf".Second, during CAs, I'm guessing (speculating, hypothesizing) that the chance to proc per CA will be the % listed, such as 20% chance to Proc with poisons per CA. Assuming that you guys proc poison off of 4 of every 5 CAs (which you probably don't), that's a 75% (You're hitting them 3/4 less) nerf to your poison proc damage.So let's say that 75% of your procs are from CAs, the other 25% from autoattacks.For simplicity, let's say that you proc 4 times in a fight, 3 (75%) from CAs and 1 (25%) from autoattack now. With a 75% nerf to the CA procs. That will bring you down to 0-1 proc from CAs (25% of 3) using real numbers. This would be a 50%-75% nerf to your proc damage. Which translates to 25%-37% nerf to overall damage. Not the 50% nerf that everyone is worried about. Granted, these are rough estimates and numbers. Nobody will be sure until it's actually tested.</span><div></div>
<div></div>Ive seen 50-60% of our rangers dps comes from parses during raids. On average the rangers are dpsing in the range of 1.3-1.8k. Now currently on beta procs of any kind are hardly firing at all, in some cases once or twice ever 10 fights. To be generous and only say that the reduction will not completely remove the proc dps a ranger has but will lower it to about 10% of their current proc dps (currently on test its much lower than that). This drops a rangers average dps to 650 - ~800 now this is (in raid) below our average wizard dps which is 800-1.2k.I guess we will have to see what happens when this hits live, but i can really see rangers being made t2 dps for a good while (probably a few months) before they are fixed and put back into t1<div></div><p>Message Edited by perano on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:55 AM</span></p>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 08:50 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>perano wrote:yeah ive seen pares that 50-60% of our rangers dps comes form parses on averag they are dpsing in the range of 1.3-1.8k dps now currently on beta proc of any kind are hardly firing at all, in some cases once or twice ever 10 fights. now to be generous and only say that with the reduction in what can proc it will not completely remove the dps a ranger has from procs but will lower to about 10% (currently on beta its about 1%) that drops an rangers average dps to 650 - ~800 now this is (in raid) below our average wizard dps which is 800-1.2k<div></div><hr></blockquote>Can you edit this and word it better? I cant understand it.
<span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.<hr></blockquote>OMG this is not a small nerf its a massive nerf to all classes that rely on procs</span><div></div>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 08:53 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>perano wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.<hr></blockquote>OMG this is not a small nerf its a massive nerf to all classes that rely on procs</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I'd have to disagree. I feel like I am one of the few people left that has any faith in the devs.
Your spreedshot is incorrect. Your triple fire data is screwed up on the beta assumptions. You're using the damage for the first hit for the 2nd and 3rd hits, rather than the 2nd and 3rd hit damage. So you're missing out on 420 damage or so. Plus your DPS total is not applying recovery times, which is where you're going to hit your auto-attacks, in between each of your CAs.Also quickshot still had the chance to proc poison on Wednesday(yesterday), so you're missing damage on the beta assumptions there.All it seems they are changing is having the 2nd+ hit on a CA doesn't proc anymore, and CAs have their own system for determing proc rate rather than using weapon delay which is a cheap system. So, fix your spreadsheet with this new correct data, then try to show your mathematical model of ranger damage before and after.
<blockquote><hr>perano wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.<hr></blockquote>OMG this is not a small nerf its a massive nerf to all classes that rely on procs</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I think it's not small, but it's also not massive. They're not changing that much, in fact if people had the correct information before posting bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] like the OP did. Ranger DPS is NOT dropping by 45%, in reality it's dropping by more like 10-15%, it isn't that large.
Magus_Bl
02-16-2006, 08:58 PM
<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 08:59 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>perano wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But of course, you're not losing all the procs, so it's not going to cut your DPS in half. You're only going to lose SOME of the procs, so it's still a much smaller nerf then you're making it out to be.<div></div><hr></blockquote>You have no ideah what you are talking about. Play a ranger then come talk about how this effects your class.<hr></blockquote>OMG this is not a small nerf its a massive nerf to all classes that rely on procs</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I think it's not small, but it's also not massive. They're not changing that much, in fact if people had the correct information before posting bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] like the OP did. Ranger DPS is NOT dropping by 45%, in reality it's dropping by more like 10-15%, it isn't that large.<hr></blockquote>Thank God there's another person out there that sifts through the BS.
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 08:59 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Yes it should remain constant
It's because he's assuming that quickshot procs off of auto-attack will no longer proc other procs, when it does(currently on beta as of last night).
<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</span><div></div>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 09:10 PM
<div></div>I agree Keyh... and if it wasnt painfully obvious that the OP believed his numbers are real, I woulda flagged this thread as trying to incite the community. Its ridiculous to believe that a nerf is gonna drop a T1 class to 45% of its DPS.
Niuan
02-16-2006, 09:22 PM
<div></div><div></div><p>I don't think you understand what the change is going to do.</p><p>Currently when you shoot an arrow either by CA or autoattack you have a chance at shooting an additional arrow. On multiple arrow CAs each arrow has the chance to fork into an additional arrow attack. </p><p>Now think about this each arrow attack is poisoned and has a chance to proc. This potentially can be devistating damage if you are lucky and your arrows fork off multiple times.</p><p>To only proc off the first arrow is a serious hit to our class.</p><p>Message Edited by Niuan on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:23 AM</span></p>
Niuan
02-16-2006, 09:24 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div>I agree Keyh... and if it wasnt painfully obvious that the OP believed his numbers are real, I woulda flagged this thread as trying to incite the community. Its ridiculous to believe that a nerf is gonna drop a T1 class to 45% of its DPS.<hr></blockquote>Look on the ranger forumns and look at REAL numbers posted by people currently in beta and say this is no big deal.
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 09:25 PM
<blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>I don't think you understand what the change is going to do.</p><p>Currently when you shoot an arrow either by CA or autoattack you have a chance at shooting an additional arrow. On multiple arrow CAs each arrow has the chance to fork into an additional arrow attack. </p><p>Now think about this each arrow attack is poisoned and has a chance to proc. This potentially can be devistating damage if you are lucky and your arrows fork off multiple times.</p><p>To only proc off the first arrow is a serious hit to our class.</p><p>Message Edited by Niuan on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:23 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Far from it amigo. Relax and trust the dev's... they have more information at their disposal then we do.
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 09:26 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div>I agree Keyh... and if it wasnt painfully obvious that the OP believed his numbers are real, I woulda flagged this thread as trying to incite the community. Its ridiculous to believe that a nerf is gonna drop a T1 class to 45% of its DPS.<hr></blockquote>Look on the ranger forumns and look at REAL numbers posted by people currently in beta and say this is no big deal.<hr></blockquote>I AM in beta and its no big deal
Niuan
02-16-2006, 09:26 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Numbers have already been posted on poison proc percentages in the ranger forumns. CA attacks which make up the magority of our attacks hardly EVER proc anymore.
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 09:27 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Numbers have already been posted on poison proc percentages in the ranger forumns. CA attacks which make up the magority of our attacks hardly EVER proc anymore.<hr></blockquote>Well its a good thing its on test then, eh? Dev's already noted that they are watchin the overall DPS of the classes now and comparing before and after. If its too much of a hit for what they are aiming at... they are going to fix it. Although, dont take my word for it, go read what the dev's posted.
Niuan
02-16-2006, 09:31 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div>I agree Keyh... and if it wasnt painfully obvious that the OP believed his numbers are real, I woulda flagged this thread as trying to incite the community. Its ridiculous to believe that a nerf is gonna drop a T1 class to 45% of its DPS.<hr></blockquote>Look on the ranger forumns and look at REAL numbers posted by people currently in beta and say this is no big deal.<hr></blockquote>I AM in beta and its no big deal<hr></blockquote>Show the numbers. Post parses of your CA attacks and the percentage of poison procs. I have seen other peoples in beta and it is a big deal.
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 09:33 PM
<div>When I get home, I will get em and post em. Sadly my laptop cant play eq2.</div>
Niuan
02-16-2006, 09:35 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Numbers have already been posted on poison proc percentages in the ranger forumns. CA attacks which make up the magority of our attacks hardly EVER proc anymore.<hr></blockquote>Well its a good thing its on test then, eh? Dev's already noted that they are watchin the overall DPS of the classes now and comparing before and after. If its too much of a hit for what they are aiming at... they are going to fix it. Although, dont take my word for it, go read what the dev's posted.<hr></blockquote>I think you give far to much credit to the dev team. I am a realist, I look at past records and personal experience to determine likely outcome. If we are as gimped as us naysayers post... We are looking 6 months to see anything if ever.
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 09:37 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>I think you give far to much credit to the dev team. I am a realist, I look at past records and personal experience to determine likely outcome. If we are as gimped as us naysayers post... We are looking 6 months to see anything if ever.<hr></blockquote>The dev's have stated that if they dont get the result they are aiming for they will change it some more. I'd relax and let it wait out a day or two.
<span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Numbers have already been posted on poison proc percentages in the ranger forumns. CA attacks which make up the magority of our attacks hardly EVER proc anymore.<hr></blockquote>What I see on the Ranger forums is for each 1 person complaining about the changes, 3 people are telling him not to worry about it. Could you please post a direct link to the numbers in question? I'm lazy and don't like sifting through the boards. I'll keep looking though.</span><div></div>
MagicWand
02-16-2006, 09:42 PM
<div>So now maybe you are among the rest of the Tier 1 DPS instead of 300+ DPS in front of them. Anyone who didn't think Ranger DPS is out of control, they are smoking the crack.</div>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 09:47 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>MagicWand wrote:<div>So now maybe you are among the rest of the Tier 1 DPS instead of 300+ DPS in front of them. Anyone who didn't think Ranger DPS is out of control, they are smoking the crack.</div><hr></blockquote>not just any crack... EVERcrack
Bayler_x
02-16-2006, 09:47 PM
<blockquote><hr size="2" width="100%">Your spreedshot is incorrect. Your triple fire data is screwed up on the beta assumptions. You're using the damage for the first hit for the 2nd and 3rd hits, rather than the 2nd and 3rd hit damage. So you're missing out on 420 damage or so. Plus your DPS total is not applying recovery times, which is where you're going to hit your auto-attacks, in between each of your CAs.Also quickshot still had the chance to proc poison on Wednesday(yesterday), so you're missing damage on the beta assumptions there.All it seems they are changing is having the 2nd+ hit on a CA doesn't proc anymore, and CAs have their own system for determing proc rate rather than using weapon delay which is a cheap system. So, fix your spreadsheet with this new correct data, then try to show your mathematical model of ranger damage before and after.</blockquote><blockquote><hr size="2" width="100%"></blockquote>Thanks - great feedback! I'll correct the spreadsheet tonight.<blockquote><hr size="2" width="100%">I think it's not small, but it's also not massive. They're not changing that much, in fact if people had the correct information before posting bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] like the OP did. Ranger DPS is NOT dropping by 45%, in reality it's dropping by more like 10-15%, it isn't that large.<hr size="2" width="100%"></blockquote>However, I take exception to your claim that I posted complete junk. What I posted was a model. I exposed every assumption and every piece of data, and I called for review from my peers. (And you, thankfully, have given it.) Maybe together, as a community, we can refine this to come up with something solid to show the devs, to make up for gaps in their testing. I don't have a character on Beta - I wasn't let into the program. I understand that now I can download something or other from Fileplanet to be able to test things out, but I haven't had time to check that out yet. So my only source for the changes on Beta were what the Devs had posted on the matter. If Quickshot can still trigger other procs, that's a good thing, and I'll change the data to reflect it. But don't diss me for a reasonable interpretation of the devs' comments.<blockquote><hr size="2" width="100%"><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><hr size="2" width="100%"></blockquote><p>There are no macros in the spreadsheet. It's all straight calcs in the cells.</p><p></p><div></div>
MagicWand
02-16-2006, 09:51 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>zitha wrote:<div></div><p>Mathematical models are nice to play with, but yours doesnt seem to reflect real number that are happening in practise. maybe your model is missing some parameter or calculating wrong or maybe some stuff simply isnt doing what we suppose it to do in theory.</p><p><em>My model shows that rangers after the changes will be doing <font color="#ff0000">45%</font> of their current damage.</em></p><p>This indicates that ranger would be going to lose 55% of their damage. Assuming that even after the change ranger will still do some proc damage, just to a lesser amount, lets say 1/5 of what they are procing now, this would mean that currently 70% of ranger damage comes alone from poison and procs if your mathematical model is correct. Which is not the case.</p><p>Your model is flawed.</p><hr></blockquote><p>That is the problem atm, on average rangers are scoring double or triple the DPS of other "Tier 1" classes like wizards, wizards, with the assassin coming in 2nd place which is about 100-200DPS (more if jousting is involved) lower then the rangers.</p><p>All Tier 1 classes should be around the same in damage dealing. Give a ranger a very common Imbued/Poisoned Ironwood Bow, and he will blow away anything in DPS parse, even assassins with t6 fable weapons. There's nothing wrong with that? Plus the fact that some guilds are using 5+ rangers in raids and basically trivalization some high end encounters is idiotic. So people that say why not bring everyone else up to par with rangers do not see how this will effect the game itself. Making most all Raid content way to easy. </p><p>This is EQ2 not WoW where everything is almost handed to you. </p>
Kenazeer
02-16-2006, 09:59 PM
<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span>Second, during CAs, I'm guessing (speculating, hypothesizing) that the chance to proc per CA will be the % listed, such as 20% chance to Proc with poisons per CA. Assuming that you guys proc poison off of 4 of every 5 CAs (which you probably don't), that's a 75% (You're hitting them 3/4 less) nerf to your poison proc damage.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><div>It was stated that the delay to be used was the delay of the spell/CA. Just FYI. So as a Swashy using a .5 casting CA, one could expect a (0.5/3)*25%=4.2% chance for poison to proc on that CA.</div><div> </div><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:47 AM</span></p>
Kenazeer
02-16-2006, 10:33 PM
<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). <font color="#ffff00">Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><div>You may want to check the cast times on your CAs, run through the calcualtions to determine what your % poison procs will be on CAs, then come back. Using 1.5 delay weapons as a Swashy you will see a 3X decrease in the number of poison procs when a .5 cast CA is used.</div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:46 AM</span></p>
<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). <font color="#ffff00">Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><div>You may want to check the cast times on your CAs, run through the calcualtions to determine what your % poison procs will be on CAs, then come back. Using 1.5 delay weapons as a Swashy you will an order of magnitude(well 7 times less) decrease in the number of poison procs when a .2 cast CA is used.</div><div> edited to clarfiy that it really wasnt 10x but 7x</div><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:35 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Cool, thank you for the correction.</span><div></div>
Blackguard
02-16-2006, 10:49 PM
If 55% of Ranger damage is based on procs, there's more that needs to be fixed. <div></div>
Prandtl
02-16-2006, 10:52 PM
<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>Then perhaps you should look at your data more closely. I parse every fight I participate in and my damage ranges from 40% up to 60% coming from procs.
Rijacki
02-16-2006, 10:55 PM
<div><span><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>Why does that scare me?Fixed? as in give them more damage not dependent solely procs or reduce procs even more so their damage output is not primarly procs.. or both.</span></div>
Prandtl
02-16-2006, 10:58 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>MagicWand wrote:<div></div><p>That is the problem atm, on average rangers are scoring double or triple the DPS of other "Tier 1" classes like wizards, wizards, with the assassin coming in 2nd place which is about 100-200DPS (more if jousting is involved) lower then the rangers.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Lets see..... <dusting off that old calculus book> Lets assume wizzies, warlocks, and assasins are doing the same damage</p><p>Rangers are doing 3X the damage of other T1 classes. And are doing 200 dps more then them as well.</p><p>3X = X + 200</p><p>ya'll are doing 100dps? your right, that is pretty pathetic</p><p>/sarcasm off</p><p>Seriously. Dont come in here bashing somebodys model when your own numbers dont add up. Bring some acceptable data to the table or watch from the wings like a good fanboi</p>
<div></div><p>Ranger offer no buffs and no utility to speak of.</p><p>This should be factored when comparing DPS with other classes.</p><p> </p>
this is very true for rogues too, i can always notice when i dont have my poison buffed <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><div></div>
smoody
02-16-2006, 11:03 PM
<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>Then there is more that needs to be fixed. I rarely see my damage from procs fall below 40%. At times, I have seen it as high as 53%.
Kenazeer
02-16-2006, 11:04 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected? Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). <font color="#ffff00">Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</font></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><div>You may want to check the cast times on your CAs, run through the calcualtions to determine what your % poison procs will be on CAs, then come back. Using 1.5 delay weapons as a Swashy you will an order of magnitude(well 7 times less) decrease in the number of poison procs when a .2 cast CA is used.</div><div> edited to clarfiy that it really wasnt 10x but 7x</div><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:35 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Cool, thank you for the correction.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><div>Just FYI. I couldnt remember how fast the cast times were on all our CAs, and since my server was being merged yesterday I couldn't check. I remembered that at least one was 0.2, but It seems that most of our CAs are 0.5 second, so the effect would be a decrease from a 12.5% chance with a 1.5 delay weapon to a 4.2% chance with a .5 cast CA. Still significant in my book, but a bit better than I originally posted. Just didnt want that disinformation to propagate any further.</div><div> </div>
Domyr Farseeker
02-16-2006, 11:07 PM
<div></div><p>The % damage ranges posted here by other Rangers is perfectly in line with my own parses....roughly 40% poisons, another 10-20% from Quick shot and bow/melee procs. To come in here and claim it's unrealistic just means you don't know jack about where Ranger damage comes from. Our slow-wield bow combined with multi-arrow CA shots combine for a huge amount of proc damage.</p><p>They aren't just changing the <em>number</em> of procs we get from multi-shot CA's, their changing the <em>chance to proc</em> when using our CA's as well. Very little damage (melee or proc) are a result of our auto attacks - the rate of fire on our bows is just too slow to add up. The vast majority of our procs come from hits from our CA's (specifically from multi-arrow CA's), with a high probability of generating one or more poison/imbue/buff/stance proc.</p><p>If you understand the mechanics of how Rangers are achieving their dps range, you'd easily be able to see why these changes affect us so heavily. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it coming. The numbers coming in from the people testing these changes in beta just verify the logic and common sense behind the theoretical assumptions some of us are making. If these changes go live as is, Rangers will no longer be tier 1 dps....by a long shot. That's not theory - the numbers are playing out on Beta right now.</p><p>When people claim parses with Rangers doing 3000+ dps, they're not reflecting average rangers in average situations. They're demonstrating that in a well-balanced group or raid situation it's possible to buff a Ranger to a point where they are overpowering. They are not achieving these numbers solo or in small pick up groups. Maybe the real problem isn't proc rates, maybe it's the way group dynamics are working. It's much easier to buff up a ranger with INT and STR and place some damage shield-type buffs on him to take advantage of his high % to proc than it is a Warlock for example. Maybe SOE should think about nerfing some of the group utility provided by other classes, capping buffs, or more equally spreading buff capabilities to equalize raid situations rather than nerfing Rangers across the board into Tier 3.</p><p>I really don't understand the logic behind the change, either. My multi-shot CA's use multiple arrows, why shouldn't every arrow allow for a chance to proc my poison? If the CA fires arrows from my quiver, it uses my bow to shoot them....so why shouldn't the proc calculations be based on my bow?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
myrii
02-16-2006, 11:09 PM
<div><span><blockquote><hr>SunTsu wrote:<div></div><p>Ranger offer no buffs and no utility to speak of.</p><p>This should be factored when comparing DPS with other classes.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>try being a warlock</span></div>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 11:12 PM
<div></div>My g/f (who is far from being a great gamer... she was a preppy till she met me, now she games almost as much as me... Im a bad influence) plays a warlock and quite literally owns with it. Warlocks seem to me as a great class.
Domyr Farseeker
02-16-2006, 11:13 PM
<div>I<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>If you guys are making changes like this without knowing that little tidbit of info, I'm /boggled. 40% dps from poisons is standard practice and should show up in any parse from any group with a decent Ranger. I can understand many non-rangers not recognizing quick shot or a weapons/armor imbues as proc'd damage, but the dev's should have this info BEEEFFFOOORRREEEE!!!!! making changes like the one on beta right now.</div>
ChaosUndivided
02-16-2006, 11:14 PM
<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>Not to be cynical BG, but with all your fancy "4000dps Graph's" and Server data. How come it took 18months to figure this out? And how come the change is going in 6 days before the expansion so that adequate testing could not be done.</p><p>ALL it would have taken is to ask a Ranger where his damage came from 6 months ago, It was no secret we were top DPS, how come you guys act so clueless about it?</p>
Racmo
02-16-2006, 11:14 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If 55% of Ranger damage is based on procs, there's more that needs to be fixed.<font color="#999999">Ryan "Blackguard" Shwayde------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm surprised at this. That you don't know the facts around rangers procs and poisons. I run a DPS parser on every fight I have. My poison procs ONLY account for 38-53% on every fight...that's poison ALONE. True, I'm only level 40 atm, but there are no "new" things in EQ, just upgrades. It still operates the same. Tack on my bow and personal proc and consistently procs count for more than 50% easily verifiable. More on many occasions.Poisons are the single largest contributor to ranger's DPS as it stands right now. Please tell me you knew this, because from your statement above it doesn't seem like it.Tobi</font><div></div>
MilkToa
02-16-2006, 11:16 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>SunTsu wrote:<div></div><p>Ranger offer no buffs and no utility to speak of.</p><p>This should be factored when comparing DPS with other classes.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>From my perspective, this is true for all sorcerers and predators, which is why the'yre suppose to be T1 damage.</p><p> </p>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 11:17 PM
<div>Someone please post a log where their procs come out being about 50% of their damage, +/- 10%.... I have played a ranger since day 1 and there have been times i didnt put poison on(because of a forgetful nature), and still owned. It makes me want to go home right now, play my ranger, and see the change in the actual numbers of my DPS without poison then with poison.</div>
Kenazeer
02-16-2006, 11:18 PM
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Rijacki wrote:<div><span><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>Why does that scare me?Fixed? as in give them more damage not dependent solely procs or reduce procs even more so their damage output is not primarly procs.. or both.</span></div><hr></blockquote><div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><div>God, I have been more aggravated over the last few weeks than at any time I can recently remember.</div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by Kenazeer on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:19 AM</span></p>
ForgottenFoundling
02-16-2006, 11:19 PM
<div>It's funny that BG is touting 4k dps around like it's this monumental figure when other classes have easily surpassed that number in select encounters.</div>
Sirlutt
02-16-2006, 11:24 PM
<div><span><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>what do you mean "if" ?... you guys should KNOW that a large part fo the rangers DPs comes from procs.. be they poison, or our frenzy, or our imbued bows.... and you should KNOW its this way because of the large weapon speed of the bows.You should then also KNOW that many ranger bow arts are short(ish) casting.. and switching to a model that only procs off the art once, and more importantly uses the art casting time to calculate the chance is going to affect them ALOT ..As a ranger i dont object to reducing our DPS.. its been coming for a while.. i DO object to you half a55ing it because your not fully understanding how rangers are getting their DPS... procs are a large part of our damage .. so if your going to change how that works completely then at least give us some numbers to back it up.Show us your data for rangers now, get us some solid data to say, you know what heres a ranger fighting a white ^^^ and heres the break down of his damage. Heres how much he procs, and how much its for.. and oh we did this 300 times.Then do the same thing with the data for your changes, and show us that. I am willing to bet that the "4000 DPS" you see if for a lucky strike with one or 2 very long refreshing abilities.. but either way show us some [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] data.coming in ehre and telling us that if we do get 55% of our damage from procs then alot more is broken makes me think you actually have no [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] idea whats going on.. and i am really hoping this isnt the case.. you guys should have statistical models coming out the ying yang on this stuff.</span></div>
WAPCE
02-16-2006, 11:25 PM
<blockquote><hr>SunTsu wrote:<div></div><p>Ranger offer no buffs and no utility to speak of.</p><p>This should be factored when comparing DPS with other classes.</p><p></p><hr></blockquote>It should be, but it won't. If the plight of the Guardians and Templars has taught us anything, it's that the only balance that matters is healing among priests, tanking among fighters, and DPS among scouts and mages. All abilities that are secondary and tertiary to those classes go completely out the window with regards to balance.
Yrield
02-16-2006, 11:26 PM
<span><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>Do we have your word on this one ? : <b>Ranger will be <u>Tier1</u> DPS when LU20 go live ?</b>Im not looking forward to be fixed in LU25 or whatever, the "nerf now, fix later" attitude wont cut it this time...</span><div></div>
DarkLegacy2005
02-16-2006, 11:27 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>ForgottenFoundling wrote:<div>It's funny that BG is touting 4k dps around like it's this monumental figure when other classes have easily surpassed that number in select encounters.</div><hr></blockquote>maybe his way of figuring DPS is different from our parsers... they probably have access to a lot better information.
