Assassins vs. Rangers- The Chart!

[Arctic_Wulfe]

Alright, this chart is the side by side look at total assassin damage etc. vs. ranger total damage etc. Yay.

To get all the numbers, I used a lowbie neutral alt (not a ranger or an assassin) to look at every high end master that each of them had. Then I wrote down all the damage, casting etc.

A few notes on just specific things.

1) I guessed the damage component of Exacting did not effect the dot component of assassin CA's, or death mark. It seemed like it shouldn't effect CA's with exactly a 1 minute component. I did not factor the reuse speed reduction of exacting into this chart.

2) I assumed that Coverage would be used with Sniper Shot, so I added that in on extra. I also added all the makeshift arrow procs to extra.

3) I put down Fatal Followup as the exact damage it showed, even though it probably hits for a lot higher when used properly.

4) I put down Death Mark as proccing once, so Agonizing Pain having hit a total of 5 times.

5) I looked at the masters for all of these abilities- except, apparently, Exacting, as I factored that in at 30% but found out it could have been 40%. I still am not sure, so /shrug, I left it alone.

6) Assassin cast time is actually 14.75, not 14.25.

So, right, as you can see, recast is practically the same. (Assuming I didn't mess up the numbers.) So stop complaining about that, I guess.

Damage is... Well, close. Not off by a huge margin. Honestly, with the ranger's autoattack and both the makeshift arrow and our offensive proc going off it might make up for it. (Once we can flurry too, that is, which is supposedly otw)

So what is the problem? Cast time. Not factoring in exacting or dots, assassins can do 5193 damage per second of cast time. Rangers can do 3053.

SoE even understands this, really. Look at sorcerors vs. chanters. Sorcerors have omgwtf oneshot spells because they have such long cast times. Chanters have lolthattickled spells because they have such short cast times.

So basically, being a ranger is kind of like being a wizard who has base damage that is lower than that of a chanter.

If I made any mistakes on the chart, let me know.

[Chanson]

Arctic_Wulfe wrote:

So what is the problem? Cast time. Not factoring in exacting or dots, assassins can do 5193 damage per second of cast time. Rangers can do 3053.

Would be interesting to see how much of a gap this becomes when you add in Repeated Stabbing.

[Aaramis]

On the Assassin chart you included a tab for "W/Exacting", but the Ranger equivalent is "W/Extra".  What ability (or abilities) are being accounted for here?

Also take note on those cast times.  Several Archer abilities have cast times of 2 or 3;  most Assassin abilities are 0.5 to 1, making it easier to time with auto-attacks and not miss anything, or spam several abilities in the time it takes the Ranger to use 1.

And keep in mind that small differences in numbers for the hits can easily become big differences when ingame, after being modified by the 10 billion buffs and other modifiers. 

No Ranger with Sniper Shot III will ever come close to what the Assassins are pulling off with Assassinate IV.  It's a HUGE disparity.

[Arctic_Wulfe]

Chanson@Everfrost wrote:

Arctic_Wulfe wrote:

So what is the problem? Cast time. Not factoring in exacting or dots, assassins can do 5193 damage per second of cast time. Rangers can do 3053.

Would be interesting to see how much of a gap this becomes when you add in Repeated Stabbing.

If we factored in recovery etc. it would be 34 seconds  (24 cast and 9 recovery) for rangers to cast all those CAs and still 14.75 for assassins. Lowering rangers to 2240.

Aaramis wrote:

On the Assassin chart you included a tab for "W/Exacting", but the Ranger equivalent is "W/Extra".  What ability (or abilities) are being accounted for here?

Also take note on those cast times.  Several Archer abilities have cast times of 2 or 3;  most Assassin abilities are 0.5 to 1, making it easier to time with auto-attacks and not miss anything, or spam several abilities in the time it takes the Ranger to use 1.

And keep in mind that small differences in numbers for the hits can easily become big differences when ingame, after being modified by the 10 billion buffs and other modifiers. 

No Ranger with Sniper Shot III will ever come close to what the Assassins are pulling off with Assassinate IV.  It's a HUGE disparity.

