EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Class Discussion > Scout's Den > Ranger
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-28-2010, 10:48 PM   #151
FearDiadh

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 231
Default

So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... 

In order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps.  That means that we will see a 5% increase to our overall dps, but in order to offset this you are giving assassins flurry and aoe auto on their offhand weapon? 

Who wants to bet that will give assassins more than a 5% increase? 

__________________
FearDiadh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 11:21 PM   #152
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

[email protected] DLere wrote:

So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... 

In order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps.

Again, this isn't meant to fix ALL our DPS problems. This is NOT a 'end all be all' solution to ranger DPS. No ever said it was, and clearly comes up short to solve our problems, so I am repeatedly confused why people act as if it is the holy grail to fixing ranger DPS.

You have to look at it purely in terms of auto attack for us and other classes. These changes on test and upcoming additions to flurry and ae auto are meant to better even out auto attack DPS and auto attack mechanics across classes that rely on auto attack.

So its not surprising this won't fix all all DPS woes, because its not supposed to. Now if after these changes you have classes doing insanely better auto attack DPS than others, then we have a problem.

Beat up a bunch of heroic dummies today:

Live Merged

EXT DPS    TYPE           AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT   TO HIT %  CRIT %     5,889.41   crush          13,728.95  7,364      25,503    100.00      100%   

Test Merged

EXT DPS    TYPE            AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT  TO HIT %  CRIT %  8,150.47   crush           18,768.80  9,531     33,784     100.00     100%

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 12:46 AM   #153
Albatroz

Lord
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 21
Default

Ranger CA base dmg needs to be brought in line with their Assassin counterpart aswell

I got a Ranger alt in all t3 SF raid amor except the bp and quite a bunch of nice jewelery , so im sittin at like 85 CB dont know how much potency atm

but that doesnt matter anyways , a guildie of mine got a similar geared Assassin alt and his parses are still about 25-30% off when we you take auto attack dps out of the equation , theyre ahead there aswell but by smaller amount

I for sure not askin here for increasing melee combat Arts but the Ranged CAs need a significant increase in base dmg by at least 20-30% , when I compare Sniper Shot to Assassinate and see it doing double the dmg then theres something terribly wrong with that

CAST timers need to be looked into , Hidden Shot for example got a 2,11 sec cast time for me for about 50k dmg when it crits i dont even consider the Reuse here but its not exactly great in order to keep the cast time it needs to do triple the amount of dmg it currently does

Arrow Barrages Recast need to be brought down along with Stream of Arrows and Storm of Arrows

Coverage just remove already those stupid restrictions to this spell , you cast it next CA gains 32% in damage I dont know why it has to be such a hassle with it , the skill is by a mile weaker than Fatal Follow up

I do understand that Assassin CAs need to be more potent as they cant do the majority of their DPS by stayin 30m away from the mob but in comparison and considering this fact Ranged CAs are way too weak still

Albatroz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 12:57 AM   #154
Sydares

Loremaster
Sydares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 700
Default

Coverage, even on servers with 0 lag is taking 2-5 seconds to register its user as being stealthed. It's a finicky piece of garbage that really needs to be removed.

Sydares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 01:06 AM   #155
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

Yeah the check to see if we did a qualifying attack before it is horrible on Coverage. All i use it for is trying to get high hit sniper shots for kicks.

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 03:02 AM   #156
Ballzz

Loremaster
Ballzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Default

Coverage is a huge POS. I *hate* that ability. It's such a PITA to use and so laggy it's ridiculous. I even macro'd it to Rear Shot which helped a little but like Neiloch said..it takes so [Removed for Content] long to do that qualifying check that half the time I think it didn't work and I interrupt it with a CA because it's counter productive to sit there waiting for it to work. They should just change that ability to a new Ranged ability that only becomes available after a positional attack or something. 

__________________
Ballhaus 90/250 Ranger: 90 Woodworker, 450 Transmuter, 450 Adorner

Smallhaus 90/250 Warden: 90 Provisioner, 450 Transmuter
Ballzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 10:15 AM   #157
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

Beat up some Epic dummies:

Live

EXT DPS    TYPE                      DAMAGE      AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT6,181.06   crush                     7,590,335   14,853.88  7,364      25,968Test

EXT DPS    TYPE                      DAMAGE      AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT8,039.74   crush                     8,192,490   19,552.48  9,584      34,061

If you don't feel like doing the math this is a increase of 30.07%

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 10:31 AM   #158
Geothe

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,098
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[parses]

If you don't feel like doing the math this is a increase of 30.07%

Which is exactly what should be seen on test at this point with the removal of the 20% damage penalty along with a 10% increase on top of that.

