Why rangers don't suck

[koros]

Rangers are the redheaded step child of p99, as they were in live during Kunark. But they really get a bad and undeserved rap.

Perhaps some of it has to do with rangers always gearing for str and neglecting AC/hp, but a ranger tank will shine in many groups.

In any group where cleric mana isn't an issue, a ranger tank is probably the single best choice, aggro is never an issue, and dps is superior to a paladin or sk.

Woodsman Staff is cheap as shit, allows a ranger to do top notch dps, and still retain aggro much better than a warrior who's often forced to use lower dps weapons and rely on procs. If outdoors wolf form also provides a substantial atk boost, while harmony is amazing for breaking camps.

Ranger is also a top notch CC class if playing a support role, 2-3 mob pulls without an enc aren't an issue if a ranger just root parks, and they can take some hits to boot.

Spread among a group of 6, the rangers xp penalty is like 8% more xp than a war. Considering that a cleric who just casts CHs every now and then isn't going to run oom healing a 3k+ hp ranger very often, they can easily make up for the xp difference vs a war by allowing dps to constantly go full bore.

Thoughts? I'm expecting a lot of ranger hate regardless.

[maahes]

I've been in many great xp groups with a ranger main tanking.

[DoucLangur]

They're still rangers.

[Corrodith]

At level 60 w/ top end gear I find warriors actually tend to slightly out-dps me. Pre-kunark was a lot different, I used to show up just slightly under the rogues, and on par or above monks (mainly due to 5/14 hate whip as a mainhand weapon giving a big comparative advantage). Now rogues double or triple what I put out, monks usually at least 1.5-2x my output.

I can tank ok, about the hardest thing I can get away tanking is probably Drusella in HS.

We're not really that great on agro, ensnare is ok but fire dot isn't nearly as much agro as it apparently was on live. Good warriors with high end weapons are far superior.

Almost anybody can cast root so that's not really a huge deal.

Not sure about low levels, but I found woodsman staff to be garbage.

The Real Advantages:

- Tracking (the big one by far)
- Sow yourself!
- Clicky 50% haste cloak for solo or small groups
- Conflagration (450dmg, 2.5s cast nuke with a cooldown) will up DPS by about 5-10 if you have some mana regen going but it won't land on most raid mobs.
- Lots of minimally useful but fun utility stuff (bind sight, dispels, Sneak/Hide, 350 range bow shots, the extremely rare 400+ bow crit, clicky port to gfay, etc.)
- 270 pt heal is kinda laughable but in a pinch it can make a difference, and I can usually keep 2 or 3 necros topped off when they're lich'ing out doing mana dumps at a raid.

[stormlord]

Rangers are the redheaded step child of p99, as they were in live during Kunark. But they really get a bad and undeserved rap.

Perhaps some of it has to do with rangers always gearing for str and neglecting AC/hp, but a ranger tank will shine in many groups.

In any group where cleric mana isn't an issue, a ranger tank is probably the single best choice, aggro is never an issue, and dps is superior to a paladin or sk.

Woodsman Staff is cheap as shit, allows a ranger to do top notch dps, and still retain aggro much better than a warrior who's often forced to use lower dps weapons and rely on procs. If outdoors wolf form also provides a substantial atk boost, while harmony is amazing for breaking camps.

Ranger is also a top notch CC class if playing a support role, 2-3 mob pulls without an enc aren't an issue if a ranger just root parks, and they can take some hits to boot.

Spread among a group of 6, the rangers xp penalty is like 8% more xp than a war. Considering that a cleric who just casts CHs every now and then isn't going to run oom healing a 3k+ hp ranger very often, they can easily make up for the xp difference vs a war by allowing dps to constantly go full bore.

Thoughts? I'm expecting a lot of ranger hate regardless.
I think what a lot of people miss is that they changed the defensive/offensive tables during kunark. This gave warriors/paladins/shadowknights a measurable bonus over rangers in tanking. These changes continued. When comparing the late game and later stages of EQ's evolution, one finds rangers to be much more about dps. Contrary to this, the early game was about rooting/snaring/kiting/etc, which is not as dps-based.

In the early levels, you can see a big power difference between rangers and a warrior, especially in a solo circumstance. I've tested it myself. Being able to root/snare and kill from a distance, they're able to take down targets that a warrior could never do alone (without twinking). While a warrior does have more hp and gains access to some skills earlier and has a slightly higher skill cap in some of them and can wear plate AND has a higher ac softcap, rangers have more utility and if played right they can have a higher dps. Additionally, a warrior doesn't gain access to plate until they can afford it. And the skill caps happen later. I personally would rather have a ranger with me in the earlier levels, especially if the group is small and needs the flexibility.

What about the experience penalty? When comparing a warrior to a ranger, if you got a good group, then it's hard to justify the -40% penalty. In a good group, the utility of a ranger is wasted. Furthermore, rogues/wizards are better dps. However, if you anticipate trials and difficulties then it's nice to have an all-around group member (if played well). But if you're solo, a ranger is going to greatly outpace a warrior in his/her ability to survive. This could easily justify the -40% experience penalty. Maybe they anticipated people soloing a lot when they made the initial choice to implement the experience penalty for hybrids. Or perhaps they felt that the extra utility when compared to the actual differences between a ranger and a knight or pure melee were overpowering. In any case, I do not think the -40% experience penalty was baseless. This couldn't have been more clear when I compared a warrior to a ranger of equal level and similar gear on the same target.

But how can you have a class that's good at both solo AND grouping without overpowering them when compared to something like a warrior? How can a ranger be a better soloer AND be an equal group member? If he/she is, then he/she is overpowered. It's basic algebra applied to gameplay logic. Here:
Ranger = +40% solo/+0% grouping = Warrior = +0% solo/+0% grouping

In this logic, both of them are equal at grouping but the ranger is better at soloing. If everything is accounted for then the ranger is overpowered. Do you see the logic here? The ranger wants to be just as good of a grouper as the warrior. But why doesn't the warrior want to solo just as good as the ranger?

