Quote:
Originally Posted by gotrocks
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Yes, they are not rogues or monks, which would be first rate dps. Hence, they are, essentially by definition, second rate dps.
And there's no way a ranger would be = to a rogue even in velious. That's a shitty rogue the ranger is being compared to if it ever happened.
Even the best rangers will be no where near the top of raid dps. At best, they will always be behind rogues, monks, and even good wizards.
That being said, I have nothing against rangers, they are just a mediocre class at best. I really don't think its possible to argue against this.
|
If rangers could compete with a rogue in dps (on a 1-to-1 basis) then they're getting all of their hybrid bonuses (
heals, dots, dd, snares/roots/calms, sow, invis, ds, tracking, hiding/sneaking, archery criticals and highest archery skill, regen, atk buffs, etc) in addition to competing on the same level as a dps class. How would that be fair to a dps class? It wouldn't be. This is the hallmark of a jack-of-all-trades class. They trade expertise for a balanced skill-set. This allows them to do well in a diverse situation, especially when they're alone or in a small group. I could in fact argue that all of the complaints about rangers would have been much worse if Verant/SOE hadn't (behind the scenes) beefed up their dps/tanking. Technically, there's no reason to add an experience penalty if the skill-set is balanced. But there IS an exp-penalty and this is because Verant/SOE realized early on that a jack-of-all-trades would make the ranger non-competitive in groups. They beefed up all the hybrids. They did this because EQ is group-based and if a class can't do well in groups then it's defunct.
But I'll say they may have overestimated the power of certain things.
Ever played a necromancer? They're probably hte best soloer in the game. But if you put them in a group you'll notice that their pet can't compare to the best players and that a necromancer has to use their pet and their dots to be effective. The problem is that their dots eat a lot of mana. Necromancers were an experiment to make a solo class and to see how it would work in the game. They didn't want to expand hte experiment that early on so they didn't do the same with hybrids. This is why they "overpowered" them.
Ultimately, EQ is a group game and group classes do the best. They didn't overpower hybrids enough to make them equal. So when we observe history the group classes outshined the hybrids. But since the hybrids had the exp penalty, the situation was made even worse. This is why the necromancer was a better choice because they could be a jack-of-all-trades without the expectation to fit in a group seamlessly.
Bottom line, if hybrids are to be equal either in dps or tanking or some other role versus a different class that specializes in it then they'd replace them. To preserve the specialized classes they HAD to be better than the hybrids in their chosen roles without extreme hybrid penalties. Thus you see the dilemma. The creators of EQ had it in their mind that almost everybody (barring the necro) needs to be desirable in groups, but this notion conflicted with the idea of jack-of-all-trades classes since balanced skill-sets, by their definition, are NOT specialized and thus their raw capability in groups is diminished. Raw capability in groups turned out to be the most important factor for those classes that were expected to compete in them.
Eventually this whole idea of "fixing" the numbers was abandoned. This probably happened somewhere around 2000-01. They redid the hybrids underneath the hood and removed the exp-penalty. I don't know exactly what they did, but I suspect they tweaked things in relation to level and environment.
If we could redo all of it... what would happen if they had not overpowered some stats of hybrids (remembering that this still is not as good as specialized classes) and thus they did not add an exp-penalty. Rangers, for example, might not have tanked as well or maybe their atk rating would be lower. However, they wouldn't have an exp penalty. What would have happened? Well, they'd end up like necromancers. Not desirable in groups on average, but really good on their own since they have a large tool box. We'd have a whole host of jack-of-all-trades that would be ineffective in raids and groups compared to group-based classes. There's no doubt that they'd serve certain specific roles, sort of like how a necromancer can locate corpses, but they couldn't compete with the power of a well formed group. Well formed groups combine the best to be the best.
(keep in mind that a halfling warrior is something like 90% more experience than a hybrid. if rangers and other hybrids had no experience penalty and yet kept their jack-of-all-trades nature, it'd be a big bonus. this is true even if they lost a good chunk of defense or attack rating because of increased experience. if you doubt for even a moment that a ranger can't outdo a warrior when soloing then you haven't tried it. i tested the idea on p1999 in 2010 with a level 17 warrior and ranger. the warrior died but the ranger was half hp/mana. i played a ranger in 1999 but i don't recall what their capabilities were other than that, yes, they have variety.)
IMHO, EQ would have been better if it had a balanced-mode and a group-mode. EVERY class has a group-specific capability (dps, tanking, cc, etc) and a jack-of-all-trades option. If you're in a very small group, say 2 or 3, then one might play balanced-mode, while the other(s) are specialized-mode. This wya there's no division from the start between balanced and specialized. The design of the game will absorb it and adapt.
But EQ is what it's. I think it's still fun even all these years later.