__________________
Smed: We aren't going to be allowing RMT in any way, shape or form on the non-exchange enabled EQ II servers. Period. End of statement.

Smed: 5) This [LoN] is not some slippery slope towards selling items directly in EQ & EQ II.

Lie #3: Station Cash. Enough Said.

Geothe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 10:33 AM   #159
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

Geothe wrote:

Which is exactly what should be seen on test at this point with the removal of the 20% damage penalty along with a 10% increase on top of that.

It certainly is. So 'confirmed' I guess heh. Now we wait ong ae auto and flurry, hopefully next week.

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 11:34 AM   #160
Venez
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vendetta
Rank: Member

Loremaster
Venez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 112
Default

[email protected] DLere wrote:

So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... Yes

In order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps.  That means that we will see a 5% increase to our overall dps, but in order to offset this you are giving assassins flurry and aoe auto on their offhand weapon? NO, you are not understanding the bow fix.

Who wants to bet that will give assassins more than a 5% increase? They will see more than 5%

The bow fix is going to bring the AUTO ATTACK portion of that 20% - 30% parse closer, by about 2-4k. What we will be gaining is about 2k-4k AUTO ATTACK ext dps only,depending on the fight and the +mod differances (which really should be simiular @ high end).

They will see imo a higher than 5% increase to their Auto Attack dps with the off hand getting flurry,procs,ae, etc. But it is supposed to equal out with us getting the same on our bows. And in the end we should be near the same auto attack dps.

What we are NOT getting is a +20% increase to overall dps, which is what a very large % of players are talking about in chat,tells, forums. This is ONLY effecting the AUTO ATTACK portion of EVERYONES parse. We Rangers should see a slightly higher total dps increase, just because we use bows exclusivly. And by slightly I mean 2k - 4k with the numbers that are being posted on the parse threads.  

__________________
a href='http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=937242202'>
Venez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 12:12 PM   #161
FearDiadh

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 231
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] DLere wrote:

So at the higher end of raiding, assassins are outparsing rangers by ~20%... Yes

In order to fix this we are going to get a roughly 25% increase to 20% of our dps.  That means that we will see a 5% increase to our overall dps, but in order to offset this you are giving assassins flurry and aoe auto on their offhand weapon? NO, you are not understanding the bow fix.

Who wants to bet that will give assassins more than a 5% increase? They will see more than 5%

The bow fix is going to bring the AUTO ATTACK portion of that 20% - 30% parse closer, by about 2-4k. What we will be gaining is about 2k-4k AUTO ATTACK ext dps only,depending on the fight and the +mod differances (which really should be simiular @ high end).

They will see imo a higher than 5% increase to their Auto Attack dps with the off hand getting flurry,procs,ae, etc. But it is supposed to equal out with us getting the same on our bows. And in the end we should be near the same auto attack dps.

What we are NOT getting is a +20% increase to overall dps, which is what a very large % of players are talking about in chat,tells, forums. This is ONLY effecting the AUTO ATTACK portion of EVERYONES parse. We Rangers should see a slightly higher total dps increase, just because we use bows exclusivly. And by slightly I mean 2k - 4k with the numbers that are being posted on the parse threads.  

I understand the bow fix, quite clearly.  It is going to up our auto attack dps (which is about 20% of our parse) by about 25% (maybe 30% according to some posts)  20% of 50k is about 10k.  So we are going to up that 10k by 2500 to 3000.  Gotcha.  So 52-53k vs 50k.  That should really get us close to the 70k. 

Next week we will get aoe auto and flurry.  I am not sure how much that will add but I doubt it adds  a ton.  5-10k if you are really decked out in t3 and in a multi mob encounter?  Overall, rough guess.. we add 5k zw.  That brings us up to 57k maybe.  Meanwile the 70k we were trying to reach just went to 75k.  So yeah. 

Nice change on the auto attack but we told SOE our auto attack was crap before SF got out of beta.  8 months late on that.  I am jaded I guess, but I just don't understand why you are moving other scouts dps farther up when you are trying to get ours to match.  It defeats the purpose.  Is it so our parses are equal?  They are not equal.  We have different mechanics and that is fine as long as the mechanics have us lower, but not ok if it has one thing lower on the other scouts? 

