Why does everyone hate rangers?

[Cyrano]

I just want to exp :(

<LFG Rongeur 26 Ranger>

[loramin]

Hybrids currently have a significant experience penalty, and with the way EQ works that means they will actually use up more than their fair share of the group's experience.

However, at some point after Velious is released those penalties will go away. In the meantime I recommend duoing or trioing instead, or starting your own groups.

[Emile]

What can a ranger bring to a group that another class can't do better and without the xp penalty?

[Cogwell]

What can a ranger bring to a group that another class can't do better and without the xp penalty?

Ranger FD causes mem whipe on mobs 100% of the time. SKs and Necros don't even get close to that.

[Cyrano]

I'm fortunate in that I have pretty good gear. I can probably hang in top DPS for everyone besides epic rogue, I can hold aggro really well using snare/root, and I can pull as well as anyone until higher levels.

The only thing that keeps me from groups is bias against rangers but I'd argue that a really well equipped ranger can increase the exp of a lower level group way more than that penalty would cause.

[lecompte]

... I love rangers... Any good player can make a group. Level 26 shouldn't run in to too much hybrid hate. Sometimes if I'm in a group with 3 hybrids I start to back slowly away.

[Culkasi]

If people wont group with you because you are ranger, they have misunderstood the reason to play a 15 year old game. Min maxing in mid 20s group on P99 is.......wrong.

[Lune]

What can a ranger bring to a group that another class can't do better and without the xp penalty?

Rangers bring a combination of snap agro and dps that you can't get from any other tank. Warriors and monks can tank and dps, but have poor agro management. Paladins and shadow knights can tank and snap agro, but have terrible dps.

A properly geared ranger (sky haste, epic) does slightly less dps than a comparably geared monk (good worn haste, epic), and contrary to popular belief, isn't going to run your healer out of mana, especially if you have slows. A ranger is also a better puller than a monk in certain outdoor areas such as Mistmoore, Karnor's Castle, and Kael Drakkel, with a ranger and iksar monk having roughly the same XP penalty.

So that is their one narrow role where it is worth having a ranger: Tank for a 6 person group whose efficiency is limited by DPS output, not healing. That is an extremely common form of group on p99.

Also, assuming equal gear, monks don't do that much more DPS than rangers. Part of that perception is due to the fact that the monk epic is extremely easy to get compared to the ranger epic. Where a 60 epic'd iksar monk in a seb group might be doing 60 dps, an epic'd ranger will do 50. That's less than the difference between a lazy-ass and someone who is on the ball.

A 50+ enchanter who doesn't charm costs their group close to 100 dps, but that lazy individual will still get invited to groups.

[iruinedyourday]

What can a ranger bring to a group that another class can't do better and without the xp penalty?

RP

[Portasaurus]

RP

Yea you got those woodwise skills...

[Bboboo]

1) /anon
2) Don't cast any spells
3) Tell people you are a warrior

[iruinedyourday]

1) /anon
2) Don't cast any spells
3) Tell people you are a warrior

and thats how you do some meta RP! :D

[Sapphiay]

You can make people believe you are a rogue. The main advantage here is you never to buff anyone. Hide your epic though.

[Cyph]

Good Rangers are hard to find and the xp penalty doesn't help. Given that, most people would much rather go for another class. But when they get a good Ranger, well, that's a different story.

Failing that, and you want to play a Ranger, go female human or wood elf. Everyone loves that '99 pixel butt.

[Rangerdown]

Solo. Groups are over rated, and frequently boring.

[sox7d]

Hybrids currently have a significant experience penalty

"significant"

Some of the best exp I've gotten was two iks monks, ranger, bard and rogue fear kiting.

[Tenlaar]

Rangers bring a combination of snap agro and dps that you can't get from any other tank.

Pfft. A bard can agro better than three rangers put together and bring charm DPS.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Pfft. A bard can agro better than three rangers put together and bring charm DPS.

Bards stop swarmkiting long enough to join groups?

[Cecily]

You can make people believe you are a rogue. The main advantage here is you never to buff anyone. Hide your epic though.

Epicless rogue 50+ is right up there with ranger desirability.

[Bboboo]

Epicless rogue 50+ is right up there with ranger desirability.

Implying there are 50+ Rangers.

[stormlord]

I'm fortunate in that I have pretty good gear. I can probably hang in top DPS for everyone besides epic rogue, I can hold aggro really well using snare/root, and I can pull as well as anyone until higher levels.

The only thing that keeps me from groups is bias against rangers but I'd argue that a really well equipped ranger can increase the exp of a lower level group way more than that penalty would cause.
If people wont group with you because you are ranger, they have misunderstood the reason to play a 15 year old game. Min maxing in mid 20s group on P99 is.......wrong.
Cyrano, I played a ranger starting in 1999 and played another all through the years. It was the only class I really played, besides the paladin. I also played here. I played all sorts of classes. Never leveled past about 23 because I think the lower level game was funner. SO why say this? Because you can trust me.

NOW to what I know. The #1 reason Rangers had an experience penalty probably lies in their ability to solo good (not great). The experience penalty was the payment. Now, you may wonder why anything has to be paid? So they solo good and don't group well, isn't that payment enough!?? Well, I will cover that later in the post. I will start with discussing basics. If you can't wait, scroll down to (juicy part).

I actually compared a level 17 warrior and a level 17 ranger on p1999 just to see what the difference would be. The warrior got the mob down to about 20-30% and then died. The ranger? The ranger was resting after the fight with about 50% hp and 50% mana. How'd the ranger do it? Using snare and root. They're very powerful when soloing. I may or may not have used the bow. The details are distant now, but the impression was powerful: Rangers solo much better than warriors.

Of course, we ALL expect rangers to solo better than warriors. But why was this the reason the ranger had an experience penalty? The answer starts with the thinking. If a class could solo well it usually lost something as a group member. Druids, for example, have always been hated for not healing well or not doing great damage. Even necromancers, the most powerful soloers, have trouble in groups because they do so much of their damage with dots. Dots are not mana-efficient in groups. Necromancers also are not a good support class. They're limited in their ability to help others.

