Why Rangers Don't Suck
JackiePrice
Ranger whiners shut up. I play a ranger as my secondary, and my secondary
is higher level than Dennis' primary, but besides that I have ranger
guildmates at 51 already, and have done a lot of research and put a lot of
thought into this, so listen up.
First of all, reasons why rangers are great:
#1. Rangers do more damage than Warriors.
Yes, they do. Spells make a big damage difference. Over the course of the
average fight, at level 50, slightly higher offensive skill caps and a
higher kick cap, and criticals, will likely do as much extra damage as one
"Stinging Swarm" spell can make up for (about 120 damage). They also solo
far better than warriors, and their spells bring more to a group offensively
and utility wise. (Note I am not saying rangers are BETTER than warriors,
just that we can outdamage them.)
#2. Rangers do FAR more damage than Paladins. There is no comparison here.
With weapons that are the same difficulty to obtain, a ranger will almost
double a paladin in damage over the course of an average fight, even with
the new changes to 2h damage. Paladins have some other advantages, but
when it comes to damage, rangers own them.
#3. Rangers slightly outdamage Shadowknights. Due to offensive spells of
the SK, the difference is less pronounced than against the paladin, but
melee wise rangers outdamage them as badly as they do Paladins.
#4. Rangers can tank, and can tank well. They are NOT warriors. They do
not absorb damage quite as efficiently or absorb as much of it, but in
pre-expansion Norrath there is NOWHERE, not dragons, not planes, not
dungeons, where a Ranger is not a viable tank. Yes, you'll heal them
slightly more often than you would a warrior. And yes, Paladins or
Shadowknights are minutely better with an insignificantly higher AC and HP
than a ranger. But rangers can tank anywhere, anytime. Take it from
rangers who do it.
#5. Rangers are incredibly fun. With some of the best, easiest to obtain
equipment in the game, and some of the most interesting, fun, and reasonably
easy to do quests, rangers are great fun. Even our planar equipment is
mostly trivially easy to get in comparison to other classes. Not a lot of
long camps for rangers.
#6. Rangers solo, the best of all melee classes.
#7. Kunark was built for rangers. Tracking is almost necessary. SoW is in
use constantly. Equipment dropped for rangers in Kunark is the best damn
stuff I have ever seen. We have the best 2h slashing found yet in the game,
and it aint that hard to camp...Ykeshas are harder to get in Guk. If we
use a 1hs and easy to obtain Swordbreaker, better than a briarzephyr, our AC
suddenly catches up to that of a paladin or SK.
#8. Archery. Anybody who doesn't understand the value of archery is either
willfully ignorant, totally inexperienced with it, or a total moron. Prior
to expansion, level 50 Shadowknights, with low 75 archery caps, if they took
up archery late in the game, wished they'd done so earlier. They love
it...we take it for granted because we've been doing it well since character
creation. Rangers of all classes can make the best use of this incredibly
useful skill.
#9. Style. Rangers have everybody else beat hands down.
#10. Versatility. There is nothing we can't do decently. Hell, by level
50 a ranger can nuke well, and it gets better through expansion. We are
not the best at anything, but you don't need to be. A person who is the
best at one or two things and who sucks at everything else, is inferior to
someone who is good at everything.
Invalid arguments why ranger's suck:
#1. Experience penalty. Who gives a fuck? The experience penalties mean
nothing anyway. In a group you advance as fast as anybody else in your
group. By the time you hit your high 40's you don't care at all anymore.
The experience penalty doesn't make sense...if all classes are balanced at
any one level, they should all advance at the same rate, but it really makes
no difference in the long run.
#2. We can't tank. This is bullshit. We can tank. The fact that one
class does it better and 2 other classes are marginally better is
irrelevant.
#3. 2h damage was increased. So what, 1h is still better with maxed dual
weild skill and weapons of equivalent difficulty to get. Not to mention
that rangers now have the best 2 hander found anywhere in the game so far,
and compared to the far inferior Firey Avenger, its trivially easy to get.
(Paladins, don't get your shorts in a knot, you are not supposed to do
damage as well as rangers.) On that note, there is the related complaint:
#4. Giving rangers a great 2h weapon sucks...we are supposed to dual weild!
This is a garbage argument too. Aragorn did not dual weild. Rangers CAN
dual weild. If they have a compelling reason to, they will use a 2
hander...versatility is the name of the game folks. Giving us a great 2
handed weapon is a great idea...no smart ranger will throw away his 1
handers if he gets a swarmcaller, but being able to switch to whichever is
better at any one time is an advantage. It also cements our position as
the best soloing melee class in the game.