Sirlutt
02-16-2006, 11:32 PM
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:I think it's not small, but it's also not massive. They're not changing that much, in fact if people had the correct information before posting bull[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] like the OP did. Ranger DPS is NOT dropping by 45%, in reality it's dropping by more like 10-15%, it isn't that large.<hr></blockquote>heres a couple of facts for you.. about 40% or more (its situational) of a rangers damage is from poison... about 20% is from our offensive stance procs, and about 3-5% from the weapon procs... this isnt conjecture or speculation its been parsed alot of times.. whether its how it should be or not, that data substantiates this.When doing melee, these numbers drop considerably..the changes will reduce the amount of poison damage to similar to that on our melee skills (about 15%) and to about 5% for the frenzy.. its a very real drop of 50% ish DPS for the damage coming from procs. Its going to be felt very hard and place rangers much lower on the damage totem than most people realise..as a ranger.. i dont think poison should make that much of my damage.. and i can agree with the proc changes .. however what scares me is the devs aparent lack of understanding of where ranger DPS comes from.. call it bugs.. call it Rangers expliting their slow bows (As Moorguard did).. what ever you like.. they see high numbers but dont fully understand why.. that means their changes will not address the issue entirely, or actualyl will address the issue more thoroughly than intended..if they are going to dramaticly reduce the amount of damage from poisons and procs.. they need to increase the damage the combat arts do, or the damage the autoattack for bows do.personally i think instead of nerfing across the board.. adjust bows and make procs only proc once per CA .. cut the bow speed to make it proc less.. lowe the auto attack damage if you like so that the faster auto attack doesnt increase DPS.</span></div>
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Bayler_xev wrote:Mathematical model of ranger damage before and after proposed proc changes<b>SYNOPSIS</b>:There are changes on the beta server that greatly reduce the procing oportunities available to rangers. While ranger damage output could certainly use some tuning, I believe that these changes will have a far more damaging effect than intended. I constructed a spreadsheet to model the (rather complex) damage output done by rangers in the current system and the proposed new system being tested. This post is a discussion of my findings and methodology.The spreadsheet containing my data model is here:<a target="_blank" href="http://home.comcast.net/%7Eshader_eq2/ranger_damage_model.xls">http://home.comcast.net/~shader_eq2/ranger_damage_model.xls</a>My model shows that rangers after the changes will be doing <font color="#ff0000">45%</font> of their current damage.<hr></blockquote><p>I did a rougher version of the same calculation, and came up with about the same answer. This also agrees with the feedback from players in beta.</p><p>The sequence Combat Art -> Quick Shot -> Poison changes from 70% x 58% = 41% chance to proc poison, down to 30% x 25% = 7.5%. That's just one illustration of how this nerf is much bigger than it at first appears. </p><p>Blackguard says that Ranger damage parses from beta put them right in the tier 1 dps range. Yes, probably about right. On raids, Rangers right now can typically do twice as much damage as Wizards.</p><p>Rangers, the new Wizards <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p> </p><p>Message Edited by KdBoy on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:43 AM</span></p>
MoonglumHMV
02-16-2006, 11:38 PM
<div></div><div>edited - see next post</div><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:51 PM</span></p>
MoonglumHMV
02-16-2006, 11:38 PM
<div></div><div></div><div>Quick Shot 825 75.00 25%pierce 340 56.67 10%Hidden Shot 734 0.00 23%Flaming Shot 273 0.00 8%declining periodic poison 1080 98.18 33%All 3252 295.64 58% of damage from procs (Quick Shot & poison)</div><div> </div><div>Wounding Arrow 254 0.00 5%Sniping Shot 511 0.00 11%slash 195 16.25 4%Rip 220 0.00 5%Ringing Blow 124 0.00 3%Quick Shot 495 61.88 10%pierce 176 7.33 4%Lunging Thrust 129 32.25 3%Lightning Strike 254 23.09 5%Leaping Cut 183 22.88 4%Gleaming Strike 83 0.00 2%Flaming Shot 282 0.00 6%declining periodic poison 1818 72.72 38%All 4724 174.96 50% of damage from procs (Quick Shot, gleaming, poison)</div><div> </div><div>Triple Shot 416 0.00 13%Quick Shot 660 660.00 20%pierce 135 0.00 4%Lightning Strike 133 0.00 4%Gleaming Strike 181 0.00 5%Flaming Shot 276 0.00 8%declining periodic poison 1512 1,512.00 46%All 3313 828.25 71% of damage from procs (Quick Shot, gleaming, poison)</div><div> </div><div>These are just 3 examples from fights as a level 33 vs 33&34^ orcs in Zek up northwest by the green hood area, with normal player made poison, master 1 CA's, legendary imbued bow.</div><div> </div><div>I have many more if you want a bigger sample.</div><div> </div><div>Editing - stupid tab...will finish the post in a sec...</div><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:38 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:50 PM</span></p>
<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>You mean like a 50% compensatory increase to all our non-proc damage? Yes, I agree.
<div><span><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>You're "just now" realizing that?!?!?!?!?!D'Oh! <span>:smileysad:</span></span></div>
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:If 55% of Ranger damage is based on procs, <strong>there's more that needs to be fixed.</strong><div></div><hr></blockquote>Indeed, there is, and only 5 more days until launch. Much easier to nerf than to fix the issue, neh? Let's see those programers tapdance!
Domyr Farseeker
02-17-2006, 12:14 AM
<div></div>They'll probably just lower the proc rates further, roll it out to the live servers and monitor the situation for 5 or 6 months.
Niuan
02-17-2006, 12:17 AM
<div></div><p>Triple Fire 00:00 538 0.00 179.33 Trick Shot 00:00 196 0.00 196.00 Survival of the Fittest 00:00 96 0.00 48.00 Sniping Shot 00:00 607 0.00 607.00 slash 00:00 0 0.00 NaN Quick Shot 00:33 1611 48.82 201.38 pierce 00:32 314 9.81 78.50 periodic poison 00:33 3295 99.85 131.80 Killing 00:00 0 0.00 NaN Gleaming Strike 00:00 181 0.00 181.00 Flaming Shot 00:00 134 0.00 67.00 Divine Strike 00:25 247 9.88 61.75 Deadly Reminder 00:00 79 0.00 39.50 Crippling Blade 00:00 483 0.00 483.00 All 00:33 7781 235.79 144.09</p><p>Typical fight in CT parsings tripple up grouped quick parse total procs 44% with Gleaming strike in with poisons.</p><p>** Special Note ** this is NOT with legendary high DD poisons that would boos periodic poison damage up at least 5 - 10%</p><p> </p>
Memory
02-17-2006, 12:19 AM
<span><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>[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] right. then come and visit us on beta server to actually see what you did to us and other classes.if ya got the time for tours, take ya time for balancing <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span><div></div>
Fennir
02-17-2006, 12:22 AM
<div></div><div><span><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>I made this picture just to give you a general idea of how much we rely on procs. These are common T6 raid fights.I am using Translucent Adeste's Disruption poison. There is no rogue debuffing resistances on this raid.These combat arts are at master 1:Archer's Frenzy (offensive proc stance, shows up as Quick Shot on the parse)Triple ArrowPrecise ShotSnaring ShotStealthy Fire (Master II)Debilitating ArrowCulling the WeakAncient Venom is my Valian Bow's 12% attack proc. 6% of my damage alone sometimes!<img src="http://www.improvmasta.org/eq2/procs.jpg">Without my procs, I would have been outdamaged by a monk on that last one. Naturally, I won't be completely procless after LU#20, but with normalization, it will be a great deal less.What I'm most concerned with is not the raw number at the end, but how it compares to other classes that I am supposed to be competing with in my DPS tier.I can suggest a few things to adjust to better suit the proc changes:1. Lower the recast on our only green AOE, Storm of Arrows. It is currently 3 minutes. 1.5 minutes would be much better.2. Lower the recast on the Triple line. This will no longer be proc crazy, and as such will be a lot less useful with a recast of 1m. 30 seconds would be more appropriate.3. Increase the duration on Focus Fire or make it a super offensive stance conc buff. It would be nice to be able to completely give up our melee ability to have a much faster autoattack in between CAs. If not a conc-buff, maybe a 36s duration on Focus Fire instead of the current 10s. 10s is a joke.4. LET US FINISH HEROIC OPPORTUNITIES WITH OUR BOW SHOTS. Our main 10 (yes ten) attacks do absolutely nothing to spin HOs. That seems wrong to me, especially considering we will need them more after LU#20.I'm sure there are other suggestions that may be better but those are the best I could come up with off the top of my head.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Fennir on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:24 PM</span></p>
Lexan
02-17-2006, 12:23 AM
<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>Did you seriously just type that? I mean what game do you play????
<div></div>For the assassins in this thread: procs behave VERY differently between melee based attackers who's proc rate is based off of dual wield weapons (low %, good CAs somewhat make up for this) and Rangers who have a 7.0s delay long bow. I too parse all the time (even wrote my own parser) and procs did make up a minimum of 40% of my DPS in solo play and 50-55% in raid play. This was due to the fact that like all good rangers of the time I collected T5 proc gear + prismatic. Please take time to learn some background of the game mechanics and realize that if you cut the proc rate down to being based on the casting time of the CA ranger DPS will drop by 40-50%.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Smirk on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:31 AM</span></p>
KirikaNo
02-17-2006, 12:26 AM
<div>Hey Rangers...</div><div> </div><div>They're not giving you a complete procectomy. They're lowering your procs. Instead of procs/poisons being 50+% of your damage, it will now be 15-20% of your damage... like Assassins. I estimate after the proc changes Rangers will do about 70% of the damage they are currently doing on a consistant basis. This will put them right in line with Assassins. Conjurors will be able to spike significantly higher given certain circumstances. Sorcerers need love.</div>
mochl
02-17-2006, 12:27 AM
<div><span><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>Then you guys need to get to work.Not sure about 55%, but at least 40% of my Ranger's dps came from poison procs on last night's raid. Only about 5% came from the Gleaming Strike proc. So thats 45% of my DPS that came from procs. My ranger doesnt get to raid that often but when i do, im almost always top DPS. However i can show you more than a few parses where my ranger going all out was almost beaten by a Swashbuckler (who only saw 12% of his damage come from Declining Periodic Poison compared to my Ranger's 40% in last night's Lockjaw raid).Why does poison even HAVE to proc? Did i not dip the arrow in the poison? Maybe poison should go off every attack. Poison would have course need to be adjusted in more ways than one (lower damage, cheaper production costs etc).</span></div>
<div>I understand them trying to fix the disparity because of raiding and pvp but if they do this what happnes to the rangers' solo ability.Will it totally kill it ? I mean all classes can solo how will rangers be able to solo after you take away 55% of their damage .Will this not affect a large portion of those still levelling and reflect badly on those who are trying to try the game again after all the soloing changes made to attract players back.</div><div> </div><div>How will this encourage the players who are returning to play EQ II ?</div>
Carna
02-17-2006, 12:29 AM
<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>Mate, this statement and others like it are why people are screaming at you over this round of changes. It really is blatantly obvious to us than on this issue and several other issues, you simply do not undersand the mechanics involved.</p><p>We do.</p><p>You might want to actually listen to us before you sledgehammer anything else, because this update has sledgehammer dents all over it.</p><p>Realley mate. This isn't about flaming you, it's about trying to make you understand you're flying blind.</p><p>Having discovered Rangers were doing so much damage, all you had to do was post under a fake name in the Ranger forum "Where does most Ranger damage come from?"... and you'd of had a detailed breakdown. I don't know who's responsible on your team for knowing that 55% of Ranger damage comes from procs, but we all knew. You might want to go back to that person "who knows" and reexamine what they've been asserting. Chances are they know as much about other aspects of game mechanic as they do the source of Ranger damage.</p><p>You <strong>have</strong> to have geeks around that know this stuff, I can't believe you don't. Is the right information actually filtering up from the grassroots in your team?</p>
Domyr Farseeker
02-17-2006, 12:39 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>KirikaNoir wrote:<div>Hey Rangers...</div><div> </div><div>They're not giving you a complete procectomy. They're lowering your procs. Instead of procs/poisons being 50+% of your damage, it will now be 15-20% of your damage... like Assassins. I estimate after the proc changes Rangers will do about 70% of the damage they are currently doing on a consistant basis. This will put them right in line with Assassins. Conjurors will be able to spike significantly higher given certain circumstances. Sorcerers need love.</div><hr></blockquote>Where exactly did the increase in non-proc'd damage come from then, professor??? The parses and comments coming from the people on beta who are actually testing these changes reflect a much larger scale nerf than just knocking us down to 70% of of current damage. They didn't balance the source of where our dps comes from, they just eliminated some of it (a LOT of it).
Blackguard
02-17-2006, 12:40 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div> <div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</span><div></div>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 12:41 AM
<blockquote><hr>Domyr Farseeker wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>KirikaNoir wrote:<div>Hey Rangers...</div><div> </div><div>They're not giving you a complete procectomy. They're lowering your procs. Instead of procs/poisons being 50+% of your damage, it will now be 15-20% of your damage... like Assassins. I estimate after the proc changes Rangers will do about 70% of the damage they are currently doing on a consistant basis. This will put them right in line with Assassins. Conjurors will be able to spike significantly higher given certain circumstances. Sorcerers need love.</div><hr></blockquote>Where exactly did the increase in non-proc'd damage come from then, professor??? The parses and comments coming from the people on beta who are actually testing these changes reflect a much larger scale nerf than just knocking us down to 70% of of current damage. They didn't balance the source of where our dps comes from, they just eliminated some of it (a LOT of it).<hr></blockquote><p>I agree with ya 10000 percent...</p><p>Ive said it before I will say it again... Procs are to rangers like pets are to necros. Could you imagine a petless necro trying to solo? That is what we are like in beta right now.</p>
TwistedFaith
02-17-2006, 12:44 AM
<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>Ok I just logged off from the beta after my first taste of SoE's Ranger balance to find this post by Blackguard. Quite frankly i'm shocked that you didnt have any idea to what extent procs work for rangers.</p><p>Is it any wonder that players have so little faith in promises of 'we'll look into it' and 'working as intended'</p><p>This pictures says more than I could ever say.</p><p><img src="http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2842/dmggraph5my.jpg"></p><p>Now onto my first taste of the rangers in beta.</p><p>Quite frankly i'm appaled at the difference in class on beta and that on live servers. It really is a completely nerfed class, there's no two ways about it. Soloing is just terrible. Mobs are beaming towards us after 1 bow shot, most completely ignored my trap, so fight becomes the following:</p><p>1. Start with a bow shot</p><p>2. Mobs gets in your face if he doesnt hit the trap (trap has to be used in all fights)</p><p>3. 1/2mins of melee, getting stunned (mob stunned me three times in 20 secs) and just hoping that you can survive.</p><p>I tried numerous mobs:</p><p>lvl 57 solo - won in yellow</p><p>lvl 59 solo - [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] handed to me when the trap didnt stop them</p><p>lvl 60 solo ^ - dead</p><p>lvl 63 solo ^ - dead</p><p>So basically the ranger class is now a mixture of a severely underpowered mage with no root or a awful assasin with 3 melee skills.</p><p>This is COMPLETELY different than what is on live atm, I cannot stress this enough, it really is like playing a new class and in fact is joke.</p><p>One other thing that i'd like to mention, the PVP beta forums make for VERY interesting reading in terms of the complaints. There is a HUGE amount of nerf ranger posts all over the forums, makes me wonder about these changes and why they were implemented.</p>
Domyr Farseeker
02-17-2006, 12:45 AM
<div></div><blockquote><p>I agree with ya 10000 percent...</p><p>Ive said it before I will say it again... Procs are to rangers like pets are to necros. Could you imagine a petless necro trying to solo? That is what we are like in beta right now.</p><hr></blockquote>I hear ya....I have a conjuror, too. I don't like what I see coming out of beta for her, either.
<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Blackguard wrote:<span></span></p><p><span>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</p></span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Just please start looking quickly. I know you guys are swamped with KoS deadlines looming but nerfing something down then tweaking other things up when a 55% value is involved get very very tiresome on the players.</p><p>I myself have been talking to my guildmates and the universal thing I hear is something along the lines of "I wish EQ2 didn't feel like a totaly different game every time they release an expansion." I understand the idea of trying to make your players happy and trying to make it more fun for people, but big sweeping changes can get tiresome on the player population after a while.</p>
Racmo
02-17-2006, 12:48 AM
Mr. Blackguard------------------<span>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).-----------------I appreciate your candor on this. Just ask them. "Rangers are saying poisons and procs account for 45-60% of their DPS. After this change, what is the percentage dps that procs will account for?" The changes being, only procs on the first hit of a CA AND the new formula for calculating proc percent chance.IIf the plan is to reduce our DPS to 70% of what it was is balanced then the answer to the above question can't be less than 15-30%.Tobi</span><div></div>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Domyr Farseeker wrote:<div></div><blockquote><p>I agree with ya 10000 percent...</p><p>Ive said it before I will say it again... <b>Procs are to rangers like pets are to necros</b>. Could you imagine a petless necro trying to solo? That is what we are like in beta right now.</p><hr></blockquote>I hear ya....I have a conjuror, too. I don't like what I see coming out of beta for her, either.<hr></blockquote>Domyr sure nailed it...speaking as a Ranger AND necro...</span></div>
Yrield
02-17-2006, 12:56 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons,<b> and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</b></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Thats exactly what rangers want, but we want to be <b>High up in the damage spectrum when LU20 go LIVE, NOT IN LU25 or so</b>.</span><div></div>
<div></div><p>I cannot understand this line of thought at all. You say if 55% of the ranger's damage is coming soleley because of poisons how can you make these changes without realising how much of an impact it will create. If you have no idea about this loss why are you nerfing then ? What measure have you taken to bring up the remaining damage ? How do you expect the ranger community to sit back and calmly accept this 55% loss with no compensation ? Do you honestly suppose we have built up our characters to be destroyed like this and then to calmly wait while you gather the numbers.</p><p> </p><p> </p>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote><b>I don't balance the game. </b>That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that <b>if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more.</b> It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>No you don't. Evidently the Mechanics Team doesn't either. It's that, or they really are "mechanics", and not coders...Here's a thought you may find revolutionary...<u><b>If you don't have the time to do it right the first time, how are you ever going to have time to go back and fix it?</b></u></span></div>
Erendil
02-17-2006, 12:59 AM
<div></div><p> </p><blockquote><hr>KirikaNoir wrote:<div>Hey Rangers...</div><div> </div><div> Instead of procs/poisons being 50+% of your damage, it will now be 15-20% of your damage... like Assassins. I estimate after the proc changes Rangers will do about 70% of the damage they are currently doing on a consistant basis. <hr></div></blockquote><p> </p><p>If every single ranger CA was a 1 shot 3 second proc then the decrease in proc damage would be:</p><p> 7 (old weapon delay) - 3(CA delay)/7 (old weapon delay)=4/7= a 57.1% decrease in proc damage for all procs</p><p> </p><p>However, with multi shot attacks where the 2nd and 3rd etc shots dont even proc, that becomes much more drastic.lets say triple shot has a 3 second delay(I'm not at home, so making the assumption) the proc damage goes from</p><p>7/3*.25*417 =243 dmg from posion on average, 7/3*.3*279=195.3 from Quick shot on average, 7/3*.05*223=26 from gleaming on average. add these together and multiple by 3 and this is roughly what you will see on live - when all 3 arrows hit =<strong>1393 damage from procs</strong></p><p><strong>Beta version -</strong>3/3*.25*417=104 for poison, 3/3*.3*279=83.7 from quick shot, 3/3*.05*223=11.15 from Gleaming for the first and only the first arrow, = <strong>198.8 proc damage total</strong></p><p>With Stream of Arrows, it gets worse...10 arrows with a 1.5 sec delay for each...and the last 9 not proccing under the new sysytem- <strong> Avg pois/arrow Avg QS/arrow AVG GS/arrow total proc dmg/arrow total damageold 243.25 195.3 26 464.6 4646 (assuming all ten hit)new 52.1 41.9 5.6 99.6 99.6</strong></p><p>Maybe its me, But those numbers look <strong>HUGE</strong></p><p>Steadfast- 60 Ranger, ToxxuliaVentrous- 55 Guardian, ToxxuliaGuild Leader- Gold and Glory</p>
IllusiveThoughts
02-17-2006, 01:02 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div></div><div><span><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>I made this picture just to give you a general idea of how much we rely on procs. These are common T6 raid fights.I am using Translucent Adeste's Disruption poison. There is no rogue debuffing resistances on this raid.These combat arts are at master 1:Archer's Frenzy (offensive proc stance, shows up as Quick Shot on the parse)Triple ArrowPrecise ShotSnaring ShotStealthy Fire (Master II)Debilitating ArrowCulling the WeakAncient Venom is my Valian Bow's 12% attack proc. 6% of my damage alone sometimes!Without my procs, I would have been outdamaged by a monk on that last one. Naturally, I won't be completely procless after LU#20, but with normalization, it will be a great deal less.What I'm most concerned with is not the raw number at the end, but how it compares to other classes that I am supposed to be competing with in my DPS tier.I can suggest a few things to adjust to better suit the proc changes:1. Lower the recast on our only green AOE, Storm of Arrows. It is currently 3 minutes. 1.5 minutes would be much better.2. Lower the recast on the Triple line. This will no longer be proc crazy, and as such will be a lot less useful with a recast of 1m. 30 seconds would be more appropriate.3. Increase the duration on Focus Fire or make it a super offensive stance conc buff. It would be nice to be able to completely give up our melee ability to have a much faster autoattack in between CAs. If not a conc-buff, maybe a 36s duration on Focus Fire instead of the current 10s. 10s is a joke.4. LET US FINISH HEROIC OPPORTUNITIES WITH OUR BOW SHOTS. Our main 10 (yes ten) attacks do absolutely nothing to spin HOs. That seems wrong to me, especially considering we will need them more after LU#20.I'm sure there are other suggestions that may be better but those are the best I could come up with off the top of my head.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Fennir on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:24 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>this is a knee jerk reaction with out actually testing it. What I do not see is anyone with proc damage % on live, comparing the proc damage % on beta.</p><p>What I do see is people on live posting very high proc %'s and then removing that amount from their dps altogether.</p><p>What you have to remember is that they didn't completely remove your chance to proc. They just took away extra procs that you were still getting, especially on multiple attack ca's.</p><p>Much like the assasin said about bringing you down to be in balance with their dps because they dont receive such a large number of *bonus* procs because their ca's are mostly 1 hit ca's</p>
There still have been no word on how this will effect spell rpocs and both spell and CA AE procs, yes i know the question is beign completely avoided by any dev.<div></div>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:If 55% of Ranger damage is based on procs, there's more that needs to be fixed.<hr></blockquote>I made this picture just to give you a general idea of how much we rely on procs. These are common T6 raid fights.I am using Translucent Adeste's Disruption poison. There is no rogue debuffing resistances on this raid.These combat arts are at master 1:Archer's Frenzy (offensive proc stance, shows up as Quick Shot on the parse)Triple ArrowPrecise ShotSnaring ShotStealthy Fire (Master II)Debilitating ArrowCulling the WeakAncient Venom is my Valian Bow's 12% attack proc. 6% of my damage alone sometimes!Without my procs, I would have been outdamaged by a monk on that last one. Naturally, I won't be completely procless after LU#20, but with normalization, it will be a great deal less.What I'm most concerned with is not the raw number at the end, but how it compares to other classes that I am supposed to be competing with in my DPS tier.I can suggest a few things to adjust to better suit the proc changes:1. Lower the recast on our only green AOE, Storm of Arrows. It is currently 3 minutes. 1.5 minutes would be much better.2. Lower the recast on the Triple line. This will no longer be proc crazy, and as such will be a lot less useful with a recast of 1m. 30 seconds would be more appropriate.3. Increase the duration on Focus Fire or make it a super offensive stance conc buff. It would be nice to be able to completely give up our melee ability to have a much faster autoattack in between CAs. If not a conc-buff, maybe a 36s duration on Focus Fire instead of the current 10s. 10s is a joke.4. LET US FINISH HEROIC OPPORTUNITIES WITH OUR BOW SHOTS. Our main 10 (yes ten) attacks do absolutely nothing to spin HOs. That seems wrong to me, especially considering we will need them more after LU#20.I'm sure there are other suggestions that may be better but those are the best I could come up with off the top of my head.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Fennir on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:24 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>this is a knee jerk reaction with out actually testing it. What I do not see is anyone with proc damage % on live, comparing the proc damage % on beta.</p><p>What I do see is people on live posting very high proc %'s and then removing that amount from their dps altogether.</p><p>What you have to remember is that they didn't completely remove your chance to proc. They just took away extra procs that you were still getting, especially on multiple attack ca's.</p><p>Much like the assasin said about bringing you down to be in balance with their dps because they dont receive such a large number of *bonus* procs because their ca's are mostly 1 hit ca's</p><hr></blockquote>The only knee-jerk reaction is your post</span><span>"<b>If 55% of Ranger damage is based on procs, there's more that needs to be fixed.</b>"That was what the pie chart addressed. Show me where BG qualified that statement to mean "on beta" or "after LU20". Show me.</span></div>
Fennir
02-17-2006, 01:06 AM
<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<p>this is a knee jerk reaction with out actually testing it. What I do not see is anyone with proc damage % on live, comparing the proc damage % on beta.</p><p>What I do see is people on live posting very high proc %'s and then removing that amount from their dps altogether.</p><p>What you have to remember is that they didn't completely remove your chance to proc. They just took away extra procs that you were still getting, especially on multiple attack ca's.</p><p>Much like the assasin said about bringing you down to be in balance with their dps because they dont receive such a large number of *bonus* procs because their ca's are mostly 1 hit ca's</p><hr></blockquote></span></div>You're wrong.If you think the only thing they're changing is the chance to proc on further attacks of multi-hit attacks, you're completely 100% off base and have no understanding of ranger DPS.They are normalizing procs to combat arts. You obviously don't understand the ramifications of this so you should probably refrain from posting on the issue until you do.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Fennir on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:07 PM</span></p>
Kulidan
02-17-2006, 01:13 AM
I suppose I am a bit confused. This entire problem of rangers being far over powered, the recent 4k dps found on beta was a result of AA points. In order to fix this insane dps they adjusted the way procs work for all classes. As a result they have broken the mechanics of rangers dps, and effected other classes as well. Why is it that you could not just redo the AA points so they are still important for rangers, but dont cause this sweeping dps change? It just seems like out of the blue you decided to make this sweeping change.<div></div>
Carna
02-17-2006, 01:14 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<p>What you have to remember is that they didn't completely remove your chance to proc. They just took away extra procs that you were still getting, especially on multiple attack ca's.</p><p>Much like the assasin said about bringing you down to be in balance with their dps because they dont receive such a large number of *bonus* procs because their ca's are mostly 1 hit ca's</p><hr></blockquote><p>You need to go back and reread. You're not understanding the points. It's not about loosing the procs on extra attacks, it's about the chance to proc being drastically reduced on CAs pretty much across the board. In the case of Rangers, you're talking about the chance to proc from a CA being cut to 1/7th, sometimes 1/14th of what it was.... it really is a very significant change. No they wont lose 55% dps. Yes they will lose about 40% dps.</p><p>I'm not a Ranger. I'm just appauled at how blythly SOE can engage in changes like this, followed up by preachy explanations that are founded on ignorance. You can also watch them try and finesse their phrasing so that <font color="#ffff00"><em>"If 55% of Ranger damage is based on procs, there's more that needs to be fixed."</em></font> ....gets turned into... <em><font color="#ffff00">"My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons"</font></em> ...which is very cynical and assumes that you wont notice him redefining his benchmark.</p><p>I resent being "handled" in that manner.</p>
Racmo
02-17-2006, 01:15 AM
IlusiveThoughts.------------------What you have to remember is that they didn't completely remove your chance to proc. They just took away extra procs that you were still getting, especially on multiple attack ca's.------------------Not exactly true. Or the part you stated is true. They are removing procs on multiple attack CAs. What you also missed is that they are changing the formula for calculating the proc chance for that one opportunity to proc...drastically. And of the two, THIS one has the biggest impact.Tobi<div></div>
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 01:17 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>IllusiveThoughts wrote:<div></div><p>this is a knee jerk reaction with out actually testing it. What I do not see is anyone with proc damage % on live, comparing the proc damage % on beta.</p><p>What I do see is people on live posting very high proc %'s <b>and then removing that amount from their dps altogether.</b></p><p>What you have to remember is that they didn't completely remove your chance to proc. They just took away extra procs that you were still getting, especially on multiple attack ca's.</p><p>Much like the assasin said about bringing you down to be in balance with their dps because they dont receive such a large number of *bonus* procs because their ca's are mostly 1 hit ca's</p><hr></blockquote>With all due respect:This was not a knee-jerk reaction. It took me several hours to create the model, input values from in-game, and write up my results in a reasonably clear fasion. I was not shooting from the hip when I made this post.Furthermore, I did *not* remove the proc damage completely. I re-calculated proc rates and the damage they cause, according to the new rules. The whole point of the model was to figure out how much damage we'll be doing, including procs under the new system. I even willing, if you'll look back at the original post, to give the new system the benefit of the doubt and assume that a very-high-DoT poison was constantly in effect when comparing the damage amounts.Some people have posted current data, to demonstrate how much of our damage comes from procs. These are useful additions - a "common sense" check. Some people have posted numbers from live and beta; that's the real test right there. Some people have posted how the game "feels" in beta, which is ultimately the most important factor for an enjoyable game. That's all handy.So far, only *one* person has offered any specific flaws in my model. Later tonight I'll make those changes and recompute the numbers. </span><div></div>
<div><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Like you did on guardians ?</div><div> </div><div>C'mon after lu13 we got maybe 1 post from a dev on guardian forum, but after 6 month you got what you wanted.. most guardians gave up and the forum is quiet now..</div><div> </div><div>Myself got on a ranger to avoid from the fustration of my guardian nerfed and now i get that lol... well shame i will be back to my nerfed dorf.</div><div> </div><div>Honestly right now you should know that ranger dmg comes in a 50% from procs, saying that IN CASE THAT THIS WAS TRUE more things will be needed to look into you are admiting your absolutly lack of knoweledge of the game you control.</div><div> </div><div>By now im sure that anyone using ACT parser knows where every class dps comes off and how will a change affect one or other class.</div><div> </div><div>You maybe need to start using it?</div><div> </div>
Murchik
02-17-2006, 01:19 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Fennir wrote:<div></div><div><span></span></div>You're wrong.If you think the only thing they're changing is the chance to proc on further attacks of multi-hit attacks, you're completely 100% off base and have no understanding of ranger DPS.They are normalizing procs to combat arts. You obviously don't understand the ramifications of this so you should probably refrain from posting on the issue until you do.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Fennir on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:07 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I am not hardcore to a point of a lot of people in this thread and this ranger issue is nothing I want to be involved is, my head hurts as is from work. But I am just stunned for n's time at the soe employees attitude towards issues players address. Attitude "I do not do..." from the person who is the link between players board and devs, who calls himself part of eq2 team? You are all part of one team BG, aren't you? You all want this game to be the best, right? I hope when you come home one day and ask for something from your wife/gf/bf, you will hear the "I do not do that..." response.