Having a jack-of-all-trades capability in games goes back to the beginning of D&D. It's an idea that's as old as time itself. If you're good at a lot of things then you won't be expert at anything. You'll be good by yourself but when you're put into a grouping environment you will not be able to fill any expert roles and thus will be consigned to the back of the list since social environments want specialization. Furthermore, you simply can't do what groups can do when alone. You feel limited by not having specialized. But some players like it this way. What they specialized in was being able to go out on-their-own and handle things with some skill. They're ok with being put at the back of the list in grouping environments. But the thing is, the vast majority of players are -not- ok with this. And this is what broke the camels back and led this to be discouraged.

Something happened somewhere in the design process in the Verant/SOE offices. I'm not even pulling a leg. Something happened. What I'm talking about here is all basic logic that we learn in grade school. My guess is they slowly picked away at ranger abilities and then they removed the experience penalty altogether. Why? Because they were bothered by this jack-of-all-trades thing. Players don't like it when they're good at solo but bad at grouping. And sony didn't want to overpower anyone. What this is really saying, when you look behind the curtain to see the wizard fumbling with the levers and ropes, is that players don't like to make hard choices. You can see this all throughout the development evolution of EQ from its beginning to its present day.

Newer games are finding different ways of coping with this. Perhaps what's needed is a way to temporarily make hard choices and then be able to revoke them and return to your previous state. Or maybe it's something deeper than just hard choices. Perhaps people who play jack-of-all-trades just like having lots of things to do??? When you specialize, you're doing one thing, right? Of course, nothing says that doing one thing has to be simple or boring, but that's most often what happens. Assuming that this is true then maybe we just need more detailed classes for these types of people so that they don't need to put themselves in compromised positions in order to feel occupied by their character. Then they don't have to be on the back of the list.

Disregarding everyting else, I think playing a ranger is funner than playing a warrior. The reason is you got more tools. This makes the game less boring. Warriors are too simple and it becomes a grind too fast. When a ranger is soloing, they get the chance to use their tools more often. In a group you're more about dps so it's actually more boring. However, groups offer a social aspect that you cannot get alone. And even a soloing ranger with all of his/her tools can get bored when grinding the same place repeatedly. This is because even with all of their tools, if you stay in the same place then you will eventually settle on the same kinds of tools being used.

I really think when they designed warriors they made them too simple. Even a rogue or a monk. A ranger can do close combat just like any of them. But a ranger can also root and snare and shoot and blast/dot and joust from a distance. A ranger can track. A ranger can invis. A ranger can sow (eventually). A ranger can bind wound and heal. A ranger gets bored slower than these purer classes, especially by themselves (ignoring social aspect).

I sometimes wonder what it would be like to play ALL classes in one. Now, there's something that would be slow to get boring! You'd have a lot of tools. You'd have a trick for every treat. Lots of things to learn.

I played a ragner for several years on live. Played a couple of em.

[koros]

My main is a sk, and I get group invites all the time to tank. In many cases a ranger would do nearly as good a job as I would (and equal job if it's just the cleric CHing once per 3 minutes), while doing more dps. I think the biggest case for a ranger is that case.

Alternately as pure dps... an iksar monk has a 44% xp penalty vs 40% for a ranger. Yes a monk will do more dps, but not so much so that rangers should be shunned, especially during the leveling phase.

[koros]

As for your points on grouping. I doubt they considered it that much when designing classes. Some ended up being much better than others, but the insanely slow natural hp regeneration makes soloing incredibly tedious for melees.

Even tho a ranger is a decent soloer, they are exponentially worse than any caster.

[Grizzin]

What you are saying is the exact definition of a Ranger, being said Jack-of-all-trades.

All the utility a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All of the dps a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All the tanking a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.

We far from 'suck', but you can't deny we are a hybrid, and being as such, have an exp penalty. For the exact reasons you stated, that may be why exp penalties were eventually removed on Live (that and it just got stupid to have them after a while), but this server isn't implementing changes based on reasoning, it's emulating classic EQ.

I wouldn't say we're shunned really; 90% of the bad things said about our class are in jest, and like the server, are mere emulations of the past where Rangers were the whipping boy class and the butt of every joke. Do what you do; haters gonna hate. :)

[stormlord]

What you are saying is the exact definition of a Ranger, being said Jack-of-all-trades.

All the utility a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All of the dps a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All the tanking a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.

We far from 'suck', but you can't deny we are a hybrid, and being as such, have an exp penalty. For the exact reasons you stated, that may be why exp penalties were eventually removed on Live (that and it just got stupid to have them after a while), but this server isn't implementing changes based on reasoning, it's emulating classic EQ.

I wouldn't say we're shunned really; 90% of the bad things said about our class are in jest, and like the server, are mere emulations of the past where Rangers were the whipping boy class and the butt of every joke. Do what you do; haters gonna hate. :)
Then you missed my subtle, but frequent points. I don't speak in absolutes. Things aren't either/or. Some of what you say is true. Some of what I say is true. Don't think in black/white or on/off terms.

I'm not saying they're not hybrids. I know they're not as good dps as a rogue or wizard or monk or whatever. I know they're not as good a caster as a druid. I know all of that and admit it so you can put it to rest.

It's like good and evil. There's a range of good and evil in each person. To say someone is evil means they're mostly evil, but there's still some good in them. It's worthwhile to be accurate about this.

Most importantly, an exp penalty doesn't make sense if being a hybrid is the reason. When I play any game out there and distribute my points evenly, that's within the rules and no exp penalty is needed. Now if you mean hybrid as being "in addition to" then you're right that a exp penalty is necessary. However, that would mean they're overpowered and thus you'd be openly admitting to agreeing with me.