If our combat arts did as much as assassins and if our cast speeds were as fast as assassins, then I would get it.  I don't get it right now.   You see, it does not matter if their aoe auto and flurry do as much as ours.  The classes are not homogeneous, they are supposed to be different.  I don't understand why they are wasting their time equalizing another class to us in one small area when they feel no need to make out combat arts equivelent to theirs. 

I think it is a shell game.  Give us something but give them something too, so nothing really changes.  Every bump they give you is negated by the bump they give others.

__________________
FearDiadh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 12:29 PM   #162
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

[email protected] DLere wrote:

I understand the bow fix, quite clearly.

No, no you don't. You keep referring to overall DPS and their discrepancies. These changes are NOT meant to get us caught up with overall assassin or any other classes DPS. These changes are MEANT to equalize AUTO ATTACK DPS ONLY.

AUTO

ATTACK

DPS

Every time you mention overall DPS and CA's is a testament to how much you don't understand what these AUTO ATTACK changes are for.

[email protected] DLere wrote:

I am jaded I guess, but I just don't understand why you are moving other scouts dps farther up when you are trying to get ours to match.  It defeats the purpose.  Is it so our parses are equal?  They are not equal.  We have different mechanics and that is fine as long as the mechanics have us lower, but not ok if it has one thing lower on the other scouts? 

It makes sense once you realize we are getting a bigger boost than other scouts. If assassins are 10 and rangers are 8, they can give them 2 and us 4 and we will be even. Making the scale balanced doesn't require the heavier side not be modified in any way.

[email protected] DLere wrote:

If our combat arts did as much as assassins and if our cast speeds were as fast as assassins, then I would get it.  I don't get it right now.   You see, it does not matter if their aoe auto and flurry do as much as ours.  The classes are not homogeneous, they are supposed to be different.  I don't understand why they are wasting their time equalizing another class to us in one small area when they feel no need to make out combat arts equivelent to theirs. 

I think it is a shell game.  Give us something but give them something too, so nothing really changes.  Every bump they give you is negated by the bump they give others.

It would be a bad idea to tweak CA's and auto attack at the same time. It would make any DPS discrepancies harder to pin down. Auto attack is a large pillar in scout and fighter DPS, its good sense to try and even them out before working on a completely different pillar like CA's. The phrase "one problem at a time" comes to mind. They said at fanfaire they will be looking at CA's (and if they need to be tweaked) AFTER these changes. If people are so lazy they don't want to research the points they are debating I can dig that up as well.

If you want to talk about problems with CA's i suggest making a new topic or replying to one of the numerous ones already on this board about that very issue.

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 01:38 PM   #163
Venez
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vendetta
Rank: Member

Loremaster
Venez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 112
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] DLere wrote:

I understand the bow fix, quite clearly.

No, no you don't. You keep referring to overall DPS and their discrepancies. These changes are NOT meant to get us caught up with overall assassin or any other classes DPS. These changes are MEANT to equalize AUTO ATTACK DPS ONLY.

AUTO

ATTACK

DPS

Every time you mention overall DPS and CA's is a testament to how much you don't understand what these AUTO ATTACK changes are for. Yes this is why I thought  you may not understand the Bow Change. It is and was never meant to be a Ranger fix. We just end up benefiting the most because of it. Yes our getting the most out of it was probably just a win/win for us and $oE imo.

[email protected] DLere wrote:

I am jaded I guess, but I just don't understand why you are moving other scouts dps farther up when you are trying to get ours to match.  It defeats the purpose.  Is it so our parses are equal?  They are not equal.  We have different mechanics and that is fine as long as the mechanics have us lower, but not ok if it has one thing lower on the other scouts? 

It makes sense once you realize we are getting a bigger boost than other scouts. If assassins are 10 and rangers are 8, they can give them 2 and us 4 and we will be even. Making the scale balanced doesn't require the heavier side not be modified in any way.

[email protected] DLere wrote:

If our combat arts did as much as assassins and if our cast speeds were as fast as assassins, then I would get it.  I don't get it right now.   You see, it does not matter if their aoe auto and flurry do as much as ours.  The classes are not homogeneous, they are supposed to be different.  I don't understand why they are wasting their time equalizing another class to us in one small area when they feel no need to make out combat arts equivelent to theirs. 

I think it is a shell game.  Give us something but give them something too, so nothing really changes.  Every bump they give you is negated by the bump they give others.