Why did they have to lose group ability to solo well? Because back then there was the feeling nothing was free. A jack of all trades had to lose specializations to pay for it. They couldn't have the best of both worlds or the specialized classes would complain. This was a common thread in single player RPGs too: To have a balanced skill set, one had to refrain from specializing. You'd have X points to spend and X was much less than the skill point total. Additionally, there were a number of very important skills.

Something like this:
Lets hypothesize a game with these skills: Offense, Defense, Utility.
...Offense: Damage dealing.
...Defense: Ability to survive damage.
...Utility: Ability to survive challenges which're not just offense/defense-based.
Rules are:
...1 Each skill can be trained up to 100 points max.
...2 The player is allotted a max of 100 points to distribute amongst the skills.

So you can do this: 100 Offense, 0 defense, 0 utility.
Or this: 0 Offense, 0 defense, 100 utility.
Here's a "balanced" distribution: 33 offense, 33 defense, 34 utility.

With modern games, the idea that a jack of all trades has to lose specialization(s) to pay for having a balanced skillset and that this is what they have to do to solo well has been partially or completely discarded in favor of mechanics which - for the vast majority of cases - do not harshly penalize a player's ability to solo or group based on the skills they train.

I think most of hte ability to solo in modern games has been separated from the things you choose to train. So it really doesn't matter what you train or which class you choose because you'll be able to solo equally well as anybody else. This doesn't stop you from attempting to be different from others, it just means the way you're different does not compromise between soloing and grouping.

(juicy part)

Lastly I want to share a conspiracy with you. I know I'm not going to win any friends by saying this. But I think the original creators of the ranger class and other soloing classes actually fudged the numbers and BOOSTED them in groups. Before they decided to boost they discovered these classes were toooooo weak in groups.

"Tooooo Weak!!!??" you ask? HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN. Well ti's simple, and I'll explain. The reason is sitting in plain sight. By giving a class the balanced skill set, thus enabling better soloing, this removes specializations. Remember: Can't have the best of both worlds or someone will complain. Now classes that specialize will suddenly have a much higher priority in group settings because their specializations are higher. We all know how groups organized things: Tank, Healer, Dps, CC, etc. Well as a result of all this the jack-of-all-trades classes now find the bulk of their skills completely redundant and useless in a group.

But that's ok, you say? They chose to solo better and this means htey don't group as well! Isn't this what I explained earlier? Give and take! Remove from group and put in solo. Nothing is free.

Here we meet a dichotomy: Solo-classes can't also be great group-classes unless great soloing ability is available to group-classes. Otherwise, players will complain. However, if good soloers can't be good groupers then what about the fact this is a MMOrpg? MMO = players in groups. The very nature of the game is to play together, isn't it? And so they had to boost the solo-classes to keep them from being scorned by groups.

This decision to boost them in groups was integral in giving solo-classes an experience penalty. Think: If they not only could already solo and get good experience like that, but were ALSO given a bonus to make them more appealing in groups, this would in sum make them soloing gods!

SO hear me out, whether or not I am right. But my conspiracy goes a little further. When they decided to remove the experience penalty, they also removed some of their soloing capability. Maybe htey changed the mitigation tables? Reduced value of root? Alternatively, they might instead boost the soloing capability of all non-soloing classes. They may have even done some of this by accident. Why? Because without a change of this sort the boost I mentioned earlier might make them too strong while soloing. And yet they don't want to remove the boost because they want rangers to still group after the exp penalty is removed.

[Laugher]

What can a ranger bring to a group that another class can't do better and without the xp penalty?

They can filter their track window and use it to their advantage to charge people vengeful quantities of platinum for their services :D

[Fleetwood]

If people wont group with you because you are ranger, they have misunderstood the reason to play a 15 year old game. Min maxing in mid 20s group on P99 is.......wrong.

Amen.

[Kergan]

The #1 reason Rangers had an experience penalty probably lies in their ability to solo good (not great). The experience penalty was the payment.

The reason they have a penalty is because EQ was based on DnD multiclassing penalties. The original design was to make them actually more powerful and penalize them for it.

In reality, in many ways a jack of all trades master of none is a bad thing. Rangers don't do the DPS of rogues or monks, don't tank as well as warriors, etc. Their versatility is what makes them unique for melees. Versatility is not valued in a group environment, in almost all cases it is better to have a full group of specialists focusing on doing a single task. That is just the way EQ works.

The penalty was removed eventually for a reason, because it shouldn't have existed in the first place. It was a mistake, left over from an early design philosophy. You're paying a penalty and getting nothing in return, and on top of that you're literally slowing your group experience gain down.

[G13]

The reason they have a penalty is because EQ was based on DnD multiclassing penalties. The original design was to make them actually more powerful and penalize them for it.

In reality, in many ways a jack of all trades master of none is a bad thing. Rangers don't do the DPS of rogues or monks, don't tank as well as warriors, etc. Their versatility is what makes them unique for melees. Versatility is not valued in a group environment, in almost all cases it is better to have a full group of specialists focusing on doing a single task. That is just the way EQ works.

The penalty was removed eventually for a reason, because it shouldn't have existed in the first place. It was a mistake, left over from an early design philosophy. You're paying a penalty and getting nothing in return, and on top of that you're literally slowing your group experience gain down.

The P99 Developers conveniently left it in

The obvious time sink serves their purposes. The original EQ Developers realized this too, which is why time sinks became a staple of MMO Development.

The whole concept of "Must be Classic Bad Design and All" went out the window with variance

There really is no rational excuse to keep the exp penalties in place

[Tuljin]

A decently geared 50something Ranger can tank just fine, and is a great puller using bow and root pulls. Snare is also a very powerful and useful ability in dungeons. The DPS will come from elsewhere, for example using snap agro and making sure the back of the mob is always turned to a rogue or other melees makes a huge difference over time.

The real issue with p99 is the rampant class snobbery and general hesitation to take any type of challenge or risk in a group. For example, many Warriors refuse to group without a Cleric healer. Many people refuse to group without an Enchanter. People don't roll Rangers cause they cant get groups, so they roll a Cleric instead so they can get groups all the time and do nothing but sit on their asses and heal and ride the xp train to 60.