Rangers did not like being shunned in groups. And this probably happened during beta too (hint). I would not be surprised if Verant gave them a few extra bonuses in groups just to keep them quiet. Like dps or higher defensives. But this made Verant feel that rangers were overpowered. How can they be more sought after in groups and yet still be good at soloing while there're all these other classes that're not as good at soloing but sought after in groups? They did not like being put into this position where they felt they had to fudge numbers. Eventually they tried to create an environment where everybody can solo and group on a roughly equal level, while attempting to maintain the feel of each class. But if everybody can solo and group on a roughly equal level then there's no true jack-of-all-trades going on. It was just the way they dealt with this old horse. I can't blame them because they didn't want customer complaints like they got in the past (think: $$$$$).

Jack-of-all-trades is a choice. It's about using limited points and distributing them roughly equally. It's about accepting the consequences of your choices. Consequences are sometimes mean: "Where's my group?"

What I'm telling you is that rangers would have been even worse in groups or soloing if Verant hadn't fudged the numbers. It was this fudging that caused them to change hte course of things to prevent further fudging. Fudging is just another word for throwing out the rulebook. It means faking something to placate.

[BobSmith]

They're still rangers.

+1

[knottyb0y]

There are no threads that are entitled "Why Necro's don't suck"... Just sayin'

[Flunklesnarkin]

rangers suck because they don't use arrows.. none that i have grouped with D:

[Grizzin]

Then you missed my subtle, but frequent points. I don't speak in absolutes. Things aren't either/or. Some of what you say is true. Some of what I say is true. Don't think in black/white or on/off terms.


I was actually referring to the OP, with his talk of a Ranger being the best viable tank, in a specific situation of Cleric mana not being an issue. I speak in absolutes and black/white terms on Ranger functionality because in the current timeline of whats being emulated, what I stated is indisputable fact. That is the literal definition of a Jack-of-all-Trades. However...


(Most importantly, an exp penalty doesn't make sense if being a hybrid is the reason. When I play any game out there and distribute my points evenly, that's within the rules and no exp penalty is needed.)

You still fail to grasp the point I was making, that regardless of the reasoning behind why you feel Ranger's should not have an Exp penalty, this server is not functioning on logical reasoning. It is emulating classic EverQuest, wherein Hybrids still retained their Exp penalty. It's not about whether or not it makes sense, it's about the fact that in Classic -> Whatever Expansion that finally dropped Exp Penalties, they existed in this timeline, thus, we have them. The developers may not even agree with Exp penalties, but the fact remains that as a server that is emulating classic EverQuest, you must adhear to every classic aspect, including Exp penalties.

True, eventually they did create an environment where every class was able to solo and group on a roughly even level, but again I say to you, this is not that environment. Discussing why we can or why we can't do so on this server is pretty pointless.

I get the feeling that you did not understand that I was more or less agreeing with you, and just want to use this as an opportunity to verbosely speak on your knowledge of Rangers; in which case, carry on. I would just like to again point out the futility in it all.

Ranger's had a lot of things wrong with them in the initial 3 expansions - down the line, they fixed that. However, we are not down that line yet, nor will this server ever be. If you are playing a Ranger now, you are, like you said, accepting the consequences of your choices.

[koros]

What class can act as a better tank than a ranger assuming mana isn't constrained?

[Grizzin]

An actual tank, for one. I know it sounds great on paper for a Cleric or whatever to not have to CH a Ranger over and over, but it's indisputable that actual plate wearing classes mitigate damage at a better rate than a Ranger ever could, and I promise you any healer is always going to prefer having an actual tank over a Ranger tank.

For one, tank classes mitigation abilities have higher skill caps than a Ranger. Those skill caps go higher for a reason; it's not just for looks.

There's a reason you don't see many Ranger's main tanking groups out there, and why most healers prefer an actual plate wearing tank for the role.

I don't think it's fair to factor in some of our spell utility, especially our ability to root mobs (Many, many classes can perform this exact thing as easy as we can) in regards to who can be the better tank. :P Yes, we can pull higher dps than tank classes can, but pulling higher dps does not a better tank make. Fact is, though we may be able to pull more dps, we can not mitigate damage on the same level.

[koros]

Well sure, I meant if mana isn't constrained then you gain a benefit over having a ranger as a tank vs a pally or sk in terms of dps, and you gain benefit over a warrior by having better snap aggro.

[Flunklesnarkin]

What class can act as a better tank than a ranger assuming mana isn't constrained?

unlimited mana


cleric aoe heals pull wicked aggro >_>

[stormlord]

I was actually referring to the OP, with his talk of a Ranger being the best viable tank, in a specific situation of Cleric mana not being an issue. I speak in absolutes and black/white terms on Ranger functionality because in the current timeline of whats being emulated, what I stated is indisputable fact. That is the literal definition of a Jack-of-all-Trades. However...



You still fail to grasp the point I was making, that regardless of the reasoning behind why you feel Ranger's should not have an Exp penalty, this server is not functioning on logical reasoning. It is emulating classic EverQuest, wherein Hybrids still retained their Exp penalty. It's not about whether or not it makes sense, it's about the fact that in Classic -> Whatever Expansion that finally dropped Exp Penalties, they existed in this timeline, thus, we have them. The developers may not even agree with Exp penalties, but the fact remains that as a server that is emulating classic EverQuest, you must adhear to every classic aspect, including Exp penalties.

True, eventually they did create an environment where every class was able to solo and group on a roughly even level, but again I say to you, this is not that environment. Discussing why we can or why we can't do so on this server is pretty pointless.

I get the feeling that you did not understand that I was more or less agreeing with you, and just want to use this as an opportunity to verbosely speak on your knowledge of Rangers; in which case, carry on. I would just like to again point out the futility in it all.