It would be a bad idea to tweak CA's and auto attack at the same time. It would make any DPS discrepancies harder to pin down. Auto attack is a large pillar in scout and fighter DPS, its good sense to try and even them out before working on a completely different pillar like CA's. The phrase "one problem at a time" comes to mind. They said at fanfaire they will be looking at CA's (and if they need to be tweaked) AFTER these changes. If people are so lazy they don't want to research the points they are debating I can dig that up as well.

If you want to talk about problems with CA's i suggest making a new topic or replying to one of the numerous ones already on this board about that very issue.

I said this in world chat a few times now. I am glad they are putting in the modifier change first and getting it tested. And the adding the flurry / ae mechanic for bows after. I would rather get changes in steady steps, as long as they are not drawn out over months and months. At least doing it in steady steps like this it has a chance to hit live servers and actually get tested in real encounters for a few weeks so we can actually not be OP'd and then nerfed back where we are now.

The "mighty force" leads me to believe that we got this as a secondary fix, and this is probably really the only thing we can hope to gain in closeing the 50k Ranger vs 70k+ Assassin parses that are posted (high end raids). And I will probably continue to get PMs from the Mods about being mean to the Devs as a result.

__________________
a href='http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=937242202'>
Venez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 02:56 PM   #164
Ballzz

Loremaster
Ballzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Default

I understand what they are doing and why it needs to be done in steps. That makes good sense. What has me worried is whether they will actually follow through with any changes beyond AA and flurry/AE AA. I have a bad feeling they will wrongly assume whatever marginal gain Rangers net on other scouts from those initial changes will be sufficient and they won't tune our CA dmg after. I hope I'm wrong.

__________________
Ballhaus 90/250 Ranger: 90 Woodworker, 450 Transmuter, 450 Adorner

Smallhaus 90/250 Warden: 90 Provisioner, 450 Transmuter
Ballzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 06:32 PM   #165
Venez
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vendetta
Rank: Member

Loremaster
Venez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 112
Default

Ballzz wrote:

I understand what they are doing and why it needs to be done in steps. That makes good sense. What has me worried is whether they will actually follow through with any changes beyond AA and flurry/AE AA. I have a bad feeling they will wrongly assume whatever marginal gain Rangers net on other scouts from those initial changes will be sufficient and they won't tune our CA dmg after. I hope I'm wrong.

If Xelgad has access to the old parses, and balanceing (EoF era) he will see that we were balanced around massive auto attack damage that was much higher than melee auto, and thats why we had slower casting and longer reuse timers, not to mention that procs were NOT standardized and we had a much higher proc rate than melee ( that to has been nerfed) so we lost alot over the whole spectrum. Since all the mechanic changes from (EoF) we now do lower auto than melee (till this goes live) then we will do the same - not more, like we used to (pre EoF).

So we will still be incorrectly balanced. And to bring us inline with Assassins (not higher) we still are in bad need of a CA and AA retune / rebalanceing. And after the auto attack fix and before the next Xpac, would be a good time to address them.

If you look at the ext dps per CA of the two class's (parses are posted) you will see that we are indeed way behind in quite a few of them if not all.

__________________
a href='http://eq2players.station.sony.com/characters/character_profile.vm?characterId=937242202'>
Venez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 08:09 PM   #166
Corwinus

Loremaster
Corwinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 196
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Beat up some Epic dummies:

Live

EXT DPS    TYPE                      DAMAGE      AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT6,181.06   crush                     7,590,335   14,853.88  7,364      25,968Test

EXT DPS    TYPE                      DAMAGE      AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT8,039.74   crush                     8,192,490   19,552.48  9,584      34,061

If you don't feel like doing the math this is a increase of 30.07%

I guess that I am less decked than you are Neil, I ended up with the following results on the epic dummy:

Live

EXT DPS    TYPE                      DAMAGE      AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT4,699.63   crush                     7,143,439   11,691.39  7,064      22,073Test

EXT DPS    TYPE                      DAMAGE      AVERAGE    MIN HIT  MAX HIT6,235.75   crush                     7,857,040   15,226.82  9,191      30,086

ACT parses are in the in testing forum.

So an increase of only 24.6% dps, meaning 30% increase is not a garantee, it can vary easily from 20 to 30 %.

Cor

Corwinus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 11:02 PM   #167
Sydares

Loremaster
Sydares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 700
Default

A lot of the variance is likely self-buffed dps mod.