KirikaNo
02-17-2006, 01:23 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<blockquote><hr>Domyr Farseeker wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>KirikaNoir wrote:<div>Hey Rangers...</div><div> </div><div>They're not giving you a complete procectomy. They're lowering your procs. Instead of procs/poisons being 50+% of your damage, it will now be 15-20% of your damage... like Assassins. I estimate after the proc changes Rangers will do about 70% of the damage they are currently doing on a consistant basis. This will put them right in line with Assassins. Conjurors will be able to spike significantly higher given certain circumstances. Sorcerers need love.</div><hr></blockquote>Where exactly did the increase in non-proc'd damage come from then, professor??? The parses and comments coming from the people on beta who are actually testing these changes reflect a much larger scale nerf than just knocking us down to 70% of of current damage. They didn't balance the source of where our dps comes from, they just eliminated some of it (a LOT of it).<hr></blockquote><p>I agree with ya 10000 percent...</p><p>Ive said it before I will say it again... Procs are to rangers like pets are to necros. Could you imagine a petless necro trying to solo? That is what we are like in beta right now.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Funny... I don't see anywhere in the Ranger class description any mention of procs. Before LU13 Rangers were yelling "RANGERS ARE ABOUT BOWS!" which I fully agree with. The "RANGERS ARE ABOUT PROCS!" argument is founded only in the precedent that was set up by a buggy mechanic that was left in game by mistake.</p><p>From my experience, Rangers in a raid situation average roughly 1300 DPS. Assassins average probably around 900 or so taking ranged-only fights into consideration. Rangers averaging 400 DPS higher than their "seperate but evil" counterpart is pretty stupid. By toning down the enormous poison damage, the devs will be able to see what kind of DEEPER, FUNDAMENTAL problems there are with Ranger DPS and fix them.</p><p>Wouldn't you like for your bows to have more flavor? Not just "no proc on this one, it's useless" like it is now? Wouldn't you rather have your combat arts tweaked and made more unique and fun rather than the current "press 3 buttons, let the procs work" that Rangers use now?</p><p>Sure this was a nerf, but it was needed. If Rangers don't stack up with Assassins/Wizards/Warlocks after the patch, something will need to be done to fix it, but it's REDICULOUS to say that removing the "proc crutch" from the Ranger class is a bad way for SOE to have gone. All the good Rangers out there will figure out ways to keep their DPS up to speed, all the "flavor of the month" Rangers will move on to the next overpowered class and whine when that gets nerfed.</p><p>C'est la vie.</p>
swang
02-17-2006, 01:27 AM
My model shows that rangers after the changes will be doing <font color="#ff0000">45%</font> of their current damage.Given that Rangers do 3x the DPS of warlocks and wizards, 45% decrease is not enough. I'm sorry that your class is getting nerfed, but you haveto admit that you guys were way out of hand....-Stormwolf<div></div>
TrigunVash
02-17-2006, 01:29 AM
<div>using ACT parser, i found that poison does between 30-35% of our damage on ^^^ white heroic mobs.60 ranger using adestes disruption, couple fabled here and there.</div>
Stormhawk
02-17-2006, 01:29 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:<span>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Then I highly suggest you make an appearance on the Ranger Forums because there is a number of detailed posted about what is going to happen and how much procs truly effect the ranger class. I'd also suggest starting a dialog on the Scout Ability forum in the KoS beta.</span><div></div>
BrickyardRac
02-17-2006, 01:34 AM
<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>How is it that you guys don't know this?
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 01:35 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>TrigunVash wrote:<div>using ACT parser, i found that poison does between 30-35% of our damage on ^^^ white heroic mobs.60 ranger using adestes disruption, couple fabled here and there.</div><hr></blockquote>It's not enough to look just a poison. You'll also need to factor in your offensive stance, bow proc, any other proccing gear, and any group buffs that give procs.</span><div></div>
Cecil_Stri
02-17-2006, 01:40 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>ForgottenFoundling wrote:<div>It's funny that BG is touting 4k dps around like it's this monumental figure when other classes have easily surpassed that number in select encounters.</div><hr></blockquote><p>other classes surpassed that number? HAH</p><p> </p><p>If by select encounter you mean a wizard one shotting a down arrow and the parse doesn't start till the ice comet actually lands... Yeah</p><p> </p><p>that is 4000 damage a second...... which means a fight that would last 30 seconds you mean 120,000 damage.. dream on.. no other class gets this.. and i even have a hard time believeing rangers do</p>
Prandtl
02-17-2006, 01:41 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>swang wrote:My model shows that rangers after the changes will be doing <font color="#ff0000">45%</font> of their current damage.Given that Rangers do<font color="#ff9933"><strong> 3x</strong> </font>the DPS of warlocks and wizards, 45% decrease is not enough. I'm sorry that your class is getting nerfed, but you haveto admit that you guys were way out of hand....-Stormwolf<div></div><hr></blockquote>Check your math
Memory
02-17-2006, 01:41 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=39&message.id=22025look at the graph. take away procs and poison and you take away up to 65% dmg+.FIX US THEN !get a guy from mechanics or whoever is in charge of that things and bring him on beta to see what rangers suck like.take a common lv 60 ranger without aa, without too many fableds and parse it.id really be surprised if ya get over 350-400 dps repeatedly !</span><div></div>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 01:42 AM
<div></div><p>It is a clearly known issue between all the classes that Rangers have been too heavy dps. I can't number the times that I've heard Assassins wonder why they couldn't do damage like rangers. It never made any sense that longbows proc more often than dual weild weapons, but we all played the game. I good indicator of the power of rangers is the large number of them compared to Assassins. No one wanted an assassin because proc rates were much lower and assassins were much more position oriented and subject to AoE's and melee fights.</p><p>My main is a Templar and I feel anyone's pain for nerfed classes. We were the "best" healers in the game and now heal only as well as other priest classes. We don't have any utility and little soloability, but here we are. I often wondered why the rangers could do what they could when most classes could not. I know I'll get roasted by much of the Ranger community for this view, but come on guys, if you can't see your imbalance than there is no point in discussing it further with you. If the obvious isn't obvious to you than nothing further explained or said by Dev teams will help. Sorry for your nerf guys, but it was absolutely necessary.</p><p>I do not want to play in a world where the NPC's are built around the dps and solo power of the most incredibly over-powered class when all other classes are miles behind. They will have to increase NPC strength to keep up with Rangers and it would make my already horrible solo experience even worse.</p><p>Thanks,</p>
TrigunVash
02-17-2006, 01:43 AM
<div></div><p>haha i just wrote that, and to add your attempt to fix the proc issue has only served to incite the anger of every singe ranger IN THE GAME.We have basically 0 utility, i know so many groups that <3 pathfindingFrom all the testing i see that we are going to be t3 DPS, good game.a zero utility toon that has worse dps than monks.We look as if we were supposed to be built for T1 dps, but your just going to nerf the hell out of us and bring us to our knees?Is the punishment? we diddnt do anythig wrong at all? Good work keeping happy customersPersonally i know rangers who have quit eq2 just at the sight of all the ranger nerfs</p><p>For example, Sakir preety much the best ranger on waht was lavastorm, quit, gone, accnt cancelledNo to sound rash but, you really messed up bigtime.</p>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>swang wrote:My model shows that rangers after the changes will be doing <font color="#ff0000">45%</font> of their current damage.Given that Rangers do<font color="#ff9933"><strong> 3x</strong> </font>the DPS of warlocks and wizards, 45% decrease is not enough. I'm sorry that your class is getting nerfed, but you haveto admit that you guys were way out of hand....-Stormwolf<div></div><hr></blockquote>Check your math<hr></blockquote>Stormwolf finds numbers misleading when it comes to math</span></div>
Domyr Farseeker
02-17-2006, 01:45 AM
<div></div><p>The 4000 dps number is getting tossed around a lot. From my understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that number was generated on beta and included the benefits from some of the new AA's on high level Rangers in a fully buffed group.</p><p>I don't think that's a number you'll see coming off live servers. If any Rangers are coming anywhere near those numbers live, it's because they're in a Fabled-laden group/raid with the group(s) buffing the crap out of the Rangers to turn them into uber-dps machines.</p><p> </p>
TrigunVash
02-17-2006, 01:47 AM
<div>Only time i personally have seen 4k dps, is when i killed a mob in a 1 second battle with sniper shot</div>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 01:49 AM
<div></div><blockquote><blockquote><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>Funny... I don't see anywhere in the Ranger class description any mention of procs. Before LU13 Rangers were yelling "RANGERS ARE ABOUT BOWS!" which I fully agree with. The "RANGERS ARE ABOUT PROCS!" argument is founded only in the precedent that was set up by a buggy mechanic that was left in game by mistake.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">If you haven't noticed there are alot of things missing from class discriptions as they are written to be as vague as possible. As well as game mechanics was not disclosed by sony but rather by players that parsed and generated theories later proven... </font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">EXT DPS is a better value to measure instead of dps. Anyone can sit in a fight wait till the mobe gets to 10 percent health then UNLOAD on it to get an insane DPS number. EXT DPS is measure over time or is sometimes refered to as sustained DPS. We are still high on sustained DPS numbers but no were like my raw or burst DPS numbers.</font> </p><p>From my experience, Rangers in a raid situation average roughly 1300 DPS. Assassins average probably around 900 or so taking ranged-only fights into consideration. Rangers averaging 400 DPS higher than their "seperate but evil" counterpart is pretty stupid. By toning down the enormous poison damage, the devs will be able to see what kind of DEEPER, FUNDAMENTAL problems there are with Ranger DPS and fix them.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">I have seen Assasins and ranger much closer than you see. Depends on player behind keyboard and if target uses AOE and the assasin has to JOUST for damage. Still if I was a assasin I would not be slamming rangers... In turn I would be pushing for assisins to be boosted.</font></p><p>Wouldn't you like for your bows to have more flavor? Not just "no proc on this one, it's useless" like it is now? Wouldn't you rather have your combat arts tweaked and made more unique and fun rather than the current "press 3 buttons, let the procs work" that Rangers use now?</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Simply put this game is a Giant math equation. Even with the new mechanics there will be a mathmatically superior weopon/poison choice for every situation that most rangers will follow.</font></p><p>Sure this was a nerf, but it was needed. If Rangers don't stack up with Assassins/Wizards/Warlocks after the patch, something will need to be done to fix it, but it's REDICULOUS to say that removing the "proc crutch" from the Ranger class is a bad way for SOE to have gone. All the good Rangers out there will figure out ways to keep their DPS up to speed, all the "flavor of the month" Rangers will move on to the next overpowered class and whine when that gets nerfed.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">It is a horrible way to do it... The dev just admitted that he had no idea the scope of what it effected. I agree our too classes should be close to dps... But condoning the sodomisation of another class for personal gain is weak.</font></p><p>C'est la vie.</p><hr></blockquote>
Sirlutt
02-17-2006, 01:49 AM
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>and we agree with you.. as a ranger i dont want to be uber damage, I want to be about the same as the other T1 classes, to be even .. so I am hoping you guys are gonna hold to this.We all knew the reduction was coming, but we are really hoping your checking your data twice.. then implementing something small.measure twice.. cut once guys.</span></div>
swang
02-17-2006, 01:51 AM
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div>Check your math<hr></blockquote>Rangers do 3x the damage of wizards and warlocks in live right now... Whether is 600 dps vs. 2000, on the low end or 1400 vs. 4000 on the high end, the number is roughly 3x. (What's interesting is that different parsers give differnt DPS, but the ratio seems to be pretty similar.)So, current mages do 33% of current rangers.New Rangers do 55% (100-45) of current rangers.New Rangers still do 1.6x of current mages. (55% vs 33% respectively compared to current rangers)Now, the big caveat here is that I do not know what new Mages deal out in relation to current. From what I hear on the forums, it has not significan'tly changed. I frankly would prefer a mage increase and a smaller ranger decrease, but whatever the case may be, something has to be done.-Stormwolf</span></div>
Sol-the-Wi
02-17-2006, 01:54 AM
<div></div>Everyone likes pictures! Here are two parses from a two-hour raid. These are a better measure than single fights. They are two different rangers on the same raid.<img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger1.png"><img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger2.png"><div></div>Now let's analyze.Ranger 1 relies on procs for about 61% of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike, 18% quick shot, 1% divine strike).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about 47% of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike, 12% quick shot).As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.Of Ranger 1's damage from procs, 18.3% of the 42% (0.3 * 42) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 1 with 42.7% left.Ranger 1's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 81.7% of what it was.Of Ranger 2's damage from procs, 14.1% of the 35% (0.3 * 47) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 2 with 32.9% left.Ranger 2's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 85.9% of what it was.This is about 15-20% damage reduction if procs hit 30% less than the are now. A DPS of 1000 becomes 800-850. Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Sure.More information, as per request:Ranger 1:<img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger1damage.JPG">Ranger 2:<img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger2damage.JPG"><p>Message Edited by Sol-the-Wise on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:23 PM</span></p>
TrigunVash
02-17-2006, 01:54 AM
<div></div><div>I HAVE NEVER, EVER EVER EVER seen a ranger go above 2000 EXT DPS IN A LONG SUSTAINED RAID BATTLE[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]by the way, those warlocks/wizards seem to pull aggro a heck of alot more, getting themselves killed, this pwning their DPSIf they had a consentration based aggrodebuff like rangers, that would give them a crapload of a DPS inceasce, somthing i would like to see</div><p>Message Edited by TrigunVash on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:58 PM</span></p>
<div></div><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/16.JPG"><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/6.JPG"><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/1.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/2.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/3.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/4.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/4.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/5.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/7.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/8.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/9.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/10.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/11.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/12.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/13.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/14.JPG"></p><p><img src="http://www.templarioselite.com/images/dps/15.JPG"></p><p> </p><p>Enough of them to show you were the damage of rangers comes of Blackguard??</p><p>Seriusly if you want more parsers or need my help to tell you how your game works just say so.</p><p>Btw. now you at it make defense do something and maybe guardians mean something too .. thx.</p><p> </p><p> </p>
Blackguard = teh pwn3d<div></div>
Fennir
02-17-2006, 02:04 AM
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:Ranger 1 relies on procs for about 42% of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about 35% of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike).<font color="#ff0000"><b>You forgot about our offensive stance, which is listed as Quick Shot. You're doing a good job of evaluating our DPS so far, though.</b></font>As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.<font color="#ff0000"><b>OK so now you're going off "i would guess an average of" to come up with numbers instead of using real numbers from beta (the only ones of which show much lower DPS numbers than that).</b></font>Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Maybe. Reasonable for a bug fix? Sure.<font color="#ff0000"><b>Well since you did such a good job of evaluating our DPS in your post, I have no choice but to agree with your assessment!lol</b></font><hr></blockquote></span></div>
TrigunVash
02-17-2006, 02:04 AM
<div></div><div>i give, its hopeless. they dont care about the ranger population, 0 utility t2/t3 dps FTW/reroll conj</div><div>or/reroll WoW</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>BTW, i heard beta rangers in legeldary/fabled gear with all master spells and AA max around 500dps on solo mobsLLOOOLLLLL!</div><p>Message Edited by TrigunVash on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:06 PM</span></p>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 02:05 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:Everyone likes pictures! Here are two parses from a two-hour raid. These are a better measure than single fights. They are two different rangers on the same raid.<div></div>Now let's analyze.Ranger 1 relies on procs for about 42% of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about 35% of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike).As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.Of Ranger 1's damage from procs, 12.6% of the 42% (0.3 * 42) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 1 with 29.4% left.Ranger 1's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 87.4% of what it was.Of Ranger 2's damage from procs, 10.5% of the 35% (0.3 * 35) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 2 with 24.5% left.Ranger 2's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 89.5% of what it was.This is about 10-15% damage reduction if procs hit 30% less than the are now. A DPS of 1000 becomes 850-900. Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Maybe. Reasonable for a bug fix? Sure.<hr></blockquote><p>This is a bad example because of 2 things...</p><p>1. we have no idea what poisons are being used and because the damage varies so wildley with common and rare it can really scew your final damage percentage. If you showed total damage from each category of out going damage we can get a better idea.</p><p>2. ascending poison is high damage over time low upfront damage if I'm not mistaken and that is horrible for DPS because the proc goes off so often overiding itself. [ don't know cause I never ever use it ]</p><p>post total numbers including proc resists and I can believe this post as it is contrary to what I parse.</p>
Yrield
02-17-2006, 02:08 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:Everyone likes pictures! Here are two parses from a two-hour raid. These are a better measure than single fights. They are two different rangers on the same raid.<img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger1.png"><img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger2.png">Now let's analyze.Ranger 1 relies on procs for about 42% of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about 35% of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike).As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.Of Ranger 1's damage from procs, 12.6% of the 42% (0.3 * 42) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 1 with 29.4% left.Ranger 1's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 87.4% of what it was.Of Ranger 2's damage from procs, 10.5% of the 35% (0.3 * 35) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 2 with 24.5% left.Ranger 2's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 89.5% of what it was.This is about 10-15% damage reduction if procs hit 30% less than the are now. A DPS of 1000 becomes 850-900. Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Maybe. Reasonable for a bug fix? Sure.<hr></blockquote>You are so wrong, thats not even funny...</span><span>Ranger 1 relies on procs for about <strike>42%</strike> <b>61%</b> of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike, <b>18% quick shot, 1% divine strike</b>).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about <strike>35%</strike><b> 47%</b> of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike, <b>12% quick shot</b>).do the math now, kthx.</span><div></div>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 02:11 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>TrigunVash wrote:<div></div><div>i give, its hopeless. they dont care about the ranger population, 0 utility t2/t3 dps FTW/reroll conj</div><div>or/reroll WoW</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>BTW, i heard beta rangers in legeldary/fabled gear with all master spells and AA max around 500dps on solo mobsLLOOOLLLLL!</div><p>Message Edited by TrigunVash on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:06 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I see posts like this and understand why you can't get your problems heard. Who said anything about T2/T3 dps? My understanding is that they're doing all this to keep you in T1 not remaining in a separate tier that's off the charts currently. What is wrong with the proposed fix? As most rangers are saying, you knew it was coming. The writing was on the wall and if anyone failed to see it than I guess that person should just give up.</p><p>Doom and gloom because an obvious bug is getting fixed is not common sense folks. Can't you see reason in this? Isn't it plain to you that this was needed? Why should a slower weapon proc more often than a faster one? That makes no common sense whatsoever. Even with the reduction of procs, I still think Rangers will be the top of tier 1. I'd say be prepared for yet another reduction to keep you inline soon. If the majority of the dps is controlled by one class, why even have the other dps classes?</p>
<div>I'm glad they are fixing this bug, mainly because rangers are the FOTM class because of it. No class should be balanced around procs because a) procs cost 0 power. b) they are unpredictable unless using a bow. c) it makes people rely on them too much. I hear all these rangers crying that they are rangers and dont melee, but I sure remember before the DoF expansion all of you meleeing then you got this overpowered spell called "Stream of Arrows" which took all skill out of your class and made it into nothing more than a AFK procing machine due to your 7 sec delay bow, 30% off stance, and poison. I would love to be AFK for 30 seconds every raid fight letting timers refresh while dishing out 1000+dps because of this one spell that pretty much abuses the proc formula. If they took away just this one spell I think it would solve a lot of problems because it would force you to melee like the rest of the scouts. flame on</div>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:Everyone likes pictures! Here are two parses from a two-hour raid. These are a better measure than single fights. They are two different rangers on the same raid.<img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger1.png"><img src="http://67.15.94.77/%7Esilvar76/randomness/ranger2.png"><div></div>Now let's analyze.Ranger 1 relies on procs for about 42% of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about 35% of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike).As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.Of Ranger 1's damage from procs, 12.6% of the 42% (0.3 * 42) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 1 with 29.4% left.Ranger 1's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 87.4% of what it was.Of Ranger 2's damage from procs, 10.5% of the 35% (0.3 * 35) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 2 with 24.5% left.Ranger 2's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 89.5% of what it was.This is about 10-15% damage reduction if procs hit 30% less than the are now. A DPS of 1000 becomes 850-900. Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Maybe. Reasonable for a bug fix? Sure.<hr></blockquote>LOL. This post is the poster child for why Conjurers shouldnt be figuring the DPS of Rangers.</span></div>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 02:15 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>TrigunVash wrote:<div></div><div>i give, its hopeless. they dont care about the ranger population, 0 utility t2/t3 dps FTW/reroll conj</div><div>or/reroll WoW</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>BTW, i heard beta rangers in legeldary/fabled gear with all master spells and AA max around 500dps on solo mobsLLOOOLLLLL!</div><p>Message Edited by TrigunVash on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:06 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I see posts like this and understand why you can't get your problems heard. Who said anything about T2/T3 dps? My understanding is that they're doing all this to keep you in T1 not remaining in a separate tier that's off the charts currently. What is wrong with the proposed fix? As most rangers are saying, you knew it was coming. The writing was on the wall and if anyone failed to see it than I guess that person should just give up.</p><p>Doom and gloom because an obvious bug is getting fixed is not common sense folks. Can't you see reason in this? Isn't it plain to you that this was needed? Why should a slower weapon proc more often than a faster one? That makes no common sense whatsoever. Even with the reduction of procs, I still think Rangers will be the top of tier 1. I'd say be prepared for yet another reduction to keep you inline soon. If the majority of the dps is controlled by one class, why even have the other dps classes?</p><hr></blockquote>I'm sorry.... But posting insane dps numbers without the WHOLE parse is insane. I have seen wizzies single hit a mob and post HUGE numbers. Sustained DPS needs to be looked at not Burst.
TwistedFaith
02-17-2006, 02:18 AM
For those of you who are saying well ranger dps is 1200 etc so a 50% dps bring them into line, your looking at raid parses!!!!!!!!!!!!Solo and group play is [Removed for Content] on beta, it's not even funny what has happened to the class.
