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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

'struth