Thoughts on Shadow Knights

Nick687 · #1 07-31-2012, 01:30 PM

So I have been playing for a month or so and it seems nobody likes Rangers (I'm not sure why) but I am not seeing anyone hate on Shadow Knights and it confuses me because they are essentially the same as a ranger with necro spells instead of druid spells....same with Paladins....they are hybrids with the dreaded xp penalty and yet they do not draw the same animosity. Why is this?

fadetree · #2 07-31-2012, 01:55 PM

SK's tank better. People look at Rangers as a crappy tank, even though rangers really are fine up until mid 30's, and even after if they are geared well. Really stops at late 40's/early 50's though, after that a ranger really isn't very viable in most tanking situations compared to a Knight class.

A ranger is just not a well defined class and isn't better than anyone else in any of the normal group roles. That's why the person playing the ranger really makes a difference, you can TELL a bad player from a good one easily when they play a ranger, even when gear isn't taken into account. Most melee classes are totally gear dependent and you can't really tell if the person playing the class is all that sharp, but you can with a ranger. Where a ranger really shines if if the group DOESN'T have one of the classic 'needed' classes...then the ranger can compensate for nearly any missing thing...not as well, but pretty well if they know what they are doing.

Plus there's just always been an anti-ranger sentiment. I don't give a crap personally, and there's plenty of folks that like rangers, but you have to have a thick skin.

Vermicelli · #3 07-31-2012, 01:58 PM

Short answer: knights have good damage mitigation while being able to tank with snap aggro spells. Rangers have snap aggro, but noticeably less damage mitigation due to armors with less AC and lower defense skill caps. I will leave the longer answer to a min-maxxer. I know that rangers are good to fill in group role gaps caused by missing a more role-focused class =)

Brut · #4 07-31-2012, 02:00 PM

SKs are awesome. Fun class, lots of utility, can do that whole tank deal with snap aggro, gets to be an ogre with an aerodynamic smirk.

I guess rangers it's the same as with druids; you won't really look at your group outfit at any point and say: "we could really use a ranger for the last slot guys". Ranger just doesn't offer anything that other classes can't do far better.

fadetree · #5 07-31-2012, 02:01 PM

Oh, and SK's have extremely small penixes. Forgot that one.

Kidding! Don't HT me or sneeze on me, I'll probably die.

Raavak · #6 07-31-2012, 02:04 PM

Rangers are chain wearers (lower AC). SK's are plate wearers (higher AC). SK Disease Cloud is a great aggro spell, low mana cost, fast casting, etc. You can be an ogre SK (frontal stun immunity) or a DE (innate hide), troll or iksar (innate regen), or human (*crickets*).

I don't know where their Defense, Dodge, Block, etc and stuff caps. That's something to look at too.

Lazortag · #7 07-31-2012, 02:07 PM

Rangers tank fine all the way up to level 60 in non-raid situations. Tanking a frog in sebilis isn't some unique skill that only classes with 4k+ hp are able to handle. Even a shaman or a bard could tank for most exp groups. Sure it's not as efficient as having a conventional tank, but it's not like you're going to notice your exp bar moving 0.001% slower than usual.

Ephirith · #8 07-31-2012, 02:51 PM

Honestly there is hardly any reason to play a Paladin or SK. Monks take damage almost as well, and do considerably more DPS. Their snap agro isn't as good, but their agro generation is still sufficient for most circumstances. On top of that, they can pull.

It's just that SK's and Paladins are popular and likable, and for some reason Rangers aren't. But ultimately they're all roughly as useless if you compare them to monks and warriors.

Danth · #9 07-31-2012, 03:00 PM

"Paladin" and "popular" don't belong in the same sentence as far as Project1999 is concerned. It's quite probably the least-played class on here, usually with fewer online even than Rangers. Shadow Knights seem about mid-range for melees and hence also on the low end of average for popularity since melee are in general less numerous than casters.

Kunark was a bad period for all three hybrid classes because of skill cap limitations which were partially resolved after Velious opened.

Rangers get made fun of because they're Rangers. After this many years it's simply a self-sustaining joke with no real ill intent.

Danth

Ephirith · #10 07-31-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

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

"Paladin" and "popular" don't belong in the same sentence as far as Project1999 is concerned. It's quite probably the least-played class on here, usually with fewer online even than Rangers. Shadow Knights seem about mid-range for melees and hence also on the low end of average for popularity since melee are in general less numerous than casters.

Kunark was a bad period for all three hybrid classes because of skill cap limitations which were partially resolved after Velious opened.

Rangers get made fun of because they're Rangers. After this many years it's simply a self-sustaining joke with no real ill intent.

Danth

You're right, but I meant "popular" more in terms of likability, I should have been more specific. Class balance in this era of EQ is just abysmal.