Jeridor
02-17-2006, 02:21 AM
<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Yrieldom wrote:<span><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>Do we have your word on this one ? : <b>Ranger will be <u>Tier1</u> DPS when LU20 go live ?</b>Im not looking forward to be fixed in LU25 or whatever, the "nerf now, fix later" attitude wont cut it this time...</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>I'm not saying this to bash SOE or anything... far from it, but prior experience with priest classes, esp. Mystic, teaches us that you will not get a guarantee, and if you did, they don't have the ability to follow through on it with certainty. Your concerns might be addressed in LU20, but if it goes the path of Mystics, it will be more like LU25 or later.Not only did SOE "nerf" Mystics back then, but they did it many LU's ahead of when they "nerfed" other classes because they accidentally rolled in a file. They said "well, we didn't mean to roll that in yet, but since it will happen eventually we'll just leave it". You should expect the "nerf now, fix later" approach because it's how they've traditionally chosen to handle balance and I don't know of any indication they've changed course on how they design their balance updates.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Jeridor on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:24 PM</span></p>
<blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Blackguard wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Kenazeer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div>No, what is scary is that this is possibly a point in question for the people that produce and balance the game, but evidently a normal and parsed fact for some of those who play it. Kinda makes one wonder what other "facts" aren't being dealt with when these types of decisions are made.</div><div> </div><hr></blockquote>I don't balance the game. That's the job of the mechanics team. My point is that if a 55% decrease in damage takes place solely because of poisons and Rangers are not in the top tier of DPS after the change, we'll need to look at them some more. It is not our desire to remove any viability for playing the Ranger class or any others that use slow weapons, and yes, Rangers should remain high up in the damage spectrum (just not far and away superior to other classes).</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>and we agree with you.. as a ranger i dont want to be uber damage, I want to be about the same as the other T1 classes, to be even .. so I am hoping you guys are gonna hold to this.We all knew the reduction was coming, but we are really hoping your checking your data twice.. then implementing something small.measure twice.. cut once guys.</span></div><hr></blockquote>And so far they've made changes to a BETA server... What about this doesn't sound like checking twice?
Sol-the-Wi
02-17-2006, 02:27 AM
(This post refers to <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=48523#M48523">my last post</a> and subsequent replies.)<div></div><div><span></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Fennir wrote:<span><font color="#ff0000"><b>You forgot about our offensive stance, which is listed as Quick Shot.</b></font></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Fixed.<span></span><span></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Niuan wrote:<p>This is a bad example because of 2 things...</p><p>1. we have no idea what poisons are being used and because the damage varies so wildley with common and rare it can really scew your final damage percentage. If you showed total damage from each category of out going damage we can get a better idea.</p><p>2. ascending poison is high damage over time low upfront damage if I'm not mistaken and that is horrible for DPS because the proc goes off so often overiding itself. [ don't know cause I never ever use it ]</p><p>post total numbers including proc resists and I can believe this post as it is contrary to what I parse.</p><hr size="2" width="100%">Information added as per request.<p></p><span><blockquote><hr>Yrieldom wrote:<span>You are so wrong, thats not even funny...</span><span>Ranger 1 relies on procs for about <strike>42%</strike> <b>61%</b> of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike, <b>18% quick shot, 1% divine strike</b>).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about <strike>35%</strike><b> 47%</b> of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike, <b>12% quick shot</b>).do the math now, kthx.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Fixed. It's still not a huge nerf, "kthx."</span></div><p>Message Edited by Sol-the-Wise on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:30 PM</span></p>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 02:33 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:(This post refers to <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=48523#M48523">my last post</a> and subsequent replies.)<div></div><div><span></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Fennir wrote:<span><font color="#ff0000"><b>You forgot about our offensive stance, which is listed as Quick Shot.</b></font></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Fixed.<span></span><span></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Niuan wrote:<p>This is a bad example because of 2 things...</p><p>1. we have no idea what poisons are being used and because the damage varies so wildley with common and rare it can really scew your final damage percentage. If you showed total damage from each category of out going damage we can get a better idea.</p><p>2. ascending poison is high damage over time low upfront damage if I'm not mistaken and that is horrible for DPS because the proc goes off so often overiding itself. [ don't know cause I never ever use it ]</p><p>post total numbers including proc resists and I can believe this post as it is contrary to what I parse.</p><hr size="2" width="100%">Information added as per request.<p></p><span><blockquote><hr>Yrieldom wrote:<span>You are so wrong, thats not even funny...</span><span>Ranger 1 relies on procs for about <strike>42%</strike> <b>61%</b> of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike, <b>18% quick shot, 1% divine strike</b>).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about <strike>35%</strike><b> 47%</b> of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike, <b>12% quick shot</b>).do the math now, kthx.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Fixed. It's still not a huge nerf, "kthx."</span></div><p>Message Edited by Sol-the-Wise on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:30 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 02:37 AM
Sol, where did you get your 30% figure? Unless I missed something, you're just arbitrarily guessing that the beta changes will result in a 30% overall reduction in procs. That doesn't follow from patch notes, dev posts, or beta parses. If you'd like to refine your model of ranger damage, maybe it would be better to split it into a separate post, and thouroughly explain where your numbers are coming from.I'd rather that you try to help refine the model I presented in this post, instead. <div></div>
Sol-the-Wi
02-17-2006, 02:38 AM
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div>
<blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>DarkLegacy2005 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Magus_Blue wrote:<div></div><p>Not being able to see the macros makes it hard to comment on the accuracy of the model, but it does seem flawed.</p><p>How is autoattack being effected?Ã Â Autoattack should remain constant through the models, should it not?</p><p>Ã Â </p><hr></blockquote>Autoattack will not be effected. This change is to fix from people buying high delay weapons in order to get an increase in DPS through more procs in CAs (Since if you have a better chance procing with a high delay weapon with a CA in live currently). Those people who use low delay weapons currently should NOT see much of a change at all. In fact, with low delay weapons, depending on how they're going to do it, you may see a slight albeit unnoticable increase.Rangers are the ones that are being hit the most since with the long delay weapons with CAs, they proc alot, however, it's not the huge nerf that they think it's going to be.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Numbers have already been posted on poison proc percentages in the ranger forumns.Ã Â CA attacks which make up the magority of our attacks hardly EVER proc anymore.<hr></blockquote>Well its a good thing its on test then, eh? Dev's already noted that they are watchin the overall DPS of the classes now and comparing before and after. If its too much of a hit for what they are aiming at... they are going to fix it. Although, dont take my word for it, go read what the dev's posted.<hr></blockquote>I think you give far to much credit to the dev team.Ã Â Ã Â I am a realist, I look at past records and personal experience to determine likely outcome.Ã Â Ã Â If we are as gimped as us naysayers post...Ã Â We are looking 6 months to see anything if ever.<hr></blockquote>A realist would recognize tha this is on test... A realist recognizes that SoE created EQ2... If you think that means they're clueless then what does that make you (someone that couldn't comprehend any of the most fundamenta lines of code)?I'm a realist. Changes have been made... how they actually affect me, only I can tell. I can listen to other peoples posts all I want, but there's no way to tell the lying crap stirrers from the honest idiots, from the intelligentional inteligent posts. So all I can do is go play on Beta, or wait till the changes are made available to me.
<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Lets not reduce its damage output then...let's reduce its hit points by the same % rangers are affected.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Testicleese on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:42 PM</span></p>
Sol-the-Wi
02-17-2006, 02:45 AM
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div></div><div><span>Lets not reduce its damage output then...let's reduce its hit points by the same % rangers are affected.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Testicleese on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:42 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I don't see any relation here to the topic at hand. It seems you're just trying to attack another class because of my posts. Please explain your reasoning if not.</span></div>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div></div><div><span>Lets not reduce its damage output then...let's reduce its hit points by the same % rangers are affected.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Testicleese on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:42 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><b>I don't see any relation here to the topic at hand. </b>It seems you're just trying to attack another class because of my posts. Please explain your reasoning if not.</span></div><hr></blockquote>You wouldn't...</span></div>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 02:49 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>If it was only a 20% reduction In dps I would not be here today expressing my views so strongly. As I do agree we can be toned down a bit.</p><p>Not only is subsequent shots of a multi CA ability removed from proccing but that initial proccing percentage is now based off cast time of the CA... Most ranger CAs are less than a seccond. Some higher. Basicly translates into next to no chance of proccing of CAs.</p><p>Your parsing that you have shown shows two different rangers... ranger 1 seems like he knows what he is doing as he is using high DD damage poisons. Ranger 2 is scewing your results as he is using Low DD poisons that translate into low numbers.</p><p>This nerf is HUGE.</p><p> </p>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 02:49 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Lets not reduce its damage output then...let's reduce its hit points by the same % rangers are affected.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Testicleese on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:42 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't think Conjies are what this board is about. You don't help your topic any by shifting over to conjies folks. Conjies have never been T1 or T1+ damage toons. They are not even in the ballpark. To talk about reducing them is pointless. It's like asking the Templars to give up damage just because you guys did. Has nothing to do with your unbalanced class. Come now stay focused.</p><p>To repeat, everyone from Rangers to Devs admit that Rangers dps was T1+, meaning their own tier above everyone else. They want to address it. Reducing the proc rate is a way to address this as Rangers enjoyed one of the most frequent proc rates in the game. How would any of you have reduced the Ranger dps if not this way? Would any of you think better of them if they took half the damage off your CA's instead? What other alternative did the Devs have?</p><p>Bringing in other classes who aren't even the tier below you in damage is pointless. It brings nothing in for you to relate to or compare with.</p>
Fennir
02-17-2006, 02:49 AM
There's no need to attack him. He's already shown a complete lack of understanding of the core issues, and still expects people who know what they're talking about to take him seriously.He's made his points, he doesn't feel rangers are going to be very nerfed. It shouldn't be hard to find a grain of salt to take that with.<div></div>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Lets not reduce its damage output then...let's reduce its hit points by the same % rangers are affected.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Testicleese on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:42 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't think Conjies are what this board is about. You don't help your topic any by shifting over to conjies folks. Conjies have never been T1 or T1+ damage toons. They are not even in the ballpark. To talk about reducing them is pointless. It's like asking the Templars to give up damage just because you guys did. Has nothing to do with your unbalanced class. Come now stay focused.</p><p>To repeat, everyone from Rangers to Devs admit that Rangers dps was T1+, meaning their own tier above everyone else. They want to address it. Reducing the proc rate is a way to address this as Rangers enjoyed one of the most frequent proc rates in the game. How would any of you have reduced the Ranger dps if not this way? Would any of you think better of them if they took half the damage off your CA's instead? What other alternative did the Devs have?</p><p>Bringing in other classes who aren't even the tier below you in damage is pointless. It brings nothing in for you to relate to or compare with.</p><hr></blockquote>Lol.You assume I'm a Ranger...</span></div>
GeminiReap
02-17-2006, 02:52 AM
<div></div><div>OMG I now do the same dmg as all the other tier 1 dps classes. The world is coming to an end /sarcasm</div><div>Guys get a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] grip on yourselves. You just liked being uber pvp gods with your bugged poison procs. Well guess what...its not gonna happen. So even if you guys used to have 50% of your dmg come from procing (im sure this is the high end) then even if you cut in to 1/4 that amount you are still gonna see about 15%...sooooo if you add the other 50% from CAs and auto you now do about 65% of the dmg you used to do. Now since you were almost doubling the dmg of the other tier 1 dps that you were supposed to be equal with you will now be on par with those other classes or...still ever so slightly ahead. So my question is..what is the big deal. I mean cmon..just means you are actually gonna have to develope some skill to smack down other tier 1 dps. Stop being complete babies and suck it up. Whats so hard about having skill to kill someone instead of I roll ranger so I win automatically. </div><p>Message Edited by GeminiReaper on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:54 PM</span></p>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 02:54 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Lets not reduce its damage output then...let's reduce its hit points by the same % rangers are affected.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Testicleese on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:42 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't think Conjies are what this board is about. You don't help your topic any by shifting over to conjies folks. Conjies have never been T1 or T1+ damage toons. They are not even in the ballpark. To talk about reducing them is pointless. It's like asking the Templars to give up damage just because you guys did. Has nothing to do with your unbalanced class. Come now stay focused.</p><p>To repeat, everyone from Rangers to Devs admit that Rangers dps was T1+, meaning their own tier above everyone else. They want to address it. Reducing the proc rate is a way to address this as Rangers enjoyed one of the most frequent proc rates in the game. How would any of you have reduced the Ranger dps if not this way? Would any of you think better of them if they took half the damage off your CA's instead? What other alternative did the Devs have?</p><p>Bringing in other classes who aren't even the tier below you in damage is pointless. It brings nothing in for you to relate to or compare with.</p><hr></blockquote>Lol.You assume I'm a Ranger...</span></div><hr></blockquote>Sorry Test, but it doesn't matter what class you are. It doesn't matter if you play the game or you don't. I'm just pointing out that bringing in conjies to compare Ranger dps is pointless. The ones that are the closest cousin to the Ranger is the Assassin. Use them as a rough guide and see if Rangers look that bad after all.
ChaosUndivided
02-17-2006, 02:56 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>Ranger's DONT do 4000DPS on ANYTHING but under VERY special Circumstances, usually in Large Mob Fights, like the trash in PPR and only when our 3min AE is up.</p><p>4000DPS is not a realistic Number, most rangers on average do about 1000-1400dps, but can spike up to 1700 Provided the mob has constant debuffs, and this was only before the stream of arrow changes and only if they had a very specific group setup. </p><p>I have seen Conj's Parse 8-10K DPS on some fights, Warlocks 5k+, so should we nerf them now because they parse super high numbers in very situational fights?</p><p>No one is arguing that rangers didn't need adjustments, I just find it funny people keep throwing around this 4000dps Number that BG made up as if we're doing this on every fight all the time regardless of groups, gear or any other factor.</p>
What hasn't been covered here is that this nerf basically removes 2/3 of the poisons in the game from even been remotely useful. I'm refering to debuff and effect poisons. Most effect poisons especially last a very short time, with proc changes like this going into the game, those poisons become utterly worthless.<div></div>
Sol-the-Wi
02-17-2006, 03:01 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>ChaosUndivided wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>Ranger's DONT do 4000DPS on ANYTHING but under VERY special Circumstances, usually in Large Mob Fights, like the trash in PPR and only when our 3min AE is up.</p><p>4000DPS is not a realistic Number, most rangers on average do about 1000-1400dps, but can spike up to 1700 Provided the mob has constant debuffs, and this was only before the stream of arrow changes and only if they had a very specific group setup. </p><p>I have seen Conj's Parse 8-10K DPS on some fights, Warlocks 5k+, so should we nerf them now because they parse super high numbers in very situational fights?</p><p>No one is arguing that rangers didn't need adjustments, I just find it funny people keep throwing around this 4000dps Number that BG made up as if we're doing this on every fight all the time regardless of groups, gear or any other factor.</p><hr></blockquote></span>If I'm not mistaken, the number was taken from T7 on beta. I do admit I used it as a hyperbole, though.
Lleinen
02-17-2006, 03:03 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>GeminiReaper wrote:<div></div><div>OMG I now do the same dmg as all the other tier 1 dps classes. The world is coming to an end /sarcasm</div><div>Guys get a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] grip on yourselves. You just liked being uber pvp gods with your bugged poison procs. Well guess what...its not gonna happen. So even if you guys used to have 50% of your dmg come from procing (im sure this is the high end) then even if you cut in to 1/4 that amount you are still gonna see about 15%...sooooo if you add the other 50% from CAs and auto you now do about 65% of the dmg you used to do. Now since you were almost doubling the dmg of the other tier 1 dps that you were supposed to be equal with you will now be on par with those other classes or...still ever so slightly ahead. So my question is..what is the big deal. I mean cmon..just means you are actually gonna have to develope some skill to smack down other tier 1 dps. Stop being complete babies and suck it up. Whats so hard about having skill to kill someone instead of I roll ranger so I win automatically. </div><p>Message Edited by GeminiReaper on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:54 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Amen, haha. Waaaaahhhhh I cant have 1000DPS WAaaaahhhhhh Im gunna cry Waaaahhhhhhhhh.You're still gunna own everything out there, stop [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing pansies, wait until you REALLY get nerfed like a coercer, GAH so annoying
ChaosUndivided
02-17-2006, 03:04 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>ChaosUndivided wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>Ranger's DONT do 4000DPS on ANYTHING but under VERY special Circumstances, usually in Large Mob Fights, like the trash in PPR and only when our 3min AE is up.</p><p>4000DPS is not a realistic Number, most rangers on average do about 1000-1400dps, but can spike up to 1700 Provided the mob has constant debuffs, and this was only before the stream of arrow changes and only if they had a very specific group setup. </p><p>I have seen Conj's Parse 8-10K DPS on some fights, Warlocks 5k+, so should we nerf them now because they parse super high numbers in very situational fights?</p><p>No one is arguing that rangers didn't need adjustments, I just find it funny people keep throwing around this 4000dps Number that BG made up as if we're doing this on every fight all the time regardless of groups, gear or any other factor.</p><hr></blockquote></span>If I'm not mistaken, the number was taken from T7 on beta. I do admit I used it as a hyperbole, though.<hr></blockquote><p>I have a Level 70 Ranger on Beta with Full t7 Master 1's and All the proccing Gear Money can buy, and I am telling you, Rangers can not do 4000dps.</p><p>There was a bug with AA's that allowed them to infinitely stack, it seems people are using this as a measure of how much DPS rangers actually do, even though the bug has been fixed.</p>
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<blockquote><hr>Testicleese wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Lets not reduce its damage output then...let's reduce its hit points by the same % rangers are affected.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Testicleese on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:42 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't think Conjies are what this board is about. You don't help your topic any by shifting over to conjies folks. Conjies have never been T1 or T1+ damage toons. They are not even in the ballpark. To talk about reducing them is pointless. It's like asking the Templars to give up damage just because you guys did. Has nothing to do with your unbalanced class. Come now stay focused.</p><p>To repeat, everyone from Rangers to Devs admit that Rangers dps was T1+, meaning their own tier above everyone else. They want to address it. Reducing the proc rate is a way to address this as Rangers enjoyed one of the most frequent proc rates in the game. How would any of you have reduced the Ranger dps if not this way? Would any of you think better of them if they took half the damage off your CA's instead? What other alternative did the Devs have?</p><p>Bringing in other classes who aren't even the tier below you in damage is pointless. It brings nothing in for you to relate to or compare with.</p><hr></blockquote>Lol.You assume I'm a Ranger...</span></div><hr></blockquote>Sorry Test, but it doesn't matter what class you are. It doesn't matter if you play the game or you don't. I'm just pointing out that bringing in conjies to compare Ranger dps is pointless. The ones that are the closest cousin to the Ranger is the Assassin. Use them as a rough guide and see if Rangers look that bad after all.<hr></blockquote></span><span>The numbers thrown out by the conj were hypothetical, and suspect at best. However, the parses shown above, in all their pretty colors, were from the changes made on Beta that show EXACTLY what is happening now with real characters, as a result of their "minor" changes.</span><span>I play a summoner myself as my main, and was 18th Ranger to hit 50 before DoF was introduced, so i know a bit about both classes (while not claiming to be a Master of either class) . Removing a % of health from our pets <b>would be </b>an equivalent change to a ranger in this instance. Rangers use poison to make the fight last as short as possible because they cant tank like a plate tank can.For a Conj, their pet is their poison. (so to speak) If the pet dies sooner (due to less health) and aggro is shifted to the summoner, they will die.</span><span>In addition, I have in no way, shape, or form said an adjustment is not needed, or necessary. <b>Have I</b>?All I have done is point out that a conjurer who can't even identify what Ranger CAs are procs or not shouldnt be trying to argue against Rangers who play their toon every day and KNOW their class.</span></div>
TwistedFaith
02-17-2006, 03:14 AM
<blockquote><hr>Lleinen wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>GeminiReaper wrote:<div></div><div>OMG I now do the same dmg as all the other tier 1 dps classes. The world is coming to an end /sarcasm</div><div>Guys get a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] grip on yourselves. You just liked being uber pvp gods with your bugged poison procs. Well guess what...its not gonna happen. So even if you guys used to have 50% of your dmg come from procing (im sure this is the high end) then even if you cut in to 1/4 that amount you are still gonna see about 15%...sooooo if you add the other 50% from CAs and auto you now do about 65% of the dmg you used to do. Now since you were almost doubling the dmg of the other tier 1 dps that you were supposed to be equal with you will now be on par with those other classes or...still ever so slightly ahead. So my question is..what is the big deal. I mean cmon..just means you are actually gonna have to develope some skill to smack down other tier 1 dps. Stop being complete babies and suck it up. Whats so hard about having skill to kill someone instead of I roll ranger so I win automatically. </div><p>Message Edited by GeminiReaper on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:54 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Amen, haha. Waaaaahhhhh I cant have 1000DPS WAaaaahhhhhh Im gunna cry Waaaahhhhhhhhh.You're still gunna own everything out there, stop [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing pansies, wait until you REALLY get nerfed like a coercer, GAH so annoying<hr></blockquote>get onto test, roll a ranger then come back and post.
<div><span><blockquote><hr>Lleinen wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>GeminiReaper wrote:<div></div><div>OMG I now do the same dmg as all the other tier 1 dps classes. The world is coming to an end /sarcasm</div><div>Guys get a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] grip on yourselves. You just liked being uber pvp gods with your bugged poison procs. Well guess what...its not gonna happen. So even if you guys used to have 50% of your dmg come from procing (im sure this is the high end) then even if you cut in to 1/4 that amount you are still gonna see about 15%...sooooo if you add the other 50% from CAs and auto you now do about 65% of the dmg you used to do. Now since you were almost doubling the dmg of the other tier 1 dps that you were supposed to be equal with you will now be on par with those other classes or...still ever so slightly ahead. So my question is..what is the big deal. I mean cmon..just means you are actually gonna have to develope some skill to smack down other tier 1 dps. Stop being complete babies and suck it up. Whats so hard about having skill to kill someone instead of I roll ranger so I win automatically. </div><p>Message Edited by GeminiReaper on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:54 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Amen, haha. Waaaaahhhhh I cant have 1000DPS WAaaaahhhhhh Im gunna cry Waaaahhhhhhhhh.<b>You're still gunna own everything out there, </b>stop [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing pansies, wait until you REALLY get nerfed like a coercer, GAH so annoying<hr></blockquote>Did you miss the "multiple" posts from Rangers on Test and Beta <b>now</b> who are using Master and Fabled gear and cant even solo a white con SOLO mob?</span></div>
Erendil
02-17-2006, 03:17 AM
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div></div><p>As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.Of Ranger 1's damage from procs, 18.3% of the 42% (0.3 * 42) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 1 with 42.7% left.Ranger 1's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 81.7% of what it was.Of Ranger 2's damage from procs, 14.1% of the 35% (0.3 * 47) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 2 with 32.9% left.Ranger 2's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 85.9% of what it was.This is about 15-20% damage reduction if procs hit 30% less than the are now. A DPS of 1000 becomes 800-850. Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Sure.</p><blockquote><hr></blockquote></blockquote><p> </p><p>I dont know where you got your % from. By the numbers based strictly on the changes they told us they have made.....</p><p> </p><p>If every single ranger CA was a 1 shot 1 second skill then the decrease in proc damage would be:</p><p> 7 (old weapon delay) - 1(CA delay)/7 (old weapon delay)=6/7= a 85.7% decrease in proc damage for all procs</p><p> </p><p>However, with multi shot attacks where the 2nd and 3rd etc shots dont even proc, that becomes much more drastic.lets say triple shot has a 3 second delay(I'm not at home, so making the assumption) the proc damage goes from</p><p>7/3*.25*417 =243 dmg from posion on average, 7/3*.3*279=195.3 from Quick shot on average, 7/3*.05*223=26 from gleaming on average. add these together and multiple by 3 and this is roughly what you will see on live - when all 3 arrows hit =<strong>1393 damage from procs</strong></p><p><strong>Beta version -</strong>1/3*.25*417=104 for poison, 1/3*.3*279=83.7 from quick shot, 1/3*.05*223=11.15 from Gleaming for the first and only the first arrow, = <strong>66.3 proc damage total</strong></p><p>With Stream of Arrows, it gets worse...10 arrows with a 1.5 sec delay for each...and the last 9 not proccing under the new sysytem- <strong> Avg pois/arrow Avg QS/arrow AVG GS/arrow total proc dmg/arrow total damageold 243.25 195.3 26 464.6 4646 (assuming all ten hit)new 52.1 41.9 5.6 99.6 99.6</strong></p><p>Maybe its me, But those numbers look <strong>HUGE</strong></p><p><strong>Fixed for accuracy, as most of our CAs are on a 1 to 1.5 second delay. </strong>I verified on ogamong, as i do not have access to my formerly toxxulian ranger.</p><p>Steadfast- 60 Ranger, ToxxuliaVentrous- 55 Guardian, ToxxuliaGuild Leader- Gold and Glory</p><p>Message Edited by Erendil on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:41 PM</span></p>
Again this is an excelant view how sony blindly "fixes" things based on broken/wrong information that they magicly made up while AAs were broken<div></div>
lilmohi
02-17-2006, 03:29 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr><span><div>Did you miss the "multiple" posts from Rangers on Test and Beta <b>now</b> who are using Master and Fabled gear and cant even solo a white con SOLO mob?</span></div><hr></blockquote>Wow even guardians can solo even con solo mobs, rangers really are broke. :smileysurprised:
TrigunVash
02-17-2006, 03:30 AM
<blockquote><hr>Erendil wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div></div><p>As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.Of Ranger 1's damage from procs, 18.3% of the 42% (0.3 * 42) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 1 with 42.7% left.Ranger 1's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 81.7% of what it was.Of Ranger 2's damage from procs, 14.1% of the 35% (0.3 * 47) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 2 with 32.9% left.Ranger 2's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 85.9% of what it was.This is about 15-20% damage reduction if procs hit 30% less than the are now. A DPS of 1000 becomes 800-850. Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Sure.</p><blockquote><hr></blockquote></blockquote><p> </p><p>I dont know where you got your % from. By the numbers based strictly on the changes they told us they have made.....</p><p> </p><p>If every single ranger CA was a 1 shot 3 second proc then the decrease in proc damage would be:</p><p> 7 (old weapon delay) - 3(CA delay)/7 (old weapon delay)=4/7= a 57.1% decrease in proc damage for all procs</p><p> </p><p>However, with multi shot attacks where the 2nd and 3rd etc shots dont even proc, that becomes much more drastic.lets say triple shot has a 3 second delay(I'm not at home, so making the assumption) the proc damage goes from</p><p>7/3*.25*417 =243 dmg from posion on average, 7/3*.3*279=195.3 from Quick shot on average, 7/3*.05*223=26 from gleaming on average. add these together and multiple by 3 and this is roughly what you will see on live - when all 3 arrows hit =<strong>1393 damage from procs</strong></p><p><strong>Beta version -</strong>3/3*.25*417=104 for poison, 3/3*.3*279=83.7 from quick shot, 3/3*.05*223=11.15 from Gleaming for the first and only the first arrow, = <strong>198.8 proc damage total</strong></p><p>With Stream of Arrows, it gets worse...10 arrows with a 1.5 sec delay for each...and the last 9 not proccing under the new sysytem- <strong> Avg pois/arrow Avg QS/arrow AVG GS/arrow total proc dmg/arrow total damageold 243.25 195.3 26 464.6 4646 (assuming all ten hit)new 52.1 41.9 5.6 99.6 99.6</strong></p><p>Maybe its me, But those numbers look <strong>HUGE</strong></p><p>Steadfast- 60 Ranger, ToxxuliaVentrous- 55 Guardian, ToxxuliaGuild Leader- Gold and Glory</p><hr></blockquote>Sadly most of our CA's are 1.5 seconds to .5 second delay, thus cutting the % chance to proc in half or more.
curtlewis
02-17-2006, 03:33 AM
While pet classes are clearly overpowered (a conjuror's pet alone can out damage a wizard sometimes), they are nowhere near as overpowered as Rangers have been. Rangers asleep at the keyboard clock in at double the DPS of a wizard and triple the DPS when they're working hard. TRIPLE. So if you're damage is reduced 55%, you'll still be out damaging a Tier 1 DPS class that has less hit points, less aggro management and less armor.As far as the one bowshot, mob beelines for you and you spend 30 secs getting interrupted and fighting for your life, guess what. JOIN THE [Removed for Content] CLUB! With Wizards it's root, cast a nuke, then scramble for your life because that root breaks 80% of the time (not the MUCH lower advertised percentage).Take your long overdue nerf like a man. You enjoyed the ride while it lasted.Personally, I think the needed to handle the rebalancing differently. Less nerfing to the Rangers, and a boost to the Sorcerors. Then perhaps a small pet nerf to Conjurors and Necros. I think that would have balanced it out well according to the stated intentions.