#5. Our defensive skills are capped at level 40! Yes, they are, for now.
I think this is a slight imbalance, and eventually verant will modify it
slightly. That being said, we can still tank well at 51. I hear a level 52
ranger was easily soloing Nox, as well as bats and LDC's in Sol B yesterday.
We can still tank.
#6. We don't have a unique skill! Big deal. Guess what...wizards don't
have a unique skill...half the classes in the game can nuke, and druids can
teleport. For that matter, druids don't have a unique skill. DOTs, SOW,
Teleports, Nukes, Damage Shields, they are all shared abilities of other
classes. Its the combination of them that is unique, and only an idiot
complains about druids being underpowered. The same can be said for other
classes. Lay Hands is not unique...its an inferior version of a cleric's
healing ability. Harm Touch is not unique, its an inferior version of an up
close nuke. Hell, an enchanter's mesmerize is not unique, its more
effective, true, but bards and necromancers can also mesmerize to a limited
degree. Nothing is really unique. It's the combination of abilities
together that makes a class unique.
When all is said and done rangers are balanced decently well. We have a lot
of advantages over other classes, and some disadvantages as well. Is there
a little tunining to do here and there? Definitely...the same can be said
for all classes (The current implementation of melee only Disciplines is a
joke, for instance.) It doesn't make rangers too weak or unviable.
Matt N
and i can do anything with him. i can heal the second best in the game, i
nuke second best in the game i can stop creatures in there tracks and i can
fight if i have to. + i get wolfform later on which i dont believe anyone
else gets. it is much better to be good at different things to to have one
big thing you can do!
Tyfin
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:FZYN4.82932$2D6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
macad
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|
|Ranger whiners shut up. I play a ranger as my secondary, and my secondary
|is higher level than Dennis' primary, but besides that I have ranger
|guildmates at 51 already, and have done a lot of research and put a lot of
|thought into this, so listen up.
And you're wrong about all of it.
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
dre
>Even our planar equipment is mostly trivially easy to get in comparison to other classes.
This I do not agree with though. It has been my experience that TTs
are not as abundant as other fear plane monsters (phobos are lotto and
aren't considered in this).
I'd say that on a sliding scale in comparison to other classes it is
slightly harder to get. I'd say that it isn't the toughest however.
JackiePrice
You'd have some credibility saying that if you gained another 20 levels...
JackiePrice
among the first few things you end up fighting.
"dre" <to...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3908a53f...@news.se.mediaone.net...
> Great post.
>
> >Even our planar equipment is mostly trivially easy to get in comparison
to other classes.
>
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|> And you're wrong about all of it.
|
|You'd have some credibility saying that if you gained another 20 levels...
I don't have to testify from personal experience to note that you are
nearly 100% alone on virtually all of your opinions.
JackiePrice
posted responses agree with most, if not all of what I said.
"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:d4chgskjrba0s2h5p...@4ax.com...
guess away
your assertion about soloing. A monk will spank a ranger ten times out
of ten for soloing ability. A monk will get hit less, and do more
damage than a ranger, and can bind wounds and mend. Find me a ranger
who can break and keep the mino elder room at 50 by himself, and we
might have a good debate to start, otherwise, monk are the kings of
soling for the melee classes.
guess away
>|is higher level than Dennis' primary, but besides that I have ranger
>|guildmates at 51 already, and have done a lot of research and put a lot of
>|thought into this, so listen up.
>
Nah, that's just you, Dennis. Rangers are a great class. Very
versatile, and fun to play, and they can add things to a group in
addition to being able to solo decently.
JackiePrice
"guess away" <n...@here.org> wrote in message
news:3909b7ef...@news.uswest.net...
Rollin Severance
done.
JackiePrice wrote in message ...
John Hua
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:d4chgskjrba0s2h5p...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:15:19 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
> |
levels...
>
> I don't have to testify from personal experience to note that you are
> nearly 100% alone on virtually all of your opinions.
>
I agree with her.
John
guess away
will have killed 5-10 mobs by the time you fonish bowkiting that
giant, and have gotten much much more xp. :)
>Indoors, maybe. Find me a monk who can take a hill giant at 35...
>
Allan Kolenovsky
ranger of 42 seasons, i can tell you that as a class we truly are versatile.....in the right setting and with
the right people. Outdoors and paired with a necro or a druid, there is very little we can't take down QUICKLY,
and do it with a high degree of safety. Indoors however, we are hampered a great deal, not simply by a lack of
certain spells, but also by the ATTITUDES of other players. I can't tell you how many groups i've been in in
places like LGuk, where the people there (most notably the casters) expect the rangers to not only be the
pullers, but also mainline tanks alongside the other tanks, AND supply them with the occasional buff like "Feet
Like Cat".
