Why rangers don't suck

[Malrubius]

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

They can tank AND gate!?
Nerf...

Their gate ability was already nerfed...

They can gate, but not with their equipment.

[sbvera13]

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

All the utility a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All of the dps a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.
All the tanking a Ranger can do, other classes can do better.

But only the Ranger can do all of this at the same time. This leaves your druids/bards/enchanters/shaman/etc more free time to dps, debuff, and generally make the group kill faster and with less downtime. Given this, 40% split 6 ways, aka 5%, is not a loss at all but will be a net gain.

If your rangers don't do this, they suck, and go ahead and kick em to the curb. But don't blame the class and assume that we all are a drain.

I wouldn't say we're shunned really; 90% of the bad things said about our class are in jest

I'm rerolling SK because I hit 22 and can't get groups anymore. It's a real problem, not a jest.

[Kender]

Originally Posted by sbvera13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But only the Ranger can do all of this at the same time. This leaves your druids/bards/enchanters/shaman/etc more free time to dps, debuff, and generally make the group kill faster and with less downtime.

i lol'd

[Hamahakki]

The main strike against rangers is that any group which wants a role filled is not going to want a ranger:

- A group which needs a tank wants a warrior, or at least a paladin or shadowknight.
- A group which wants more dps wants a rogue, or at least a monk.
- A group which wants crowd control wants an enchanter, or at least a bard.

A ranger can perform any of these roles passably. The "rangers are utterly useless and cannot do anything" crowd is way off-base, but it is true that the "perfect" group doesn't have a ranger in it.

In 90% of my pre-50 groups, I was the tank because tank classes are so under-played at lower levels and because rangers are very good at holding aggro. At 55, mobs hit hard enough that durability is more of a problem. I still tank once in a while, especially if the group has both a shaman and cleric. Usually I just DPS, though often I will pull or CC as well. Rarely, I will even be in a group where most of my mana goes to healing.

Rangers aren't horrible; if exp penalties didn't exist, I don't think there would be much ranger hate.

In this ranger's opinion, the most important perks are:

- Tracking! (This is #1)
- You offer a lot to small groups (duo/trio) where versatility is more important.
- Soloing as a ranger is much more pleasant than as a rogue, monk, or warrior.
- Since we have decent DPS, we are never completely redundant. A ranger is more useful to a raid than say a third shaman.
- You can sow/chloro/strength/skin/thorns yourself, or lowbies, or anyone in a group without these buffs.
- There are few other rangers so you get most ranger-only loot uncontested.
- The rangers you do see share a secret ranger bond.
- Rangers have more fun than anyone else.

[Grizzin]

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

The main strike against rangers is that any group which wants a role filled is not going to want a ranger:

- A group which needs a tank wants a warrior, or at least a paladin or shadowknight.
- A group which wants more dps wants a rogue, or at least a monk.
- A group which wants crowd control wants an enchanter, or at least a bard.

A ranger can perform any of these roles passably. The "rangers are utterly useless and cannot do anything" crowd is way off-base, but it is true that the "perfect" group doesn't have a ranger in it.

In 90% of my pre-50 groups, I was the tank because tank classes are so under-played at lower levels and because rangers are very good at holding aggro. At 55, mobs hit hard enough that durability is more of a problem. I still tank once in a while, especially if the group has both a shaman and cleric. Usually I just DPS, though often I will pull or CC as well. Rarely, I will even be in a group where most of my mana goes to healing.

Rangers aren't horrible; if exp penalties didn't exist, I don't think there would be much ranger hate.

In this ranger's opinion, the most important perks are:

- Tracking! (This is #1)
- You offer a lot to small groups (duo/trio) where versatility is more important.
- Soloing as a ranger is much more pleasant than as a rogue, monk, or warrior.
- Since we have decent DPS, we are never completely redundant. A ranger is more useful to a raid than say a third shaman.
- You can sow/chloro/strength/skin/thorns yourself, or lowbies, or anyone in a group without these buffs.
- There are few other rangers so you get most ranger-only loot uncontested.
- The rangers you do see share a secret ranger bond.
- Rangers have more fun than anyone else.

Well put. My thoughts exactly. Honestly, in some sick twisted way, I prefer the exp penalty, because if we didn't have one, my precious class may become overplayed. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I enjoy the fact that there are now, and always was even back on Live circa 1999, fewer Rangers running around than just about any other class out there. It does bring about that secret Ranger bond you mentioned.

Albeit, it may have taken me longer to get a group back then than other classes, but it was far from the impossible thing some people are trying to say it is. I'm still currently leveling on P1999, but I don't expect to ever encounter a time where a group is looking for something other than a Healer/Tank/CC, and literally tells me that I can't join their group simply because I am a Ranger. I don't remember that ever happening even back in classic EQ, where there was a population big enough to possibly even warrant such a thing. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I played a Ranger on Live from what some have dubbed the 'bad times' in classic all the way through around Omens of War, and I loved every second of it. Call me a masochist. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lazortag]

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

...
- A group which wants crowd control wants an enchanter, or at least a bard.
...

I resent the suggestion that a Bard is somehow inferior to an Enchanter. I know for a fact that I contribute more to a group than any Enchanter. In fact I would go as far to say that I contribute more to a group than anyone of any class. The ideal group is a group consisting of me and 5 clones of me.

[sbvera13]

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

- Rangers have more fun than anyone else.

'struth

[Flunklesnarkin]

rangers suck because they don't use arrows.. none that i have grouped with D:

[sbvera13]

All I want is to be able to get in groups, and actually, like, you know, play the game. What a thought.

That's what the exp penalty is taking away, because of the widespread hate and min maxxers. The ability to actually log in and expect to be able to do something.

[Rooj]

I can't say that I've come across any situations where I wasn't invited to a group because of my EXP penalty. I'm beginning to think these min/maxers don't even exist.