How to fix rangers and warriors without losing the "classic" feel.

[Gustahn]

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

ERRR Wrong

Ranger at first.. talking 1999... were considered one of the tank classes and i know your gonna be suprised by this but umm, they Tank pretty damn good till Kunark.NOW kunark roles around and you got all these Ranger that are used to being main tank for groups, Getting creamed. Over night literally, Rangers went from being a MT to DPS w/ the best agro generators in game and not one way to deagro themselves

I see all this crap about how much DPS a ranger does in a group, Are you consedering the magic damage as well? have you even parsed a lvl 60 monk to a lvl 60 ranger? you maybe suprised. evenly geared, evenly leveled, A ranger who plays his or her class to its full potental can and does hold there own

ERRRR.... This is where reading comprehension comes into play when you reply.

You didnt respond nor read to a single point. Then proceeded to speak on points never stated. Heck all you really did in the first para was just state what i said in one sentence.

[Duie]

your point about rangers being designed as range classess in this era is simply not true sir

[Gustahn]

[QUOTE=Duie;316790]your point about rangers being designed as range classess in this era is simply not true sir[/QUOTE

In the sense of hybrid nature yes, not a full fledge stance.

They just didnt get it till vel/luc era when everyone got what they were suppose to have all along.

[greatdane]

I see all this crap about how much DPS a ranger does in a group, Are you consedering the magic damage as well? have you even parsed a lvl 60 monk to a lvl 60 ranger? you maybe suprised. evenly geared, evenly leveled, A ranger who plays his or her class to its full potental can and does hold there own

A monk still out-damages a ranger, all else being equal. Rogues as well, by a significant margin. It's a bit harder to gauge the caster classes because it can be so random and variable, but if they fix pet damage, I'm sure magicians and possibly even necros on longer fights will out-perform a ranger.

A ranger's DPS will be roughly equal to, or possibly slightly higher than, a warrior's. Only for as long as the ranger has mana, however, and even with clarity, you won't be able to keep up a steady flow of nuke/dot damage forever. If the group is chain pulling, you won't really have opportunity to med up. If the fight is long, you'll run out of mana before the end. Rangers are bad DPS compared to the other classes in that category. Woodsman's Staff will possibly bump a ranger's raw melee damage to the level of a warrior's, but if a warrior was to fill a DPS role, they'd have access to nearly-identical weapons anyway.

"Holding your own" is a matter of interpretation. A ranger can do his job reasonably if he doesn't suck, so in that sense, he can pull his weight well enough. If holding your own means performing as well as other classes in the category of whatever role you currently fill, the ranger doesn't, being the worst in every category it can possibly be squeezed into. Rangers do alright, but the group would pretty much always be stronger if the ranger had been another DPS or tank class (whichever they're tasked with doing). It's only if the group needs a DPS who can also root, snare, track and harmony that a ranger becomes a remotely appealing option. Needless to say, this practically never happens. If the mob flee mechanic worked like it should, rangers would be slightly more wanted, but not a whole lot considering how common snares and roots are.