In the extras, all the 563s are the makeshift arrow procs being added to ranged abilities. That's also where I factored coverage into sniper shot.

So yes, there is a huge disparity, seeing as how we have to use coverage to get even to the damage done with assassinate. Meaning it's really Rear Shot, Coverage, Sniper shot, or 4.5 seconds to .5 second of cast time. For sniper shot to do the same damage as assassinate.

Also, would like to know how many people it's still taking .5-1s for Coverage to go off, or if that's just me.  

[Ademelo]

Arctic_Wulfe wrote:

Also, would like to know how many people it's still taking .5-1s for Coverage to go off, or if that's just me.  

+1.

Coverage never goes in instantly for me, so I have to wait for that sec or so before I can even hit snipers. Yet another /facepalm

[Toughone]

Yah coverage is never insta cast for me ever, its always between half a sec to 1 sec to cast, it sucks waiting on it

[irbi]

Dear Arctic_Wulfe

In ACT we see eDPS 

Calculate your numbers to eDPS and add two numbers in your table.  Any questions about comparing?

PS:

Fatal Followup - 2099 - Its a joke?  Damage a little less than Assasinate if right use.

[Remeo]

Then of course there are the things you wont see in the numbers, like: Knockback from boss encounters are less of an issue at range, and also easier to get back to damaging once there is an interuption.

[Ocello]

Remeo@Befallen wrote:

Then of course there are the things you wont see in the numbers, like: Knockback from boss encounters are less of an issue at range, and also easier to get back to damaging once there is an interuption.

Excuses.  Seriously, in a fight such as this, a ranger SHOULD do more damage than an assassin.  I don't play either class but for some reason Assassins think they have this GOD-GIVEN right to top the parse.  It makes me sick. 

Assassins have a lot more utility than a ranger, and probably SHOULD do less DPS overall for that very reason.  Flame on, but I see ZERO reason why Rangers shouldn't be topping parses (theoretically speaking of course) due to their lack of utility.  All they bring is DPS, period, so they should OWN EVERYONE at it.  Even wizards and warlocks bring more utility FFS.

[Striikor]

Remeo@Befallen wrote:

Then of course there are the things you wont see in the numbers, like: Knockback from boss encounters are less of an issue at range, and also easier to get back to damaging once there is an interuption.

You must not ever group or raid with a ranger, so I won't belabor you lack of knowledge or. We stay a 5 meters, our sweet spot or we constantly joust. We get the same knock-back and interrupts.

The chart above is severely understated as, if you are assassin you can clearly see. For instance, my Assassin's fatal follow-up was in excess of 20K in T8. And melee procs are totally discounted along with the bias to melee in the predator tree. If Rangers were balanced with Assassin's we would do more DPS as we have the same survivability and less utility. 

[Azzad]

Ocello wrote:

Assassins have a lot more utility than a ranger, and probably SHOULD do less DPS overall for that very reason.  Flame on, but I see ZERO reason why Rangers shouldn't be topping parses (theoretically speaking of course) due to their lack of utility.  All they bring is DPS, period, so they should OWN EVERYONE at it.  Even wizards and warlocks bring more utility FFS.

Assassins have A LOT more utility? Which of our two buffs is giving us this amazing utility? We get a hate transfer and we can give one person a poison proc. Thats it. At least rangers get TWO temp GROUP wide buffs.

Now I'm saying saying your buffs are amazing either, we both suck at utility, but saying that assassins get "a lot more utility than a ranger" is just wrong.

[Sydares]

Sangfugol@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Assassins have A LOT more utility? Which of our two buffs is giving us this amazing utility? We get a hate transfer and we can give one person a poison proc. Thats it. At least rangers get TWO temp GROUP wide buffs.

Hahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Aaramis]

Ocello wrote:

Excuses.  Seriously, in a fight such as this, a ranger SHOULD do more damage than an assassin.  I don't play either class but for some reason Assassins think they have this GOD-GIVEN right to top the parse.  It makes me sick. 

Assassins have a lot more utility than a ranger, and probably SHOULD do less DPS overall for that very reason.  Flame on, but I see ZERO reason why Rangers shouldn't be topping parses (theoretically speaking of course) due to their lack of utility.  All they bring is DPS, period, so they should OWN EVERYONE at it.  Even wizards and warlocks bring more utility FFS.