Ranger's had a lot of things wrong with them in the initial 3 expansions - down the line, they fixed that. However, we are not down that line yet, nor will this server ever be. If you are playing a Ranger now, you are, like you said, accepting the consequences of your choices.
Then get what I'm saying and listen carefully... (sorry if i repeat myself or skip things you said)

Jack-of-all-trades != Overpowered. (see that?) You make it sound as though a jack-of-all-trades scheme will always demand an exp penalty or a negative penalty to compensate. But this is not true. If you have 10 points and 5 abilities, it doesn't matter if you put 10 of them in one ability or 2 of them in each - neither choice would be overpowering or require an exp penalty. But an exp penalty did and does exist, so why?

If what we see on p1999 truly is an example of jack-of-all-trades then an exp penalty would be completely unnecessary. It wouldn't be needed and it wouldn't be needed back then when Verant added it. It's my contention that Verant did not add an exp penalty for no reason at all. They might not have been top of the line professionals, but they would have at least had some solid reasoning for it. I say that they added it because rangers/hybrids were overpowered. Furthermore, my argument goes that rangers were overpowered because players could not accept hard choices (true jack-of-all-trades schemes) or that they simply were looking for more diverse game-play that they couldn't find in a simpler class like a warrior but got stuck with this jack-of-all-trades sh**. Verant (and SOE) did not like exp penalties to begin with, nor did they like having some classes be overpowered. When a class is overpowered, it tends to create conflict. Look at the jedi class in SWG, look at how long that lasted? Overpowered classes stick out and become the targets of scorn. So Verant/SOE slowly cut away the jack-of-all-trades branches (because most players couldn't cope with the consequences), and removed the exp penalty as well. This allowed them to avoid overpowering anybody.

But in all this I can't help but think it's the boring-ness of the gameplay that might play a role. To skip past that and to focus only on players not being able to cope with consequences would miss a huge opportunity to satisfy this portion of the player population that likes jack-of-all-trades solely for the larger toolset. Developers just need to make gameplay that's more satisfying and diverse and doesn't quickly grow stale. Giving a class autoattack and extremely high strength does -not- make that class good gameplay! Gameplay is about making choices and about diversity and about attaining your goals. Empty classes are bad gameplay. The fact that most players don't like hard choices is just a distraction. Understanding this point could be very important.

[sbvera13]

All the utility a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All of the dps a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All the tanking a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
But only the Ranger can do all of this at the same time. This leaves your druids/bards/enchanters/shaman/etc more free time to dps, debuff, and generally make the group kill faster and with less downtime. Given this, 40% split 6 ways, aka 5%, is not a loss at all but will be a net gain.

If your rangers don't do this, they suck, and go ahead and kick em to the curb. But don't blame the class and assume that we all are a drain.

I wouldn't say we're shunned really; 90% of the bad things said about our class are in jest

I'm rerolling SK because I hit 22 and can't get groups anymore. It's a real problem, not a jest.

[Kender]

But only the Ranger can do all of this at the same time. This leaves your druids/bards/enchanters/shaman/etc more free time to dps, debuff, and generally make the group kill faster and with less downtime.


i lol'd

[Grizzin]

Long winded post.

Ok, I'm going to give this one more shot.


Jack-of-all-trades != Overpowered. (see that?) You make it sound as though a jack-of-all-trades scheme will always demand an exp penalty or a negative penalty to compensate. But this is not true.

If this is what you are hearing from me, then let me make this clear one more time. See, back in 1999, Rangers, as well as Shadowknights, and Paladin, were considered a HYBRID CLASS. I was not the one who invented said term, or labeled us as a Hybrid. Verant did. Being as such, Verant gave us an EXP PENALTY. Should they have? No. Do I want an exp penalty on my class? No. Do I feel Rangers are or aren't Overpowered? It does not matter.

Again, read that last sentence one more time. It does not matter. Fact remains, that in 1999, we had an exp penalty. Thus, being that this server is emulating the past, WE HAVE AN EXP PENALTY. Is it necessary? I personally feel that it is not, but it does not matter.

Developers just need to make gameplay that's more satisfying and diverse and doesn't quickly grow stale.

This is again, where we just aren't seeing eye to eye here, and quite honestly, i'm not understanding what you are asking for. Are you wanting the developers to stray away from the past timeline of specifically how Rangers were back in 1999, and make changes that would make our class less stale? Do you not understand that this server is simply about DUPLICATING the past, making Rangers, and every other class exactly how they were in the year 1999, by simulating both the good parts, and the bad?

Imagine if you would, the shitstorm that would arise if Rangers were changed in whatever way you are advocating, yet every other class stayed exactly how they were from 1999. They aren't going to change things from the way they were to merely satisfy the playerbase, and I hope they never do. That would eliminate the ENTIRE POINT of this server. How are you not understanding this?

[sbvera13]

All I want is to be able to get in groups, and actually, like, you know, play the game. What a thought.

That's what the exp penalty is taking away, because of the widespread hate and min maxxers. The ability to actually log in and expect to be able to do something.

[Rooj]

I can't say that I've come across any situations where I wasn't invited to a group because of my EXP penalty. I'm beginning to think these min/maxers don't even exist.

[Hamahakki]

The main strike against rangers is that any group which wants a role filled is not going to want a ranger:

- A group which needs a tank wants a warrior, or at least a paladin or shadowknight.
- A group which wants more dps wants a rogue, or at least a monk.
- A group which wants crowd control wants an enchanter, or at least a bard.

A ranger can perform any of these roles passably. The "rangers are utterly useless and cannot do anything" crowd is way off-base, but it is true that the "perfect" group doesn't have a ranger in it.

In 90% of my pre-50 groups, I was the tank because tank classes are so under-played at lower levels and because rangers are very good at holding aggro. At 55, mobs hit hard enough that durability is more of a problem. I still tank once in a while, especially if the group has both a shaman and cleric. Usually I just DPS, though often I will pull or CC as well. Rarely, I will even be in a group where most of my mana goes to healing.

