EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire - Since Rangers are being locked to T7 DPS why aren't Assassins?

EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire (https://archive.eq2wire.com//index.php)

- Ranger (https://archive.eq2wire.com//forumdisplay.php?f=102)

- - Since Rangers are being locked to T7 DPS why aren't Assassins? (https://archive.eq2wire.com//showthread.php?t=412769)

Title says it all.Why are assassins, the other predator, allowed to do, much much more damage than they were in T7 while rangers are given a handicap?I have run all of the numbers coming from test from every level of weapon quality, Legendary/MC T8/T7 through RSP/ET Mythical equipped.All of the numbers are showing on test server T8 bows staying very, very close to the auto attack DPS they are doing right now on live servers. While weapons that were considered balanced in T7 against every other class doing their T7 DPS are now considered overpowered.But melee DPS is allowed to progress and build higher and higher.Why is the Assassin class, which has more utility from Apply Toxins(Best melee DPS buff in the game) and Hate Transfer, not handicapped to doing the same auto attack DPS as they were doing in T7 like Rangers?This is some really [Removed for Content] poor balancing going on.

Because Aeralik plays an assassin in very high end raiding guild and has a vested interest in making sure we do not come close to Assassin's DPS.

Just because we (Ranger's) are getting the shaft, doesn't mean we should take it out on another class. Assassin's are doing great and I'd like to see them stay that way.

Rangers now have one of the best temp group buffs in the game now~

They have increased melee hit rates with the changes that are on test so the usefulness of the buff is still not fully known(it will be once it hits live and gets used against Avatars and VP nameds for a bit).While it is a very useful ability it is still a short term buff. Unlike Apply Toxins or Hate Transfer. Rangers are thoroughly outclassed DPS wise by Assassins at the moment, which is the real problem. Not the limited utility that is offered by Rangers with the changes being implemented in LU 44.

A question, and one that has different implications for raiders and non, I do understand that..Isnt it the case that ranged fighting incurs slower damage incoming to the player (overall) and hence slower outgoing damage may in fact be appropriate?Im happy to be told no or that its irrelevant if thats the case.

<cite>Elenire@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because Aeralik plays an assassin in very high end raiding guild and has a vested interest in making sure we do not come close to Assassin's DPS.</blockquote>Yep. No doubt Aeralik thinks this way as well.The ranger class is almost worthless now and SoE expects us to pay for our dps. Gee thanks Aeralik. You are a piece of work.

