Grouping logic (or lack thereof) [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

View Full Version : Grouping logic (or lack thereof)

Striikor

09-11-2010, 09:37 AM

OK we get the bow changes. /mehAre we going to ever see the (ecouragement) to stay at ranged? Will we ever see a balance happen? Grouping logic still leaves us at the back of the pack in getting a group/raid slot. We have NO equality that balances out us vs. other DPS centered classes. Assume we do they same DPS as other DPS centered classes (we don't). To do that we MUST have a group built around us. We have nothing to add to recommend us for for the group we need. Members of the group we are in are certainly not excited to see a ranger in that slot. They want to see a class that will improve their performance. We don't do enough DPS to overcome the survivability+Utility available from other classes. I mean really fill in the blank: You have your choice of an Ranger, Assassin, Wizard or Warlock (There are others, but let's stick with the other three classes considered to be pure DPS classes.) <table style="width: 2.75in; border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 4.65pt;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="264"><tbody><tr><td width="72" valign="bottom">SK</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Zerker</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Pally</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Guard</td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom">Templar</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Warden</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Fury</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Inquisitor</td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom">Mystic</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Inquisitor</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Mystic</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Troub</td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom">Coercer</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Illusionist</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Illusionist</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Coercer</td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom">Troub</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Dirge</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Brigand</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">Swashy</td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td> <td width="64" valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr><td width="72" valign="bottom">{blank}</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">{blank}</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">{blank}</td> <td width="64" valign="bottom">{blank}</td></tr></tbody></table> I could put and unending list of grouping combinations with the same end result. Now seriously which of those {blank} are you going to fill with a Ranger vs any one of the other three? Assuming the spells, equipment and AA's are of equal level? Hmmm that's what I thought.

1rocketjones

09-20-2010, 03:15 PM

I want to know who at SoE was the re thard that gave assasins a hate transfer?!Of the two classes ranger/assasin the ranger is the obvious choice for having hate transfer from a RP perspective and from a D&D perspective and from a....

Striikor

09-21-2010, 10:52 AM

It is fine that Assassin's have hate transfer. And that the transfer is less than a Swashies it is a balance of sorts. The brigand AND the Ranger need a compelling trait or buff that gets them groups that they need too.Of scouts Brigands and Rangers no longer add any compelling addition to a group. Nothing that a group member or raid would say we need a Brigand or we need a ranger. Both have had what they used to bring shared among other classes or flat out replaced by one item or another.It used to be that you HAD to have a brigand for the debuffs that are now shared freely among several other classes.There was a reason that Wizards and Rangers provided the top DPS consistently, and had such little in the way of adding to the effectiveness of other group members in combat. But that is no longer true. DPS is a commodity which many classes can provide effectively. Our DPS has recently been improved but is not (yet) sufficient to overcome the lack of added benefits when including a Ranger or a Brigand in the group(s).Personally I would like to see something that Brawlers, Brigands and Rangers could provide one another as a group buff. Something that makes is compelling to put them together as we often end up in the same group together in any case.Say a Ranger improves the debuff abilities of the brigand, perhaps adding something that inhibits curses when a brig debuffs. And something else that adds defense capabilities to the brawlers offensive stance or removes offensive penalties to their defensive stance.And a Brigand to add accuracy to crushing damage and range extension to melee. And A brawler to have a DPS and resitance buffs to chain wearers ....Ahhh well random thoughts, but it would be very nice to have a workable group 4.

Ademelo

09-21-2010, 04:58 PM

Well, I've got 3 open concentration slots. I'm sure SoE can figure something that could fill those....

Neiloch

09-21-2010, 05:12 PM

<cite>Elyl@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, I've got 3 open concentration slots. I'm sure SoE can figure something that could fill those....</blockquote>Befriend animal FTL.....I could think of plenty of ideas for 'utility', but they either seem to good for a DPS class or not useful enough to justify development time and wouldn't give us much desirability anyway. Although the enhance debuffs thing sounds at least original, but if developed seems like something a more buff oriented class should be using.Maybe a single target accuracy buff that works like the avoidance buffs. Grants target an X% chance of making an additional attempt at hitting the target using the ranger's accuracy. Or something.

Striikor

09-21-2010, 06:50 PM

HeHe I did not think they were particularly good ideas. But, As often as I get stuck in group 4 with the brawler and brigand it would be nice if we had buffs to reinforce one another.I f I am not in group 4 with them then I am in the mage group and bring absolutely nothing to enhance their performance. Maybe a recast speed buff of some sort and be able to make debuffs more effective by 'scouting the mob? /ShrugsIt would be nice if they were unique and did NOT steal another classes utility as our were dispersed among everyone else. But we did not lose as much as the brigs lost in the way of unique abilities. Brawlers, Brigs and Rangers have very little to offer one another yet we are often together. At least in my case.When was the last time you ever heard a raid group wanting a ranger in it? From their perspective we are dead space.

Ademelo

09-21-2010, 08:51 PM

Personally I'd like to see Focus Aim (or a part thereof) become a permanent grp buff. Smack us in the scout grp and we have a permanent accuracy buff for the grp. Easy enough, useful and shouldn't be op.

Ballzz

09-22-2010, 06:51 PM

I still think a group Ability Reuse buff (permanent standalone buff or even added to FA) would be good. That would work for casters or melee and also be a quite beneficial to Rangers.

Striikor

09-22-2010, 08:29 PM

<cite>Elyl@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Personally I'd like to see Focus Aim (or a part thereof) become a permanent grp buff. Smack us in the scout grp and we have a permanent accuracy buff for the grp. Easy enough, useful and shouldn't be op.</blockquote>I agree with that separate out Natures Bonus into a serparate Group buff until canceled