A good player would not bat an eye to taking a good Ranger in a group, especially someone who just wants to move the damn xp bar. Moving the bar is better than not moving the bar, period. Sometimes you cant sit around and wait for the "perfect" group composition. Nubs just get rattled because they can't pull mobs without needing a chanter AOE and can't survive with only Superior Healing.

[Emile]

No need to take it personally, it's just the way the game was at this point. The usefulness of other classes in a xp group setting is greater. In you MM group are you going to take the ranger over the 8 epic rogue twinks sitting at the zone line? I say this as a wizard, a class that is more useless in an xp group situation than any.

[Estu]

The P99 Developers conveniently left it in

The obvious time sink serves their purposes. The original EQ Developers realized this too, which is why time sinks became a staple of MMO Development.

The whole concept of "Must be Classic Bad Design and All" went out the window with variance

There really is no rational excuse to keep the exp penalties in place

The P99 devs don't care about whether the EXP penalty provides a time sink to players. They care about having a classic-era EverQuest server. What did classic-era EverQuest have, during Kunark, before Velious came out? Hybrid EXP penalties.

[PDX0621]

A good player would not bat an eye to taking a good Ranger in a group, especially someone who just wants to move the damn xp bar. Moving the bar is better than not moving the bar, period. Sometimes you cant sit around and wait for the "perfect" group composition. Nubs just get rattled because they can't pull mobs without needing a chanter AOE and can't survive with only Superior Healing.

This. I grouped with a ranger about a week or so ago in MM, one of the only rangers I've seen in my 6-7 months of playing. Guy was awesome. Did good damage, snared, pulled, and rooted every mob, allowing me to proxy aggro. Guy even helped heal the casters during down times/med breaks. The versatility of the class is awesome, if played by a competent person. Also, some of the best groups I've ever had in EQ, or other MMO's are the unconventional, hodge podge "let's see if this works" groups. Give it a try. Any exp is better than no exp, right?

[Jimjam]

Rangers are Schrodinger's class. Due to the popular hate / xp penalty / etc any ranger you group with is either gonna be a super awesome player or the most awful legolas fanboy newb ever.

You just gotta open that box to find out!

[kruptcy]

Rangers are Schrodinger's class. Due to the popular hate / xp penalty / etc any ranger you group with is either gonna be a super awesome player or the most awful legolas fanboy newb ever.

You just gotta open that box to find out!

QFT.

[Whirled]

"" You will never be as good of a tank as a warrior or as good of a caster as a druid however you will be a fine mix between the two classes and a welcome addition to most groups. ""

http://wiki.project1999.com/EQLizer_Ranger_Guide

[iruinedyourday]

eqlizer?! omg thats a blast from the past omg

[Ravager]

When I was leveling, I made significantly more plat having a ranger in the group, because they always knew when the nameds were up.

[G13]

The P99 devs don't care about whether the EXP penalty provides a time sink to players. They care about having a classic-era EverQuest server. What did classic-era EverQuest have, during Kunark, before Velious came out? Hybrid EXP penalties.

If they cared about having a classic-era Everquest Server where it's Classic or Bust then

1) Why Variance

2) Why are there obvious game mechanics that have been broken for years that are not Classic, yet the exp penalty remains?

3) Why no Velious?

Surely you are aware that the Classic Era of players did not have to endure an exp penalty as long as P1999 Players

You recognize this fact yes?

[erog84]

If they cared about having a classic-era Everquest Server where it's Classic or Bust then

1) Why Variance

2) Why are there obvious game mechanics that have been broken for years that are not Classic, yet the exp penalty remains?

3) Why no Velious?

Surely you are aware that the Classic Era of players did not have to endure an exp penalty as long as P1999 Players

You recognize this fact yes?


1) I agree, hate variance.

2) volunteers, things take time and they prioritize items differently than we may want them.

3) Again, volunteer work, so things take longer to get done, and it just makes sense to keep changes in the same patch/expansion.

For my experience, I started eq a few months after it was released, and my first character was a half elf ranger. I got to 27 and I remember it took me a month and a half to get to 28, and my average day was logging on, soloed while LFG for hours, then logged off never having found a group, even though plenty of them were going. I wasn't grinding every day, but I do remember thinking this was just crazy, there was no way I was going to get to 50 at this rate. So I started up a second account and created a cleric. It took 2 weeks for my cleric to catch up to my ranger, and then I would LFG and convince groups to either accept both toons, or my ranger would be in group and I would heal out of group on cleric (unless cleric fell too far behind). Sadly due to the no boxing rule, I can't take this route, and have had to focus on twinking a ranger or getting powerlvls for the most part due to lack of groups.

It would definitely be nice for those who enjoy certain classes to not have to deal with the xp penalty, but I think the problem is more with the players attitude and not the devs not changing it. As others mentioned, well played rangers (and good gear helps too!) are definitely worth more than the xp penalty they bring with them. Hopefully all you bad/lazy rangers can move onto other classes and let us who really enjoy and excel at rangers have a better chance at finding groups :)

[G13]

1) I agree, hate variance.

2) volunteers, things take time and they prioritize items differently than we may want them.

3) Again, volunteer work, so things take longer to get done, and it just makes sense to keep changes in the same patch/expansion.

For my experience, I started eq a few months after it was released, and my first character was a half elf ranger. I got to 27 and I remember it took me a month and a half to get to 28, and my average day was logging on, soloed while LFG for hours, then logged off never having found a group, even though plenty of them were going. I wasn't grinding every day, but I do remember thinking this was just crazy, there was no way I was going to get to 50 at this rate. So I started up a second account and created a cleric. It took 2 weeks for my cleric to catch up to my ranger, and then I would LFG and convince groups to either accept both toons, or my ranger would be in group and I would heal out of group on cleric (unless cleric fell too far behind). Sadly due to the no boxing rule, I can't take this route, and have had to focus on twinking a ranger or getting powerlvls for the most part due to lack of groups.