I've stated it in other threads, but I'll state it again here:What is happening with the ranger class is in fact only a symptom of a much, much larger problem. One that I'm not sure, at this point, can be really fixed without yet another massive combat overhaul which is just as likely to [Removed for Content] off players to the point of quitting as it is to solve the issue.Once upon a time when EQ2 was being designed, there was a very simplistic model for how to balance the classes. Each class was assigned a DPS tier, and the higher tier a class was, the more they gave up in utility to be at that level of DPS. Tier 1 was assassins, rangers, wizards, and warlocks, tier 2 was swashy, brigand, conjuror, necro and some tanks, and tier 3 was the rest of the tanks, healers, and the enchanters. Now, this model had a whole lot of flaws, but the fact remains that it WAS a model, that made sense, as to how to make sure the classes are in line with each other. It also inspired epic rants about how such and such class was either falling behind their designated tier or getting too far above it. So, SOE decided to disavow and somewhat edge away from that model, because it was very annoying to try and combat the complaints.Unfortunately, in so far as any of us know, they have never come up with a replacement for it, they just stopped following it. It's the only explanation that can really be given for the state of the classes as far as utility versus DPS goes. Yes, right now a designated T1 class is riding high and king of the parse, but that's not always the case, nor has it been in the past. Here is what I've seen happen. Since DoF when procs were broken and therefore rangers were insanely broken as a result, SOE has been very antsy about keeping a cap on the T1 classes and their max damage. T1 classes have had their DPS throttled, essentially, for quite some time. The problem is, at the same time, there doesn't seem to be any throttling at all on non-T1 DPS classes. T2 has been pretty closely caught up with T1 for quite some time now--oh yes, generally, T1 pulls ahead, but T2 is significant competition for T1 classes when, if you say one side of the scale is utility and the other is damage, and you can't get more of one without losing the other relative to other classes, T2 has been steadily gaining on T1 in DPS without losing any utility. Summoners are pretty much granted honorary T1 status by folks these days, even though in reality that is not where they were supposed to be according to the original model. And now we have T3 classes also closing that gap. In short, the classes as a whole are an utter mess when it comes to DPS/utility balance. Returning to the original model would likely require a whole hell of a lot of nerfing, which no one wants, and frankly I don't know what the solution could be, if there even is one. If you look at pure facts, as it stands, the ranger class SHOULD be the top DPSer in the game, bar none. We give up the most utility (thankfully we get a small amount in this patch to bring us more in line with the other pure T1 classes), and we have to pay far more than anyone else to do that DPS. On a strictly balance scale, that's what should be the case, but of course it isn't. And frankly, I don't think most rangers want that anyway. We want to compete. We want to be able to go toe to toe with the other T1 classes, but we don't want to be gods again. We just want to be viable. The other problem is that developers (and not just SOE, but game developers in general) seem to freak out whenever it comes to working with a class that is a bow user. I have no idea why this is, because ranged DPS exists all the time without freakout in wizards, but it happens all the time. it's like they really can't grasp how to make such a class function, and they're terrified of giving it too much. There is, frankly, absolutely NO reason for arrows to be in the game at all. All it does is cause inventory management issues, money issues, and more headache for devs and players alike. When the devs try to put in 'special' arrows (their reasons for not wanting to give a form of endless quiver), they instantly start breaking out the nerfbat over and over and over again. I would prefer it if we never, ever, ever had arrows along the lines of Tenderwood again, thank you. The streak of overall nerfs the class got thanks to one item that only a small percentage of rangers ever got to see let alone use was amazing.

<cite>shaunfletcher wrote:</cite><blockquote>A question, and one that has different implications for raiders and non, I do understand that..Isnt it the case that ranged fighting incurs slower damage incoming to the player (overall) and hence slower outgoing damage may in fact be appropriate?Im happy to be told no or that its irrelevant if thats the case.</blockquote>any ranger worth his bow knows to stay in the sweet spot (the small zone where you can use bow and melee) to maximize DPS. Any ranger sitting at maxed range will do less DPS.

Whining ranger #3,456,123But hey....you get free arrows and stuff

<cite>Tyberion@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Title says it all.Why are assassins, the other predator, allowed to do, much much more damage than they were in T7 while rangers are given a handicap?I have run all of the numbers coming from test from every level of weapon quality, Legendary/MC T8/T7 through RSP/ET Mythical equipped.All of the numbers are showing on test server T8 bows staying very, very close to the auto attack DPS they are doing right now on live servers. While weapons that were considered balanced in T7 against every other class doing their T7 DPS are now considered overpowered.But melee DPS is allowed to progress and build higher and higher.Why is the Assassin class, which has more utility from Apply Toxins(Best melee DPS buff in the game) and Hate Transfer, not handicapped to doing the same auto attack DPS as they were doing in T7 like Rangers?This is some really [Removed for Content] poor balancing going on.</blockquote>What a stupid way to complain about the ranger arrow problem; seriously.You had two choices:1) Make an informed and constructive post outlining the problem and possible solutions, in no way singling out a single dev/class/player, and get the majority of the forum behind you, including assassins.2) Recommend that assassins are nerfed to make them just as useless as rangers, thereby providing no useful information to the uninformed, no real solutions (screwing all melee classes even more does not fix broken mechanics, it only makes them more broken) and instantly creating a large and vocal group of players that will disagree with everything you later suggest.Seriously, if you want to make a useful post then you don't come out and say "We should be the best DPS evar!"; most other dps classes will disagree. It simply becomes an argument over who should have the best dps. And that does not help you, as it is impossible to come out of it with your head held high.Any complaint that basically boils down to "Us vs Them" is doomed to failure.