Rangers aren't horrible; if exp penalties didn't exist, I don't think there would be much ranger hate.

In this ranger's opinion, the most important perks are:

- Tracking! (This is #1)
- You offer a lot to small groups (duo/trio) where versatility is more important.
- Soloing as a ranger is much more pleasant than as a rogue, monk, or warrior.
- Since we have decent DPS, we are never completely redundant. A ranger is more useful to a raid than say a third shaman.
- You can sow/chloro/strength/skin/thorns yourself, or lowbies, or anyone in a group without these buffs.
- There are few other rangers so you get most ranger-only loot uncontested.
- The rangers you do see share a secret ranger bond.
- Rangers have more fun than anyone else.

[Grizzin]

The main strike against rangers is that any group which wants a role filled is not going to want a ranger:

- A group which needs a tank wants a warrior, or at least a paladin or shadowknight.
- A group which wants more dps wants a rogue, or at least a monk.
- A group which wants crowd control wants an enchanter, or at least a bard.

A ranger can perform any of these roles passably. The "rangers are utterly useless and cannot do anything" crowd is way off-base, but it is true that the "perfect" group doesn't have a ranger in it.

In 90% of my pre-50 groups, I was the tank because tank classes are so under-played at lower levels and because rangers are very good at holding aggro. At 55, mobs hit hard enough that durability is more of a problem. I still tank once in a while, especially if the group has both a shaman and cleric. Usually I just DPS, though often I will pull or CC as well. Rarely, I will even be in a group where most of my mana goes to healing.

Rangers aren't horrible; if exp penalties didn't exist, I don't think there would be much ranger hate.

In this ranger's opinion, the most important perks are:

- Tracking! (This is #1)
- You offer a lot to small groups (duo/trio) where versatility is more important.
- Soloing as a ranger is much more pleasant than as a rogue, monk, or warrior.
- Since we have decent DPS, we are never completely redundant. A ranger is more useful to a raid than say a third shaman.
- You can sow/chloro/strength/skin/thorns yourself, or lowbies, or anyone in a group without these buffs.
- There are few other rangers so you get most ranger-only loot uncontested.
- The rangers you do see share a secret ranger bond.
- Rangers have more fun than anyone else.

Well put. My thoughts exactly. Honestly, in some sick twisted way, I prefer the exp penalty, because if we didn't have one, my precious class may become overplayed. :D I enjoy the fact that there are now, and always was even back on Live circa 1999, fewer Rangers running around than just about any other class out there. It does bring about that secret Ranger bond you mentioned.

Albeit, it may have taken me longer to get a group back then than other classes, but it was far from the impossible thing some people are trying to say it is. I'm still currently leveling on P1999, but I don't expect to ever encounter a time where a group is looking for something other than a Healer/Tank/CC, and literally tells me that I can't join their group simply because I am a Ranger. I don't remember that ever happening even back in classic EQ, where there was a population big enough to possibly even warrant such a thing. :p

I played a Ranger on Live from what some have dubbed the 'bad times' in classic all the way through around Omens of War, and I loved every second of it. Call me a masochist. :D

[YendorLootmonkey]

As rangers, you owe it to every other ranger out there to play your class to the best of your ability. Don't be the ranger that AFKs. Don't be the ranger that just sits there and hits shit. Don't be the ranger that has no situational awareness and dies to lack of aggro control.

You have the tools, you know what to do. You have to work harder than most of the other classes to show off your true potential. The pros are that you have great versatility and you are a fun class to play because your role can change at any moment. You shine in 3-4 person groups because you can serve multiple roles in a pinch. The cons are your hybrid xp penalty and that you are a jack of all trades, master of none, in a min-max environment.

Make sure the pros you provide outweigh your cons. The better we play, the easier it is for all of us to get groups.

[Lazortag]

...
- A group which wants crowd control wants an enchanter, or at least a bard.
...

I resent the suggestion that a Bard is somehow inferior to an Enchanter. I know for a fact that I contribute more to a group than any Enchanter. In fact I would go as far to say that I contribute more to a group than anyone of any class. The ideal group is a group consisting of me and 5 clones of me.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I resent the suggestion that a Bard is somehow inferior to an Enchanter. I know for a fact that I contribute more to a group than any Enchanter. In fact I would go as far to say that I contribute more to a group than anyone of any class. The ideal group is a group consisting of me and 5 clones of me.

Well, you're the exception. Most bards just manasong and AFK.

[wolvesoflegend]

I've been in many great xp groups with a ranger main tanking.

The truth. Things aren't always what they seem.

[sbvera13]

- Rangers have more fun than anyone else.

'struth

[Corrodith]

Pretty proud of this one. This was not a joke. I think.

[Zuranthium]

In any group where cleric mana isn't an issue, a ranger tank is probably the single best choice, aggro is never an issue, and dps is superior to a paladin or sk.

Does not compute. If "cleric mana isn't an issue", then you're not constantly pulling. It takes more mana for a cleric to heal a Ranger tank and thus it creates more downtime and thus Rangers are not good tanks and they slow down the exp gain of the group (even without taking the exp penalty into consideration). A Ranger tank allowing the group to kill pulls marginally faster than a Paladin or SK is not at all efficient when compared to how much extra damage they are taking. In the end, far more mana needs to be spent on the Ranger and the group is going to kill less as a result.

It depends on the content we're talking about, though. At the higher levels, Rangers can tank low blue cons fine, yes. For harder content they are not good, though, and the disparity quickly increases as the monsters become more difficult. This means the Ranger needs to fulfill a DPS role and one of the problems with that is Rangers do less DPS than Warriors (because their skillcaps are lower). The other problem is that in order to even do their best DPS, Rangers steal aggro away from Warriors (even though they are doing less damage, that's just the way the aggro chart works). This ultimately leaves Rangers without much of a role at all for higher level groups, all while being burdened with the exp penalty.