Many of you folks talk about our spells as some great bonanza for which our radically lower caps in
skills, hp, ac, as well as the humongous xp penalty we suffer, are some kind of equalizer. Please let me
refresh your memories regarding the effects of many of these spells. A great deal of them are buffs with which
we can augment our ac or hp. In essence we have through our spells, temporary means by which we can achieve
what the other tank classes have PERMANENTLY. When we are drained of the mana we require to cast these spells,
and are not allowed to recover mana, we in essence become THIRD rate tanks unable to effectively contribute to
a serious melee without getting splattered all over the landscape. This DOES happen a lot, due to the
insistance that we serve all the aforementioned functions and are given little or NO time to recover our mana.
It GALLS me to hear people, especially those who play casters, come onto this newsgroup, scream that we
should not be complaining about our ability to defend our selves because we are not supposed to be tanks, and
yet they are the first to push us up to the front lines, often devoid of mana, to serve as meat shields for
their scrawny butts. The hypocracy stinks to High Heaven.
I love my class. With only minor changes and improvements to archery and tracking it could be an almost
perfect class. It is NOT, however, a class which under Verant's zest to "improve" the game, has become one
which serves a UNIVERSAL tanking function. Perhaps this means that there ARE certain zones which will have
fewer rangers, as people begin to realize that other classes can serve better in the straight tanking role. The
ranger, as a class, is rapidly becoming one which is much more suited to soloing or teaming with a caster such
as a necro or a druid. I can accept this, as long as other players realize this and accept it as well. As long
as there are zones where we CAN funtion to our best ability, and other players who DO recognize our strengths
and try to work with them, then I think I can continue to enjoy my character. If others do NOT change their
attitudes about us, however, we can only expect our misery to get worse as we enter the 50-60 range and find
that there is NO WAY we can even THINK about tanking anymore.
Allan Kolenovsky (alias Eraden Soulforger, ranger of 42 seasons on Fennin Ro)
Dark Tyger
wrote:
>> And you're wrong about all of it.
>
>You'd have some credibility saying that if you gained another 20 levels...
>
It'd probably also help if he'd give some support to his statement.
Right now, it's only coming across as "You're wrong and I'm right, so
there!".
--
Change "Tyger" to "half" to email me.
=^..^=
"If you should die before me, ask if you could bring a friend."
- Stone Temple Pilots
A place between time and space, everywhere and nowhere
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/psychic/876/den.html
Friendly staff, beautiful gaming/chat environment. Check it out!
Dark Tyger
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:15:19 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
>|> And you're wrong about all of it.
>|
>|You'd have some credibility saying that if you gained another 20 levels...
>
> I don't have to testify from personal experience to note that you are
>nearly 100% alone on virtually all of your opinions.
Although I've never personally played a Ranger, I've seen them played
enough to know that Jackie makes some good points.
dre
If I were to check out after the TTs though, I wouldn't expect to get
invited back except for when my (hypothetical, since I'm not in a)
guild has the planes booked, on a guild only hunt.
Takes even longer to get the armor when you aren't going there
consistently.
Billy Shields
: On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:15:19 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
: |> And you're wrong about all of it.
: |
: |You'd have some credibility saying that if you gained another 20 levels...
: I don't have to testify from personal experience to note that you are
: nearly 100% alone on virtually all of your opinions.
Then you're selectively blocking out those who don't agree with you
(and there are a lot of them).
The ranger *class* (up to level 50 at least) is not broken. Beyond
that their defense cap *might* be a problem but that hasn't been
proven yet (one way or the other). Some also whine about the doge,
parry and riposte caps but those only have a marginal effect on
tanking ability anyway. Will 200 dodge vs 230 dodge make a
substantial difference? Since dodge itself only accounts for a
couple of percent difference I doubt it.
What is broken however are the hybrid exp penalties. The hybrids
already get worse weapons, armour and skills. For this they get
a few spells. Why they need an exp penalty on top of this is
completely beyond me.
Classes should be balanced in terms of relative effectiveness.
Experience should NEVER be used as a balancing factor. Would
you pick a class that sucked at 50 just so you can get their
faster? I know I wouldn't and I know many others wouldn't
either. Balance the abilities--not the time required to get
there.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|It'd probably also help if he'd give some support to his statement.