<cite>kartikeya wrote:</cite><blockquote>The other problem is that developers (and not just SOE, but game developers in general) seem to freak out whenever it comes to working with a class that is a bow user. I have no idea why this is, because ranged DPS exists all the time without freakout in wizards, but it happens all the time. it's like they really can't grasp how to make such a class function, and they're terrified of giving it too much. There is, frankly, absolutely NO reason for arrows to be in the game at all. All it does is cause inventory management issues, money issues, and more headache for devs and players alike. When the devs try to put in 'special' arrows (their reasons for not wanting to give a form of endless quiver), they instantly start breaking out the nerfbat over and over and over again. I would prefer it if we never, ever, ever had arrows along the lines of Tenderwood again, thank you. The streak of overall nerfs the class got thanks to one item that only a small percentage of rangers ever got to see let alone use was amazing. </blockquote>Maybe SOE should try calling Blizzard for help <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I have played a Hunter all the way up to level60 and it was an awesome class to play in WoW. In fact, it was for me the most enjoyable class.Yet with EverQuest2 I never liked ranger as it's just another (underpowered) dual wield melee class. It just feels that way.Ranged attack is nice for careful pulling, but absolutely not as main attack and DPS. Wich should be for a ranged class as a Ranger should have been.I don't understand it either. I guess you are right SOE EQ2 devs appearently have no clue how to make Ranger a ranged DPS class <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />And as long as they haven't figured that out, I will never roll a ranger in EQ2.Cheers

<cite>Elenire@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because Aeralik plays an assassin in very high end raiding guild and has a vested interest in making sure we do not come close to Assassin's DPS.</blockquote>This type of "conflict of interest" is what eventually will come to a head and cause to either SOE change policies (heads rolling within) or players leaving a corrupt game. There should be a rule that devs play test only. Otherwise corruption will always be rampant. Not that I accuse anyone of being corrupt, but the reality within the game does make some people think that way. It is bad business practice to have devs play not only on live servers but also being active in raid guilds. This always will promote accusation's of favoritism and there is absolutely no way to prove otherwise. Especially as there is clear evidence that favoritism by devs and gms was done in the past .Someone at SOE needs to take a hard look at company policy and make sure those types of conflicts do not arise. Aerlik, playing an Assassin and raiding actively with it on a regular server should NEVER be the developer for that particular class and neither should any of the others in similar instances. There are other ways of testing a class and content then actively playing in a raid guild on a live server. All that is been done there is to test a small part of the game that has absolutely NOTHING in common with the rest of the game. This is not used to test for problems in solo or group areas..its for endgame only and so of no use to about 80% of players. There are endless discussions on how to revive the test servers. One way will be to make sure that the devs are playing there only... the excuse that there is no viable raid guild there is bogus (this game is NOT called ever raid its ever quest and I expect the devs to pay attention to all content not to a small sliver of special interest and a minority that screams loudest) It would be no problem for any of them to create a raid guild...hell, put all the active devs into one guild and you probably get most of a raid guild right there. Who better to test content then the people who create them? Peer pressure has always been hardest and would be more of an incentive to do things right then a complained from a few customers who will stop complaining once the underpaid C.S. rep tells them everything works as intended. We are all human and even with the best intention there will always be the conflict of interest and the need for a hidden tweak here and there in order to top the almighty parse... its directly related to ones ego..that is why nobody in this world is perfect and why other cooperations have stringed rules to avoid this. If SOE has those rules in place then nobody is enforcing them. I have worked for cooperation where this type of conflict of interest would have resulted in an instant dismissal . As long as this conflict of interest exist there is no hope for rangers ever to be a viable class on par with assassins and the other classes. One reason my ranger is doomed to crafting only. It makes no sense to play a class that is ON PURPOSE nerved in this game.J.C.

Who cares... HonestlyThe ranger class in eq1 and eq2 attracts the lowest common dregs of the gaming population. They are every "dewd", Dritzz, Legolas etc etc of the MMO world.They add zip to a group, normally don't have a clue how to play and anything we can do to thin out the ranks is welcomed.My only fear is they won't quit but will reroll to furies..... Cause we don't have enough druids..