ChaosUndivided
02-17-2006, 03:37 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>curtlewis wrote:While pet classes are clearly overpowered (a conjuror's pet alone can out damage a wizard sometimes), they are nowhere near as overpowered as Rangers have been. Rangers asleep at the keyboard clock in at double the DPS of a wizard and triple the DPS when they're working hard. TRIPLE. So if you're damage is reduced 55%, you'll still be out damaging a Tier 1 DPS class that has less hit points, less aggro management and less armor.As far as the one bowshot, mob beelines for you and you spend 30 secs getting interrupted and fighting for your life, guess what. JOIN THE [Removed for Content] CLUB! With Wizards it's root, cast a nuke, then scramble for your life because that root breaks 80% of the time (not the MUCH lower advertised percentage).Take your long overdue nerf like a man. You enjoyed the ride while it lasted.Personally, I think the needed to handle the rebalancing differently. Less nerfing to the Rangers, and a boost to the Sorcerors. Then perhaps a small pet nerf to Conjurors and Necros. I think that would have balanced it out well according to the stated intentions.<hr></blockquote>Give me no Minimum Cast range on my CA's, roots, stuns and stifles and I'll have no qualms about it.
Erendil
02-17-2006, 03:42 AM
<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Sorry about that, the last thing I wanted to do was post misinformation. I adjusted the data on the original posts. It now reads as</p><p> </p><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div></div><p>As it is now, procs activate more than they should. I would guess an average of lower than 25% more often than they should, but let's go 30% to cover some maximums.Of Ranger 1's damage from procs, 18.3% of the 42% (0.3 * 42) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 1 with 42.7% left.Ranger 1's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 81.7% of what it was.Of Ranger 2's damage from procs, 14.1% of the 35% (0.3 * 47) was not supposed to be there. That leaves Ranger 2 with 32.9% left.Ranger 2's total damage (if 30% of all procs are removed) will now be 85.9% of what it was.This is about 15-20% damage reduction if procs hit 30% less than the are now. A DPS of 1000 becomes 800-850. Huge nerf? Nah. Inconvenience? Sure.</p><blockquote><hr></blockquote></blockquote><p> </p><p>I dont know where you got your % from. By the numbers based strictly on the changes they told us they have made.....</p><p> </p><p>If every single ranger CA was a 1 shot 1 second skill then the decrease in proc damage would be:</p><p> 7 (old weapon delay) - 1(CA delay)/7 (old weapon delay)=6/7= a 85.7% decrease in proc damage for all procs</p><p> </p><p>However, with multi shot attacks where the 2nd and 3rd etc shots dont even proc, that becomes much more drastic.lets say triple shot has a 3 second delay(I'm not at home, so making the assumption) the proc damage goes from</p><p>7/3*.25*417 =243 dmg from posion on average, 7/3*.3*279=195.3 from Quick shot on average, 7/3*.05*223=26 from gleaming on average. add these together and multiple by 3 and this is roughly what you will see on live - when all 3 arrows hit =<strong>1393 damage from procs</strong></p><p><strong>Beta version -</strong>2/3*.25*417=69.5 for poison, 2/3*.3*279=55.8 from quick shot, 2/3*.05*223=7.43 from Gleaming for the first and only the first arrow, = <strong>132.7 proc damage total</strong></p><p>With Stream of Arrows, it gets worse...10 arrows with a 1.5 sec delay for each...and the last 9 not proccing under the new sysytem- <strong> Avg pois/arrow Avg QS/arrow AVG GS/arrow total proc dmg/arrow total damageold 243.25 195.3 26 464.6 4646 (assuming all ten hit)new 52.1 41.9 5.6 99.6 99.6</strong></p><p>Maybe its me, But those numbers look <strong>HUGE</strong></p><p><strong>Fixed for accuracy, as most of our CAs are on a 1 to 1.5 second delay. </strong>I verified on ogamong, as i do not have access to my formerly toxxulian ranger.</p><p>1 final note. the CAs that a 60 ranger uses include 5 at 1 second, 3 at 2 seconds and 1 at 3 seconds</p><p>Steadfast- 60 Ranger, ToxxuliaVentrous- 55 Guardian, ToxxuliaGuild Leader- Gold and Glory</p><p>Message Edited by Erendil on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:52 PM</span></p>
K'aldar
02-17-2006, 03:43 AM
i'm not on test or beta but here's my view on things..my lvl 60 conjuror only outdpsing a ranger on single target if my pets all live and the ranger pulls aggro(doesn't even have to die, just enough to throw his positionals off for a sec).. on aoe i was surprised to see in ppr and gates and such that our lvl 60 ranger was outdpsing me on almost every fight, it usually took both elemental vestment and blazing presence on my pet to outparse him in aoe fights even. (and good god the 60 zerker was #3 on parser) these were in long fights vs the books and minotaurs in ppr, and also in the short fights of huge groups... now i know some of you have said about conj's not supposed to be t1 dps anyway, but we're supposed to be pretty high in the aoe department, so in that situation i believe we should outdamage the t1 scouts at least.also, my lvl 60 assassin NEVER comes close to a rangers dps unless my assassinate is up and their sniper shot is down, or they pull aggro and die. i saw someone mention soloing as a nerfed ranger now, and saying about a blue solo mob got them in the yellow, and a white-yellow solo ^ mob killed them or came close.... well let me tell ya, tho i think that's a tad low for a ranged class, that's frickin everyday life for my assassin... i'm decked out in legendary/fabled and its usually pretty hard to take on a ^ mob that isn't green or very low blue, unless i get very lucky and cheap shot them long enough to get a flanking attk off, or my root is up(1min reuse and 12 sec duration, not something i can use every fight unless i take a short break between)and fyi the rangers and zerkers i've mentioned have comparable gear to me.p.s. i know a certain troub that can get 2k dps every fight on my server using this proc thing, so its not just rangers its gonna fix here.<div></div>
TwistedFaith
02-17-2006, 03:55 AM
<blockquote><hr>curtlewis wrote:While pet classes are clearly overpowered (a conjuror's pet alone can out damage a wizard sometimes), they are nowhere near as overpowered as Rangers have been. Rangers asleep at the keyboard clock in at double the DPS of a wizard and triple the DPS when they're working hard. TRIPLE. So if you're damage is reduced 55%, you'll still be out damaging a Tier 1 DPS class that has less hit points, less aggro management and less armor..<hr></blockquote>Again you have completely missed the point, your looking at these changes from a purely DPS view. It's nowhere near as simple as that on beta.To simply say well thats 50% less dmg your on even par with everyone else is blindly ignoring the fact that these parses come from raids and that making changes on that info without thinking of solo/groups is a HUGE mistake.I'm not BS'ing here when I say Rangers on beta are completely [Removed for Content], not just in terms of DPS but in terms of how you play the class and what can be done with them.If Rangers had a tank who just stood there and we can nuke like hell then yes a simple 50% DPS decrease would have little or no effect except a simple DPS decrease. The problem is that DPS is tied into the mechanics of how the class is played, we use the bow, the bow attacks have to hit HARD to do the dmg as our melee skills are crap.If I wanted to melee I would have rolled a assasin, I want to use my bow!<p>Message Edited by valleyboy1 on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:57 PM</span></p>
GeminiReap
02-17-2006, 04:08 AM
sorry i dont need to play a ranger..im happy with my assasin.<div></div>
MystaSkrat
02-17-2006, 04:15 AM
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote:also, my lvl 60 assassin NEVER comes close to a rangers dps unless my assassinate is up and their sniper shot is down, or they pull aggro and die.<div></div><hr></blockquote>That's pretty sad, I must say. While our ranger is usually ahead of me on most fights, ones like the books or the guards in PPR, or mobs with AEs I don't have to joust, I'm right on top of him. There needs to be some sort of change to the way poisons and things in general proc off of long delay weapons vs. combat arts, but these 2 changes in conjunction with each other are pretty devastating to rangers. What's so difficult to just have things proc at their given % when using combat arts? So poison would be 25% like it says, and, OMG, my offensive stance might actually proc more than once per fight.<p>Message Edited by MystaSkratch on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:16 PM</span></p>
Erendil
02-17-2006, 04:18 AM
<div></div><div></div><div>Simplified math on the effect of proc changes</div><div> </div><div>Before the change, rangers procced dmg poison at a rate of 7/3*.25= 57% of the time*417= roughly<strong> 243</strong> dmg per arrowQuick shot at a rate of 7/3*.3= 70% of the time *279=<strong>195</strong> dmg per arrowGleaming Strike at a rate of 7/3*.05= 11.7%*223=<strong>26</strong>dmg per arrow</div><div><hr></div><div>Total= <strong>464 per arrow from procs on average</strong></div><div><strong></strong> </div><div><strong></strong> </div><div>Now on single arrow CAs (5 are 1 sec, 3 are 2 sec, and 1 is 3 sec-of these, I only use 3 of the 2 sec ones in normal combat situations plus the 1 sec and 3 sec ones) so avg cast time becomes 1.5 (this excludes SoA which has 1.5 per arrow but ties well with the average)So beta style proc damage becomes</div><div>1.5/3*.25= 57% of the time*417= roughly <strong>52.1</strong> dmg per arrowQuick shot at a rate of 1.5/3*.3= 70% of the time *279=<strong>41.9</strong> dmg per arrowGleaming Strike at a rate of 1.5/3*.05= 11.7%*223=<strong>5.6</strong>dmg per arrow</div><div><hr></div><div>Total =<strong> 99.6 per arrow</strong></div><div><strong></strong>New dmg off procs = <strong>21.5% of old damage on single arrow CAs</strong></div><div>When it is a 2 arrow CA, it becomes 10.75% of old damage</div><div>When it is a 3 arrow CA it becomes 7.2% of the old dmgAnd for Stream of Arrows, it becomes 2.1% of the old damage.</div><div> </div><div>Please look into this before keeping such a drastic change. This is of course excluding the drastic impact that stuns not proccing will have on our solo game as well.</div><p>Message Edited by Erendil on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:19 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Erendil on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:21 PM</span></p>
ChaosUndivided
02-17-2006, 04:19 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote:also, my lvl 60 assassin NEVER comes close to a rangers dps unless my assassinate is up and their sniper shot is down, or they pull aggro and die.<div></div><hr></blockquote>That's pretty sad, I must say. While our ranger is usually ahead of me on most fights, ones like the books or the guards in PPR, or mobs with AEs I don't have to joust, I'm right on top of him. There needs to be some sort of change to the way poisons and things in general proc off of long delay weapons vs. combat arts, but these 2 changes in conjunction with each other are pretty devastating to rangers. What's so difficult to just have things proc at their given % when using combat arts? So poison would be 25% like it says, and, OMG, my offensive stance might actually proc more than once per fight.<p>Message Edited by MystaSkratch on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:16 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>Because game mechanics should never actually do what they say they do, that would make too much sense, instead they should have some cryptic formula's that end up different than their listed effects so that players can't find the "Bugs" and "Exploit" them.</p><p>Silly Mysta :p</p>
AfflictedOne
02-17-2006, 04:37 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div>Still not a huge nerf? I would say in some fights your pet makes up about 50% or more of your damage. Lets get rid of Conjis pets and see what happens on the Conji boards.<hr></blockquote>Actually, my pet does more around 75-80% of my damage. Either way, they're not completely removing your procs as you're trying to say in your comparison to Conjurors. Also, you're probably never going to see a Conjuror do 4K DPS on a single target mob <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Lastly, a 15-20% reduction in my pet's output wouldn't destroy me. Setback? Sure. Would it allow me to go full-out more often? Definately.</span></div><hr></blockquote>Um you throw around this 4K number like it's a real number. You have to realize this number was posted as being the extreme and by BG who apparently has no idea how the actual mechanics of the game works. There's no telling if this was a single or a PP:R group of 20 mobs that died in 6 secs. Could have even been a solo mob that got 2 shot by a ranger. BG from his quote about the percentage of damage that a ranger does coming from procs proves that he doesn't understand the game so any numbers he gives without actual proof doesn't mean anything.Also he admited that it was during a time that AA's were bugged. I can however tell you that raiding on beta with my ranger buffed to L70 with all my arts at M1 and at max str and near max int and zero AA's I was doing around 1300-1400 dps on single targets. So that shows me that either his numbers are out of context or are due to a serious bug with AA's. Probably the AA's since for about a week when you increased one it stacked with itself so at max upgrade of level 8 it was stacking on characters 8 times.To sum up I don't believe the 4K dps was on single target and I know that in the right group setup fighting the right mobs that this can be exceded by some casting classes at L60.</span><div></div>
MystaSkrat
02-17-2006, 04:38 AM
<div>You're right Khalan, what was I thinking?! :smileytongue:</div><div> </div><div>Seriously though, they need to try having the delay for combat arts as a set 3.0 seconds, which is the number their proc formula uses for normalization. So melee combat arts proc more than melee auto attacks (makes sense because you do less CA hits than auto attack hits) and ranged combat arts proc less than ranged auto attack (makes sense because you do more CA hits than auto attack hits). As it stands, using cast times as the normalization number, almost all melee combat arts are rendered procless, which nerfs other classes far more than it does rangers. Something tells me there's a lot of negative things this will cause that's unforseen to them.</div>
K'aldar
02-17-2006, 04:46 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote:also, my lvl 60 assassin NEVER comes close to a rangers dps unless my assassinate is up and their sniper shot is down, or they pull aggro and die.<div></div><hr></blockquote>That's pretty sad, I must say. While our ranger is usually ahead of me on most fights, ones like the books or the guards in PPR, or mobs with AEs I don't have to joust, I'm right on top of him.<p>Message Edited by MystaSkratch on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:16 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>sometimes sure i come close to their dps, but not because of that. in tells they let me know some of their specials weren't up and i can see that on the parser, or i can visually tell they have extreme lag(they are porting like crazy). on mobs without ae's, or any special circumstances, yes i do better, but nowhere near their dps. in those circumstances i completely outdps other classes tho, so i dont' think its me, but you're entitled to your opinon.</span><div></div>
Yrield
02-17-2006, 04:52 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Sol-the-Wise wrote:(This post refers to <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=48523#M48523" target="_blank">my last post</a> and subsequent replies.)<div><span></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Fennir wrote:<span><font color="#ff0000"><b>You forgot about our offensive stance, which is listed as Quick Shot.</b></font></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Fixed.<span></span><span></span><hr size="2" width="100%">Niuan wrote:<p>This is a bad example because of 2 things...</p><p>1. we have no idea what poisons are being used and because the damage varies so wildley with common and rare it can really scew your final damage percentage. If you showed total damage from each category of out going damage we can get a better idea.</p><p>2. ascending poison is high damage over time low upfront damage if I'm not mistaken and that is horrible for DPS because the proc goes off so often overiding itself. [ don't know cause I never ever use it ]</p><p>post total numbers including proc resists and I can believe this post as it is contrary to what I parse.</p><hr size="2" width="100%">Information added as per request.<p></p><span><blockquote><hr>Yrieldom wrote:<span>You are so wrong, thats not even funny...</span><span>Ranger 1 relies on procs for about <strike>42%</strike> <b>61%</b> of his/her damage (35% declining poison, 4% prismatic shard, 3% gleaming strike, <b>18% quick shot, 1% divine strike</b>).Ranger 2 relies on procs for about <strike>35%</strike><b> 47%</b> of his/her damage (24% ascending poison, 6% declining poison, 5% gleaming strike, <b>12% quick shot</b>).do the math now, kthx.</span><hr></blockquote>Fixed. It's still not a huge nerf, "kthx."</span></div><p>Message Edited by Sol-the-Wise on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:30 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Still not a huge nerf ? Your chance to proc (25/30% in your formula) is out of grindOn live a ranger using a longbow have 58% chance to proc poison on every RANGED CAs and 70% chance to proc Quick shot on every RANGED CAs --- (7/3)*25 = 58 --- (7/3)*30 = 70on Beta:</span><span>41% chance to proc poison and 50% chance to proc Quick Shot while using</span><span> Sniper Shot</span><span>25% chance to proc poison and 30% chance to proc Quick Shot while using</span><span> Stealthy Fire</span><span>12.5% chance to proc poison and 15% chance to proc Quick Shot while using</span><span> Triple Arrows, Confusion Arrow, Debilitating Arrow, Culling the weak and Amazing Shot</span><span>8% chance to proc poison and 10% chance to proc Quick Shot while using</span><span> Precise Shot and Snaring ShotCast, recast and average damage (using your parse):Sniper shot: 5s cast, 900s recast + time to cast stealth (2s, 1s, 0,5s), N/A</span><span>Stealthy Fire: 3s cast. 90s recast + time to cast stealth (2s, 1s, 0,5s) , 2222 dmgAmazing Shot: 1.5 cast, 60s recast , 712 dmgCulling the Weak: </span><span>1.5 cast, 60s recast, 1360 dmgDebilitating Arrow: </span><span>1.5 cast, 60s recast, 838 dmgTriple Arrows: </span><span>1.5 cast, 60s recast, 1350 dmgConfusion Arrow: </span><span>1.5 cast, 30s recast, 531 dmgPecise Shot: 1s cast, 20s recast, 670 dmgSnaring Shot: 1s cast, 10s recast, 250 dmgPoison: 295 dmgQuick Shot: 465 dmgAt this point you dont need to be a rockets scientist to see the HUGE nerfA level 60 ranger using the new procs mechanic will parse</span><span> 450dps on a good day ! Sounds like Tier1 dps to you ?</span><span></span><div></div>
MystaSkrat
02-17-2006, 05:01 AM
<div></div><div></div><p></p><hr><p>sometimes sure i come close to their dps, but not because of that. in tells they let me know some of their specials weren't up and i can see that on the parser, or i can visually tell they have extreme lag(they are porting like crazy). on mobs without ae's, or any special circumstances, yes i do better, but nowhere near their dps. in those circumstances i completely outdps other classes tho, so i dont' think its me, but you're entitled to your opinon.</p><hr><p> </p><p>Rangers will be subpar to us (assassins) if this change goes through.... please observe:</p><p>This is the parse from the very first set of books in PPR: <a target="_blank" href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks1.jpg">http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks1.jpg</a></p><p>This is mine, notice -- no Assassinate used: <a target="_blank" href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks2.jpg">http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks2.jpg</a></p><p>This is Axkiva's, notice -- no Sniper Shot used: <a target="_blank" href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks3.jpg">http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks3.jpg</a></p><p>If there isn't some sort of compensation for the extreme lowering of ranger (and in general) proc rates, then their damage is going to be a lot less than an (skilled) assassins.</p><p>Message Edited by MystaSkratch on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:05 PM</span></p>
terrified kill
02-17-2006, 05:20 AM
the way i understand it with the 50% dps coming from procs and 50% coming from auto attack and combat abilitys. the nerf of the procs i'd say were taking a 25% give or take a few dps hit as to do 50% less dps would mean one of two things 1. You loose all the procs you have or 2. your other combat abilitys will do less damage then they did before. i know i'm going to be innaccurate as i dont play a ranger but to say were taking 50% dps hit without having any auto attack changing or nerfs to non proc combat abilitys would be too harsh as that would mean that you are no longer procing at all<div></div>
Cecil_Stri
02-17-2006, 06:10 AM
<div>I heard guardians can do a chajillion billion damage on certain encounters....</div><div> </div><div>About as believeable as some of the numbers people are claiming</div>
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 07:51 AM
I've fixed the calculation flaws and adjusted for the wrong assumptions that Calaglin/Pinski pointed out. I also found a data entry bug that through off the numbers a bit: I had the Gleaming Strike proc rate at 50%, but it should have been 5%. I put the new spreadsheet up for downloads, and edited my original post with the new numbers. They show a 45% loss in damage, rather than the 55% loss that my model originally predicted. Thanks for the help guys.
K'aldar
02-17-2006, 08:12 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><hr><p>sometimes sure i come close to their dps, but not because of that. in tells they let me know some of their specials weren't up and i can see that on the parser, or i can visually tell they have extreme lag(they are porting like crazy). on mobs without ae's, or any special circumstances, yes i do better, but nowhere near their dps. in those circumstances i completely outdps other classes tho, so i dont' think its me, but you're entitled to your opinon.</p><hr><p> </p><p>Rangers will be subpar to us (assassins) if this change goes through.... please observe:</p><p>This is the parse from the very first set of books in PPR: <a href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks1.jpg" target="_blank">http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks1.jpg</a></p><p>This is mine, notice -- no Assassinate used: <a href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks2.jpg" target="_blank">http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks2.jpg</a></p><p>This is Axkiva's, notice -- no Sniper Shot used: <a href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks3.jpg" target="_blank">http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/Mystaskratch/pprbooks3.jpg</a></p><p>If there isn't some sort of compensation for the extreme lowering of ranger (and in general) proc rates, then their damage is going to be a lot less than an (skilled) assassins.</p><p>Message Edited by MystaSkratch on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:05 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>unless i read that wrong(might have but i'm fairly sure of myself), ranger dps isn't going to be all that much lower than assassins. so its a big drop from the highest dps, but why shouldn't rangers be lower than assassins? we're still t1 dps, and we have to go in and out of aoe, and generate more aggro from being closer i hear. if they're still close to our dps then they're not being dropped a tier and right where they should be.</span><div></div>
MystaSkrat
02-17-2006, 08:27 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote:<span>unless i read that wrong(might have but i'm fairly sure of myself), ranger dps isn't going to be all that much lower than assassins. so its a big drop from the highest dps, but why shouldn't rangers be lower than assassins? we're still t1 dps, and we have to go in and out of aoe, and generate more aggro from being closer i hear. if they're still close to our dps then they're not being dropped a tier and right where they should be.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote>Those parses are from Live servers. With all combat arts based on cast times rather than weapon delay, and CA only proccing once, rangers will be crippled in their dps. You can look at any ranger parse and see that half of their damage is from procs. Upcoming is a huge nerf to procs - so it affects rangers more than anyone else. I can say for a fact that after this change, our ranger won't be anywhere near me in dps on fights like the one I posted.
