Why rangers don't suck

[stormlord]

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

Rangers are the redheaded step child of p99, as they were in live during Kunark. But they really get a bad and undeserved rap.

Perhaps some of it has to do with rangers always gearing for str and neglecting AC/hp, but a ranger tank will shine in many groups.

In any group where cleric mana isn't an issue, a ranger tank is probably the single best choice, aggro is never an issue, and dps is superior to a paladin or sk.

Woodsman Staff is cheap as shit, allows a ranger to do top notch dps, and still retain aggro much better than a warrior who's often forced to use lower dps weapons and rely on procs. If outdoors wolf form also provides a substantial atk boost, while harmony is amazing for breaking camps.

Ranger is also a top notch CC class if playing a support role, 2-3 mob pulls without an enc aren't an issue if a ranger just root parks, and they can take some hits to boot.

Spread among a group of 6, the rangers xp penalty is like 8% more xp than a war. Considering that a cleric who just casts CHs every now and then isn't going to run oom healing a 3k+ hp ranger very often, they can easily make up for the xp difference vs a war by allowing dps to constantly go full bore.

Thoughts? I'm expecting a lot of ranger hate regardless.

I think what a lot of people miss is that they changed the defensive/offensive tables during kunark. This gave warriors/paladins/shadowknights a measurable bonus over rangers in tanking. These changes continued. When comparing the late game and later stages of EQ's evolution, one finds rangers to be much more about dps. Contrary to this, the early game was about rooting/snaring/kiting/etc, which is not as dps-based.

In the early levels, you can see a big power difference between rangers and a warrior, especially in a solo circumstance. I've tested it myself. Being able to root/snare and kill from a distance, they're able to take down targets that a warrior could never do alone (without twinking). While a warrior does have more hp and gains access to some skills earlier and has a slightly higher skill cap in some of them and can wear plate AND has a higher ac softcap, rangers have more utility and if played right they can have a higher dps. Additionally, a warrior doesn't gain access to plate until they can afford it. And the skill caps happen later. I personally would rather have a ranger with me in the earlier levels, especially if the group is small and needs the flexibility.

What about the experience penalty? When comparing a warrior to a ranger, if you got a good group, then it's hard to justify the -40% penalty. In a good group, the utility of a ranger is wasted. Furthermore, rogues/wizards are better dps. However, if you anticipate trials and difficulties then it's nice to have an all-around group member (if played well). But if you're solo, a ranger is going to greatly outpace a warrior in his/her ability to survive. This could easily justify the -40% experience penalty. Maybe they anticipated people soloing a lot when they made the initial choice to implement the experience penalty for hybrids. Or perhaps they felt that the extra utility when compared to the actual differences between a ranger and a knight or pure melee were overpowering. In any case, I do not think the -40% experience penalty was baseless. This couldn't have been more clear when I compared a warrior to a ranger of equal level and similar gear on the same target.

But how can you have a class that's good at both solo AND grouping without overpowering them when compared to something like a warrior? How can a ranger be a better soloer AND be an equal group member? If he/she is, then he/she is overpowered. It's basic algebra applied to gameplay logic. Here:
Ranger = +40% solo/+0% grouping = Warrior = +0% solo/+0% grouping

In this logic, both of them are equal at grouping but the ranger is better at soloing. If everything is accounted for then the ranger is overpowered. Do you see the logic here? The ranger wants to be just as good of a grouper as the warrior. But why doesn't the warrior want to solo just as good as the ranger?

Having a jack-of-all-trades capability in games goes back to the beginning of D&D. It's an idea that's as old as time itself. If you're good at a lot of things then you won't be expert at anything. You'll be good by yourself but when you're put into a grouping environment you will not be able to fill any expert roles and thus will be consigned to the back of the list since social environments want specialization. Furthermore, you simply can't do what groups can do when alone. You feel limited by not having specialized. But some players like it this way. What they specialized in was being able to go out on-their-own and handle things with some skill. They're ok with being put at the back of the list in grouping environments. But the thing is, the vast majority of players are -not- ok with this. And this is what broke the camels back and led this to be discouraged.

Something happened somewhere in the design process in the Verant/SOE offices. I'm not even pulling a leg. Something happened. What I'm talking about here is all basic logic that we learn in grade school. My guess is they slowly picked away at ranger abilities and then they removed the experience penalty altogether. Why? Because they were bothered by this jack-of-all-trades thing. Players don't like it when they're good at solo but bad at grouping. And sony didn't want to overpower anyone. What this is really saying, when you look behind the curtain to see the wizard fumbling with the levers and ropes, is that players don't like to make hard choices. You can see this all throughout the development evolution of EQ from its beginning to its present day.

Newer games are finding different ways of coping with this. Perhaps what's needed is a way to temporarily make hard choices and then be able to revoke them and return to your previous state. Or maybe it's something deeper than just hard choices. Perhaps people who play jack-of-all-trades just like having lots of things to do??? When you specialize, you're doing one thing, right? Of course, nothing says that doing one thing has to be simple or boring, but that's most often what happens. Assuming that this is true then maybe we just need more detailed classes for these types of people so that they don't need to put themselves in compromised positions in order to feel occupied by their character. Then they don't have to be on the back of the list.

Disregarding everyting else, I think playing a ranger is funner than playing a warrior. The reason is you got more tools. This makes the game less boring. Warriors are too simple and it becomes a grind too fast. When a ranger is soloing, they get the chance to use their tools more often. In a group you're more about dps so it's actually more boring. However, groups offer a social aspect that you cannot get alone. And even a soloing ranger with all of his/her tools can get bored when grinding the same place repeatedly. This is because even with all of their tools, if you stay in the same place then you will eventually settle on the same kinds of tools being used.

I really think when they designed warriors they made them too simple. Even a rogue or a monk. A ranger can do close combat just like any of them. But a ranger can also root and snare and shoot and blast/dot and joust from a distance. A ranger can track. A ranger can invis. A ranger can sow (eventually). A ranger can bind wound and heal. A ranger gets bored slower than these purer classes, especially by themselves (ignoring social aspect).

I sometimes wonder what it would be like to play ALL classes in one. Now, there's something that would be slow to get boring! You'd have a lot of tools. You'd have a trick for every treat. Lots of things to learn.

I played a ragner for several years on live. Played a couple of em.