Go to the onelist site, download the logs from EQRangers, and read them.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Then you're selectively blocking out those who don't agree with you
|(and there are a lot of them).
No, I'm not, and no, they're aren't. Not in comparison with the number of
people who do.
|The ranger *class* (up to level 50 at least) is not broken. Beyond
It's broken in the sense that we don't bring anything to groups past about
L20.
|What is broken however are the hybrid exp penalties. The hybrids
Yes, and they're not going to fix it.
Dark Tyger
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 23:37:59 GMT, dark...@mindspring.com (Dark Tyger) wrote:
>
>|It'd probably also help if he'd give some support to his statement.
>
> Go to the onelist site, download the logs from EQRangers, and read them.
Nope, sorry. It's your argument, you do the work. Plus, use personal
experience or your arguments will be (by me, anyway) discounted as
invalid rantings of a sheep who lets others tell him how to think.
Sam Schlansky
<FZYN4.82932$2D6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>Ranger whiners shut up.
LOL. This is gonna be fun.
>I play a ranger as my secondary, and my
>secondary is higher level than Dennis' primary, but besides that I
>have ranger guildmates at 51 already, and have done a lot of
>research and put a lot of thought into this, so listen up.
OK. I'll take it seriously.
>First of all, reasons why rangers are great:
>
>#1. Rangers do more damage than Warriors.
>Yes, they do. Spells make a big damage difference. Over the
>course of the average fight, at level 50, slightly higher
>offensive skill caps and a higher kick cap, and criticals, will
>likely do as much extra damage as one "Stinging Swarm" spell can
>make up for (about 120 damage).
In the <50 game, without using spells rangers do slightly less damage
than warriors. That's a proven fact. But, they're pretty darn
close... within 5-10% at the most.
If rangers use spells, we can win a KS battle with a warrior every
time. Of course, you've got to remember our offensive spells are only
of use when soloing which is pretty much impossible to do
effectively.
>They also solo far better than warriors,
Yes, and we solo better than rogues too. So what?
None of us can effectively solo, it's like saying that enchanters
melee better than wizards because they get a bigger damageshield.
>and their spells bring more to a group offensively
Ranger offensive spells are worthless in a grouping situation;
they're only useful when soloing. Our mana is best kept for snaring
every monster and topping off heals between pulls. If you played a
high level ranger you would know this.
>and utility wise. (Note I am not saying rangers are BETTER than
>warriors, just that we can outdamage them.)
Rangers have three useful utility spells; snare, SoW, and enduring
breath, period.
Like I already said, we can't outdamage warriors in melee, only when
using spells, which are inefficient in a group.
>#2. Rangers do FAR more damage than Paladins. There is no
>comparison here. With weapons that are the same difficulty to
>obtain, a ranger will almost double a paladin in damage over the
>course of an average fight, even with the new changes to 2h
>damage. Paladins have some other advantages, but when it comes
>to damage, rangers own them.
Heh. No, not almost double.
In the <46 game, rangers end up doing around 40% more damage with
commonly available weapons (dual yaks+sash versus a mithril 2hander).
In the >46 game, rangers do 60% more damage than paladins with
commonly available weapons (whip+fluxbladed axe versus a mithril
2hander).
In the 50 uberguild game, rangers hit between 60% and 80% more damage
than paladins. (spined dragon claws+briarzephyr/cof/rbb versus,
umm.... a mithril 2hander)
Actually SDC+BZ/COF versus a skarlon/cof is much closer though; the
ranger only wins by 40%.
And, of course, SDC+BZ/COF versus Sprinkler/COF is closer yet... the
ranger only wins by maybe 25%.
In the 51-60 game, who knows, honestly. Some AMAZING weapons are out
there now that are relatively easy to get, like the Polyphenomenal
Axe (37/48), Throneblade of the Ykesha (33/51, procs ykesha), Jade-
Inlaid Axe (32/40), etc.
From what I've seen of the skill caps in the expansion, paladins cap
at 200 offense and rangers cap at 200 defense. This makes paladins
the worst damage-doers of all the tank classes, and rangers by far
the worst damage-takers.
Honestly, defense is one HELL of a lot more important than offense; a
60 rogue wearing banded will have a higher base armorclass than a 60
ranger in full thorny vine.
Both paladins and rangers are screwed with the expansion skillcaps.
Only shadowknights made off well, with higher caps in both offense
AND defense.
But if I had to pick between 200 offense and 200 defense, I'd choose
200 defense every time... and so would everybody else who has
crunched the numbers.
