most underpowered class in game?

[Heywood]

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

I don't agree with that part. Rangers are actually very good in PvP. In group situations, they can participate in a melee train just fine, even if they aren't necessarily optimal for it. All that matters in group PvP is having more swinging dicks in your melee train than the opponent does. In solo 1v1 world PvP, rangers have great tools available to them.

A ranger might not beat a warrior in a 1:1 mathematical joust, but if you make use of your ranged options, it's perfectly winnable. Same goes for any other melee matchup. You have access to viable two-handed weapons, and if you fall behind in the joust, you can resort to shooting and quick-casting spells between clashes. Ensnare is super good against pets as it lasts like fifteen minutes and largely removes a pet from the equation.

Against casters, you've got solid melee output as well as strong FR/CR buffs, and you have the ability to shoot someone from outside conventional spellcasting range. Nobody can really run from you. You can't stop somebody from gating, but you can't be fought in the manner that casters normally fight melees because you have the option of just standing two hundred units of range away and shooting the dude over and over for 50-100 damage a pop. Nobody can stand up to that very long.

Being one of three classes with SoW is super nice on a PvP server as well. In theory, anyone can just buy SoW potions; but in reality, you get dispelled so much in PvP that most people just make do with jboots. Having that extra 10% movement speed is a huge advantage. Your own SoW might get dispelled, but just the fact that you always have the buff at the start of a fight means you always have a mobility advantage or at least parity (against druids and shamans) while almost everyone you fight will only have jboots speed. This matters way more for a melee class than for casters.

And while your offensive spells aren't exactly amazing, you do have quick-casting nukes and near-unresistable DoTs. They don't hurt a lot, but they do damage, so you're not completely incapable of doing anything to someone you can't get to in melee the way warriors, rogues, monks and paladins are. Among the melee classes, only rangers and shadowknights have the ability to apply pressure from range. When someone levitates off of a cliff just to counter your melee attacks, you can still put Drones of Doom on him, spam your fast fire nukes, and shoot a bow. It'll land you some kills from time to time where other melee classes had no such options.

For overall PvP, meaning not specifically group PvP or focused fully on 1v1 duels, ranger is a great class. It's good enough to partake in a melee train and it has perfectly fine matchups against all classes in random world 1v1s. When jousting against tankier melee classes, just get some distance and heal yourself from time to time, or get off bowshots in-between jousting clashes. Against casters, the ability to self-buff +40 FR/CR is a pretty big thing that allows you to focus more on MR, and no caster class can do much against any melee opponent with high enough resists.

And while ranger heals aren't particularly big, just the ability to heal yourself up after every fight means you're never in that awful situations where you're down to 60% HP and have to sit around for fifteen minutes to regenerate, hoping nobody finds you. Any class without healing spells has to deal with that when not in a group. Ask a PvP warrior how much it sucks to do anything alone just because it takes absolutely forever to regain HP after every fight.

Can't take this post serious when you mention ranger nukes. Rangers don't nuke in PvP. I take it you're talking about duels on blue/green. Which isn't really PvP, but can't hold that against ya.

Rangers still the correct answer as the most UP class.

[Selene]

I was going to move past this thread until I checked back in to see my poor mage being slandered relentlessly!

I get a lot of the points that are being made about mages but this whole debate hinges on what's weighted as being more important. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I think naming mages as the most underpowered class of the game is very incorrect!

Solo-wise, they are very capable. Sure, camps with 3+ mobs are probably off limits unless they're weak, but a mage can take 2 mobs with an earth pet pretty consistently. They can do dungeons solo in some circumstances (but then again, which class besides enchanter can reliably do all the dungeons in the game solo?) Unlike a wizard, a mage can actually do dungeons. And don't get me started about farming.

Grouping wise, the argument for necro over mage is completely predicated on the composition of the group. In the vast majority of grouping experiences, there is a cleric and there is an enchanter or bard, or at least someone who can root (even if it;s just the cleric). and in 95% of the cases, that's all you need - the extra utility of a necro, like the argument about druid/rangers' abilities being overshadowed by other classes that can do the same in the group, is usually nullified. I'd take a mage's DPS over the situational utility of a necro (if it is needed in the first place) any day.

A mage's DPS in a group is not to be trifled with. Imo only a rogue can compare --- their pets hit harder on an average hit than a rogue, a 33 point damage shield adds up a lot, plus mana free nukes from the chardok staff (333 dmg) or velks boots (600 damage) - and that's not even considering the 1k nuke we can drop to help burn down a mob. Given that the vast majority of groups is about grinding through mobs mindlessly, a mage is head and shoulders preferable to a necro in most groups. And if it isn't one of those xp grinding groups - but instead a loot camp involving a tough named - well, in most cases the group is pre-configured with a cleric and a CC (usually enchanter). Given the elite DPS class of a mage, they belong there over a necro, too.

Mage roles in raids are lame, but it is a critical one. Given how boring raids are with autoattack and heals being the crux of it, who cares if it is lame? simply being critical with a spell or two is enough for me, personally

I think people get too hung about mages being weaker than the other casters, especially with no CC (and I grant that they are - certainly weaker than enchanter, necro, shaman, and in some cases even druid) - but they are a specialized class that specializes in dealing sustained DPS in a manner only rivaled by a well geared rogue or monk.

as for utility, you can't discount malo just because shamans get it too - only 2 classes get this line of spells, and it is so useful for any other spellcaster in the group who needs resists lowered when there is no shaman (which happens frequently enough)

[PlsNoBan]

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

I was going to move past this thread until I checked back in to see my poor mage being slandered relentlessly!

