![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
yea those are too high yet but kobolds and bnb is fine
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#2
|
|||
|
In vanilla EQ rangers and warriors defense cap is pretty similar. With Etched Ivy & Thorny Vine the AC gap is even less.
Come Kunark Rangers have very nice weapons that proc slow (and as any raider in vanilla onward knows, if you can slow it you can tank it, ask any shammy / Enchanter). In other words the only people who say rangers can't tank are under-geared , dont know the game that well or using it as a segway into a joke that's just about as old as a Titantic (James Cameron) joke..and thus should be beaten with a sock full of hot nickles.
__________________
Brad's lying on a bunch of pillows in a back room pulling from a hookah pipe blowing out smoke rings and coming up with ideas for EQ and VG:
"Yeeahh. Dervish Camps. These Dervish people hang out in camps and then you come and kill them. For their rings. Yeah." | ||
|
Last edited by Thac0; 07-29-2010 at 10:59 AM..
|
|
||
|
#3
|
|||
|
Okay, since I've absorbed far too much info regarding EverQuest over the years....
In the first few months of EverQuest rangers (did it carry over in to Kunark? I don't remember)) had the EXACT same AC softcap as warriors (this I'm unsure of, but the next part I am sure of), and the EXACT same overcap returns. What this meant that as long as a warrior and ranger had the same AC they would see the same tanking ability (if you discounted skill differences). However, at some point before Kunark this got changed and rangers got their overcap return on AC dropped down to 1/3rd or more of the benefit that warriors see. It's at this point that the tired old "rangers suck," "realistic fetal position," etc. crap started popping up. Warriors were particularly vicious in this since they finally got their status as THE best tank solidified and a lot of rangers did die cause they tried tanking/soloing content that they used to be able to. But tank they still could. Whether a ranger tanks is all about your willingness to let him. They've solidly been the 4th tank of EverQuest it's entire history with only monks ever really challenging that. So stop projecting the same tired old jokes onto the rangers around you, and maybe the good ones will LFG instead of sticking to their friends who don't think they're a resurrection waiting to happen. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#4
|
||||
|
Quote:
Lets not forget that being a ranger is more than being a tank. Snaring, rooting, tracking, blasting, doting, healing, sowing, invising, bowing, dsing, taken together, make rangers equally valuable. Even on live I've saved people from dying simply by doing patch healing. Serious. I know for a fact that, at least on live, even our minimal healing could mean the difference between living and dying. That's just healing alone. I am not mentioning all of the other things we can do that people have always ignored because someone else can do it better. They forget that it's always nice to have more than 1 snarer. Redundancy means extra security. People who sacrifice security for speed do so at a risk. It's true that some classes and abilities stack better than others, but when you're in a zone where things can change in a heart beat, then having redundancy is that much more important. Even the best snarer can forget to snare too. You need to consider the entire class. People like to make things simpler than they really our. They can't comprehend all of our abilities and how they might help, it's too sporadic for them, that's why they keep things simple by obsessing about the trinity and only wanting people who specialize in one area.
__________________
Full-Time noob. Wipes your windows, joins your groups.
Raiding: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...&postcount=109 P1999 Class Popularity Chart: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=48 P1999 PvP Statistics: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=59 "Global chat is to conversation what pok books are to travel, but without sufficient population it doesn't matter." | |||
|
Last edited by stormlord; 07-31-2010 at 04:55 AM..
|
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
Your either a ranger....or your supporting a ranger. Take your pick.../grins evily
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
AC returns after the soft cap has been reached
45%: Warrior 33%: Paladin, ShadowKnight, Monk (Under weight cap) 23%: Cleric, Bard 17%: Ranger, Rogue, Shaman 6%: Druid, Enc, Mag, Nec, Wiz Shields ignore AC cap regardless of class. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#7
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
|
||||
|
Quote:
The ranger data is correct though. Your softcaps should be correct too. And for those asking what the hell the softcap and overcap return are: The AC softcap is the point where worn AC stops giving it's full bonus, and instead gives only a % bonus as dictated by the overcap returns. So a warrior with 350 worn AC (not displayed, worn is adding up all that AC on your gear) will actually only see 322.5 AC benefit. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#10
|
||||
|
Quote:
Go, go search powers, away! Edit: "The actual Post Softcap numbers based on the returns from the AoW calculations are (Quoted from Nodyin): War: 34.38% (Keep in mind they have a natural DI advantage) Knight: 32.25% Bard/Monk/Cleric/Ranger: 30.3% Beast/Rogue/Sham/Zerk: 25% Druids/Silks: 20%" That's all post-SoF, so I guess those are the cleric/bard numbers. On Live rangers are pretty godlike, but yea, they languished for a long time without a real niche which made most groups avoid them since the Holy Trinity was king in people's minds. | |||
|
Last edited by Melias; 07-30-2010 at 12:21 PM..
Reason: additional info
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|