K'aldar
02-17-2006, 08:39 AM
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>
MystaSkrat
02-17-2006, 08:42 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>K'aldar wrote: 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. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Couldn't agree more on that one. It is a lot of work to get the high numbers with an assassin, but that's one of the reasons I like my class :smileyhappy:
Draughi
02-17-2006, 08:57 AM
<div>Well...ust got finished raiding Court. Parsing between our guilds top assassin and myself. Both of us were in teh number 1 and two slots. NOW this is on LIVE SERVER....the assassin parsed on average 1-200 more than I did..both using the same poisons on raid mobs. In fact, I had to go balls out to top him him, ie. Bow attack, triple arrow, sniper shot, run in and hit with my two piercing damage over time CA's, stream of arrows, all my ranged CA's. I topped him by 237 DPS. Now you ask, yeah you beat him. Mind you I was going all out with as much damage as I could possibly do. Sonce the proc change my DPS has gone down dramatically. With the slated implementation of single procs per CA, rangers will be sub tier 2 DPS and no utility. Defensive debuff? Literally does minimal debuffing on mobs. So little that I only notice about a 50 DPS change when it's on versus when it is not on. The heat debuff is useless on our snares. My heat damage spells do maybe 20-30 more damage when casted. Rangers and assassins are at the top right now. With the implementation of this on the live server will not only make rangers sup par, but most CA based damage classes....ie swashies, brigands, assassins. Rangers are just paying the heftiest price on their DPS.</div><div> </div>
MagicWand
02-17-2006, 09:24 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Domyr Farseeker wrote:<div></div><p>The 4000 dps number is getting tossed around a lot. From my understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that number was generated on beta and included the benefits from some of the new AA's on high level Rangers in a fully buffed group.</p><p>I don't think that's a number you'll see coming off live servers. If any Rangers are coming anywhere near those numbers live, it's because they're in a Fabled-laden group/raid with the group(s) buffing the crap out of the Rangers to turn them into uber-dps machines.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>So you don't find anything wrong with a ranger getting 4000 DPS in the "perfect DSP group" loaded with fabled with AA?! Are you that out of touch, that you can't the see the problem something like this would cause to the game? Trivialized High end raids with 6+ zergling rangers with a simple bow and some poison. The game will spiral out of control because everyone and thier mothers are just playing freaking rangers because nothing else comes close. As it is now, rangers average 300-400DPS more then assassins and even more with Wizards and warlocks who are suppose to be Tier 1 DPS.</p><p>You are not getting it, it should not be possible for ANYONE in getting 4000DPS. If people want that much DPS well you can expect Devs adding idiotic raid mobs with 1 billion+ hps with super quad 8000+ damage attacks just to keep up with the madness.</p><p> </p>
AfflictedOne
02-17-2006, 09:52 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>MagicWand wrote:<blockquote><hr>Domyr Farseeker wrote:<p>The 4000 dps number is getting tossed around a lot. From my understanding (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that number was generated on beta and included the benefits from some of the new AA's on high level Rangers in a fully buffed group.</p><p>I don't think that's a number you'll see coming off live servers. If any Rangers are coming anywhere near those numbers live, it's because they're in a Fabled-laden group/raid with the group(s) buffing the crap out of the Rangers to turn them into uber-dps machines.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p> </p><p>So you don't find anything wrong with a ranger getting 4000 DPS in the "perfect DSP group" loaded with fabled with AA?! Are you that out of touch, that you can't the see the problem something like this would cause to the game? Trivialized High end raids with 6+ zergling rangers with a simple bow and some poison. The game will spiral out of control because everyone and thier mothers are just playing freaking rangers because nothing else comes close. As it is now, rangers average 300-400DPS more then assassins and even more with Wizards and warlocks who are suppose to be Tier 1 DPS.</p><p>You are not getting it, it should not be possible for ANYONE in getting 4000DPS. If people want that much DPS well you can expect Devs adding idiotic raid mobs with 1 billion+ hps with super quad 8000+ damage attacks just to keep up with the madness.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>Gonna throw up a quote from BG himself:</span><blockquote><hr></blockquote><span></span>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.<blockquote><hr></blockquote> The most important thing you should notice is "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 at the same time a known bug with achievements that was causing the high DPS was fixed they also threw in the proc rate change! In fact he says it was a large part. All data that was given from parses in that time (IE: the 4000 dps) is false information based on a different known bug.I know for a fact that a L70 ranger with master 1's with no AA's was not cranking out anywhere near 4K dps. In fact they were doing pretty much the same dps they are now on live. They had very few useful arts upgraded in T7 ( 3 in my opinion). Not to mention that the damage from these CA's are such a small percentage of ranger dps that the difference in T6 and T7 damage was almost nonexistant. Also poisons were just added yesterday so they had the same proc damage as T6. In other words no way this damage was done without the achievement bug. And that's assuming that I believe this number is anything close to an accurate number on a fight that lasted more than 6 seconds.<div></div>
USAFJeeper
02-17-2006, 10:54 AM
<div></div><div></div><div>Just to join the chorus.</div><div> </div><div>I get at least half my DPS from procs. I use ACT and see that verified every day my guild raids at a minimum. I have never even approached 2000 DPS, let alone 4000 DPS. I think I play my class failry well, I have a mixture of fabled and legendary gear. My ACT output looks a lot like the others posted.</div><div> </div><div>Oh, and just a thought, certain tier 2 DPS classes should probably not poke their noses in here and try to parse our numbers. Lets just say that I am not the king of DPS when that class is around.</div><p>Message Edited by USAFJeeper on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:55 PM</span></p>
Domyr Farseeker
02-17-2006, 11:18 AM
<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>
Gailstryd
02-17-2006, 11:30 AM
<div></div><p>I miss hardwork equaling better damage with my ranger. I hate the fact that some newb ranger can waltz in and do his stream of arrow "30sec afk" as someone put it and still do next to the same dps as me busting my rump to do good dmg. And in some ways I could see having proc's and how they currently work being changed a thing to make being a ranger more about skill and going back to gear actually mattering a little more something I know axkiva and few busting their humps for it would like and me too. But I don't want the proc changes if it's going to mean breaking my class. In all the ranger class needs an overhaul no matter how you look at it, but proc changes at least as implemented on test and beta right now don't seem to be the right thing. I sincerely hope SOE does their research before making any drastic changes again though I know thats a futile hope.</p><p>And back to the "30sec afk" thing that some assassin shot off his mouth about, I'll have you know that any ranger worth his salt wouldn't and couldn't got afk with stream up or 9 out of 10 times it's agro for them and a death bare minimum or a raid wipe. Yeah it's an easy button tool and I don't like the fact it "streams" a bunch of idiots straight into my class, but the idiots are hardly the people you should be looking at when judging the ranger class.</p>
haloseventy8
02-17-2006, 12:43 PM
<div></div><div></div><div>ok wow. i just read five pages of this thread and im just going to post what i see because i have played a ranger from the first day i got back from iraq in february a year ago. i used to remember envying socerer dps so much back in the days before desert of flames launched. most specifically warlocks but wizards were a very close second. also, my best friend from day one is a conjuror and he used to beat me on dps every now and then and granted that probably had something to do with how i played and how he played. over the year ive been playing ive gotten progressively better to the point that i finally got into a raid guild at the end of october 2005 and have been raiding ever since.</div><div> </div><div>although i do not have any crazy formulas or calculus training that would help me explain this in geekology this is what i have noticed about my dps:</div><div> </div><div>in a group setting for strictly xp purposes my dps is NOT that high. for my dps to soar to the heavens like most of these non-rangers who are analyzing our dps like they actually know anything about it claim, i HAVE to have poison on and it pretty much HAS to be a group mob that i can use either natural selection or storm of arrows. if neither of those two are up my dps straight sucks and its not because i dont know what im doing its because my combat arts have such long refresh times that if i used them on the mob previous very rarely can i use them on the current mob. also my cast times are long and a lot of times, mid cast, mob goes down, and i get the "no target" message. i spend more time trying to land a hit than actually hitting. why is this relevant? because my dps that is 1k or higher is almost EXCLUSIVELY in a raid setting.</div><div> </div><div>in the raid setting, i do very well. my dps on a raid is usually between 800-1200 dps. i am about 50% fabled and 40% legendary and 10% treasured in gear. i have about half of my combat arts 47+ at master 1 and the rest are all adept 3. my stats are as follows: 363 str / 259 agi / 85 sta / 45 int / 29 wis and i use the imbued ironwood long bow and i always have adestes, poison debuff, and a str/sta buff potion that gives me +47 to each. half the time in im a group that gives me more str, other times im in an all scout group and i get nothing. this is my basic set up so you can understand exactly what im saying. on raid mobs the fights take much longer to complete and i know in the raids im on theres usually a few minutes between encouters so most if not all of my combat arts will refresh apart from sniper shot. this allows me to have my full arsenal at hand on 90% of encounters which is very different from regular single group / solo situations. i can maintain a rate of fire and cycle through all of my ranged combat arts usually 2-3 times before the mob is dead or we wipe if things went wrong. ALSO IF MY POISON (adestes) RUNS OUT MID FIGHT MY DPS WILL DROP BY 300-500 DPS. other times, because of my dps, i pull agro from the tank and for certain situations i turn off my offensive stance which cuts me down to just my bow proc. THIS WILL DROP MY DPS BY 200-400. i know enough math to know that from an average of 1000 (and yes i realize procs dont totally go away) making procs and poisons even happen 1/3 less than they do that will drop me down to roughly 300-500 dps. the two best friends i have in my raiding guild are a warlock and an assassin and the assassin does roughly 600-900 and the warlock does roughly 500-800 dps. i DO understand that we rangers do a lot more dps than sorcerers and assassins. i ALSO understand that we offer no group advantage as far as buffs or any other such thing. our dps SHOULD be high and at the top end of the spectrum. i have no problem being equal to my assassin and warlock friends so that when we are fighting for the top spot on the parse when it is feasible to do so because of the mob we are fighthing that the one that comes out on top played a better fight.</div><div> </div><div>maybe these are the common sense appendices to the hardcore math spreadsheets and maybe im wrong but after reading five pages of this thread this is the best i can surmise as to whats going to happen to my class.</div><div> </div><div>and common sense or not i can honestly tell you this. i will quit this game if that happens because I WILL ONLY GET INTO GROUPS/RAIDS BECAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS AND AM ALREADY IN A RAID GUILD NOT BECAUSE A RANGER IS WANTED OR NEEDED. and more importantly, i will not be having fun. i already have a job. dont make this game into one.</div><div> </div><div>i suggest trying to fix the problem somewhere else. like someone said previously, interact bow shots with heroic opportunites. why even give it an HO icon if theyre never used? kind of reminds me of alcohol tolerance and the way thats affected the game so far. oh yeah IT HASNT. if it doesnt affect the game why leave it in? why should i have to rely on poison to do so much of my dmg? shouldnt poison just augment my bow and arrows and not the other way around? thats like going to mcdonalds and ordering a hamburger and i get back a bun with a tiny little beef pattie topped with 30 ketchup packets. its called a hamburger for a reason not a ketchup burger. and we SHOULD be called rangers for a reason. if you think we should still play like this call us rat poison, not rangers.</div><div> </div><div>bian lvl 60 ranger / 60 armorer - oasis server</div><p>Message Edited by haloseventy8 on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:48 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by haloseventy8 on <span class="date_text">02-16-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:56 PM</span></p>
haloseventy8
02-17-2006, 01:13 PM
<div></div>oh and one more thing since im just a tad heated right now. blackguard, im in the military and the next time the country calls on us to go and fight a war so that you can keep dev'ing games in this manner, maybe we'll just say its not our job. obviously that would be a lie and it IS our job but hey why hold us to a higher standard than yourself. and if you honestly dont care enough to go that extra mile in the dev'ing of this game, you might as well start openly advertising for vanguard on these forums so that when half of your subscriber population leaves to play it, youll have the correct numbers as to why it happened.
TofuPatty
02-17-2006, 02:33 PM
<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>It's the IF on this that just kills me. I've played a ranger since release, way back when when rangers were gimped dps pre LU13 and yes I've been waiting for a nerf since LU13. I'll be the first to say that yes, my dps has been a bit out of line since LU13, as has conj/necro dps. I don't post very much, but what I have posted I've been very sympathetic to wizzies and warlocks and assassins, the other T1 dps classes. Since all of the T1 dps classes roles is to do dps and make mobs dead, I'd be more than happy to see them all to about the same dps, vagaries aside. I'd like to hope that it needs to be fixed means that ranger dps isn't so driven by procs and procless damage will fall in line with everyone in T1 dps.</p><p>However - ranger dps means proc dps, through offensive stance dps, group buff dps, weapon procs and largely poison dps. It has since release of the game. The poison part which rangers have had to either pay for or befriend an alchie or grind an alchie to make their own poisons. That this comes as a surprise to developers is well - a bit of a shock. It's horribly well known to the playing population, as all of the parses given shown.</p><p>I'd like to think that knee jerk changes to the entire paradigm of how procs have been driven will be well though out - and mind you, massive changes to how proc rates are driven will effect all classes, and passing it off as a 'bug' is frankly insulting to everyone in the player base who has been well aware of how it has worked since release - but since it's such a total shift, and upwards of 55-65% of ranger dps is now in the toilet, can't say I'm holding my breath.</p>
Hicar
02-17-2006, 05:33 PM
<div></div><p>I understand the concern here and generally appreciate constructed methods to analyze a problem. The thing is, constructed methods needs solid basis.</p><p>There is a fact that is neglected in all evaluations brough by rangers on this thread, or those that i read, in how much dps they will loose. They say "here is the dps i do now, and how it is spread among auto attack, CA and proc. Take off the proc, and here is my new dps". There are a few things that are wrong with these statements. First, and that is shown by the fact that a ranger in those parses use the valian bow, which is a T5 weapon, ranger are geared to make use of procs. They neglect bow damage rating, and they might neglect strenght in some cases in favor of yet another proc. After this change comes in, they won't anymore, they'll use T6 or T7 bows, they'll use dps / str buffs more, in stead of only proc buffs. That will fill the gap some.</p><p>Secondly, they won't be proc less after the change. they'll continue to auto attack and get procs from it.</p>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 06:59 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Hicarse wrote:<p>Secondly, they won't be proc less after the change. they'll continue to auto attack and get procs from it.</p><hr></blockquote>Procing after update will be reduced to almost nil unfortunatly. Autoattack damage makes for a very small amount of dps even if every one procced. Since proccing now on CAs are based on cast time of the CA now and not the bow delay. Ranger forumns have shown this statement to be true with parse data.
<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<blockquote><hr>Hicarse wrote:<p>Secondly, they won't be proc less after the change. they'll continue to auto attack and get procs from it.</p><hr></blockquote>Procing after update will be reduced to almost nil unfortunatly. Autoattack damage makes for a very small amount of dps even if every one procced. Since proccing now on CAs are based on cast time of the CA now and not the bow delay. Ranger forumns have shown this statement to be true with parse data.<hr></blockquote>The major problem here seems to be only the "Cast time " is being equated into the chance to proc, which really is completly wrong. The "delay" on an AA attack is not how quickly you swing your wepon but it is the refresh rate between swing. Now what they have done is the complete oppisit for CAs. They are using the "cast time" instead of the "reuse time". The AA and CA mechanic should be completely differnt when determining if an attack should proc.The main reason for this is that the "casting time" on most ca are between 0.2 and - 0.5 with some hitting 1.0. What about CAs that have a cast time of 0.0 (instant), are they going to have 0 % chance to proc ? Why not just ignor cast time and use resuse times for CA/Spells ? Heres an idea how about CAs actualy use that % to proc instead of some crazy formaula that was designed for weapons ? Since it no longer matters what weapon a person is useing wouldn't it balance several of the melee procing classes because their ca casting times are similar ?Now spell procs the devs are completely avoiding. curious why, but i guess that will have to saved for another thread.You know all of this was started around the silly % chance to proc being calcualted for differnt weapons based on delays aproching 3.0. Imo this methods is completely flawed for the exact example that we are seeing now. Wouldnt a better fix be to actualy just change the proc on the weapon. for example.All three of these weapons all have the proc effect "kill stuff"</span><ul><li>A, 3.0 delay, 9% chance to proc</li><li>B 2.0 delay, 7% chance to proc</li><li>C 1.2 delay, 5% chance to proc</li></ul>Now these % chance to proc would only apply to AA, There would be another number provied in the spell desicription that would state the % chance to proc off of CAs. I personaly dont know how difficulty this woudl be to impletemt but in my oppion it would be a far much better chance to what is currently being done now. Because really your not fixing anything than the CAs calculating their proc chance based on weapon, bow attacks procing so much, and CA thave have multiple attack. While i do agree the removing the Multi procs from a CA that should only proc 5 times to actualy only proc 5 times not some crazy amount. But honestly instead of the change where only allow one proc per CA. Why not just make the charged procs count ? By counting i mean actualy every time they fire a charge is removed, therfor you never can have more procs fireing than there are charges. Instead of being calculated after the CA has fired (guessign this the way its currently done) while not jsut have it calculate as the CA if firing?These are my two cents onteh subject, but i honestly thing that the current method on beta are very flawed and will requrie an exterame amount of tweaking because they are not being done right from the start all over again.<span></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by perano on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:42 AM</span></p>
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 07:28 PM
<span><blockquote><hr>Hicarse wrote:<p>I understand the concern here and generally appreciate constructed methods to analyze a problem. The thing is, constructed methods needs solid basis.</p><p><b>There is a fact that is neglected in all evaluations brough by rangers on this thread</b>, or those that i read, in how much dps they will loose. They say "here is the dps i do now, and how it is spread among auto attack, CA and proc. <b>Take off the proc, and here is my new dps".</b> There are a few things that are wrong with these statements. <b>First, and that is shown by the fact that a ranger in those parses use the valian bow</b>, which is a T5 weapon, ranger are geared to make use of procs. <b>They neglect bow damage rating,</b> and they might neglect strenght in some cases in favor of yet another proc. After this change comes in, they won't anymore, they'll use T6 or T7 bows, they'll use dps / str buffs more, in stead of only proc buffs. That will fill the gap some.</p><p><b>Secondly, they won't be proc less after the change. they'll continue to auto attack and get procs from it.</b></p><hr></blockquote>Did you read the original post? Yeah, a lot of people have thrown crude estimations out there. But my carefully constructed model doesn't suffer from any of the holes you're describing."</span><span>Take off the proc, and here is my new dps" - My model computes the new effectiveness of procs. It doesn't eliminate them all together; it eliminates them to the exact degree that SOE's planned changes do."</span><span>a ranger in those parses use the valian bow" - My data is straight from my character in-game: a level 47 ranger with a player-made imbued bow. Pretty much the best bow someone who isn't a heavy raider can get, but at the same time, fairly common. But I built the spreadsheet so that people can plug in their own numbers if they want."</span><span>They neglect bow damage rating" - Again, my damage was taken from a real bow, and autoattack is calculated in.</span><span>"</span><span>Secondly, they won't be proc less after the change. they'll continue to auto attack and get procs from it." - Again, my model computes the *new* impact of the procs, rather than just removing them.</span><span></span><div></div>
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 08:23 PM
<div></div>By the way, just for kicks I looked back at my old posts to see how early people were talking about the proc rate mechanics for bows. While I'm sure other people were discussing it before then, here's the first post in which I discussed it, and how it affected poisons: <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=31&message.id=3834#M3834" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=31&message.id=3834#M3834</a>The date is 2/9/2005 - over a year ago.EDIT:For even more kicks, I dug up a post where I definitively proved proc rates with a custom-built parser. Here's the link, date 4/20/2005:<a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=44487">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=44487</a>Here's the summary I wrote in that post:<blockquote><hr size="2" width="100%"><div>My condensed data is below, but for now I'll jump straight to my conclusions. (Most of this is already well-known, but it's nice to back it with numbers.)</div><ol><li>At present, any weapon can proc, even if the attack is coming from a different weapon. For instance, my bow procced on melee attacks, and my PGT procced on ranged attacks. (I believe this is scheduled to change in Live Update #7.)</li><li>Procs don't happen on misses, parries, blocks, or heroic opportunity completions.</li><li><font color="#ccffff"><font color="#9966cc">Attacks from the longbow were *much* more likely to proc than those from melee</font>.</font> That's probably due to each weapon's delay: the longbow's delay is 7 and the PGT's delay is 1.2. A dev had posted that the proc rates shown in examine windows assume a delay of 3, and that in actual use the rates are (delay/3)*examine_rate for a weapon. The longbow's actual proc rate should be 58% for poison, and 12% for Gleaming Strike (Imbue) and Might of the Land (PGT). We're pretty close there. But by that formula, the PGT/melee rates should be 10% for poison and 2% for Gleaming Strike and Might of the Land. The actual results are closer to 5% and 1%, which suggests that dual-wield proc rates are probably halved.</li><li>Any ranger who doesn't use poison is an idiot.</li></ol></blockquote><hr size="2" width="100%"><div></div><p>Message Edited by Bayler_xev on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:46 AM</span></p>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 10:02 PM
<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Wow, this is sure an exciting topic!</p><p>This is all a result of a bug. To try to say this simple without all the geekspeach, here we go. Poison proc rates were increased for slower delayed weapons. They did not take into account that CA's would cause this weapon to actually attack 100x faster than the delay and proc rate was intended for. So that means poisons and other procs were going off way more often then ever intended. My understanding is that they are removing this extra proc rate, but otherwise not really nerfing anything further. </p><p>This fixing of a bug affects all classes. These aren't numbers but the concept remains the same.</p><p>Longbows = Highest proc rate</p><p>Duel wield weapons = Lowest proc rate</p><p>1 hand weapons = Medium proc rate</p><p>Rangers using a bow fire more arrows than any other class attacks. Even a swashie's fastest CA uses 3 swings. I've seen rangers hit mobs with so many arrows it looked like a porcupine. This means that Rangers were procing at the Highest Proc Rate and with many more chances to do so than any other class. Swashies and other faster attacking classes would only get the Lowest Proc Rate, so maybe 2 a fight.</p><p>So where is the error here? They chose to affect the proc rates of all weapons, thus really only taking this bug away from the rangers who were in the best position to exploit it. Sorry guys that you perceive this as a class nerf, but I it really looks to me like a bug or exploit fix.</p><p>Message Edited by Giallolas on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:10 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Giallolas on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:11 AM</span></p>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 10:11 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><p>Wow, this is sure an exciting topic!</p><p>This is all a result of a bug. To try to say this simple without all the geekspeach, here we go. Poison proc rates were increased for slower delayed weapons. They did not take into account that CA's would cause this weapon to actually attack 100x faster than the delay and proc rate was intended for. So that means poisons and other procs were going off way more often then ever intended. My understanding is that they are removing this extra proc rate, but otherwise not really nerfing anything further. </p><p>This fixing of a bug affects all classes. I'm pullling numbers out of thin air but this will work for this illustration.</p><p>Longbows proc rate = 35%</p><p>Duel wield fast weapons proc rate = 7%</p><p>1 hander weapons medium proc rate = 12%</p><p>Rangers using a bow fire more arrows than any other class attacks. Even a swashie's fastest CA uses 3 swings. I've seen rangers hit mobs with so many arrows it looked like a porcupine. This means that Rangers were procing at 35% so many more times than any other class. Swashies and other faster attacking classes would only get 7% proc or so, so maybe 2 a fight.</p><p>So where is the error here? They chose to affect the proc rates of all weapons, thus really only taking this bug away from the rangers who were in the best position to exploit it. Sorry guys that you perceive this as a class nerf, but I it really looks to me like a bug or exploit fix.</p><hr></blockquote><p>Bug fix, balance fix = nerf</p><p><a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_%28computer_gaming%29">look it up here</a></p>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 10:15 PM
<div></div><p>Ok, then let's not bandy words. You're nerfed because, per your definition:</p><p>Among game developers, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORPG">MMORPG</a> designers are especially likely to nerf aspects of a game in order to maintain game balance. Occasionally a new feature (such as an item, class, skill, etc.) may be made too powerful, too cheap, or too easily obtained to the extent that it unbalances the game system itself. This is sometimes due to an unforseen bug or method of using or acquiring the object that was not considered by the developers. The developers may have intended that a player perform steps A, B, and C to get the item, but players may accidentally discover that they can skip steps A and B and simply do step C to gain the reward.</p><p>It's unfortunate that you too many Rangers think that the correction of an exploit is such a horrible thing to a class. If the exploit of the poison delay proc rate is how a class is built, then the class is indeed broken. I believe that Rangers are still going to be an awesome class to play and it will still be very potent indeed. I think you guys will become even better at what you do once you no longer lean on the crutch of the proc exploit and truly become Rangers. After all, traditionally I never saw Aragorn or any other Ranger use poisons, that was usually a low-down Assassin type trick anyway...a rogue at best.</p>
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 10:23 PM
<span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Wow, this is sure an exciting topic!</p><p>This is all a result of a bug. To try to say this simple without all the geekspeach, here we go. Poison proc rates were increased for slower delayed weapons. They did not take into account that CA's would cause this weapon to actually attack 100x faster than the delay and proc rate was intended for. So that means poisons and other procs were going off way more often then ever intended. My understanding is that they are removing this extra proc rate, but otherwise not really nerfing anything further. </p><p>This fixing of a bug affects all classes. These aren't numbers but the concept remains the same.</p><p>Longbows = Highest proc rate</p><p>Duel wield weapons = Lowest proc rate</p><p>1 hand weapons = Medium proc rate</p><p>Rangers using a bow fire more arrows than any other class attacks. Even a swashie's fastest CA uses 3 swings. I've seen rangers hit mobs with so many arrows it looked like a porcupine. This means that Rangers were procing at the Highest Proc Rate and with many more chances to do so than any other class. Swashies and other faster attacking classes would only get the Lowest Proc Rate, so maybe 2 a fight.</p><p>So where is the error here? They chose to affect the proc rates of all weapons, thus really only taking this bug away from the rangers who were in the best position to exploit it. Sorry guys that you perceive this as a class nerf, but I it really looks to me like a bug or exploit fix.</p><p>Message Edited by Giallolas on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:10 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Giallolas on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">09:11 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>No way. Can't call it a bug. It's a fundemental game mechanic - a poorly designed one, to be sure - but it's a game mechanic.It's been in the since EQ2 was in beta (and probably before). You could justify calling it a bug at EQ2's release, perhaps. You could claim that it wasn't part of the factors that SOE used to balance the ranger class back then, I suppose. But not after the Combat Update. *Long* before the CU, rangers were discussing, parsing, analyzing, and proving the advantages of high delay weapons. We explained many times the mechanics behind the phenomenon and how it affected our class to newcomers to our class. It was all out in the open - all well known. Through many changes to poisons, I was there analyzing the impact of things. Then the combat update happened, and rangers were balanced with these mechanics in place. There's simply no way that it could have been ignored.Bug? Exploiters? We're no more exploiters than a paladin who chooses plate armor over leather. This is no more of a bug than the existance of recast timers on spells.</span><div></div>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 10:26 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><p>Ok, then let's not bandy words. You're nerfed because, per your definition:</p><p>Among game developers, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORPG">MMORPG</a> designers are especially likely to nerf aspects of a game in order to maintain game balance. Occasionally a new feature (such as an item, class, skill, etc.) may be made too powerful, too cheap, or too easily obtained to the extent that it unbalances the game system itself. This is sometimes due to an unforseen bug or method of using or acquiring the object that was not considered by the developers. The developers may have intended that a player perform steps A, B, and C to get the item, but players may accidentally discover that they can skip steps A and B and simply do step C to gain the reward.</p><p>It's unfortunate that you too many Rangers think that the correction of an exploit is such a horrible thing to a class. If the exploit of the poison delay proc rate is how a class is built, then the class is indeed broken. I believe that Rangers are still going to be an awesome class to play and it will still be very potent indeed. I think you guys will become even better at what you do once you no longer lean on the crutch of the proc exploit and truly become Rangers. After all, traditionally I never saw Aragorn or any other Ranger use poisons, that was usually a low-down Assassin type trick anyway...a rogue at best.</p><hr></blockquote><p>To label this an exploit is the overstatement of the year. It was a known fact among the dev team and the vast majority of scout classes since release.</p><p>No matter how they change the game mechinics there will ALWAYS be a superior delay vs proc setup. This is not exploiting but seeing everquest for what it REALLY is. EQ is nothing but a Giant Math Problem.</p><p>To say that it is unbalanced is a better discription of the problem and most rangers will agree with that. To label all rangers exploiters implies cheating and being underhanded. Which is innacurate.</p><p>Blackguard even hinted at describing this as exploiting. Blackguard admittingly has no clue where our dps comes from... He may not be the best to label this issue.</p><p> </p>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 10:58 PM