Sydares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 05:22 PM   #168
-=Hoss=-

Loremaster
-=Hoss=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 402
Default

[email protected] wrote:

I started to put some data in a thread call Bow changes in Testing.

So far On the same epic mob (12,360,000 hp), using the same char, AAs, equipment, buffs, bow (Wyrm Tendon), arrows (field point):

On Live Crush did 7,143,439 dmg (4700dps), On Test, Crush did 7,857,040 dmg (6236 dps), so increase of dps for crush was like 25%. Now if you take the overall Auto attack including poisons, procs, ... on Live dps was 8124 and on test it was 9810 so the increase of dps on Auto attack only would be 17%. it gets even more diluted I think when we add our CAs which represent at least 2/3 of our overall dps (if not 3/4).

Hope that helps.

Cor

Edit:  I should have read the next page.  But still, pretty much inline with what would be expected.  20-30 % (I wonder why yours is lower corwin, are you at 100% crit?).  I assume everyone will be killing groups of training dummies next week when the rest goes in?

-=Hoss=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 09:55 AM   #169
Striikor
Server: Nektulos
Guild: Purgatory
Rank: Raid Team

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 480
Default

__________________


“The thirst for equality can express itself either as a desire to draw everyone down to one's level, or to raise oneself and everyone else up.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

“There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it.”

George Bernard Shaw
Striikor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 02:29 PM   #170
Sydares

Loremaster
Sydares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 700
Default

Those figures, coupled with the now-grotesque difference in damage rating between 2Hers and Bows in PvP is a point of extreme irritation. This seems to be following the typical "Ranger Fix" pattern of buffing everyone --- just buffing us the least. Disappointing, to say the least.

Typical Ranged/2H introductory raid/pvp weapons compared:

Nanthera's Bladed Yuri: 195.6 PvE / 168.2 PvP

Wyrm Tendon Longbow: 188.8 PvE / 109.2 PvP

Seriously, what the hell is the rationale behind this?

Sydares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 08:09 PM   #171
Carpediem
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Azure Skies
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Carpediem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 208
Default

Hey Xelgad,

Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.

Carpediem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 08:20 PM   #172
Ademelo

Loremaster
Ademelo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 102
Default

akaglty wrote:

Hey Xelgad,

Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.

LOL, beat me to it I see SMILEY

__________________
Elyl (Ranger)
Taelinda (Warden)
Oasis Server

Ademelo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 08:37 PM   #173
Corwinus

Loremaster
Corwinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 196
Default

Sydares wrote:

A lot of the variance is likely self-buffed dps mod.

I think you are right, I was paying more attention on my dps buff refresh today and hit 28% more on crush instaed of 25%.

Cor

Corwinus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 12:27 AM   #174
Nevao

Loremaster
Nevao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 504
Default

So playing around with ranged Auto AE Attack and found the following:

  • Surrounding attacks has been changed to say "affect multiple targets [up to 4] they are facing, who are with range of that weapon". And it does appear to do just that. I put two traning dummies far enough apart that I could not melee one from the other. I then went back to the other side of the room and faced in between them and started firing. I mangaged to hit both when the AoE auto attacks went off, so it really does appear to be based off the range of the bow (within whatever the "in front arc" consists of). Means we'll need to be careful in some heoric zones, but nothing we can't manage.
  • For some reason all my AoE Auto Attacks were registering as "Piercing" damage even though I'm using field points and my only melee weapon is a slashing weapon. I don't think this will be an issue (both should be using the Ranged Skill and I was getting similar hit %s) but it was odd and something that probably nees to be dug deeper into.
  • Damage for the AoE Auto Attack pros were consistent with bow damage. Looks like it was not modified down in any way.

Still trying to get some numbers for Flurry (I only have a 2% chance since my dirges haven't copied over that I know of), but I'll post when I do get something.

Update: Pulled off a few Flurry procs. Not enough to get meaningful data but I did notice that they were also registering as piercing damage.

__________________




Cibilie : 90 Brigand (Main), Dirtnap on Oasis

Enaki : 90 Ranger, Dirtnap on Oasis

Nevao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 09:15 AM   #175
Striikor
Server: Nektulos
Guild: Purgatory
Rank: Raid Team

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 480
Default

We keep viewing this as a Ranger fix. Please lets stop that! This is a a mechanical fix for all melee 2H, off-hand and bow (ranged?). As Rangers we are going to gain the most as compared to the rest because we tend to have the highest portion of our damage in autoattack. It may well be more than the ~5% net gain I foresee. I am not sure we can really know until it is live and get to see the effect in an actual raid.