Free tip for you when offering criticism.

Never let on in your first paragraph that you know nothing about either class since you don't play them.  It kinda hurts your credibility and invalidates the rest of your argument.

[Xiotia]

I play my Assassin in Battlegrounds at T4. I had a ranger that I scrapped later on. From my experience there is more involvement playing an assassin. I have to reposition constantly, and in pvp I am always in range of a tanks taunts (not complaining, I enjoy this interaction more than just mashing buttons). Rangers on the other hand can push massive DPS and from a distance. This should be considered as well as just the numbers. 

[Seiffil]

Xiotia@Lucan DLere wrote:

I play my Assassin in Battlegrounds at T4. I had a ranger that I scrapped later on. From my experience there is more involvement playing an assassin. I have to reposition constantly, and in pvp I am always in range of a tanks taunts (not complaining, I enjoy this interaction more than just mashing buttons). Rangers on the other hand can push massive DPS and from a distance. This should be considered as well as just the numbers. 

This is only true in BG/PVP usage.  The vast majority of people who are unhappy with where rangers are are concerned about PVE play.  While rangers should probably put out more dps while at range then an assassin, they aren't nearly as effective unless they're up close in the 2-5m range where all of our CA's are accessible, we're just more effective then other scouts. Also consider that if you want a dps class who does good dps purely from range, you're going to want a wizard rather then a ranger anyways.

Accounting for AA abilities, we're pretty close to 50% attacks are melee, and the other 50% are ranged, with slightly more towards the ranged side.  You can't truly look at a ranger as pure ranged dps because of that, especially considering that some of our melee CA's end up being among our highest parsing CA's.

[Xiotia]

Seiffil@Permafrost wrote:

Xiotia@Lucan DLere wrote:

I play my Assassin in Battlegrounds at T4. I had a ranger that I scrapped later on. From my experience there is more involvement playing an assassin. I have to reposition constantly, and in pvp I am always in range of a tanks taunts (not complaining, I enjoy this interaction more than just mashing buttons). Rangers on the other hand can push massive DPS and from a distance. This should be considered as well as just the numbers. 

This is only true in BG/PVP usage.  The vast majority of people who are unhappy with where rangers are are concerned about PVE play.  While rangers should probably put out more dps while at range then an assassin, they aren't nearly as effective unless they're up close in the 2-5m range where all of our CA's are accessible, we're just more effective then other scouts. Also consider that if you want a dps class who does good dps purely from range, you're going to want a wizard rather then a ranger anyways.

Accounting for AA abilities, we're pretty close to 50% attacks are melee, and the other 50% are ranged, with slightly more towards the ranged side.  You can't truly look at a ranger as pure ranged dps because of that, especially considering that some of our melee CA's end up being among our highest parsing CA's.

The only range attacks that my assassin has (granted, I'm only level 39) are two behind the back attacks and one normal ranged attack. Much less than 50%, so even in a pve situation I'm still required to be in aoe distance and right up on the mob. I feel that the dps between the two is marginal, but because of the difference in ranges it doesn't hurt to have the assassin gain that slightly harder hitting behind the back attack. (So far, I haven't noticed any utility on my assassin).

[Oakin]

I'm a 62 Ranger and I own Assassins in PVP.

A lone Assassin can't kill me if he can't get close enough to melee me. Snaring Snaring + Fettering Poison + Entangle + Extension = dead Assassin.

I often don't take a single hit.

[Seiffil]

Xiotia@Lucan DLere wrote:

The only range attacks that my assassin has (granted, I'm only level 39) are two behind the back attacks and one normal ranged attack. Much less than 50%, so even in a pve situation I'm still required to be in aoe distance and right up on the mob. I feel that the dps between the two is marginal, but because of the difference in ranges it doesn't hurt to have the assassin gain that slightly harder hitting behind the back attack. (So far, I haven't noticed any utility on my assassin).