It would definitely be nice for those who enjoy certain classes to not have to deal with the xp penalty, but I think the problem is more with the players attitude and not the devs not changing it. As others mentioned, well played rangers (and good gear helps too!) are definitely worth more than the xp penalty they bring with them. Hopefully all you bad/lazy rangers can move onto other classes and let us who really enjoy and excel at rangers have a better chance at finding groups :)

If you think this server exists solely because of altruism than just SMH

Again, the players on this server have been more than patient. They've had to suffer through idiotic exp penalties (which the original EQ Devs admitted were a mistake) for FAR longer than any player ever did that played during the original Classic/Kunark Era. That's just a fact and it's not Classic. You can try to spin it any way you want. We are way beyond the original classic timeline, yet this stupid exp penalty remains in place that effects the gameplay of every person that plays on this server. There is no rational argument that can be made to justify this.

You can't hide behind "It's not Classic" with the right hand and then make dramatic changes to the game (like Variance) with the left. You've got to go really far back into the history of this server to even understand why variance exists in the first place. A LOT of time and effort is spent managing variance. A lot of time is spent rule lawyering it. It's a completely new game that has been created where game mechanics are cleverly being used to rule lawyer up FTEs. So explain to me how that is fair. A major game changing decision that is NOT classic (Variance) is made that breaks the game and creates this mutated version of EQ, yet exp penalties remain in place. It's retarded.

Way too much time is spent rule lawyering variance and coddling high lvl guild politics and egos and not enough time is spent addressing issues like this that effect the gameplay of the entire server as a whole. This issue has a direct impact on everyone that plays this game. Try being in your 50s with an idiotic exp penalty weighing you down as you try to get groups. It's bad enough that your class is perceived as gimp. Add on an exp penalty and you do the math.

The exp penalty as it currently stands favors the developers. That's why they won't remove it. It keeps you playing longer. When Variance was created, it was done because the thought was it was going to fix bad design of the original EQ Developers. Here you have an exp penalty that original EQ Developers admitted was bad design, yet it remains in the game LONG after any timeline the original Kunark era players ever had to endure

Why?

[Rangerdown]

The exp penalty as it currently stands favors the developers. That's why they won't remove it. It keeps you playing longer.


In what way does you playing benefit the developers on a free to play emu server?

[Rooj]

15 years later, people still don't realize RNG is a tank. *shakes head*

[DarkwingDuck]

Variance was put in place cause the greedy humans can't figure out how to play nice without being hand held and spoon fed by GM's and volunteers

Yes the exp penalty is a joke, I hope the Devs get rid of it soon.. I'll wait till velious.. But lvlin my pally is killin me.

You put up with it, cause it's there game and server, if you have made a better one play there.

Ya some of there rules are more retarded than Down syndrome ... But fuck this server rocks

Bring Velious #winteriscoming #exppenalty #paladinsuicide #robinwilliams #toosoon #hashtaggingonaemuforumisstuoid #allhashtagsarestupid #gnightnorrath

[G13]

In what way does you playing benefit the developers on a free to play emu server?

What incentive could there possibly be to develop an empty box that nobody plays on

Don't you understand how attention/time investment = power

There are many indirect ways to make money on the internet. The marketing and exposure doesn't hurt either. That wouldn't exist if p1999 was nothing more than an empty box like Red. 1200+ people are playing here a night. Money is being made. Take your blinders off sir.

If you're not playing here. You're playing somewhere else. You only play here because it is marketed as "Classic 1999" Everquest. That's a lie though. It isn't.

You're clubbed like a baby seal with the "Classic bro. Deal with it" when you have to endure a retarded EXP penalty for far longer than any player actually had to deal with back in real classic. If this were really a Classic Server, special attention would be made to the length of time players had to endure the EXP penalty. It would have been removed long ago. Clearly it would be a beneficial change to average player's gaming experience here. Instead of beneficial development changes being made for all, the attention is shifted to game breaking changes like Variance to babysit high lvl egos.

Keeping the exp penalty in place should not be indicative of Velious launch. That ship left the dock a long time ago. Velious or not, it should remain in place only the length of time it existed in Classic EQ. Classic EQ emu right? Classic by the book right?

Throw the entire community a bone. Remove the class exp penalty or put bonus exp weekends in place until Velious is launched.

[Tuljin]

^ agreed, though I dont think removal of hybrid penalty will dramatically increase the hybrid population, if at all. I also am not sure how much it would alleviate the mix/max hybrid hating mentality that exists on this server which causes so much hybrid hate.

In the broadest sense, there are two types of people who play EQ - those who would consider playing a caster class and those who wouldn't. For those who wouldn't play a caster, hybrid is completely out of the question. Not only are they "weaker" than pure melee classes, you have the spells to worry about as well.

Someone who wants to play a caster class has lots of options. Really all caster classes are played quite heavily, with Wizard and Mage being significantly less played than the rest. If you roll a Shaman, Cleric, or Enchanter you will always get a group. If you roll a Shaman or Enc (or Mage if you're not a nub) you will solo farm the best cash camps in the game.

Why would anybody roll a hybrid?

The reason why, as previously mentioned, a Hybrid will either be awesome or a total nub is because of the caster/melee dilemma. The nub will be either a "melee" player or a "caster" player that doesn't have a full knowledge of either side of the spectrum. The awesome players rolled their hybrid with the specific intent of taking advantage of everything the class offers. Not only does this player understand magic spells, he understands the "EQ 101" of mob placement (tanking) and mob behavior.

Why is SK the most popular hybrid? Its not the "best" hybrid. It is the most similar to a pure melee with the ability to feign death. This is the class that brings the most players from the "melee" side of the spectrum. Not to mention theyre evil, menacing, and "not gay" which also attracts a melee only player. Players from the "caster" side will consider all three and make a choice based on what he thinks would be the best suited to his play style.

As far as xp penalty is concerned, the good players are aware of what they're getting into and have the skill to move the bar quickly. The nubs are left in the dust. Lets not forget that Iksar Monk carries a big penalty, as well as other evil melee classes. How many friggin Iksar monks are there on this server??

