Quote:
Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.