Rangers? Rangers! Rangers.

[Troy]

I used to get groups on my ranger until I stopped playing months ago. I just attempted to restart this weekend and found that it's nigh impossible to get a group as a 35 ranger even with good gear. I'm thinking I'll probably just re-roll monk/rogue or quit again. Using backpacks full of arrows slowly kiting stuff in OT then running to FV and back (using SoW pots!) to make more arrows every hour is not worth doing. Perhaps if I were 45 and had a Tolan's bracer I'd feel differently. QQ

[Fryhole]

I really wanted to start a ranger on here, because I abandoned mine back on live in favor of a druid. Looking back though, I had my reasons.

The hybrid spells are just too far behind in rank compared to their parent class.
Lower defense & weapon skill caps (this may already have been patched, or is being addressed in the future)
SoW @ 39 (this changes to 30, but come on)
40% exp penalty (@#$%)
Bad rep - easily overcome, but still
No defined role - druid & bard can track, other classes can pull, (esp w/feign death), can't wear plate, extra DPS tied to mana (unlike backstab or flying kick)
No 'big' CD ability like lay hands or harm touch

[soup]

Making fun of rangers is pretty much the most important part of the classic experience. I consider making fun of rangers to be high priority. With that said though...

Rangers can bring a lot to the table. People HORRIBLY underestimate the power of groups that use a couple "multi role" or "versatile" classes rather than just using pure classes. Rangers can also do very well in smaller groups or duo situations and can do stuff people don't really think about. For example, I have a 48 monk and have found a ranger is a GREAT partner to duo with outdoors. High DPS + SoW + snare (monk intimidation + ranger snare = fear kiting) is pretty much all you need.

It seems people are starting to lose sight of where the "make fun of rangers lol!" ends and reality begins.

[soup]

either way though, rangers are gay, lolol

[baalzy]

Ranger down!

[xshayla701]

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

Good for the DT'

Minimal keystrokes necessary! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyways, I've always thought rangers were cool, but then Kimmie went and rolled an effing ranger. I know that's not helpful, but do it!

[Dantes]

People are deathly afraid of the experience penalty, even if those fears are COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED they still will not group with a hybrid. People are stupid.

[loobusk]

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

Rangers dps about the same as warriors, if you want dps you will always pick a rogue or monk over them for sure, and most likely would also take a necro/mage/wizard/warrior since they will all do comparable dps without bringing the nasty shared hybrid xp penalty.

If you need a tank, you will always take a paladin, warrior, or sk over a ranger. For that matter I would take a bard first also since they tank about the same and their utility is greater in other aspects than a ranger.

I have grouped with rangers who are outstanding at snaring and root parking for ghetto CC, but of course if you have an ench or bard they can do CC in a much better way that also deals with casters, and in some camps this strategy is very limited because of the tight quarters.

Tracking is nice to have but matters little when camps are well established. I will take a ranger or bard pulling for me in a crowded KC where everyone fights over every pull, but most places tracking is simply not needed in a group.

Basically being the jack of all trades is not something that is useful in a group, b/c any roll you might fill is done better by someone else. People also are biased against them because they bring an exp penalty and will often prefer to fight with 5 until someone else is lfg.

Wow, after reading this, what's the point of playing a ranger besides wanting to be a sadist?

[Aadill]

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

Wow, after reading this, what's the point of playing a ranger besides wanting to be a sadist?

I don't like playing games on Easy.

[baalzy]

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

People are deathly afraid of the experience penalty, even if those fears are COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED they still will not group with a hybrid. People are stupid.

It's not necessairly that they're afraid of the penalty, SK's and paladins get invites just fine, bards too usually. It's just that why would you take on an xp penalty to get sub-optimum performance in a group member? Rangers can plug a hole in your party, but if you already have all your bases covered utility wise and all you need is unadulterated DPS, monks (who also have penalties, just not as heavy) or rogues (who get a bonus) will perform the job much better then a ranger. Hell, getting another warrior could do as much/more DPS as a ranger and they also bring an xp bonus (especially if the warrior has a few items that give good DPS stats and some non-proc'ing weapons to make use of).

People also don't understand how the penalty works, they think that it straight up nerfs 40% xp from the mob. Instead it means the people with penalties gain proportionally more XP from a mob then a non-penaltied toon of the same level.

To alleviate this, just make sure you invite hybrids that are a level or two lower than the average level of the rest of the party members.