Unfortunately the xp penalty isn't going away, and I'm not convinced there would be a hybrid population explosion if it was removed.

[Waedawen]

You're clubbed like a baby seal with the "Classic bro. Deal with it" when you have to endure a retarded EXP penalty for far longer than any player actually had to deal with back in real classic. If this were really a Classic Server, special attention would be made to the length of time players had to endure the EXP penalty. It would have been removed long ago. Clearly it would be a beneficial change to average player's gaming experience here. Instead of beneficial development changes being made for all, the attention is shifted to game breaking changes like Variance to babysit high lvl egos.

Keeping the exp penalty in place should not be indicative of Velious launch. That ship left the dock a long time ago. Velious or not, it should remain in place only the length of time it existed in Classic EQ. Classic EQ emu right? Classic by the book right?

Throw the entire community a bone. Remove the class exp penalty or put bonus exp weekends in place until Velious is launched.

Dude's got a point. 40% penalty for almost 5 years at this point. Completely bullshit.

[iruinedyourday]

Dude's got a point. 40% penalty for almost 5 years at this point. Completely bullshit.

yea but that same logic means we should all be playing planes of power or something right now.

That said I don't like the xp penalty, cus its dumb cus Rangers & Hybrids dont have the benefits that Sony thought they would have and classes like Shaman and Enchanter and Necro etc all should have penalties... (although shaman kind of has a penalty in gear costs!.. so that evens it out a bit, same with monk!)

That said... what if that one guy, comes onto p99 to play this game that was a brutal grind for him when he was a teenager, and he wants that SAME brutal grind.. how happy would that person be when they got here and the XP penalty was still there and he got to do it all over again!? so happy.. Like I was when i found p99 like all of you were!

That's what p99 is all about.. its about rogan and co kicking ass being bawses and knowing whats good for us.

[Stormfists]

Yesterday I started P99 - and rolled a ranger. I've read the thread and agree with pretty much all points made.

Why? My main was a ranger in a bygone era - and he was badder than Samuel L Jackson in the diner scene. I was good then, and I believe I can be good once more.

Am I going to level slower than the rest of you? Sure - but I'm gunna have BMF etched into my swords and bow and do it with style.

XP penalty? Bring it on - I'm ready to rock Norrath again and again. This shit separates the men from the boys. Happy hunting.

Storm.

[Kender]

except rangers dont get really good till Luclin 8(

[Elmarnieh]

60 ranger here, both epics and all sky quests.

It is worth it for at the end of the long hard journey and it is that long hard journey that makes a player into a great player. Remember the words of Telin Darkforest " If we were warriors or paladins we would have a fancy ceremony and plenty of feasting but we're just rangers, without time for pleasantries."

[iruinedyourday]

60 ranger here, both epics and all sky quests.

It is worth it for at the end of the long hard journey and it is that long hard journey that makes a player into a great player. Remember the words of Telin Darkforest " If we were warriors or paladins we would have a fancy ceremony and plenty of feasting but we're just rangers, without time for pleasantries."

Do you have a guise? cus a DE ranger with lightning swords is.. just makes me so fricken happy.

[Aadill]

Do you have a guise? cus a DE ranger with lightning swords is.. just makes me so fricken happy.

Hnnngh I'll try to get there for you~~~~

[Elmarnieh]

Do you have a guise? cus a DE ranger with lightning swords is.. just makes me so fricken happy.

Nah, was never interested in illusions except for the tree illusion stick that dropped of Glimmershine or whatever his name is from Lfay. I'm more of a practical person.

[Dior]

I don't think it's the xp penalty that discourages grps from inviting them. I think it's that, from the little I've seen, many rangers here never played during classic. They only played during a time when rangers had 1) access to good twink gear and 2) were useful for more than just nominal dps. So, rangers here play like they have the gear to tank and skill to pull, when they neither have the gear nor do they even try to snare/park the mobs. So rangers here end up just taking way too much damage from attempting to tank and generally drain the cleric of mana continuously. On top of all that, people in general just don't give a shit about aggro management.

It all culminates into one big ball of "Why do we need a ranger when X class can do what they do, but better?" They were never good until the AA's that made them dps machines came into play.

[Elmarnieh]

I don't think it's the xp penalty that discourages grps from inviting them. I think it's that, from the little I've seen, many rangers here never played during classic. They only played during a time when rangers had 1) access to good twink gear and 2) were useful for more than just nominal dps. So, rangers here play like they have the gear to tank and skill to pull, when they neither have the gear nor do they even try to snare/park the mobs. So rangers here end up just taking way too much damage from attempting to tank and generally drain the cleric of mana continuously. On top of all that, people in general just don't give a shit about aggro management.

It all culminates into one big ball of "Why do we need a ranger when X class can do what they do, but better?" They were never good until the AA's that made them dps machines came into play.

That may be it. I played a ranger on live from shortly before Velious to post DoN as my main. There was no option to not play a ranger in the toughest time for rangers for me. On live the motto for rangers during Kunark and Velious was that AC is king at least up until the softcap which was about 1250. If you wanted to tank you had to go ac over everything else. I don't know if the damage tables and formula here are exactly like live. Mostly the issue stems from our too-low defensive caps in Kunark so we have to make it up by only going for AC. That being said with a slower tanking as a ranger is nothing. Flamelick and snare and just sit there. If it gets close stop melee and self heal tank.

[Tuljin]

60 ranger here, both epics and all sky quests.

It is worth it for at the end of the long hard journey and it is that long hard journey that makes a player into a great player. Remember the words of Telin Darkforest " If we were warriors or paladins we would have a fancy ceremony and plenty of feasting but we're just rangers, without time for pleasantries."

Unfortunately in the times of the Chardok AOE money machine lots of nubs make it to 60, without the journey

[Elmarnieh]

Unfortunately in the times of the Chardok AOE money machine lots of nubs make it to 60, without the journey

Thats a shame.