>#3. Rangers slightly outdamage Shadowknights. Due to offensive
>spells of the SK, the difference is less pronounced than against
>the paladin,
The spells don't matter.
>but melee wise rangers outdamage them as badly as they do Paladins.
Heh. No way, man.
There are some VERY nice shadowknight-usable 2HS weapons in the <50
game. What you're saying just isn't true.
Sure, rangers still outdamage shadowknights in melee <50... but not
nearly as bad as paladins. Oh, and in the >50 game, shadowknights
will do the most damage of the hybrids by far... not even close. And
they'll be able to tank too.
>#4. Rangers can tank, and can tank well. They are NOT warriors.
>They do not absorb damage quite as efficiently or absorb as much
>of it, but in pre-expansion Norrath there is NOWHERE, not dragons,
>not planes, not dungeons, where a Ranger is not a viable tank.
>Yes, you'll heal them slightly more often than you would a
>warrior. And yes, Paladins or Shadowknights are minutely better
>with an insignificantly higher AC and HP than a ranger. But
>rangers can tank anywhere, anytime. Take it from rangers who do
>it.
Wrong. Flat-out wrong. If you need more explanation I'll go into it,
but I'm sure someone else will do the full thing for you.
>#5. Rangers are incredibly fun. With some of the best, easiest
>to obtain equipment in the game, and some of the most interesting,
>fun, and reasonably easy to do quests, rangers are great fun.
Up to level 35, I'd have to agree with you. After that, we're weak as
hell.
>Even our planar equipment is mostly trivially easy to get in
>comparison to other classes. Not a lot of long camps for rangers.
Umm, the planar equipment is, yes, since Fear was retuned... but not
the rest of it. It's just as hard for us to get a (absolutely
NECESSARY) sash as it is for all the other classes.
>#6. Rangers solo, the best of all melee classes.
Enchanters melee, the best of all pure caster classes.
>#7. Kunark was built for rangers. Tracking is almost necessary.
Tracking is absolutely worthless. If you actually played a ranger you
would know this.
>SoW is in use constantly.
SoW is in use constantly everywhere else, too.
>Equipment dropped for rangers in Kunark
>is the best damn stuff I have ever seen. We have the best 2h
>slashing found yet in the game, and it aint that hard to
>camp...Ykeshas are harder to get in Guk. If we use a 1hs and
>easy to obtain Swordbreaker, better than a briarzephyr, our AC
>suddenly catches up to that of a paladin or SK.
Yes, swarmcaller kicks some major ass... but does that one item fix
the entire class?
Oh, and a 10AC sword doesn't make up for 50 defense skill, my friend.
It would have to be a 70AC sword.
>#8. Archery. Anybody who doesn't understand the value of archery
>is either willfully ignorant, totally inexperienced with it, or a
>total moron. Prior to expansion, level 50 Shadowknights, with low
>75 archery caps, if they took up archery late in the game, wished
>they'd done so earlier. They love it...we take it for granted
>because we've been doing it well since character creation.
>Rangers of all classes can make the best use of this incredibly
>useful skill.
Umm? You're being sarcastic, right? Archery is only useful for
pulling, everybody knows that.
If you aren't being sarcastic here, you're a total imbecile. I mean,
really.
>#9. Style. Rangers have everybody else beat hands down.
Two words: Troll Shadowknights.
Big n' ugly. Love em.
>#10. Versatility. There is nothing we can't do decently. Hell,
>by level 50 a ranger can nuke well,
... on low greens
>and it gets better through expansion.
You're right, I never thought of that! We're wizards now! Who needs
to melee, we can manadump and med!
>We are not the best at anything, but you don't need
>to be. A person who is the best at one or two things and who
>sucks at everything else, is inferior to someone who is good at
>everything.
You're absolutely wrong, at a very deep level. In Everquest,
versatility means power for CASTERS. That's why enchanters,
necromancers, druids, and shamen are so good.
That just doesn't hold for melee characters. Melee characters need to
do two things; do damage and absorb damage.
In the <50 game, rangers were pretty good at doing damage and pretty
bad at absorbing it.
In the >50 game, rangers are going to be mediocre at doing damage and
absolutely terrible at absorbing it.
And that's why we're broken.
>Invalid arguments why ranger's suck:
>
>#1. Experience penalty. Who gives a fuck?
Well... it's kind of a slap in the face, really. Why should a
halfling druid require so much less experience than my wood elf
ranger? Are halfling druids so much less powerful than wood elf
rangers? Are they harder to play? Are they less flexible?
That's why we care... it isn't that the penalty ITSELF makes such a
huge difference (except for troll shadowknights, of course) it's more
like we feel like we've been done wrong.