<div></div><p>I'm sorry to have tried to label it an exploit. I still see it as a bug. In my explanation it really appears that rangers were not completely thought through. I do not mean to say that players were wrong for taking advantage of this game mechanic. I did the same with my 41 Ranger. But the whole time I did I kept scratching my head and wondering if something wasn't just a bit off. My 53 Swashie couldn't do this with poisons and he attacks quite quickly too. My guild assassins weren't doing this kind of damage and they pride themselves in doing all they can.</p><p>I do not mean to tag everyone as a cheater. Sorry for the extreme discription. But guys, come on, this is clearly a bug or at least an oversight that needs to be corrected. Stop flaming the Devs because a most obvious problem is being addressed. We make fun of them for making armor tints look better when basic mechanics are broken. Here is a mechanics problem they are fixing, cut them some slack.</p>
leafnin
02-17-2006, 11:04 PM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><p>Ok, then let's not bandy words. You're nerfed because, per your definition:</p><p>Among game developers, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORPG">MMORPG</a> designers are especially likely to nerf aspects of a game in order to maintain game balance. Occasionally a new feature (such as an item, class, skill, etc.) may be made too powerful, too cheap, or too easily obtained to the extent that it unbalances the game system itself. This is sometimes due to an unforseen bug or method of using or acquiring the object that was not considered by the developers. The developers may have intended that a player perform steps A, B, and C to get the item, but players may accidentally discover that they can skip steps A and B and simply do step C to gain the reward.</p><p>It's unfortunate that you too many Rangers think that the correction of an exploit is such a horrible thing to a class. If the exploit of the poison delay proc rate is how a class is built, then the class is indeed broken. I believe that Rangers are still going to be an awesome class to play and it will still be very potent indeed. I think you guys will become even better at what you do once you no longer lean on the crutch of the proc exploit and truly become Rangers. After all, traditionally I never saw Aragorn or any other Ranger use poisons, that was usually a low-down Assassin type trick anyway...a rogue at best.</p><hr></blockquote><p> First the formula was and is working fine. Where we get into problems is the delay in bows and the introduction of two skills that take great advantage of the proc ratio (offensive stance and SoA). This wasn't such a big deal till we add more procs into the mix and higher and higher poison damage. </p><p> What really needed to happen was a reduction in bow delay (nothing higher then 4-5 secs). They just took the easy way out and changed it so there are now two formulas. One for autoattack and One for CAs. Do you see where I'm coming from when I say the introduction of certain skills tipped the balance? The mechanic itself is fine otherwise why still use it for autoattack? They need to scrap it all together if it doesn't work, but they didn't <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</p><p> We've delt with adversity before we'll do it again. They changed Agility. We adapted. They completely removed kiting as we knew it. So we adapted. Now they remove procs. So we'll adapt. I'll see how this change happens if what is being said is true..well then I'll adapt and do what was done to us. </p><p>/rant on</p><p> I still think it's funny how all of these people come out of the woodwork screaming exploit because one Community Manager throws the word around when the mechanic itself wasn't thrown off till new content was added, hell they don't even have a accurate break down as to the average percentage of my DPS was coming from procs (Check Dev tracker for BG posts). As I said before you didn't care then cause it WAS working as intended and because we weren't a threat to anyone's ego trip over their DPS numbers. I fight for my guildmates not a number obviously some of you can't say the same. </p><p> My issue isn't with the numbers it's with people who seem to think it's 'fun' to kick others while they're down or to come from some self designed morale high ground. You didn't see me running in your threads telling you that you need to shut up and get over the crutch when some of you got hit during LU13. That wasn't my place I didn't play your class. Yet for some reason you seem to think its' yours...I can partially understand the other DPS, but to see Wardens and Templars in here giggling like little girls over this. /boggle</p><p>/rant off</p><p> </p><p> On a final note one man's idea of a ranger from the 1950's does not a standard for rangers worldwide make. Take a look a Drizzt Do' Urden or Tanis Half-Elven from their respective series and you'll find out that not all of us go about the class the same way.</p><p> </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor </p><p> </p>
kartikeya
02-17-2006, 11:08 PM
<div></div><p>Please stop calling it an exploit. That is an insult to every single ranger who has ever used a bow. SOE could decide tomorrow that giving you three pulls on a harvesting node is a 'bug', that it is just too much and gives you too many chances for a rare--does that make you an exploiter because you have until this point harvested three times on a single node? Would you appreciate the implication that you were <em>cheating</em> because you were using a game mechanic that has existed since the beginning? I suspect you wouldn't.</p><p>By all means, take away our dependence on procs. Take away our dependence on poisons. It's something that has not sat well with me since the very beginning, because it's so darned random. But when our entire class has been modeled around these mechanics now labeled a 'bug' by the very developers that have been designing us that way in the first place, and our damage suffers as much as the reports coming back from Beta are claiming, there <em>needs</em> to be some kind of compensation for the loss. Give us more damage on our CA's, tweak the proc rate around some more, I don't care but <em>something.</em> Rolling out a 'fix' to a 'bug' that you know (and if they didn't know before they know now, how many different players are telling them this? Don't they have access to the same data?) that you know is going to break a class that's supposed to be T1 down to T3 and then saying 'we'll watch and see' is not acceptable. It's not. We're all aware there are too many projects and not enough programmers as is, don't put yet another thing on your 'to do' pile, while in the meantime an entire class has been rendered next to useless for their intended role.</p><p>I can't buff groups in any manner (Pathfinding is silly, no one needs that in a fight, not at this level). I can't crowd control, I can't heal, I can't tank, and my soloing depends on my burning the mobs down before they can burn me down. If I can't do damage effectively (and I don't want to be the best, I just want to be on level with everyone else in T1), if I can't do that, what exactly can I do? It's not a matter of 'switching strategies'. We only /have/ one function. One. Render that into mediocrity and we have nothing.</p><p> </p>
Niuan
02-17-2006, 11:17 PM
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><p>I'm sorry to have tried to label it an exploit. I still see it as a bug. In my explanation it really appears that rangers were not completely thought through. I do not mean to say that players were wrong for taking advantage of this game mechanic. I did the same with my 41 Ranger. But the whole time I did I kept scratching my head and wondering if something wasn't just a bit off. My 53 Swashie couldn't do this with poisons and he attacks quite quickly too. My guild assassins weren't doing this kind of damage and they pride themselves in doing all they can.</p><p>I do not mean to tag everyone as a cheater. Sorry for the extreme discription. But guys, come on, this is clearly a bug or at least an oversight that needs to be corrected. Stop flaming the Devs because a most obvious problem is being addressed. We make fun of them for making armor tints look better when basic mechanics are broken. Here is a mechanics problem they are fixing, cut them some slack.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I agree with this post to a certain extent and appreciate the recant of labling us exploiters. My feelings on this is that our high dps was always countered by when I tried to wander into a dungeon and solo a white or yellow single up arrow and get my [Removed for Content] handed to me sometimes. My warlock would in that same dungeon would own sigle up arrows by root nuking. Playing my ranger would be a scary experience to try and solo in confined places. I thought of this as the price we pay for damage we can do.</p><p>The funny thing is that I see some classes just lay waste to tripple up arrows toe to toe mano ah mano in dungeons soloing. I can solo a tipple up out doors with heavy doses of expensive poisons kiting but was a scary experience.</p><p>I'm all about ballance but not class crippling.</p><p>Message Edited by Niuan on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:21 AM</span></p>
Domyr Farseeker
02-17-2006, 11:27 PM
<div>This BS about 'exploits' has got to stop. It started with an offhand comment from one of the devs about people 'taking advantage' of a 'unintended' situation. And the mages and other Ranger haters are coming out of the woodwork with this crud.</div><div> </div><div>I rolled a Ranger the first week the game went live. It was a gimped class the first few months. Rangers learned to play around the obvious flaws, found ways to be effective. We tried various weapons and armors and stat respecs. We talked to other Rangers, we parsed logs, we timed encounters, we experimented with poisons. We found combinations of weapons and spells and armor and buffs and poisons that maximized our abilities within the game mechanics that SOE went live with. SAME AS EVERY OTHER FREAKING CLASS IN THE GAME.</div><div> </div><div>SOE created the ruleset, we play the game. The ruleset they put in place made the long bow the king of Ranged weapons. I'm not sure many of us will switch even after the changes. It's still going to be the highest damage, longest range weapon we can use to empty our quivers with. So, we're not going to stop using longbows, we're not going to stop buying imbued weapons, we're not going to stop using poisons, we're not going to stop using our mult-shot CA's or our offensive stance. That combination, within SOE's proc mechanics (that have been in place since release) prove to be more effective than SOE intended. Explain to me how that's an <em>exploit</em> comparable to cheating on a quest or duping plat or any other bannable offenses (someone actually stated that we should be banned).</div><div> </div><div>In fact, I'd argue that only really overpowering effect of this combination is when the other classes, who aren't supposed to be able to use our slow-wielding longbow proc rates, EXPLOIT their ability to buff the crap out of us, and stack all their proc'ing, hate generating buffs on us. One on one, without group buffs there's not much difference between assassins and rangers.</div><div> </div><div>And for the devs to insinuate that we were naughty rangers for 'taking advantage' of the game mechanics they've had in place for over a year is just insulting. They're your rules, they're your mechanics, it's your itemization, and it's been in place for over a year. If you're just now figuring out how your game works, that's not my problem!</div><div> </div><div>Exploit my [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]!</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div>
Giallolas
02-17-2006, 11:38 PM
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>leafnin wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><p>Ok, then let's not bandy words. You're nerfed because, per your definition:</p><p>Among game developers, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORPG">MMORPG</a> designers are especially likely to nerf aspects of a game in order to maintain game balance. Occasionally a new feature (such as an item, class, skill, etc.) may be made too powerful, too cheap, or too easily obtained to the extent that it unbalances the game system itself. This is sometimes due to an unforseen bug or method of using or acquiring the object that was not considered by the developers. The developers may have intended that a player perform steps A, B, and C to get the item, but players may accidentally discover that they can skip steps A and B and simply do step C to gain the reward.</p><p>It's unfortunate that you too many Rangers think that the correction of an exploit is such a horrible thing to a class. If the exploit of the poison delay proc rate is how a class is built, then the class is indeed broken. I believe that Rangers are still going to be an awesome class to play and it will still be very potent indeed. I think you guys will become even better at what you do once you no longer lean on the crutch of the proc exploit and truly become Rangers. After all, traditionally I never saw Aragorn or any other Ranger use poisons, that was usually a low-down Assassin type trick anyway...a rogue at best.</p><hr></blockquote><p> First the formula was and is working fine. Where we get into problems is the delay in bows and the introduction of two skills that take great advantage of the proc ratio (offensive stance and SoA). This wasn't such a big deal till we add more procs into the mix and higher and higher poison damage. </p><p> What really needed to happen was a reduction in bow delay (nothing higher then 4-5 secs). They just took the easy way out and changed it so there are now two formulas. One for autoattack and One for CAs. Do you see where I'm coming from when I say the introduction of certain skills tipped the balance? The mechanic itself is fine otherwise why still use it for autoattack? They need to scrap it all together if it doesn't work, but they didn't <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.</p><p> We've delt with adversity before we'll do it again. They changed Agility. We adapted. They completely removed kiting as we knew it. So we adapted. Now they remove procs. So we'll adapt. I'll see how this change happens if what is being said is true..well then I'll adapt and do what was done to us. </p><p>/rant on</p><p> I still think it's funny how all of these people come out of the woodwork screaming exploit because one Community Manager throws the word around when the mechanic itself wasn't thrown off till new content was added, hell they don't even have a accurate break down as to the average percentage of my DPS was coming from procs (Check Dev tracker for BG posts). As I said before you didn't care then cause it WAS working as intended and because we weren't a threat to anyone's ego trip over their DPS numbers. I fight for my guildmates not a number obviously some of you can't say the same. </p><p> My issue isn't with the numbers it's with people who seem to think it's 'fun' to kick others while they're down or to come from some self designed morale high ground. You didn't see me running in your threads telling you that you need to shut up and get over the crutch when some of you got hit during LU13. That wasn't my place I didn't play your class. Yet for some reason you seem to think its' yours...I can partially understand the other DPS, but to see Wardens and Templars in here giggling like little girls over this. /boggle</p><p>/rant off</p><p> </p><p> On a final note one man's idea of a ranger from the 1950's does not a standard for rangers worldwide make. Take a look a Drizzt Do' Urden or Tanis Half-Elven from their respective series and you'll find out that not all of us go about the class the same way.</p><p> </p><p>Falcon</p><p>60 Ranger</p><p>Kithicor </p><p> </p><hr></blockquote><p>Heh, sorry Falcon. I didn't realize I was posting in the Ranger forums. These looked to me like the In Testing Feedback Forums. If this is a Ranger Forum I do apologize for butting in. I do not mean to appear like I, as a Templar, am dancing around in glee. I mean seriously, you guys are so many tiers above me in damage that there is nothing below me. No other class DPS's worse than I do and I do not wish my damage output on anyone...period.</p><p>Seeing any class get "nerfed" does not bring me joy. I have always thought there was a problem with Ranger poison proc rates and have expressed such to players in my guild often, but never have I asked SOE or anyone else to fix it. I too adapted as a healer when I tried my darndest to keep you guys alive because not even you could predict how many times that CA would proc your poisons and so you were hooting and running in circles with a mob chasing you.</p><p>Once more, I have a 41 Ranger and a 53 Swashie. I'm not entirely ignorant of these issues. I'm sorry that this "bug" is getting "nerfed", but as I continue to state, everyone saw it becoming more and more and issue and needed to be addressed. As I stated before, if you didn't see it coming you didn't understand the game.</p><p></p><p>Message Edited by Giallolas on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:40 AM</span></p>
Bayler_x
02-17-2006, 11:50 PM
<span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><div></div><p> ...As I stated before, if you didn't see it coming you didn't understand the game.</p><hr></blockquote>Many rangers did see it coming, and have offered good solid suggestions for how to bring things into balance.</span><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><hr><p>sometimes sure i come close to their dps, but not because of that. in tells they let me know some of their specials weren't up and i can see that on the parser, or i can visually tell they have extreme lag(they are porting like crazy). on mobs without ae's, or any special circumstances, yes i do better, but nowhere near their dps. in those circumstances i completely outdps other classes tho, so i dont' think its me, but you're entitled to your opinon.</p><p>-------</p></blockquote>I dont know about your ranger but ive seen my good friend ranger who now quit do 1400dps on huge hp trash mobs in PPTR while using very little power meanwhile im going OOP doing 1000~dps on them. Zone wide parse in PPTR he did 1100dps average and 5+ million damage with ease. Highest zone wide parse in PPTR ive done maybe 850dps, 4+mill damage and I consider myself pretty skilled at my class. Something needed to be done, althought I do find this change a little extreme as it will affect my damage as well, they should have just nerfed stream and off stance (and poison procing off the offstance...) and the problem would have been solved. It's also no problem for conjurors to average 1000+ dps 5+ mill dmg in a PPTR zone wide parse either.<p>Message Edited by Alza on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:58 AM</span></p>
Giallolas
02-18-2006, 12:00 AM
<blockquote><hr>Bayler_xev wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<div></div><div></div><p> ...As I stated before, if you didn't see it coming you didn't understand the game.</p><hr></blockquote>Many rangers did see it coming, and have offered good solid suggestions for how to bring things into balance.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>So all of this discussion in forums is because the Devs didn't take one of your ideas? That's what all the hate and anger is about? We can't get that worked up about this. If so I'd die of a heart attack already. I mean the Templar boards of full of ideas on how to fix our class...not a single one has truly been done yet. The swashie boards are full of grumbles that every live update means another "nerf" to an existing CA we have. Now my 41 Ranger is going through yet another. Hehe, I don't know about you guys, but I have enough grief in the world right now without looking for more and getting excited about more stuffs here.</p>
kartikeya
02-18-2006, 12:07 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<blockquote>So all of this discussion in forums is because the Devs didn't take one of your ideas? That's what all the hate and anger is about? We can't get that worked up about this. If so I'd die of a heart attack already. I mean the Templar boards of full of ideas on how to fix our class...not a single one has truly been done yet. The swashie boards are full of grumbles that every live update means another "nerf" to an existing CA we have. Now my 41 Ranger is going through yet another. Hehe, I don't know about you guys, but I have enough grief in the world right now without looking for more and getting excited about more stuffs here.</blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>No, the anger and discussion and general outrage is because this is <em>not</em> balanced. 300-400 or so DPS at level 70 IF you're outfitted with Fabled and full Masters when you're supposed to be a Tier 1 Damage class? That's the maximum we can hope to reach now? That is insane. I will never see those kinds of numbers, I don't raid. How is any non-fable geared ranger supposed to contribute anything worthwhile? How will I get groups doing that kind of mediocre crud? How will I solo when I can't get those groups?</p><p>I don't care what they change to keep us at Tier 1 and competitive. I just want them to do it. I don't want to spend another three fourths of a year being a class that's only invited to a group or a raid out of pity. I played that game in EQ1.</p><p> </p>
Niuan
02-18-2006, 12:12 AM
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<blockquote>So all of this discussion in forums is because the Devs didn't take one of your ideas? That's what all the hate and anger is about? We can't get that worked up about this. If so I'd die of a heart attack already. I mean the Templar boards of full of ideas on how to fix our class...not a single one has truly been done yet. The swashie boards are full of grumbles that every live update means another "nerf" to an existing CA we have. Now my 41 Ranger is going through yet another. Hehe, I don't know about you guys, but I have enough grief in the world right now without looking for more and getting excited about more stuffs here.</blockquote><hr></blockquote><p>I was chatting with a ranger of mine buddy last night and he made an interesting point... He said that he has put more work and effort into getting his ranger leveled than he did getting his college degree. It hurts to see a class you love slapped down like this both verbally and nerfed into oblivion. Alot of emotions are high, expectations are high as the date nears that the Devs at least learn what the ranger's meat and potatoes are. People who don't play a ranger or even grasp the concept of rangers and thier relationship to procs are posting asumptions and accusations that is feeding the fire.</p><p>Message Edited by Niuan on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:15 AM</span></p>
<blockquote><hr>haloseventy8 wrote:<div></div>oh and one more thing since im just a tad heated right now. blackguard, im in the military and the next time the country calls on us to go and fight a war so that you can keep dev'ing games in this manner, maybe we'll just say its not our job. obviously that would be a lie and it IS our job but hey why hold us to a higher standard than yourself. and if you honestly dont care enough to go that extra mile in the dev'ing of this game, you might as well start openly advertising for vanguard on these forums so that when half of your subscriber population leaves to play it, youll have the correct numbers as to why it happened.<hr></blockquote>Wow, apply for disability leave, cuz you're obviously screwed in the head.Seriously, if you're in Iraq and have SO little to worry about besides SoE nerfing your Ranger, then you got deep deeep issues.And if you hold such a crass view of what it is to server in our military that you compare your role to that of an Entertainment Software company, then you're an embarrasment. Just PLEASE say you aren't a Marine!
Bayler_x
02-18-2006, 12:46 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Giallolas wrote:<p>So all of this discussion in forums is because the Devs didn't take one of your ideas? That's what all the hate and anger is about? We can't get that worked up about this. If so I'd die of a heart attack already. I mean the Templar boards of full of ideas on how to fix our class...not a single one has truly been done yet. The swashie boards are full of grumbles that every live update means another "nerf" to an existing CA we have. Now my 41 Ranger is going through yet another. Hehe, I don't know about you guys, but I have enough grief in the world right now without looking for more and getting excited about more stuffs here.</p><hr></blockquote>No. All of the fear and frustration you're seeing is because this change is happening way too fast. The devs don't have enough time to test it, and they certainly don't have an accurate sampling of various levels, gear-outs, and play styles on Beta. And the devs have shown an inadequate understanding of how far reaching this change will be.Given the history of fixing other class problems, we rangers are worries that we'll be crippled by the change, and then have to wait months for any acknowlegement of the fact, and yet more months for any corrections. What most of us are trying to do - at least when our heads are level - is to raise awareness of what we believe is a real problem before it's too late to fix it. Many of us, to that end, have tried to present real, solid information in a clear fasion, for players and devs both to consider. That's what this thread was supposed to be about. Yeah, there's a lot of garbage here - uninformed speculation, class envy, etc. But there are also some good perspectives and real info.If you listen closely through the shouting, you'll hear some soft-spoken and well-reasoned pearls of wisdom.</span><div></div>
JackFet
02-18-2006, 12:52 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Alza wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><hr><p>sometimes sure i come close to their dps, but not because of that. in tells they let me know some of their specials weren't up and i can see that on the parser, or i can visually tell they have extreme lag(they are porting like crazy). on mobs without ae's, or any special circumstances, yes i do better, but nowhere near their dps. in those circumstances i completely outdps other classes tho, so i dont' think its me, but you're entitled to your opinon.</p><p>-------</p></blockquote>I dont know about your ranger but ive seen my good friend ranger who now quit do 1400dps on huge hp trash mobs in PPTR while using very little power meanwhile im going OOP doing 1000~dps on them. Zone wide parse in PPTR he did 1100dps average and 5+ million damage with ease. Highest zone wide parse in PPTR ive done maybe 850dps, 4+mill damage and I consider myself pretty skilled at my class. Something needed to be done, althought I do find this change a little extreme as it will affect my damage as well, they should have just nerfed stream and off stance (and poison procing off the offstance...) and the problem would have been solved. It's also no problem for conjurors to average 1000+ dps 5+ mill dmg in a PPTR zone wide parse either.<p>Message Edited by Alza on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:58 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>Rangers are unique in that the high damage abilities can only work at range... something comes close and you can't even initiate. Use Stream of Arrows with its inherent aggro bonus, and unless you've got a really capable tank, you've got that critter in your face after one or two hits; there goes that Stream. You want to have equal damage, then take equal penalties. If you haven't played a 55+ranger, then you would have trouble understanding the limitations we face, since we work very hard to circumvent them.</p><p>I know that aoe-happy wizards and warlocks can out dps my ranger against groups... it all depends on the circumstances. Assassins can solo indoors, rangers can't. Conjurors take on big nasty heroics that send us rangers running in terror.</p><p>Besides, those 50+ poisons are expensive. We can burn through 50 gold worth of poison in one outing, easily. And without that poison, we don't actually out-DPS anyone.</p>
<blockquote><hr>JackFetch wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Alza wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><hr><p>sometimes sure i come close to their dps, but not because of that. in tells they let me know some of their specials weren't up and i can see that on the parser, or i can visually tell they have extreme lag(they are porting like crazy). on mobs without ae's, or any special circumstances, yes i do better, but nowhere near their dps. in those circumstances i completely outdps other classes tho, so i dont' think its me, but you're entitled to your opinon.</p><p>-------</p></blockquote>I dont know about your ranger but ive seen my good friend ranger who now quit do 1400dps on huge hp trash mobs in PPTR while using very little power meanwhile im going OOP doing 1000~dps on them. Zone wide parse in PPTR he did 1100dps average and 5+ million damage with ease. Highest zone wide parse in PPTR ive done maybe 850dps, 4+mill damage and I consider myself pretty skilled at my class. Something needed to be done, althought I do find this change a little extreme as it will affect my damage as well, they should have just nerfed stream and off stance (and poison procing off the offstance...) and the problem would have been solved. It's also no problem for conjurors to average 1000+ dps 5+ mill dmg in a PPTR zone wide parse either.<p>Message Edited by Alza on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:58 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>Rangers are unique in that the high damage abilities can only work at range... something comes close and you can't even initiate. Use Stream of Arrows with its inherent aggro bonus, and unless you've got a really capable tank, you've got that critter in your face after one or two hits; there goes that Stream. You want to have equal damage, then take equal penalties. If you haven't played a 55+ranger, then you would have trouble understanding the limitations we face, since we work very hard to circumvent them.</p><p>I know that aoe-happy wizards and warlocks can out dps my ranger against groups... it all depends on the circumstances. Assassins can solo indoors, rangers can't. Conjurors take on big nasty heroics that send us rangers running in terror.</p><p>Besides, those 50+ poisons are expensive. We can burn through 50 gold worth of poison in one outing, easily. And without that poison, we don't actually out-DPS anyone.</p><hr></blockquote>I think you miss the fact that all classes have limitations and costs we pay to be on top of our game.Rangers should be top notche damage doers... but when you compare yourselves to any cloth wearer, just remember that you're still a melee class with superior mitigation and hps. Not saying you're anything close to a tank, just pointing out that a little of your advantage has to do with the fact that you <i>can</i> at least take a hit in most cases. It should all work itself out. As long as Rangers are still up in the T1 area and doing good damage, this isn't an issue. It may very well be that we have to relearn some strategies... I don't know... I'm not reallu up for joining the download site just to get into Beta for 3 days. We'll all know for sure Tuesday... or Wednesday.