Their utility can be nice and the improvements (+removal of exp penalty) they receive in Velious-era make them a more competitive package for the higher levels, but what EQ Rangers really need is a class redesign. They shouldn't just be "less durable Warriors who can track, with some Druid spells thrown in". The class should be much more focused on using a Bow and using their own unique abilities. Of course, the combat system and the way PvE is set up in Everquest needs a improvement to fully support such a thing.

[Lazortag]

I've been in howling stones groups with ranger tanks that were just fine. We were constantly pulling. I know because I was the puller. My hierarchy for tanks is like Pally > Monk > SK > Ranger > Warrior (in exp groups; obviously on raids Warriors are the best). The reason I prefer rangers over warriors is because of aggro holding ability. If the tank has aggro then the rogues are doing as much damage as they could be doing, and they aren't taking aggro and wasting cleric mana.

[Hamahakki]

I resent the suggestion that a Bard is somehow inferior to an Enchanter. I know for a fact that I contribute more to a group than any Enchanter. In fact I would go as far to say that I contribute more to a group than anyone of any class. The ideal group is a group consisting of me and 5 clones of me.

- A group which wants crowd control wants Giegue, or at least an enchanter.

Fixed.

[Hamahakki]

Does not compute. If "cleric mana isn't an issue", then you're not constantly pulling.

This isn't necessarily true. At high levels, the bottleneck for kill rate is often DPS, not healer mana. A ranger tank can potentially allow the group to kill mobs faster than a knight (because the ranger does more damage) or a warrior (because the rest of the group can unload earlier without taking agro.)

Also, a good ranger is going to preserve the cleric's mana better than a bad warrior. You'd rather be in a group where a ranger is taking say 50 CH's an hour than one where the warrior is taking 40 CH's an hour but the rest of the group needs spot heals because mobs aren't sticking to the tank.

[Nakara]

Not sure about low levels, but I found woodsman staff to be garbage.


It's the best droppable dps weapon in the game for rangers so if you don't have a raid weapon you should probably be using it.

[Zuranthium]

This isn't necessarily true. At high levels, the bottleneck for kill rate is often DPS, not healer mana.

Ranger DPS vs. Paladin/SK DPS in the tank slot isn't where the big difference is going to come from, though. The 3 slots outside of Tank/Cleric/Enchanter are where you expect most of the DPS to come from. Of course, that's why Monks are often the best tank for exp-churning at the higher levels: they tank suspiciously well in addition to doing huge DPS.

Besides, I feel it's generally much more important when you're grinding in places like Sebelis for the tank to actually be able to take hits. You want the tank to be able to absorb the punishment from several monsters at once if there is an overambitious pull or ill-timed adds. The group dying is the biggest detriment of all to the exp grinding, because of the time it requires to set up again (and the exp loss, even though it's not with the top cleric rezz).

Also, a good ranger is going to preserve the cleric's mana better than a bad warrior.

LOL, that's not a very relevant statement though? It would be better to compare a good ranger to a good warrior. Frankly, a bad warrior (in terms of field awareness, not equipment) is still better than the best ranger in many situations because all they have to do is attack the pulls when they come in and hit their extra buttons on recharge. The Warrior absorbs damage far better and does more damage and has the best exp modifier instead of the worst exp modifier. It all depends on how well the rest of the group is handling any difficult situations that may arise and the risk level of where the group is fighting. Quite a few exp grinds don't require much thought and are rather about repeating the same monotony over and over. People just want to get through it as fast as possible so they can move onto "the promised land" of being max level. It's not just exp grinding, though, but also grinding for drops where this becomes relevant.

You'd rather be in a group where a ranger is taking say 50 CH's an hour than one where the warrior is taking 40 CH's an hour but the rest of the group needs spot heals because mobs aren't sticking to the tank.

Sure, but I've not seen it work out like that if you're in a situation where it's not just low blue cons those two classes would be tanking. The ranger needs 80+ CH's in comparison to 40 for a Warrior for harder content. If you are only fighting low blue cons, then most of the tanking aggro problems are solved by rooting anyway. A Ranger tank for holding aggro just isn't needed, all it would be doing in that case is taking more damage and dishing out less than the Warrior. If the situation calls for something where snap aggro is valued, then that probably means you want the Pally/SK because it sounds like the situation is one where you want the tank to actually be able to...tank.

I've seen some great Ranger action in places like Sol B where you are grinding out on monsters in the mid/high 30's, with the Ranger being able to pull a bunch and root-park them, thus providing far more control over the situation than a Warrior ever could, but into the expansions it just doesn't work like that. Class balance goes very awry.

[koros]

A ranger who isn't geared to the gills for strength and has a lot of ac/hp items on is going to tank fine in almost any dungeon. Mobs in Kunark just didn't hit that hard and ch is ridiculously OP.

[DigglesVersion2.0]

rangers do suck pal, to be honest though if they didnt have a 40 percent penalty i wouldnt mind their sub par dps and over agro of npcs

[Grizzin]

The number of Rangers on P99 has quadrupled since this post was made, fyi. Maybe most of them will get burned out before 60.

Thanks. :p

[koros]

Haha that's awesome. Sorry ;p

[sbvera13]

Rofl, i'd noticed more people looking for swiftblades and ivy armor. Now, if only the community as a whole can stop shafting us all and let us get groups, we might see some competent rangers being played for once.

I suggest we make posts like this every other week or so. lol

[sbvera13]

You want the tank to be able to absorb the punishment from several monsters at once if there is an overambitious pull or ill-timed adds.

The point is, a well played ranger never HAS to do this. Harmony means bad pulls should never happen (if the ranger is alert for resists, and you're outdoors... yeah, it's not perfect), and adds can be root parked and aggro kept at the same time with smart spell usage. Meaning that when CC breaks, they head for the tank and not the clerics/enchanter. Multiple mobs may be on the ranger for a short time, but if they know their business then not for long.