>The experience
>penalties mean nothing anyway. In a group you advance as fast as
>anybody else in your group.
This is wrong. Create a level 1 troll shadowknight and group with a
friend's newly created level 1 halfling druid. Stay grouped until the
druid hits level three, then both of you check how much experience
you have.
It's really trivial to disprove that. Hybrids do NOT take more XP
from a group, and they DO level slower, even when grouped.
>By the time you hit your high 40's
>you don't care at all anymore. The experience penalty doesn't make
>sense...if all classes are balanced at any one level, they should
>all advance at the same rate, but it really makes no difference in
>the long run.
I agree, actually. It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make a big
difference in the long run... the problem is that it *IS* unfair and
silly.
>#2. We can't tank. This is bullshit. We can tank. The fact
>that one class does it better and 2 other classes are marginally
>better is irrelevant.
In the <50 game I'd agree. We're decent before kunark.
>#3. 2h damage was increased. So what, 1h is still better with
>maxed dual weild skill and weapons of equivalent difficulty to
>get. Not to mention that rangers now have the best 2 hander found
>anywhere in the game so far, and compared to the far inferior
>Firey Avenger, its trivially easy to get. (Paladins, don't get
>your shorts in a knot, you are not supposed to do damage as well
>as rangers.) On that note, there is the related complaint:
Umm, we have the best 2-hander in the game? Oh wait... I know what
you're talking about, the 31/35 Woodsman's Staff. You know what that
is? It's a JOKE.
Rangers get the 2HB skill, right? Well, guess what... there are no
weapons we can use to raise the skill. Before Kunark, there were two
2HB weapons we could use in the ENTIRE GAME: a shovel (4/27) and the
magicians' summoned staves.
Dude, this isn't one of those "well, you should have raised your
skill, you never know" kinds of things.... like getting paladins to
raise their 1HB because the Sprinkler is in the game. This isn't like
that.
There were NO WEAPONS WE COULD USE AT ALL. NONE. I mean, NONE!!
It's a cruel fucking joke, seriously. A lot of rangers are going to
have to slave away for over 100 hours pounding on Ping in west
freeport to raise that 2HB skill. That really wasn't very nice,
Verant.
All that said, of course you do happen to be RIGHT. With a maxed 2HB
skill, rangers do indeed have the best weapon in the entire game.
>#4. Giving rangers a great 2h weapon sucks...we are supposed to
>dual weild! This is a garbage argument too. Aragorn did not dual
>weild. Rangers CAN dual weild. If they have a compelling reason
>to, they will use a 2 hander...versatility is the name of the game
>folks. Giving us a great 2 handed weapon is a great idea...no
>smart ranger will throw away his 1 handers if he gets a
>swarmcaller, but being able to switch to whichever is better at
>any one time is an advantage. It also cements our position as
>the best soloing melee class in the game.
Again, enchanters are the best pure caster class in melee....
Swarmcaller does rock though. It's just a shame that Verant chose to
fix the ranger overtaunting problem by giving us great 2-handers...
rangers WERE supposed to dualwield in Everquest, it was part of
brad's original Vision. Everquest's base is AD&D, not LoR.
>#5. Our defensive skills are capped at level 40! Yes, they are,
>for now. I think this is a slight imbalance, and eventually verant
>will modify it slightly. That being said, we can still tank well
>at 51. I hear a level 52 ranger was easily soloing Nox, as well
>as bats and LDC's in Sol B yesterday. We can still tank.
At 51, yes. At 60, no. A rogue in full banded will have more AC than
a ranger in full thorny vine.
>#6. We don't have a unique skill! Big deal. Guess
>what...wizards don't have a unique skill...
(snip)
We're a hybrid class. The other hybrids got a unique skill. Power-
wise, it doesn't make a huge difference, but it's still lame that we
don't get one.
>When all is said and done rangers are balanced decently well. We
>have a lot of advantages over other classes, and some
>disadvantages as well.
Ok. At 60, then...
ADVANTAGES
1) snare
2) damageshields
3) mediocre DD nuking
4) quaternary healing
5) SoW
6) enduring breath
7) chloroplast
DISADVANTAGES
1) worst tank in the game by a huge margin
2) second-worst damagedealer in the game
>Is there a little tunining to do here and
>there? Definitely...
We're the worst tank and the second-worst damagedealer. Do the
advantages balance the disadvantages? All of our advantages are
mediocre spells... snare and chloroplast rock, but that's about it...
oh, and don't forget that...