AfflictedOne
02-18-2006, 01:47 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:I think you miss the fact that all classes have limitations and costs we pay to be on top of our game.<hr></blockquote>Can we get examples of the cost of other classes? Actually I'm really curious about summoners.</span><div></div>
<blockquote><hr>JackFetch wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Alza wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><div></div><p></p><hr><p>sometimes sure i come close to their dps, but not because of that. in tells they let me know some of their specials weren't up and i can see that on the parser, or i can visually tell they have extreme lag(they are porting like crazy). on mobs without ae's, or any special circumstances, yes i do better, but nowhere near their dps. in those circumstances i completely outdps other classes tho, so i dont' think its me, but you're entitled to your opinon.</p><p>-------</p></blockquote>I dont know about your ranger but ive seen my good friend ranger who now quit do 1400dps on huge hp trash mobs in PPTR while using very little power meanwhile im going OOP doing 1000~dps on them. Zone wide parse in PPTR he did 1100dps average and 5+ million damage with ease. Highest zone wide parse in PPTR ive done maybe 850dps, 4+mill damage and I consider myself pretty skilled at my class. Something needed to be done, althought I do find this change a little extreme as it will affect my damage as well, they should have just nerfed stream and off stance (and poison procing off the offstance...) and the problem would have been solved. It's also no problem for conjurors to average 1000+ dps 5+ mill dmg in a PPTR zone wide parse either.<p>Message Edited by Alza on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">11:58 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>Rangers are unique in that the high damage abilities can only work at range... something comes close and you can't even initiate. Use Stream of Arrows with its inherent aggro bonus, and unless you've got a really capable tank, you've got that critter in your face after one or two hits; there goes that Stream. You want to have equal damage, then take equal penalties. If you haven't played a 55+ranger, then you would have trouble understanding the limitations we face, since we work very hard to circumvent them.</p><p>I know that aoe-happy wizards and warlocks can out dps my ranger against groups... it all depends on the circumstances. Assassins can solo indoors, rangers can't. Conjurors take on big nasty heroics that send us rangers running in terror.</p><p>Besides, those 50+ poisons are expensive. We can burn through 50 gold worth of poison in one outing, easily. And without that poison, we don't actually out-DPS anyone.</p><hr></blockquote>Rangers have the best deaggro in the game, -55% hate reduction at M1, no class comes close. Combine a troub in a group with a ranger and they dont even have to assist the tank, they can stream on a totally different mob and the AE taunts are plenty to hold them. A ranger goes through about 1 vial of adeste in 5 million damage, or about 4g if your not getting robbed by your alchy.
Crychtonn
02-18-2006, 02:19 AM
<div></div><div>Made a little chart to show what this change will do. It's a basic chart and I'm only going to show the effect on damage poison with a 25% chance to proc. The first line in each section shows proc's as they currently are in Live using weapon delay to calculate proc's. The next three lines are what proc's will be like after KoS and LU20.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> Adjusted Proc Normalized Percentage</div><div>Delay Proc % Proc % Damage Proc Damage Decrease</div><div> </div><div> 7 25% 58.33% 450 262</div><div> </div><div> 3 25% 25.00% 450 113 (56.87)%</div><div> 2 25% 16.67% 450 75 (71.37)%</div><div> 1 25% 8.33% 450 37 (85.8<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />%</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> 1.5 25% 12.50% 450 56 </div><div> </div><div> 1.0 25% 8.33% 450 37 (33.93)%</div><div> 0.5 25% 4.17% 450 19 (66.07)%</div><div> 0.2 25% 1.67% 450 8 (85.71)%</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> 2.1 25% 17.50% 450 79 </div><div> </div><div> 1.0 25% 8.33% 450 37 (53.16)%</div><div> 0.5 25% 4.17% 450 19 (75.95)%</div><div> 0.2 25% 1.67% 450 8 (89.87)%</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Top section is based on a ranger with a 7 sec delay long bow. The next two are to point out to the other scouts and melee classes how this effects them also. A small amount of other scouts figured this out already but there are alot posting here that don't seem to get it.</div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by Crychtonn on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:20 PM</span></p>
<blockquote><hr>Crychtonn wrote:<div></div><div>Made a little chart to show what this change will do. It's a basic chart and I'm only going to show the effect on damage poison with a 25% chance to proc. The first line in each section shows proc's as they currently are in Live using weapon delay to calculate proc's. The next three lines are what proc's will be like after KoS and LU20.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> Adjusted Proc Normalized Percentage</div><div>Delay Proc % Proc % Damage Proc Damage Decrease</div><div> </div><div> 7 25% 58.33% 450 262</div><div> </div><div> 3 25% 25.00% 450 113 (56.87)%</div><div> 2 25% 16.67% 450 75 (71.37)%</div><div> 1 25% 8.33% 450 37 (85.8<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />%</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> 1.5 25% 12.50% 450 56 </div><div> </div><div> 1.0 25% 8.33% 450 37 (33.93)%</div><div> 0.5 25% 4.17% 450 19 (66.07)%</div><div> 0.2 25% 1.67% 450 8 (85.71)%</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> 2.1 25% 17.50% 450 79 </div><div> </div><div> 1.0 25% 8.33% 450 37 (53.16)%</div><div> 0.5 25% 4.17% 450 19 (75.95)%</div><div> 0.2 25% 1.67% 450 8 (89.87)%</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Top section is based on a ranger with a 7 sec delay long bow. The next two are to point out to the other scouts and melee classes how this effects them also. A small amount of other scouts figured this out already but there are alot posting here that don't seem to get it.</div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by Crychtonn on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:20 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Instead of this hypothetical data, someone from Beta that actaully knows how to best play Rangers in <b>that</b> environment, show some posts of what an experienced, well played, normally equipt Ranger <b>can</b> do under that system?I don't think we need to see any more <i>proof</i> that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese just becasue it looks like it from 100k miles.
Aroumon
02-18-2006, 02:39 AM
Obviously many of you haven't played around with beta or messed around with AA points. If you mess around with your AA points then you can see we will still be top dps. We should not be complaining about something on a LIVE forum about whats happening in BETA when I know most of you never stepped foot in beta and are just going off what other people say. I am a ranger, I am in beta and when people say that rangers are not good for dps anymore I saw they are wrong. Look for dps is diffrent ways. Obviously you are going to have to change your playing style a bit and your starts are going to get shifted but don't go all crazy with something that you haven't tested yourself. I persoanlly say leave rangers how they are in beta and we will unlock the true power.Aroumon Swiftshot60 RangerSecond Dawn<div></div>
Niuan
02-18-2006, 02:46 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Aroumon wrote:Obviously many of you haven't played around with beta or messed around with AA points. If you mess around with your AA points then you can see we will still be top dps. We should not be complaining about something on a LIVE forum about whats happening in BETA when I know most of you never stepped foot in beta and are just going off what other people say. I am a ranger, I am in beta and when people say that rangers are not good for dps anymore I saw they are wrong. Look for dps is diffrent ways. Obviously you are going to have to change your playing style a bit and your starts are going to get shifted but don't go all crazy with something that you haven't tested yourself. I persoanlly say leave rangers how they are in beta and we will unlock the true power.Aroumon Swiftshot60 RangerSecond Dawn<div></div><hr></blockquote>Good to hear things may not be as dark as predicted. I look forward to hearing more input. However I did hear ranger were discussing this in great detail on the beta forumns without any feedback from a dev. Can you confirm that?
ChaosUndivided
02-18-2006, 02:52 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Aroumon wrote:Obviously many of you haven't played around with beta or messed around with AA points. If you mess around with your AA points then you can see we will still be top dps. We should not be complaining about something on a LIVE forum about whats happening in BETA when I know most of you never stepped foot in beta and are just going off what other people say. I am a ranger, I am in beta and when people say that rangers are not good for dps anymore I saw they are wrong. Look for dps is diffrent ways. Obviously you are going to have to change your playing style a bit and your starts are going to get shifted but don't go all crazy with something that you haven't tested yourself. I persoanlly say leave rangers how they are in beta and we will unlock the true power.Aroumon Swiftshot60 RangerSecond Dawn<div></div><hr></blockquote>Good to hear things may not be as dark as predicted. I look forward to hearing more input. However I did hear ranger were discussing this in great detail on the beta forumns without any feedback from a dev. Can you confirm that?<hr></blockquote>There is hardly any feedback on the forums from the dev's on ANY issue, let alone once class issue. People pour there time into /bugs, feedback and suggestions and it all get's ignored and revamped 1 week before release *cough* Achievement system*cough*
Bayler_x
02-18-2006, 02:59 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Aroumon wrote:Obviously many of you haven't played around with beta or messed around with AA points. If you mess around with your AA points then you can see we will still be top dps. We should not be complaining about something on a LIVE forum about whats happening in BETA when I know most of you never stepped foot in beta and are just going off what other people say. I am a ranger, I am in beta and when people say that rangers are not good for dps anymore I saw they are wrong. Look for dps is diffrent ways. Obviously you are going to have to change your playing style a bit and your starts are going to get shifted but don't go all crazy with something that you haven't tested yourself. I persoanlly say leave rangers how they are in beta and we will unlock the true power.Aroumon Swiftshot60 RangerSecond Dawn<div></div><hr></blockquote>That is comforting, but I question how well it pertains to the lower levels. 1 day after KoS goes live, I'll still be level 47 with 0 AA. 1 week after KoS goes live I'll probably still be level 47 and won't have a whole lot of AA, I'm sure. 1 month after? I might turn combat experience on somewhere in there - I don't know. But I don't want to feel like I have to be level 70 to effective.Question to beta players: has *anybody* tested these changes on a ranger lower than level 60?</span><div></div>
MystaSkrat
02-18-2006, 03:02 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Alza wrote:<div></div><div></div>I dont know about your ranger but ive seen my good friend ranger who now quit do 1400dps on huge hp trash mobs in PPTR while using very little power meanwhile im going OOP doing 1000~dps on them. Zone wide parse in PPTR he did 1100dps average and 5+ million damage with ease. Highest zone wide parse in PPTR ive done maybe 850dps, 4+mill damage and I consider myself pretty skilled at my class. Something needed to be done, althought I do find this change a little extreme as it will affect my damage as well, they should have just nerfed stream and off stance (and poison procing off the offstance...) and the problem would have been solved. It's also no problem for conjurors to average 1000+ dps 5+ mill dmg in a PPTR zone wide parse either.<hr></blockquote>The problem with comparing zone wide parses in PPR is this: PPR has a lot of groups of 20 mobs. Any class that gets an encounter based AE is going to have better dps on those, because true AEs can only hit 8 mobs, while encounter only ones hit them all. A ranger using Storm of Arrows on a group of 20 failed raiders is going to do a ton more damage than any class using true AEs. That's why I posted the parse I did, cuz it's 3 mobs, over 100 seconds, and both predators are pretty equal in that light.
<blockquote><hr>ChaosUndivided wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Aroumon wrote:Obviously many of you haven't played around with beta or messed around with AA points. If you mess around with your AA points then you can see we will still be top dps. We should not be complaining about something on a LIVE forum about whats happening in BETA when I know most of you never stepped foot in beta and are just going off what other people say. I am a ranger, I am in beta and when people say that rangers are not good for dps anymore I saw they are wrong. Look for dps is diffrent ways. Obviously you are going to have to change your playing style a bit and your starts are going to get shifted but don't go all crazy with something that you haven't tested yourself. I persoanlly say leave rangers how they are in beta and we will unlock the true power.Aroumon Swiftshot60 RangerSecond Dawn<div></div><hr></blockquote>Good to hear things may not be as dark as predicted. I look forward to hearing more input. However I did hear ranger were discussing this in great detail on the beta forumns without any feedback from a dev. Can you confirm that?<hr></blockquote>There is hardly any feedback on the forums from the dev's on ANY issue, let alone once class issue. People pour there time into /bugs, feedback and suggestions and it all get's ignored and revamped 1 week before release *cough* Achievement system*cough*<hr></blockquote>How about people on BETA do the job they volenteered for and report bugs, and let devs do theirs... Which isn't to respond to bugs! Its to fix the underlying issues IF one exists.Ultimately, you job as a Beta participant isn't to tell the devs how to fix anything. As long as Rangers are T1 DPS, THAT'S WORKING AS DESIGNED. It doesn't matter that they didn't do it the way you said they should. Beta testers aren't on the design team, nor is their feedback always taken at face value. Sometime... if not all of the time, feedback is thrown together to come up with a general direction, not used on its own to plot a specific course.
Niuan
02-18-2006, 03:26 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>ChaosUndivided wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Niuan wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Aroumon wrote:Obviously many of you haven't played around with beta or messed around with AA points. If you mess around with your AA points then you can see we will still be top dps. We should not be complaining about something on a LIVE forum about whats happening in BETA when I know most of you never stepped foot in beta and are just going off what other people say. I am a ranger, I am in beta and when people say that rangers are not good for dps anymore I saw they are wrong. Look for dps is diffrent ways. Obviously you are going to have to change your playing style a bit and your starts are going to get shifted but don't go all crazy with something that you haven't tested yourself. I persoanlly say leave rangers how they are in beta and we will unlock the true power.Aroumon Swiftshot60 RangerSecond Dawn<div></div><hr></blockquote>Good to hear things may not be as dark as predicted. I look forward to hearing more input. However I did hear ranger were discussing this in great detail on the beta forumns without any feedback from a dev. Can you confirm that?<hr></blockquote>There is hardly any feedback on the forums from the dev's on ANY issue, let alone once class issue. People pour there time into /bugs, feedback and suggestions and it all get's ignored and revamped 1 week before release *cough* Achievement system*cough*<hr></blockquote>How about people on BETA do the job they volenteered for and report bugs, and let devs do theirs... Which isn't to respond to bugs! Its to fix the underlying issues IF one exists.Ultimately, you job as a Beta participant isn't to tell the devs how to fix anything. As long as Rangers are T1 DPS, THAT'S WORKING AS DESIGNED. It doesn't matter that they didn't do it the way you said they should. Beta testers aren't on the design team, nor is their feedback always taken at face value. Sometime... if not all of the time, feedback is thrown together to come up with a general direction, not used on its own to plot a specific course.<hr></blockquote><p>Listen here grumpy pants!:smileywink: I have from multiple sources that we are not T1 dps atm. A simple looking into it would suffice. Utter silence is bad this close to go live. LU13 had major feedbacks both in Beta boards and class boards with sony reps looking into problems.</p><p>You must be the work foreman for the beta program <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Good thing your not in charge of customer service.</p>
ChaosUndivided
02-18-2006, 03:35 AM
<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote>There is hardly any feedback on the forums from the dev's on ANY issue, let alone once class issue. People pour there time into /bugs, feedback and suggestions and it all get's ignored and revamped 1 week before release *cough* Achievement system*cough*<hr></blockquote>How about people on BETA do the job they volenteered for and report bugs, and let devs do theirs... Which isn't to respond to bugs! Its to fix the underlying issues IF one exists.Ultimately, you job as a Beta participant isn't to tell the devs how to fix anything. As long as Rangers are T1 DPS, THAT'S WORKING AS DESIGNED. It doesn't matter that they didn't do it the way you said they should. Beta testers aren't on the design team, nor is their feedback always taken at face value. Sometime... if not all of the time, feedback is thrown together to come up with a general direction, not used on its own to plot a specific course.<hr></blockquote><p>What did my post have anything to do with ranger dps? I didn't mention it once. The above poster asked if feedback was being listened to on the beta boards and I responded.</p><p>And as a matter of fact, was I was reffering to was the achievement system, which after tons of bug reports, feedback and testing has gone through an almost entire revamp as far as the abilites are concerned less than one week before release. Please read before flaming ,Kthx</p>
AfflictedOne
02-18-2006, 03:40 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Alza wrote:<div></div><div></div>I dont know about your ranger but ive seen my good friend ranger who now quit do 1400dps on huge hp trash mobs in PPTR while using very little power meanwhile im going OOP doing 1000~dps on them. Zone wide parse in PPTR he did 1100dps average and 5+ million damage with ease. Highest zone wide parse in PPTR ive done maybe 850dps, 4+mill damage and I consider myself pretty skilled at my class. Something needed to be done, althought I do find this change a little extreme as it will affect my damage as well, they should have just nerfed stream and off stance (and poison procing off the offstance...) and the problem would have been solved. It's also no problem for conjurors to average 1000+ dps 5+ mill dmg in a PPTR zone wide parse either.<hr></blockquote>The problem with comparing zone wide parses in PPR is this: PPR has a lot of groups of 20 mobs. Any class that gets an encounter based AE is going to have better dps on those, because true AEs can only hit 8 mobs, while encounter only ones hit them all. A ranger using Storm of Arrows on a group of 20 failed raiders is going to do a ton more damage than any class using true AEs. That's why I posted the parse I did, cuz it's 3 mobs, over 100 seconds, and both predators are pretty equal in that light.<hr></blockquote>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>
MystaSkrat
02-18-2006, 03:45 AM
<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:
<blockquote><hr>ChaosUndivided wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote>There is hardly any feedback on the forums from the dev's on ANY issue, let alone once class issue. People pour there time into /bugs, feedback and suggestions and it all get's ignored and revamped 1 week before release *cough* Achievement system*cough*<hr></blockquote>How about people on BETA do the job they volenteered for and report bugs, and let devs do theirs... Which isn't to respond to bugs! Its to fix the underlying issues IF one exists.Ultimately, you job as a Beta participant isn't to tell the devs how to fix anything. As long as Rangers are T1 DPS, THAT'S WORKING AS DESIGNED. It doesn't matter that they didn't do it the way you said they should. Beta testers aren't on the design team, nor is their feedback always taken at face value. Sometime... if not all of the time, feedback is thrown together to come up with a general direction, not used on its own to plot a specific course.<hr></blockquote><p>What did my post have anything to do with ranger dps? I didn't mention it once. The above poster asked if feedback was being listened to on the beta boards and I responded.</p><p>And as a matter of fact, was I was reffering to was the achievement system, which after tons of bug reports, feedback and testing has gone through an almost entire revamp as far as the abilites are concerned less than one week before release. Please read before flaming ,Kthx</p><hr></blockquote>And my response was, don't expect Dev's to respond to every single feedback or even any, expect fixes. And just because you reported it and they don't fix it immediately or respond to your feedback at all doesn't mean they don't care or that you don't matter. It means they're working on it or something else. Does it matter its a week before release? NO, becasue if the work needed to fix everything takes more than a week then things will either be broken upon release (which will probably happen) or they'll postpone release, which most people would rather have the 90% that affects them working and available than to hold release to fix a situation that will affect 10% of the players... Yeah it sucks to be in that 10% but I think people that lived in New Orleans has more to complain about. Life happens. That make it any clearer... I can ready fine thanks.
<blockquote><hr>MystaSkratch wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Alza wrote:<div></div><div></div>I dont know about your ranger but ive seen my good friend ranger who now quit do 1400dps on huge hp trash mobs in PPTR while using very little power meanwhile im going OOP doing 1000~dps on them. Zone wide parse in PPTR he did 1100dps average and 5+ million damage with ease. Highest zone wide parse in PPTR ive done maybe 850dps, 4+mill damage and I consider myself pretty skilled at my class. Something needed to be done, althought I do find this change a little extreme as it will affect my damage as well, they should have just nerfed stream and off stance (and poison procing off the offstance...) and the problem would have been solved. It's also no problem for conjurors to average 1000+ dps 5+ mill dmg in a PPTR zone wide parse either.<hr></blockquote>The problem with comparing zone wide parses in PPR is this: PPR has a lot of groups of 20 mobs. Any class that gets an encounter based AE is going to have better dps on those, because true AEs can only hit 8 mobs, while encounter only ones hit them all. A ranger using Storm of Arrows on a group of 20 failed raiders is going to do a ton more damage than any class using true AEs. That's why I posted the parse I did, cuz it's 3 mobs, over 100 seconds, and both predators are pretty equal in that light.<hr></blockquote>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.
ChaosUndivided
02-18-2006, 04:06 AM
<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote><hr>ChaosUndivided wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Zald wrote:<blockquote>There is hardly any feedback on the forums from the dev's on ANY issue, let alone once class issue. People pour there time into /bugs, feedback and suggestions and it all get's ignored and revamped 1 week before release *cough* Achievement system*cough*<hr></blockquote>How about people on BETA do the job they volenteered for and report bugs, and let devs do theirs... Which isn't to respond to bugs! Its to fix the underlying issues IF one exists.Ultimately, you job as a Beta participant isn't to tell the devs how to fix anything. As long as Rangers are T1 DPS, THAT'S WORKING AS DESIGNED. It doesn't matter that they didn't do it the way you said they should. Beta testers aren't on the design team, nor is their feedback always taken at face value. Sometime... if not all of the time, feedback is thrown together to come up with a general direction, not used on its own to plot a specific course.<hr></blockquote><p>What did my post have anything to do with ranger dps? I didn't mention it once. The above poster asked if feedback was being listened to on the beta boards and I responded.</p><p>And as a matter of fact, was I was reffering to was the achievement system, which after tons of bug reports, feedback and testing has gone through an almost entire revamp as far as the abilites are concerned less than one week before release. Please read before flaming ,Kthx</p><hr></blockquote>And my response was, don't expect Dev's to respond to every single feedback or even any, expect fixes. And just because you reported it and they don't fix it immediately or respond to your feedback at all doesn't mean they don't care or that you don't matter. It means they're working on it or something else. Does it matter its a week before release? NO, becasue if the work needed to fix everything takes more than a week then things will either be broken upon release (which will probably happen) or they'll postpone release, which most people would rather have the 90% that affects them working and available than to hold release to fix a situation that will affect 10% of the players... Yeah it sucks to be in that 10% but I think people that lived in New Orleans has more to complain about. Life happens. That make it any clearer... I can ready fine thanks.<hr></blockquote><p>Absolutely it matters when changes are made, we all know SOE would never push back their release date, we saw it with DoF and we will see it with KoS. Broken Untested Content released to Live Servers, so that we can pay to beta test it.</p><p>And feedback is absolutely needed from the Developers, how do they expect us to test their product without knowing what direction they intend to take it. It's naive to think you can release a GOOD finished product without Communication between you and your customer.</p><p>No one is demanding Changes the next day, far from it, everyone know's these things take time, but let's not kid ourselves here, KoS WILL ship with Broken, Untested, Unbalanced Content Guaranteed, not because the beta testers didn't do their jobs, no KoS will be unfinished at launch because the Developers didn't do their's.</p><p>Message Edited by ChaosUndivided on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:07 PM</span></p>
MystaSkrat
02-18-2006, 04:12 AM
<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Alza wrote:</p><p>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.</p><p></p><hr></blockquote>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:
WOW talk about naive... What part of their jobs did the devs not do... last I checked it was to write the best code they could in the time given. Last I checked it was to look at the issues reported and try to fix them as best they could in the time they had, given the directions they were given by the design teams.See you miss it completely. There is no perfection. Just becasue Beta testers do their job doesn't mean perfection will happen and all things will get fixed. And that's no mans fault. That's lifes fault.It's also incorrect to say they should leave partically broken alone and not make things worse... Sometimes partially broken for you is completely broken from another perspective, and sometimes you have to break one thing to ultimately fix the overall situation. YES, IT SUCKS!We agree, KoS will ship with issues... But PLEASE leave that paying to play a beta crap in the trash where it belongs. You're paying to play EQ2. When has SoE EVER not had bugs upon release... When has EQ2 EVER said it would ever be bug/issue/change free for ANY period of time?! So no, it's complete garbage to say you're paying to play anything other than the game that you choose to continue to play, in the way that it has ALWAYS been played. If you want "finished" product, the EQ2 is NOT your game, and never will be. If you can except that they do so and realize that this and every expansion will have issues and that changes will always take place, and sometimes you won't like the way things look for some period of time... Those are the unwritten rules for playing any version of EQ... to be quite frank... ANY MMORPG. If you can't handle that ( not you specificaly, but anyone in general) then MMOs ain't gonna make you happy, and you'll complain about chanes and whine about beta testing when these aspects are CORE to all MMOs.Ultimately its your choice.
Prandtl
02-18-2006, 04:36 AM
<div></div><p>When I think "dev" I think "developer" i.e. someone who develops a concept or idea, and sees it through to fruition. I do not think "code writer." It may or may not be the SOE dev's job to write code, but it definitly IS their job to develop and see through to fruition whatever the ultimate concept is of this particular MMORPG. </p><p>Changing the underlying proc mechanism of the entire game 15 months after release does not engender great confidence on my part in their ability to quickly fix whatever they might screw up. My fear is that any proc dependent class will be gimped for a long period of time unless numbers, parses, and yes whining, can convince them to take a closer look now.</p>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><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>I'm sorry to say this and it may sound harsh.</p><p>But you guys have the source code of the game, it shouldn't be that hard to gather facts about how Ranger damage is made.</p><p>Where I work software developers come mostly with an engineer background, <strong>that means they can do BASIC MATHS</strong>.( and if they don't I fire them fast..)</p><p>We shouldn't have to point out all the inconsistency in every change you make when most highschool students could understand the basic maths implications behind the changes.</p><p>Or is it the case that the people writing EQ2 code have actually no clue of what the code they are modifying does ?</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text">PS : When modifying code there two approach :</span></p><p><span class="time_text">1) I'm going to modify that value and see what happens.</span></p><p><span class="time_text">2) I'm going to modify that value because I understand how it affects the outcome.</span></p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text">Guess which one is the better approach ?</span></p><p><span class="time_text">And guess which one you give the impression to follow...</span></p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text">PS2 : and to the previous poster, a software developers does write code. The software industry doesn't work in a way where a guy does all the design and another does the coding without understanding the design at all...You can't modify code without understanding it and you can't do design without understanding how the current system works...</span></p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text">Finally I am glad the team handling the PS3 release is not the same as the one working on EQ2 or I would start to get really worrried for Sony company as a whole...</span></p><p>Message Edited by Ail on <span class="date_text">02-17-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:07 PM</span></p>
<blockquote><hr>Prandtl wrote:<div></div><p>When I think "dev" I think "developer" i.e. someone who develops a concept or idea, and sees it through to fruition. I do not think "code writer." It may or may not be the SOE dev's job to write code, but it definitly IS their job to develop and see through to fruition whatever the ultimate concept is of this particular MMORPG. </p><p>Changing the underlying proc mechanism of the entire game 15 months after release does not engender great confidence on my part in their ability to quickly fix whatever they might screw up. My fear is that any proc dependent class will be gimped for a long period of time unless numbers, parses, and yes whining, can convince them to take a closer look now.</p><hr></blockquote>Ok, 1st response to the last thing Ali said...PS3 is a hardware device... The scope and design specs are infinitely easier to see and manage than entertainment software. This design team for EQ2 has hurdles that the PS3 team will never have and vise versus. I'm sure both teams is well suited to do their particular task. What amazes me is that the X-Box 360 has as many problems as it has given that its a console... it shouldn't.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.
kartikeya
02-18-2006, 05:39 AM
<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>
vBulletin® v3.7.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.