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