A ranger should be pushed to the edge to prove how valuable they are to a group not sit there and let casters force feed them. The ranger must know when to root for aggro, root for cc, when to snare to bring mobs in staggered pulls to the group with good timing for the speed at which the group kills, when not to snare because it would take aggro from the tank, when and when not to use flamelick to offtank and to peel for root parking, when to heal the necro, or the tank, or a dps who is dying on a damage shield and doesn't realize it before they get low hp aggro and die off, when to "get lost" on the pull because the warrior is ignoring the cleric saying LOM and that the shaman said "afk baby is crying". A ranger needs to learn when to use sneak and when to use harmony. When to face pull, snare, root pull, and when just harmony and shoot an arrow. A ranger needs to know when to load that big nuke and when to cast it to burn gater or poor on dps because there on lots of mobs in camp and ench is getting nervous (and to keep an eye on the health of that nervous ench because the cleric will need mana for CH's on the tank with all the mobs in camp). A ranger needs to know how to sort track for the most advantageous list for their level and the camp and the mobs the group is capable of, know how to get them, and know how to get them back single.

The life of a ranger is knowledge and practice in the art. Sit on your ass in cdok if you want kiddies and wear the class but you'll never BE THE CLASS.

[Aadill]

^^^ Just shouted a big FUCK YEAH

[Kich867]

Thats a shame.

A ranger should be pushed to the edge to prove how valuable they are to a group not sit there and let casters force feed them. The ranger must know when to root for aggro, root for cc, when to snare to bring mobs in staggered pulls to the group with good timing for the speed at which the group kills, when not to snare because it would take aggro from the tank, when and when not to use flamelick to offtank and to peel for root parking, when to heal the necro, or the tank, or a dps who is dying on a damage shield and doesn't realize it before they get low hp aggro and die off, when to "get lost" on the pull because the warrior is ignoring the cleric saying LOM and that the shaman said "afk baby is crying". A ranger needs to learn when to use sneak and when to use harmony. When to face pull, snare, root pull, and when just harmony and shoot an arrow. A ranger needs to know when to load that big nuke and when to cast it to burn gater or poor on dps because there on lots of mobs in camp and ench is getting nervous (and to keep an eye on the health of that nervous ench because the cleric will need mana for CH's on the tank with all the mobs in camp). A ranger needs to know how to sort track for the most advantageous list for their level and the camp and the mobs the group is capable of, know how to get them, and know how to get them back single.

The life of a ranger is knowledge and practice in the art. Sit on your ass in cdok if you want kiddies and wear the class but you'll never BE THE CLASS.

I think rangers are a pretty cool class, and I was really looking forward to playing one, but after investigating how bow damage works, the experience penalty, their lower damage output than other melee classes, their inability to tank compared to other tanks, I genuinely don't see the point to playing one outside of novelty. Or to be a maverick, or because you genuinely just enjoy the way the class plays and min-maxing be damned.

And those are all fine reasons but the problem still is that very few of those comments are unique to rangers. A lot of these are, "Because I'm a ranger and not quite as good as everyone else at doing something I have to do this really roundabout thing to look useful". You can make those sound like separate actions, but almost all of those are tantamount to the fact that rangers just aren't tanks and they don't do particularly great damage and are awful at healing.

The rest of them are made to imply that the group is incompetent and somehow by being a well played ranger you fix all of that, which is a pretty loose road to travel down since you're predicating your usefulness on the stupidity of others. This makes your argument that rangers can only actually be useful if they are played to their fullest while the rest of the party is not.

I wouldn't ever turn someone down because they were a ranger, because quite frankly I don't care, but it's pretty hard to try and argue that rangers bring something unique to the table that merits their XP sink. For instance, a druid has no exp penalty and could satisfy better almost all the criteria you mentioned. They have better snares, roots, CC's in general, they offer better healing, and their damage output is pretty solid between the DoT's and Nukes they offer. They also offer substantially better buffs.

They cannot tank, but this is fine as rangers can't either (they can just not tank longer than druids can by a bit), and would resort to similar tactics to alleviate tank damage (probably snaring and rooting).

Like I said though, I wouldn't turn a ranger down--but if this thread is asking "Why does everyone hate rangers?" it's for the reasons listed: They have a 40% experience penalty while offering the worst of damage of the dps classes, the worst healing of the hybrid classes, the worst tanking of the hybrid classes, the weakest buffs of classes that can buff, and their only real benefit is that they simultaneously provide the worst of everything so that in the event you need them to, they can go full-blown gimp-healer, gimp-tank, or mediocre-dps.

I don't think we should really misinform people about the state of that class, they should know full well what they're getting into if they're interested in playing it. I was planning on making a ranger as my alt, but after reading all the material on this site and the wiki and other sites, but as a bit of a min-maxer I just can't find an applicable reason to do so.

The perks of playing a ranger however are: they get very cool weapons, despite how much they suck they also get critical hits with bows which are cool, I prefer the look of chain mail to plate, they get to turn into a wolf and fight bitches.

[Tuljin]

Right on man haha fight the power!

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

What can a ranger bring to a group that another class can't do better and without the xp penalty?

That amazing feeling that you are doing someone a tremendous favor? When a ranger is invited to a group I'm in, I feel like Mother Teresa.

[YendorLootmonkey]

only real benefit is that they simultaneously provide the worst of everything so that in the event you need them to, they can go full-blown gimp-healer, gimp-tank, or mediocre-dps.

That's actually a huge benefit if you're running with a 3-4 person group, and if you enjoy the versatility of being able to do a little of everything when needed. And you're exaggerating our inability to tank by just a bit.

The problem is mainly the min-max attitude.

You could also say "Why would anyone want to roll a non-ogre warrior?" When frontal stun immunity is a game-changer for holding aggro and mob positioning? But people still play non-ogre warriors because that's what they enjoy.

[Kich867]

That's actually a huge benefit if you're running with a 3-4 person group, and if you enjoy the versatility of being able to do a little of everything when needed. And you're exaggerating our inability to tank by just a bit.

The problem is mainly the min-max attitude.

You could also say "Why would anyone want to roll a non-ogre warrior?" When frontal stun immunity is a game-changer for holding aggro and mob positioning? But people still play non-ogre warriors because that's what they enjoy.