Again this is not about Ranger issues and certainly not specific to Rangers. It is an improvement it is not a fix. It is NOT going to balance us in the DPS vs UTILITY vs SURVIVABILITY sense. We are still (IMO) going to be in the bottom rung of DPS for the pure DPS classes. We are still going to have greatly less utility vs the other pure DPS classes. I personally think our survivability is just about right. If there is a Ranger fix in the works it had not been talked about by developers anywhere I can find. I can see them trying to pass this off as THE fix though.  

We are going to gain some ground and that is good but, please don't make the mistake or lead anyone to think this is a ranger fix. We have enough challenge getting our problems across without saying we view this a a fix attempt.

I still keep hearing peeps say that we don't need to be top on DPS because we can attack from range. That is bunk if you are doing your job at 2-5 meters your survivability is not increased an iota over our brother predator. Our area of maximum opportunity is a 3 meter spot that many times is in constant motion. Too close is a fail too far is a fail. What other class has to put up with that? We have to be in the sweet a spot unlike casters, who can at leisure be right on the mob or 30+ meters away and do the same essential damage. 

__________________


“The thirst for equality can express itself either as a desire to draw everyone down to one's level, or to raise oneself and everyone else up.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

“There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it.”

George Bernard Shaw
Striikor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2010, 01:54 PM   #176
Carpediem
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Azure Skies
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Carpediem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 208
Default

I wouldn't get any hopes up for more changes until the next expansion. Changing double arrow AA to flurry would be nice but, I have a feeling we'll have to wait on that too until Velious AA are decided on.

Problem is, this is turning into a trend. They don't want to change our CA's because they don't want to have us overpowered when a expansion is coming, then after the expansion, they want to wait until they see what we can do with the new items and AA, then more changes to the game normally 6 months in and they want to see how we do from that, then next expansion is coming again. Rinse repeat...

They need to sooner or later just get it over with.

Carpediem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2010, 04:45 PM   #177
Gaige

Loremaster
Gaige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,500
Default

akaglty wrote:

Hey Xelgad,

Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.

No.  No. No. No. No.

If he does this he better be prepared to change AAs for every class that buff things that aren't needed anymore.  I have 5 or 6 assassin ones in mind that we can change to buff potency, ae auto, flurry, crit bonus, etc.

You can get flurry the same way all non-assassins do: buffs, adornments and gear.

__________________
Gaige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2010, 05:40 PM   #178
Neiloch

Loremaster
Neiloch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,430
Default

Gaige wrote:

akaglty wrote:

Hey Xelgad,

Can you change the 8% DA we get from double arrow in our multi line in ranger AA tree to 4% flurry now that we can actually use flurry? The 8% DA isn't that great anymore considering it's a endline ability and we have nothing from AA that gives us flurry.

No.  No. No. No. No.

If he does this he better be prepared to change AAs for every class that buff things that aren't needed anymore.

Why? they changed some Guardian AA's. So it's perfectly plausible to change a classes AA's without also changing or benefiting their counter part or any other classes for that matter.

Balance won't be attained by adding equal amounts of things to classes that are uneven to begin with. It's like trying to make a 3 story building and a 5 story building the same height by adding 2 stories to both. Rangers WILL need to get more benefits in updates and expansions than assassin's if balance is to be achieved. Otherwise adding equal amounts just moves the gap, not close it. Even if they get one benefit each, said benefit being equal for both would only maintain inbalance, the benefit rangers get would have to be better than the one for assassins.

If the two classes were balanced then demanding Assassin's get something every time a Ranger does would make sense, unfortunately that's not the case here.

__________________
Neiloch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2010, 03:39 AM   #179
Carpediem
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Azure Skies
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Carpediem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 208
Default

I think 4% flurry on an endline AA tree is a reasonable request. Not even asking to match the 15% that assassins get Gaige, so I don't know what you're worked up about. Your class is already higher than ours in dps by a pretty fair amount and you have no problem with pointing that out every day.

Carpediem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2010, 05:42 AM   #180
Gaige

Loremaster
Gaige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,500
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Why? they changed some Guardian AA's.

I don't care about guardians, I care about the predator classes.

__________________
Gaige is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 AM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.