<cite>Mayl wrote:</cite><blockquote>Who cares... HonestlyThe ranger class in eq1 and eq2 attracts the lowest common dregs of the gaming population. They are every "dewd", Dritzz, Legolas etc etc of the MMO world.They add zip to a group, normally don't have a clue how to play and anything we can do to thin out the ranks is welcomed.My only fear is they won't quit but will reroll to furies..... Cause we don't have enough druids.. </blockquote>If you think Rangers ad nothing to a group then you obliviously clueless and do NOT understand how this game is structured and what a ranger can do.

The only thing that makes me wonder is why you made a guild called "get big son"? And what the heck is with the rank "juicy fruit" ????

<cite>Mayl wrote:</cite><blockquote>Who cares... HonestlyThe ranger class in eq1 and eq2 attracts the lowest common dregs of the gaming population. They are every "dewd", Dritzz, Legolas etc etc of the MMO world.They add zip to a group, normally don't have a clue how to play and anything we can do to thin out the ranks is welcomed.My only fear is they won't quit but will reroll to furies..... Cause we don't have enough druids.. </blockquote>Oooh, Mr. Troll, do you prefer your meat slightly braised, or still bloody?- Katsi

To the OP: T7 ranger dps was 1.5-2.5k for a well played ranger... currently, they are doing 2.5-3.5k dps. Assassins are doing 3.0-4.0k zone wide. Well played rangers in raids are never far below the first 5 top parsers. Most of the ranger dps comes from their combat arts and other procs, which accounts for over 60%+ of their overall dps, and these combat arts are now being increased in damage. Seriously, what are you looking to do? Nerf another class so that you can appear to be the top dog? Bad form./thumbs down on OP

<cite>Rqron wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elenire@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because Aeralik plays an assassin in very high end raiding guild and has a vested interest in making sure we do not come close to Assassin's DPS.</blockquote>This type of "conflict of interest" is what eventually will come to a head and cause to either SOE change policies (heads rolling within) or players leaving a corrupt game. There should be a rule that devs play test only. Otherwise corruption will always be rampant. Not that I accuse anyone of being corrupt, but the reality within the game does make some people think that way. It is bad business practice to have devs play not only on live servers but also being active in raid guilds. This always will promote accusation's of favoritism and there is absolutely no way to prove otherwise. Especially as there is clear evidence that favoritism by devs and gms was done in the past .J.C.</blockquote>This is exactly what I DO NOT want. The last thing we need is a group of developers who do not play the game. I don't count playing EQ2-Meth (aka Test) playing the game.I agree that there needs to be some kind of mid-level controls employed to ensure the reasons for play-balancing (which I personally despise) are legitimate and appropriately debated. If anything, devs (and anyone who directly supervises devs) should be assigned certain classes to play so that they can adequately support or defend proposed changes. Removing them from the game would be a disaster.Of course, this part of the arguement is based on one person's "I read it on the inter-web, so it must be true" statement.SC

<cite>StormCinder wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rqron wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elenire@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because Aeralik plays an assassin in very high end raiding guild and has a vested interest in making sure we do not come close to Assassin's DPS.</blockquote>This type of "conflict of interest" is what eventually will come to a head and cause to either SOE change policies (heads rolling within) or players leaving a corrupt game. There should be a rule that devs play test only. Otherwise corruption will always be rampant. Not that I accuse anyone of being corrupt, but the reality within the game does make some people think that way. It is bad business practice to have devs play not only on live servers but also being active in raid guilds. This always will promote accusation's of favoritism and there is absolutely no way to prove otherwise. Especially as there is clear evidence that favoritism by devs and gms was done in the past .J.C.</blockquote>This is exactly what I DO NOT want. The last thing we need is a group of developers who do not play the game. I don't count playing EQ2-Meth (aka Test) playing the game.I agree that there needs to be some kind of mid-level controls employed to ensure the reasons for play-balancing (which I personally despise) are legitimate and appropriately debated. If anything, devs (and anyone who directly supervises devs) should be assigned certain classes to play so that they can adequately support or defend proposed changes. Removing them from the game would be a disaster.Of course, this part of the arguement is based on one person's "I read it on the inter-web, so it must be true" statement.SC</blockquote>Taking out of context you are certainly right. Only I did not say remove them from the game I said have them play where they can do the best for the community ..put them onto the test servers. Playing on live servers..not only to test but actively in everyday raiding is what creates conflicts of interest. Put them onto the test server to really "test" the content before hand...not on live servers to test content AFTER release. Devs playing on live servers should be the rare exception to verify a bug if there is one reported not the everyday rule.J.C.