I probably am exaggerating it, I know early on they can tank just fine--especially if twinked, but I recall even starting in their thirties that their ability to main tank a group diminishes compared to others pretty rapidly.

I don't think it's terribly related to the min-max attitude, I think it's more about sort of a "relative min-max attitude". For instance, the reason not all players roll ogre warriors is because warriors are, regardless of race, the best tanks late-game and are useful and desired throughout the game.

The real case is: If I'm looking for a damage class because the other roles are filled, would I take that ranger over that rogue? No. If I need a tank would I take that Ranger over that SK? No. And you'd never consider them as a healing role.

If all the roles are covered, you can safely default to looking for more damage, where rangers sit lower than other classes.

And it's not to say people shouldn't invite rangers--it's not that they don't do anything at all, I think these impact much more the late late game than they do earlier on.

[Elmarnieh]

I think rangers are a pretty cool class, and I was really looking forward to playing one, but after investigating how bow damage works, the experience penalty, their lower damage output than other melee classes, their inability to tank compared to other tanks, I genuinely don't see the point to playing one outside of novelty. Or to be a maverick, or because you genuinely just enjoy the way the class plays and min-maxing be damned.

And those are all fine reasons but the problem still is that very few of those comments are unique to rangers. A lot of these are, "Because I'm a ranger and not quite as good as everyone else at doing something I have to do this really roundabout thing to look useful". You can make those sound like separate actions, but almost all of those are tantamount to the fact that rangers just aren't tanks and they don't do particularly great damage and are awful at healing.

The rest of them are made to imply that the group is incompetent and somehow by being a well played ranger you fix all of that, which is a pretty loose road to travel down since you're predicating your usefulness on the stupidity of others. This makes your argument that rangers can only actually be useful if they are played to their fullest while the rest of the party is not.

I wouldn't ever turn someone down because they were a ranger, because quite frankly I don't care, but it's pretty hard to try and argue that rangers bring something unique to the table that merits their XP sink. For instance, a druid has no exp penalty and could satisfy better almost all the criteria you mentioned. They have better snares, roots, CC's in general, they offer better healing, and their damage output is pretty solid between the DoT's and Nukes they offer. They also offer substantially better buffs.

They cannot tank, but this is fine as rangers can't either (they can just not tank longer than druids can by a bit), and would resort to similar tactics to alleviate tank damage (probably snaring and rooting).

Like I said though, I wouldn't turn a ranger down--but if this thread is asking "Why does everyone hate rangers?" it's for the reasons listed: They have a 40% experience penalty while offering the worst of damage of the dps classes, the worst healing of the hybrid classes, the worst tanking of the hybrid classes, the weakest buffs of classes that can buff, and their only real benefit is that they simultaneously provide the worst of everything so that in the event you need them to, they can go full-blown gimp-healer, gimp-tank, or mediocre-dps.

I don't think we should really misinform people about the state of that class, they should know full well what they're getting into if they're interested in playing it. I was planning on making a ranger as my alt, but after reading all the material on this site and the wiki and other sites, but as a bit of a min-maxer I just can't find an applicable reason to do so.

The perks of playing a ranger however are: they get very cool weapons, despite how much they suck they also get critical hits with bows which are cool, I prefer the look of chain mail to plate, they get to turn into a wolf and fight bitches.

I've tanked plenty of things from Karnors to Sebilis to the planes. I've been MT on planar clears and in more groups in more camps than I can count.

In a lot of those situations the druid would be sub-optimal to a ranger. Say in peeling and root parking...sure they have the same spells but mana is their prime resource so every tic spent not medding when not at fm is a greater negative than a ranger. The ranger is also dramatically more resistant to damage while root parking. The ranger again when pulling can take a few hits on a multi-pull to root and snare and draw out the mobs coming into camp far more reliably than a druid. The druid should be dedicated to heal/dps in a group role.

While you can make an efficient group without a ranger a ranger is a great all around safety valve for when things get out of control. Unless we are in late luclin or PoP or the next two expansions there is no reason to think of using a ranger with a bow. We are melee until we are ranged and then we are mostly melee again. That's just how EQ rangers are. If you want to play a bow class - you don't want to play on P99.

If you want your character to be the best at something in the game by all means please play another class. If you want yourself to be the best at the game you can be then play a ranger.

[Elmarnieh]

I probably am exaggerating it, I know early on they can tank just fine--especially if twinked, but I recall even starting in their thirties that their ability to main tank a group diminishes compared to others pretty rapidly.

I don't think it's terribly related to the min-max attitude, I think it's more about sort of a "relative min-max attitude". For instance, the reason not all players roll ogre warriors is because warriors are, regardless of race, the best tanks late-game and are useful and desired throughout the game.

The real case is: If I'm looking for a damage class because the other roles are filled, would I take that ranger over that rogue? No. If I need a tank would I take that Ranger over that SK? No. And you'd never consider them as a healing role.

If all the roles are covered, you can safely default to looking for more damage, where rangers sit lower than other classes.

And it's not to say people shouldn't invite rangers--it's not that they don't do anything at all, I think these impact much more the late late game than they do earlier on.

You're getting bad information if people are telling you the tanking changes in mid thirties. It changes post 50. Defense skill caps changed per level when the new levels were added. In Velious ranger defense cap gets tweaked upwards which given how the formula works (at least on live) is a major benefit. Still if you focus primarily on AC with your equipment as a ranger in Kunark you will be able to tank most situations just fine. (I've tanked Prot and Emp in Seb and been MT for clearing juggs no issue, I've also tanked named in sky after defensive tanks wen't down). Yes you'll never be as tankish as a person wearing plate who went for AC or a warrior in defensive. Rangers aren't meant to be.

Sure in a perfect group you don't need backup. I don't know how many perfect groups you've been in but it tends to be very few. Even in a great seb group with a shaman and enchanter for charm dps in group the ranger gets to keep it snared, off tank the pet and perform duties while the enchanter is otherwise busy recharming. That is the nearest to perfect group you can get in seb and its the perfect group for a ranger as well.