I get a lot of the points that are being made about mages but this whole debate hinges on what's weighted as being more important. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I think naming mages as the most underpowered class of the game is very incorrect!

Solo-wise, they are very capable. Sure, camps with 3+ mobs are probably off limits unless they're weak, but a mage can take 2 mobs with an earth pet pretty consistently. They can do dungeons solo in some circumstances (but then again, which class besides enchanter can reliably do all the dungeons in the game solo?) Unlike a wizard, a mage can actually do dungeons. And don't get me started about farming.

Grouping wise, the argument for necro over mage is completely predicated on the composition of the group. In the vast majority of grouping experiences, there is a cleric and there is an enchanter or bard, or at least someone who can root (even if it;s just the cleric). and in 95% of the cases, that's all you need - the extra utility of a necro, like the argument about druid/rangers' abilities being overshadowed by other classes that can do the same in the group, is usually nullified. I'd take a mage's DPS over the situational utility of a necro (if it is needed in the first place) any day.

A mage's DPS in a group is not to be trifled with. Imo only a rogue can compare --- their pets hit harder on an average hit than a rogue, a 33 point damage shield adds up a lot, plus mana free nukes from the chardok staff (333 dmg) or velks boots (600 damage) - and that's not even considering the 1k nuke we can drop to help burn down a mob. Given that the vast majority of groups is about grinding through mobs mindlessly, a mage is head and shoulders preferable to a necro in most groups. And if it isn't one of those xp grinding groups - but instead a loot camp involving a tough named - well, in most cases the group is pre-configured with a cleric and a CC (usually enchanter). Given the elite DPS class of a mage, they belong there over a necro, too.

Mage roles in raids are lame, but it is a critical one. Given how boring raids are with autoattack and heals being the crux of it, who cares if it is lame? simply being critical with a spell or two is enough for me, personally

I think people get too hung about mages being weaker than the other casters, especially with no CC (and I grant that they are - certainly weaker than enchanter, necro, shaman, and in some cases even druid) - but they are a specialized class that specializes in dealing sustained DPS in a manner only rivaled by a well geared rogue or monk.

as for utility, you can't discount malo just because shamans get it too - only 2 classes get this line of spells, and it is so useful for any other spellcaster in the group who needs resists lowered when there is no shaman (which happens frequently enough)

Agree with all of this. I'm not even a mage and have no particular love for the class. There's some people with seriously clouded judgment and/or mage hate around here. Mage is a super good group class. Decent solo'er and fills an important (maybe boring) role in raids. Underpowered is crazy talk.

[Dolalin]

In the vanilla era, warrior rogue and enchanter were seen as the most underpowered. Rogue especially.

That changed by velious of course.

So I think it really depends a lot on the era the server is in tbh.

[PatChapp]

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

In the vanilla era, warrior rogue and enchanter were seen as the most underpowered. Rogue especially.

That changed by velious of course.

So I think it really depends a lot on the era the server is in tbh.

I don't know who you were comparing to but enchanters were just as overpowered in classic as they are in kunark and velious.
They can solo any named mob non raid mob in kedge/sol b/guk
Only necros even come close.

Warriors and rogues are pretty weak in classic

[Dolalin]

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

I don't know who you were comparing to but enchanters were just as overpowered in classic as they are in kunark and velious.
They can solo any named mob non raid mob in kedge/sol b/guk
Only necros even come close.

Warriors and rogues are pretty weak in classic

People didn't charm much back in 99, for many reasons but especially network lag and low framerates.

Without charm, an enchanter is reduced to pet soloing which is what most did, and it resulted in a "weak" perception of the class, as it was seen as very group dependent.

[Philistine]

How are Rangers getting so many votes?!

They can: solo, sorts. Face tanking with the help of toys or fear kiting animals.

Group: I feel like this is where they shine. Awesome agro and just enough tankiness to tank, solid DPS until about 60 when triple attack and raid weapons leave them behind, snare + root for CC of non-caster and caster mobs alike, spot heals in emergencies, awesome pullers, especially (but not limited to) outdoors.

Raid: OK dps, COTP, SON, COE buffs, and the ability to keep a mob/boss from murdering a ton of DPS if the MT goes down.

Rangers are an awesome class IMHO, and far far away from underpowered

[bomaroast]

Only a ranger would say that rangers have "just enough tankiness to tank." Unfortunately they don't, and anyone who plays a healer can attest to it. Healing a ranger is about like healing a shaman with regards to tankiness.

[Philistine]

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

Only a ranger would say that rangers have "just enough tankiness to tank." Unfortunately they don't, and anyone who plays a healer can attest to it. Healing a ranger is about like healing a shaman.

You have correctly identified me as a ranger, lol.

I tanked all the waytill 60 though, so I'm going to trust my own experience [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[PlsNoBan]

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

Only a ranger would say that rangers have "just enough tankiness to tank." Unfortunately they don't, and anyone who plays a healer can attest to it. Healing a ranger is about like healing a shaman with regards to tankiness.

I've healed ranger tanks plenty of times and I disagree. They tank just fine in groups. I spend waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more mana with warrior tanks that can't hold aggro for shit trying to heal 4 people all the time vs just keeping the ranger (that never loses aggro) up. It's not even close.