Sony it nerfing rangers ability to kite a lv 83^^^ with zero risk in 3 mins. Go get yourself critical % range gear and give up some mele critical gear...rangers are going to have to choose what they want to specialize in. As it stands rangers have it too good, this is why everone is playing one. There will be rangers after this nerf that are uber in mele, or range. Sony has allways been against the kite farmers...since eq1, maybe a handfull do it, but it is 1 too many. Hence nerfs to roots over the years, snares, range damage, damage on the move, mez while moving, charm while moving, I'd say all of the real painfull nerfs were to make kiting less viable. Stats are chicken (*&^ now. Its all about % increasers. If you look at any servers numbers and see the % of people playing lv80 classes....think sony nerfs the 4% or the 10%. Their shopping list has to be based on "hey look everyone and their brother is playing this class....time to balance the numbers. whack" Hard to say a class sucks when everyone owns on.

They feel bad for all the dead rangers in EQ1. So, they are keeping you low on the hate list in order to keep you safe.

<cite>interstellarmatter wrote:</cite><blockquote>They feel bad for all the dead rangers in EQ1. So, they are keeping you low on the hate list in order to keep you safe.</blockquote>Lol. Pretty soon all you Rangers will get used to that warm, safe, fuzzy feeling that you get from knowing that you're low on the hate list like us Bards have. Really, it isnt that bad.PS: I know nothing about arrow mechanics or T8 DPS Tiers, but the quote mad me laugh <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

<cite>Elenire@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because Aeralik plays an assassin in very high end raiding guild and has a vested interest in making sure we do not come close to Assassin's DPS.</blockquote>Nerf Bat never coming anywhere near a Dark Elf Assassin while Aeralik breathes.We only need to check out who did the Racial Traits for Dark Elves to figure this out.

OK 2 things.... 1. If you dont suck you can do better dps that some assassins 2. Read about GU44 before you cry again in which rangers will be helped.