Play what you want though.

[kruptcy]

There seems to be confusion between being the best at one thing and being the best for a role in a group. There are three aspects to tanking, right? Aggro, ability to take a hit, and dps ability. If we break it down one aspect at a time:

#1 Aggro - Need enough aggro to sit above everyone else in the party on the aggro table consistently. After you reach this point, more aggro is simply wasted.

#2 Ability to take a hit - Need enough mitigation / hp to keep your healer relatively comfortable and stable in the mana department while healing you. After you satisfy this requirement, additional mitigation / hp is fairly meaningless.

#3 DPS - The higher your DPS the better.

If you are choosing between two players of ANY class that can satisfy #1 and #2, whoever scores higher on #3 should be taken as the tank. While it certainly is true that a ranger is not the very best class at any of those 3 aspects, it is possible that you will come across one who is the best option for your group.

[Jaleth]

There seems to be confusion between being the best at one thing and being the best for a role in a group. There are three aspects to tanking, right? Aggro, ability to take a hit, and dps ability. If we break it down one aspect at a time:

#1 Aggro - Need enough aggro to sit above everyone else in the party on the aggro table consistently. After you reach this point, more aggro is simply wasted.

#2 Ability to take a hit - Need enough mitigation / hp to keep your healer relatively comfortable and stable in the mana department while healing you. After you satisfy this requirement, additional mitigation / hp is fairly meaningless.

#3 DPS - The higher your DPS the better.

If you are choosing between two players of ANY class that can satisfy #1 and #2, whoever scores higher on #3 should be taken as the tank. While it certainly is true that a ranger is not the very best class at any of those 3 aspects, it is possible that you will come across one who is the best option for your group.

I agree with most of what you said; (Paraphrasing) If in any form you can increase dps after the first two criteria as a tank were met the better. The part I have an issue with is that groups in general should hold no expectation for greater dps from one tank than the rest. Points one and two should honestly be the only consideration when choosing a tank.

However, I do feel rangers mitigate this problem due to their higher dps output over the other tank classes. My point was being just between tank classes.

I wish we all had the ignorance and naivety of our past while playing here. It was considerably more fun to just play with others, without worrying about numbers. I also thought rangers were just one of the most awesome classes, for their versatility and utility, though I never played one. I just had a lot of good experience playing beside them.

[Kich867]

You're getting bad information if people are telling you the tanking changes in mid thirties. It changes post 50. Defense skill caps changed per level when the new levels were added. In Velious ranger defense cap gets tweaked upwards which given how the formula works (at least on live) is a major benefit. Still if you focus primarily on AC with your equipment as a ranger in Kunark you will be able to tank most situations just fine. (I've tanked Prot and Emp in Seb and been MT for clearing juggs no issue, I've also tanked named in sky after defensive tanks wen't down). Yes you'll never be as tankish as a person wearing plate who went for AC or a warrior in defensive. Rangers aren't meant to be.

Sure in a perfect group you don't need backup. I don't know how many perfect groups you've been in but it tends to be very few. Even in a great seb group with a shaman and enchanter for charm dps in group the ranger gets to keep it snared, off tank the pet and perform duties while the enchanter is otherwise busy recharming. That is the nearest to perfect group you can get in seb and its the perfect group for a ranger as well.

Play what you want though.

Ah I feel like this post and the previous post are misunderstanding my response a little. The question of the thread was, "Why do people hate rangers?". The answer is that their XP penalty on top of the fact that they fill no role as well as other class groups do.

I spoke about relative-min-max before, I feel like I should clarify that a little to better explain myself. It's not that rangers can't tank. I was being facetious and hyperbolic before, apologies. It's not that rangers can't deal damage. It's not that rangers don't offer good support and fulfill roles. And it's certainly not the case that you'll just never get a group.

On the contrary, I believe relative-min-maxing to be less of an issue on this server given that we're limited on population. A limited population means that you're less likely to have optimal group choices at all times, this causes the issue to be less noticeable and happen far less often than say a server with 12 or 20 thousand users.

What I mean by relative-min-maxing is the following: there are classes that are good enough at something to still be considered for that role despite not being the best at them and any class that falls into said category will be chosen before a ranger for whatever role is desired.

This concept isn't unique to rangers at all either; druids and shamans likely get put into similar situations. Why take a druid when a cleric is LFG and your group needs a healer?

And so that's all I'm saying. When presented with a set of options, the ranger will be the last choice from a purely class-power perspective. While other classes can fulfill similar roles well enough to still be considered despite not being the best at them.

It sort of upsets me a little that the team here isn't going further with the game and improving upon it's obviously flawed class balance; making rangers bow DPS good enough to consider them next to a rogue or monk or something would be phenomenal. I totally respect their strict code of sticking to classic, but rangers being as cool as they are it makes me sad that this is the case.

[Tuljin]

One of my best p99 memories is doing Chef camp in Seb trio with something like 54 ranger, 55 monk, and 57 wizard. This was back in the days of invis pulling, and between Monk and Wiz we had plenty of options to keep our pulls clean. The Ranger had his slow proccing sword and with the Wizard chainstunning spells and holding caster agro we could kill the mobs fine without anybody getting wrecked. The Ranger was tanking very well and the utility of the Ranger was a big part of making this happen. No nubs need apply to this trio, however :P

[Estu]

If you want your character to be the best at something in the game by all means please play another class. If you want yourself to be the best at the game you can be then play a ranger.

That's a funny way to spell 'bard/enchanter' :p

I mean, sure, rangers require nuance and know-how to play well, but come on now.

[Jaleth]

Not sure why, but this thread makes me want to roll a ranger. :-D

[Mac Drettj]

play a ranger on pvp server


have an awsome time

[Elmarnieh]

Not sure why, but this thread makes me want to roll a ranger. :-D

You should. Especially with velious around the corner. Our defensive caps get fixed, xp penalty vanishes, and you can fear kite the plentiful animals in velious.

[iruinedyourday]

My next toon will def be a ranger, just thinking of a blond human with an eye patch and full green plate & no helm, gets me all rustled in a good way.