I'll sidestep here and acknowledge that we do have inferior mitigation, and are not suitable as MT's for raids or when killing mobs more then 3-4 levels higher then us. In this case they would be OT and mob controller, using spell aggro to drag mobs to a desired position and parking them, controlling a bad pull almost as well as any enchanter could. Better in some situations, since they can drag mobs out of/into aoe's, away from the clerics, out of patrolling paths, etc. Then they DPS when not busy doing that. And on that point, if they are DWing and not using their nukes, they are doing less damage then they are capable of. 2h+spells between swings is > any DW combination (in this era, and until epics anyway. also assuming your MT can hold aggro through that storm of damage and the ranger doesn't need to hold back). If you're seeing rangers with crappy DPS, what you're seeing is players that don't know the class.

[Zuranthium]

The point is, a well played Ranger never HAS to do this.

Nonsense. Root is not something to be entirely depended on. Besides, when the Ranger has 4 monsters banging on them, that's a lot of damage being taken before the roots land.

[Phased]

I grouped with a ranger for the first time on P99. I'm ashamed to say, that... it actually wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.

But from my experience on live, the only way a ranger finds a spot into groups during this time era is if he's a nice guy and makes friends.

[stormlord]

1) Verant guy walks into room and says "Hey, I got an idea to make a jack-of-all-trades class and I want to name it Ranger.
2) Everyone nods their head and one says, "Those're in D&D. It fits."
3) Verant guy says, "But there's a problem. We all know that jack-of-all-trades are great by themselves or with a few people and can keep busy that way. But if you put them in a larger group, they do not have high enough specialization to be useful. For example, when a group looks for dps, they point at rogues or monks. When they look for tanks, they point at warriors. When they look for healers, they point at clerics. When they look for CC, they point at enchanters. Rangers sacrificed a lot to be ok in a lot of things. What do you think?
4) Guy with calculator says, "I saw this conversation coming."
5) One guy says, "It seems like a necromancer to me. It's a solo-class too and isn't great at specialization in groups. I don't see the problem."
6) Verant guy says, "We can't have too many solo-classes. Brad won't change his mind either. So we can't just make this another flavor of necromancer. It has to have sufficient grouping capacity."
7) Guy says, "Can't they be good at both soloing and grouping?"
8) Another guy nods his head.
9) Verant guy says, "Breaks the balance sheet. It's overpowering. They can't be jack-of-all-trades and at the same time replace an expert. You all know that. They can offer utility, but they'll never compare to a class that devotes itself to one or two things."
10) Guy says, "Which area would they be experts in if it didn't break the balance?"
11) Verant guy says, "Rangers are often axe wielders, hunters, bowman, trackers, wilderness sentries, even wielders of magic. Probably an offensive or sneaky class type."
12) Guy says, "Increase their offensives so they're more desired in groups and subtract some experience from their kills to compensate and meet your balance sheet."
13) Verant guy says, "It would be expensive. As they're right now, their offensives are several levels behind expert classes."
14) Guy says, "Boost it so it's not quite at the same level but still competitive and inconspicuous."
15) Verant guy says, "Alright, we'll try that. But I think there'll be a lot of groans. I think we'll eventually have to confront this problem again in the future."
16) Guy says, "One step at a time."
17) Math guy whispers to his buddy, "2x != x. This is all a bad idea. Either they need to allow for solo-classes with inferior specialization or they should just throw all this out and make rangers offensive-based."
18) His buddy says, "Won't experience penalties compensate for them breaking the bank?"
19) Math guy whispers, "Too many people here don't understand 2x != x, so no."

The math guy ended up being right. Rangers became offensive-based. We went from rooting/snaring/kiting/tanking/ccing/dpsing to dpsing (mostly) creatures that summon almost exclusively. Things hit harder and harder until finally tanking became a distant memory (except for raiders). Summoning almost completely destroyed rooting/snaring/ccing, alongside stagnation of our abilities and the flattening of abilities across the classes.

Some good things came of it though. More solo-capability for everyone. Which is something I think should have always been the case. But I think too many people are distracted by the superficial things and overlook that giving a class super high strength and super high hp does not make that class fun to play. Jack-of-all-trades are fun because of their larger tool box, not because they hit hard or have lots of hitpoints or can track.

[webrunner5]

I play a Ranger but I think I am going to give up on it. When Velious comes out we are not going to tank crap or kill for a crap solo. The mobs just hit way too hard for Rangers or even Monks. We will have to pick Light Blues to solo and that is just crazy.

Snaring and bow kiting is not my cup of tea for hours on end on LB mobs for the xp gained. I want to beat on things lol. Rangers never came into their own until AA's. And that is not going to happen on here.

[YendorLootmonkey]

When Velious comes out we are not going to tank crap or kill for a crap solo.

Actually, when Velious comes out, Rangers get the Weaponshield discipline in which we will be very useful tanking and holding aggro for the first 18 seconds of an encounter until a CH chain gets established on the main tank. And secondly, you will be able to solo much better with Panic Animal/Snare.

[webrunner5]

Actually, when Velious comes out, Rangers get the Weaponshield discipline in which we will be very useful tanking and holding aggro for the first 18 seconds of an encounter until a CH chain gets established on the main tank. And secondly, you will be able to solo much better with Panic Animal/Snare.

That would help but Weaponshield discipline has a recast time of 4050 mimutes. So that is over an hour cooldown time. Hardly a big deal soloing.

The Panic Animal/Snare would help a lot though. Forgot about that.

[stormlord]

I've never believed that Verant was stupid enough to add experience penalties blindly. That's what a lot of people say, but I sternly disagree. I believe hybrids were overpowered in some form, and this is why they implemented the penalties. We will never know the full story, more than likely. But I think players do a lot more stupid things than the developers do. Developers have reasons, even if they're not very good ones. Players don't need reasons because their money is not coming from the game.