Paladins get superior heal, resolution, ressurrect, shield of words,
symbol of naltron, and divine aura....
And shadowknights get the 44 necro pet (quad attacks for 47), a 700
damage dot in 60 seconds, a 226 damage no-refresh lifetap, a 280
damage 2-min refresh lifetap, a 504 damage in 2 min dot, fear, a
damageshield, a 189 damage lifetap dot, a 1152 damage in 96 second
dot....
The spells aren't balanced either. A level 60 paladin is basically a
level 50 cleric without complete heal! A level 60 shadowknight has a
pet that quads for FORTY-SEVEN DAMAGE! And he can stack 2500 damage
in DoTs then fear the mob while his pet attacks its ass!
>the same can be said for all classes (The
>current implementation of melee only Disciplines is a joke, for
>instance.) It doesn't make rangers too weak or unviable.
Actually.... it does.
Except for the "archery is useful" thing, I'm very impressed by your
post, Jackie. Usually you post some pretty ridiculous stuff.
Of course, you happened to be wrong in almost every case, but at
least you obviously thought about what you were writing. You'll get
there, keep on trying bud!
Sam
--
/| Sam Schlansky <sam[at]operation3d[dot]com>
/| I speak for myself only unless noted otherwise.
/| PGP Key ID: 0x63A9D707
/| 3DNews.net: News With Perspective!
/| 3DHardware.net: Taking Your Machine To The Third Dimension!
/| Remove "deletethis" to email.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Nope, sorry. It's your argument, you do the work.
I don't think anyone would appreciate it if I dumped about a year's worth
of mailing lists digests to the group.
|Plus, use personal
|experience or your arguments will be (by me, anyway) discounted as
|invalid rantings of a sheep who lets others tell him how to think.
It's a math problem. It's not about 'how to think'. It only has one
answer.
Billy Shields
: nos...@NOSPAM.ca (JackiePrice) wrote in
: <FZYN4.82932$2D6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
:>Ranger whiners shut up.
: LOL. This is gonna be fun.
:>I play a ranger as my secondary, and my
:>secondary is higher level than Dennis' primary, but besides that I
:>have ranger guildmates at 51 already, and have done a lot of
:>research and put a lot of thought into this, so listen up.
: OK. I'll take it seriously.
:>First of all, reasons why rangers are great:
:>
:>#1. Rangers do more damage than Warriors.
:>Yes, they do. Spells make a big damage difference. Over the
:>course of the average fight, at level 50, slightly higher
:>offensive skill caps and a higher kick cap, and criticals, will
:>likely do as much extra damage as one "Stinging Swarm" spell can
:>make up for (about 120 damage).
: In the <50 game, without using spells rangers do slightly less damage
: than warriors. That's a proven fact. But, they're pretty darn
: close... within 5-10% at the most.
I'd agree with that.
: If rangers use spells, we can win a KS battle with a warrior every
: time. Of course, you've got to remember our offensive spells are only
: of use when soloing which is pretty much impossible to do
: effectively.
Well not every time. Occasionally my warrior gets lucky and does
a double crippling blow for >400 damage total. Thats kinda hard
to beat. Generally speaking though rangers will win a KS battle
though.
:>They also solo far better than warriors,
: Yes, and we solo better than rogues too. So what?
: None of us can effectively solo, it's like saying that enchanters
: melee better than wizards because they get a bigger damageshield.
:>and their spells bring more to a group offensively
: Ranger offensive spells are worthless in a grouping situation;
: they're only useful when soloing. Our mana is best kept for snaring
: every monster and topping off heals between pulls. If you played a
: high level ranger you would know this.
I'd also agree with that.
:>and utility wise. (Note I am not saying rangers are BETTER than
:>warriors, just that we can outdamage them.)
: Rangers have three useful utility spells; snare, SoW, and enduring
: breath, period.
Four: you forgot Harmony. Don't even try and tell me this isn't
useful in Kunark. Prior to Kunark it wasn't really useful above
level 35 though.
For soloing purposes you also have damage shields. Those make a
BIG difference when soloing low blues for exp.
: Like I already said, we can't outdamage warriors in melee, only when
: using spells, which are inefficient in a group.
Agreed.
:>#2. Rangers do FAR more damage than Paladins. There is no
:>comparison here. With weapons that are the same difficulty to
:>obtain, a ranger will almost double a paladin in damage over the
:>course of an average fight, even with the new changes to 2h
:>damage. Paladins have some other advantages, but when it comes
:>to damage, rangers own them.
: Heh. No, not almost double.