In a fight where you're staying at ranged, a ranger will probably outparse an assassin, unless the assassins flurry just boosts the dps that much.  What my point is that you and many others incorrectly focus on the ability of a ranger to do dps at ranged as being a reason for the disparity between the two classes.  We lose a significant portion of our dps by staying at ranged and being unable to access all of our CAs.  And as I mentioned in the previous post, if you want pure ranged dps, you're not going to get a ranger, you will get a caster for that spot as they are much much more effective when staying.

Also, the focus of this thread is not rangers vs assassins in PVP.  Rangers in PVP play completely different from rangers in PVE, because you're trying to stay at range where you have an advantage.  This isn't about PVP though, so how each class performs in PVP has no bearing.

Assassin utility comes in the form of their hate transfer, as well as their poison buff they can put on other non rogue or predator classes.

[Prestissimo]

Theoretically it's supposed to be a different flavor to do the same job. That in mind, the in-game result should not be almost solely assassins > rangers like it is. Sure, one can out do the other in certain conditions, and there are other factors such as the ranged vs melee, but really the numbers should be basically the same on the chart.

Melee don't cost ammo, so that could be considered to be the con that is coupled with being able to range people down in pvp despite the fact that this has no bearing on PVE in which case the 5 meter consideration completely boot up butt negates the whole ranged = no aoe arguement since even those at 10 or 15 or even 20 meters are still typically getting hit by that crap. Assassin utility vs ranger utility is like comparing a 3 legged blind dog to a 3 legged blind cat; they're both pretty heavily disfunctional in their own rights, just less so depending on the conditions.

[Sydares]

You'll often hear Rangers whine about utility (including myself), but here's the real kicker:

We don't care about it. We care that raid leaders see, "Ooh, hate transfer to put on the tank." And put a swash or an assassin in the main tank group with the dirge and coercer and we get totally overlooked. A lot of the problems that Rangers face are a symptom of never being attractive to put into the group that gives them optimal damage output.

As for PvP being a part of this discussion - stop. PvP balance is an entirely different demon from PvE class balance.

[Sydares]

Seiffil@Permafrost wrote:

As I mentioned in the previous post, if you want pure ranged dps, you're not going to get a ranger, you will get a caster for that spot as they are much much more effective when staying ranged.

Also this. This x 1,000,000,000.

[ShadyCharacter]

My main is a Brig these days but I used to roll with a Ranger a lot and he is about 3rd on my list of priorities these days. Brigands share quite a few of the same kinds of problems as a Ranger, it would be almost funny if I didn't play both. I must have a taste for the wrong end of the stick . On the surface saying an Assassin has a LOT more utility than a Ranger does seem an exaggeration, but in reality that hate transfer alone will ensure that the Assassin will get the stacked tank group almost all the time, and the Ranger will get the left overs. Taking all the group buffs into account, that IS VERY significant. Predators (and Rogues) are very reliant on group buffs to do optimum dps. I seen it said above but I will reiterate. Rangers are melee, they just happen to be able to do 80% of their dps at range, but who in a raid wants to do a mere 80% of their potential? If you think that is ok then [Removed for Content], do the 23 other people on your raid a favour and make room for someone who is going to put in the effort.

Aaramis wrote:

Ocello wrote:

Excuses.  Seriously, in a fight such as this, a ranger SHOULD do more damage than an assassin.  I don't play either class but for some reason Assassins think they have this GOD-GIVEN right to top the parse.  It makes me sick. 

Assassins have a lot more utility than a ranger, and probably SHOULD do less DPS overall for that very reason.  Flame on, but I see ZERO reason why Rangers shouldn't be topping parses (theoretically speaking of course) due to their lack of utility.  All they bring is DPS, period, so they should OWN EVERYONE at it.  Even wizards and warlocks bring more utility FFS.

Free tip for you when offering criticism.

Never let on in your first paragraph that you know nothing about either class since you don't play them.  It kinda hurts your credibility and invalidates the rest of your argument.

Yes clearly his logic is flawed and his opinion worthless! Way to attack the messenger. I do play a Ranger and I have played an Assassin and I agree 100% with Ocello.

[Etibe]

why does no one mention that the ranger spends twice as much time casting.