People always ask why don't necromancers have a substantial experience penalty? Or magicians? They can solo just like rangers, if not better. They can group with some effectiveness too. What makes them different from a ranger? Well, to begin with, their pet cannot keep aggro from another player. This means that if they group with a rogue that the rogue cannot backstab because after the first couple hits the opponent will aggro the rogue and ignore the pet. This is a big negative. Second, necromancers primarily use dots and dots aren't as effective in groups. They use a lot of mana and since they don't use their full duration in groups then they're wasted. Third, there're problems with aggro and zoning. Pets don't always aggro what you want them to and have to be recast when you zone. Fourth, you can't invis without losing your pet. Fifth, there're lots of little things that make pets annoying and make pet classes less effective in a group. For example, most of their spells are personal-only or pet-based, not support based. They can't sow or heal or buff your hp/ac or give you haste or track for you or cure... Necro's get their first root at lvl 34 and magicians don't even have one. Lastly, I think that Verant did not want EQ to be a solo-game because they felt that the bond between guild mates and friends was made stronger by grouping. If rangers had just been another solo-class like the necro then this would be in opposition to the need for grouping and retention of long-time players.

Why am I so adamant? Because I played a ranger for a long time, from 1999 to 2001 and on up to a few years ago. I always liked the class. I didn't feel gimp. I felt lucky to be a ranger.

I think the fact that I played a ranger is why I enjoyed Eq more than many others.

I think that the divide between solo and grouping was unnecessary. There's no reason that players can't solo AND group. My ideal game would allow all players to solo and group and all classes would be different flavors of jack-of-all-trades. There would be no straight tanks or straight healers or straight damage dealers, at least not for very long. One idea is to allow for frequent skill resets so players can change their role. I don't think games that put people into one or two roles are any good - they're too boring. But more than that, people would group together because they simply cannot kill some things alone. They wouldn't group because they need a healer or a tank or a damage dealer or a crowd controller, they'd group because they need more. And a lot of modern games are going in this direction. The only thing I think some of them miss is that games are not fun unless a player is kept busy with his tool box. If there're not enough tools then a player just gets bored. Some of them don't get this. They make things easy and accessible, but fail to make the gameplay interesting.

[Messianic]

I always wondered why the playerbase felt wizards were so grand when they were literally the worst class to have in a group. I only realized how bad they were after leveling a wizard to 51 on live.

People didn't like rangers because there wasn't some "Ooooh Aaahhhh" factor. People think wizards are really doing something when they chain nuke a mob from 50% to 0 quickly, but for some reason are blind to the fact that the wizard is doing substantially less damage over the course of many fights than the ranger, and the ranger is far more useful if all we're looking at is sustained damage and general group utility. Even rangers can heal the necro/shaman/casters...the wizard literally sits there and meds and ends up doing between 15-25 sustained dps over the course of the group if they're not doing anything else - so if the group is efficient (i.e. pulls continually come, evac isn't needed), the wizard becomes more and more useless.

I love rangers, *especially* after they get animal fear - I'm just addicted to feign death so I always stuck with a monk instead ;)

[fadetree]

This thread is pretty depressing - I just started a ranger here. Luckily I'm a masochist....up to a point. Is it really so bad for rangers grouping?

[Messianic]

This thread is pretty depressing - I just started a ranger here. Luckily I'm a masochist....up to a point. Is it really so bad for rangers grouping?

Nah. It's actually somewhat rare that you have someone who worries about the couple of extra percentage points of xp a ranger takes from the group.

[dcapotos]

They can tank AND gate!?
Nerf...

[Phased]

Most times people are all too quick to blame the crappy exp they're getting on the hybrids. When in reality it's more than likely due to slow pulls or people AFKing.

[Malrubius]

They can tank AND gate!?
Nerf...

Their gate ability was already nerfed...

They can gate, but not with their equipment.

[Splorf22]

If it wasn't for the XP penalty, Rangers wouldn't be too bad. The truth is that a Ranger is probably about equivalent to my iksar warrior in both dps and overall tanking ability (probably a bit more damage/second taken, but better aggro). But overall the problem Rangers have is the same one Druids have: their utility is just not useful in a group, with one exception: Rangers can absolutely rock as pullers in outdoor dungeons. There is a reason Druids and Rangers love KC.

P.S. Giegue, you are just wrong on bards vs Enchanters in XP groups. If the enchanter isn't charming, a bard and an enchanter are probably about equal: the enchanter will be more consistent with buffs and more able to handle 5+ pulls (I pulled 10 mobs in KC once with Prosephone as our enchanter, and we killed them all - bards just can't do that) while the bard can do more slowing and resist buffing and some health regen as well. If the enchanter is charming, they are really filling 3 slots: 1 CC, and 2 DPS, which makes them equivalent to about 3 bards.

[Xanthias]

Give me a decent healer and I can pretty much tank any groupable encounter currently in game.
~shrugs~
Have said it before will say it again.
Playing a ranger is EQ at a higher level of difficulty.

The class doesn't suck, the people who don't know how to play it do :)

[Scavrefamn]

Rangers have ranger gate!

[Malrubius]

2. Bards have aoe mez and can lock down far more than chanters.

Really? I have to admit I don't know a lot about bards, but how do they do that? Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't know.

From experience, I do know an Enchanter can lock down a virtually unlimited number of mobs.

[Kika Maslyaka]

this one?
http://wiki.project1999.org/index.php/Kelin%27s_Lucid_Lullaby

i played bard to 51 on live, but have very vague memory of this song
the description here http://wiki.project1999.org/index.php/Bard says its AE mez, but description inside states single target
i thought it was aoe lull

[falkun]

Classically, its an AoE Mezz with a 1tick duration. Eventually it was changed on Live to a single target, 3 tick duration, matching the bard's other mez songs.

Since this server is Classic, its a 1tick AoE mez. Just really hard to land on higher level targets.