<cite>Rqron wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>StormCinder wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rqron wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Elenire@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>Because Aeralik plays an assassin in very high end raiding guild and has a vested interest in making sure we do not come close to Assassin's DPS.</blockquote>This type of "conflict of interest" is what eventually will come to a head and cause to either SOE change policies (heads rolling within) or players leaving a corrupt game. There should be a rule that devs play test only. Otherwise corruption will always be rampant. Not that I accuse anyone of being corrupt, but the reality within the game does make some people think that way. It is bad business practice to have devs play not only on live servers but also being active in raid guilds. This always will promote accusation's of favoritism and there is absolutely no way to prove otherwise. Especially as there is clear evidence that favoritism by devs and gms was done in the past .J.C.</blockquote>This is exactly what I DO NOT want. The last thing we need is a group of developers who do not play the game. I don't count playing EQ2-Meth (aka Test) playing the game.I agree that there needs to be some kind of mid-level controls employed to ensure the reasons for play-balancing (which I personally despise) are legitimate and appropriately debated. If anything, devs (and anyone who directly supervises devs) should be assigned certain classes to play so that they can adequately support or defend proposed changes. Removing them from the game would be a disaster.Of course, this part of the arguement is based on one person's "I read it on the inter-web, so it must be true" statement.SC</blockquote>Taking out of context you are certainly right. Only I did not say remove them from the game I said have them play where they can do the best for the community ..put them onto the test servers. Playing on live servers..not only to test but actively in everyday raiding is what creates conflicts of interest. Put them onto the test server to really "test" the content before hand...not on live servers to test content AFTER release. Devs playing on live servers should be the rare exception to verify a bug if there is one reported not the everyday rule.J.C.</blockquote>You are absolutely right, JC.When a player becomes a developer they stop being an ordinary player.Allowing them to play on the Live servers creates a conflict of interest. One which a few of them have exploited over the years (that we know of, heaven knows what they've gotten upto that we don't know about).Every SOE employee that has any ability, whether by themselves or via a third party, to alter the game (ie. the live environment) or divulge information not in the public domain creates the appearance of impropriety ~ even where there is no actual wrongdoing. Currently, the employees at SOE seem to be "self policed" and look where that's gotten us.Genuine players have already left the game because of the actions of some SOE employees and SOE's managerial responses to any outcry from customers.At the very least, a Dev cannot play this game without recourse to their inherent knowledge of the inner workings of it. To remove what they know would be impossible.To share that knowledge amongst friends would be improper, even noting that they should be using a different weapon, stance, tactic or whatever. These things may seem obvious to someone well-versed in the workings of the game, but the smallest piece of advice based on Developer knowledge is an unfair advantage.At the very worst, it would seem that SOE employees can give away detailed strategies, loopholes or just plain alter the game environments as they see fit, respawning mobs, resetting lock-outs, bypassing requirements, moving player accounts without adhering to normal procedures, and who knows what else."With great power comes great responsibility."The majority of devs (and other employees) may not be guilty of any wrongdoing (intentional or otherwise), but there are some who are ~ and the culture within SOE that allows this impropriety to continue, or at least, does nothing to ensure that any employee cannot influence the live environment beyond the scope of their job description, is what's tarnishing the image of EQ2 developers and all SOE employees.Right now we need:<ul><li>All SOE employees have free accounts to play on any SOE games' TEST server.</li><li>All previous personal accounts are frozen ~ characters may be copied to TEST.</li><li>Customer Service and Development departments must remain independent, and all changes/actions must be documented and authorized.</li><li>I'd even be tempted to terminate Fan Faire to reduce the opportunity for fraternization, because it's obvious that some people cannot control themselves. Or at the very least, I'd only allow producers and public relations to attend Fan Faire.</li></ul>Draconian?It's just a game??Some people take this very seriously. Of all people, so should SOE.

LOL... I'm loving the drama queens.Ranger DPS seems just fine to me.They always seem to be at or near the top in parses.I don't ever recall seeing a dev post that Rangers must always be the top DPS in every group/raid.

It's a plot I tells ya... A deliberate campaign of misinformation on Sony's part designed to mess with us. Oh, I almost forgot <passes out tinfoil hats to all the loony conspiracy theorists> here you go, this will stop them reading your mind at least.It's nothing new; I remember back when Wrin and others were getting the same treatment in EQ, and favouritism was rampant in the old MUD days. A dev makes the mistake of mentioning he plays a certain class somewhere, or someone who knows spills the beans, and all of a sudden everything is viewed under that light. Whether fair or not, whether or not the dev actually did use their position for gain, whether or not they're overlooking things unconsciously because of it, any revelation which can be couched in terms of that dev being biased will be, by an ungrateful and spiteful user community.Really though, given that the Sony perspective was that dps was already relatively balanced when the arrow mechanics were 'broken' I can't fathom why anyone would have expected it to abruptly change when the mechanics were revised.

Ranger DPS has historically been too high over the past few expansions. This upcoming change is needed, and looks to be well thought out.Assassins do not need a nerf.

All right, folks. Sorry to move this a second time, but this is really a ranger issue and I doubt the rangers want other classes butting in on their threads.However, if you want this to remain an open thread where you can have another discussion about what you feel are your class DPS issues, then please don't clutter it up with attacks (against the devs or other posters) or cries of favoritism. That's a good way to have the thread end up sidetracked and closed. Keep the discussion civil and coherent and your points will be more easily proven.Thanks!ETA - Also, keep the discussion focused on improving your class and not tearing down another. You can use other classes as a comparison for proving the points about your own, but don't agitate to get those other classes changed just to make your own look better instead.