: In the <46 game, rangers end up doing around 40% more damage with
: commonly available weapons (dual yaks+sash versus a mithril 2hander).
According to the 50+ warriors I know and careful analysis based
on magic number theory the mith 2her is an awesome weapon and
dual ykeshas + fbss have a hard time beating it. The only way
they manage to do so if it the procs outweight the damage
*deficiency* (thats right, the pure melee damage is *less*) between
them and a mith 2her.
My warrior (level 35) has both a mith 2her and the fbss/2yks combo
and just looking at how often they proc (they don't proc yet but
you still get the message "You lack the will to command this
weapon") I simply don't buy that they're better (especially now
with the two handed damage adjustment).
: In the >46 game, rangers do 60% more damage than paladins with
: commonly available weapons (whip+fluxbladed axe versus a mithril
: 2hander).
: In the 50 uberguild game, rangers hit between 60% and 80% more damage
: than paladins. (spined dragon claws+briarzephyr/cof/rbb versus,
: umm.... a mithril 2hander)
: Actually SDC+BZ/COF versus a skarlon/cof is much closer though; the
: ranger only wins by 40%.
: And, of course, SDC+BZ/COF versus Sprinkler/COF is closer yet... the
: ranger only wins by maybe 25%.
I don't think the margin is even as large as that. The experience
of 50+ tanks I know doesn't back it up nor does the current
incarnation of magic number theory.
: In the 51-60 game, who knows, honestly. Some AMAZING weapons are out
: there now that are relatively easy to get, like the Polyphenomenal
: Axe (37/48), Throneblade of the Ykesha (33/51, procs ykesha), Jade-
: Inlaid Axe (32/40), etc.
Heh, have you seen the 15/33 spear yet?
: From what I've seen of the skill caps in the expansion, paladins cap
: at 200 offense and rangers cap at 200 defense. This makes paladins
: the worst damage-doers of all the tank classes, and rangers by far
: the worst damage-takers.
: Honestly, defense is one HELL of a lot more important than offense; a
: 60 rogue wearing banded will have a higher base armorclass than a 60
: ranger in full thorny vine.
Couldn't agree with you more. Defense is by FAR the most important
defensive skill. Parry, riptoste and dodge are peripheral at best.
: Both paladins and rangers are screwed with the expansion skillcaps.
: Only shadowknights made off well, with higher caps in both offense
: AND defense.
I'm not sure we can judge that so quickly but the 200 Defense cap
for rangers definitely (imho) *hurts*.
: But if I had to pick between 200 offense and 200 defense, I'd choose
: 200 defense every time... and so would everybody else who has
: crunched the numbers.
I certainly would choose Defense also.
:>#3. Rangers slightly outdamage Shadowknights. Due to offensive
:>spells of the SK, the difference is less pronounced than against
:>the paladin,
: The spells don't matter.
:>but melee wise rangers outdamage them as badly as they do Paladins.
: Heh. No way, man.
: There are some VERY nice shadowknight-usable 2HS weapons in the <50
: game. What you're saying just isn't true.
: Sure, rangers still outdamage shadowknights in melee <50... but not
: nearly as bad as paladins. Oh, and in the >50 game, shadowknights
: will do the most damage of the hybrids by far... not even close. And
: they'll be able to tank too.
Hmm, I'm not convinced of that (yet).
:>#4. Rangers can tank, and can tank well. They are NOT warriors.
:>They do not absorb damage quite as efficiently or absorb as much
:>of it, but in pre-expansion Norrath there is NOWHERE, not dragons,
:>not planes, not dungeons, where a Ranger is not a viable tank.
:>Yes, you'll heal them slightly more often than you would a
:>warrior. And yes, Paladins or Shadowknights are minutely better
:>with an insignificantly higher AC and HP than a ranger. But
:>rangers can tank anywhere, anytime. Take it from rangers who do
:>it.
: Wrong. Flat-out wrong. If you need more explanation I'll go into it,
: but I'm sure someone else will do the full thing for you.
:>#5. Rangers are incredibly fun. With some of the best, easiest
:>to obtain equipment in the game, and some of the most interesting,
:>fun, and reasonably easy to do quests, rangers are great fun.
: Up to level 35, I'd have to agree with you. After that, we're weak as
: hell.
Funny. People try and shoot me down for using the same argument
about druids.
:>Even our planar equipment is mostly trivially easy to get in
:>comparison to other classes. Not a lot of long camps for rangers.
: Umm, the planar equipment is, yes, since Fear was retuned... but not
: the rest of it. It's just as hard for us to get a (absolutely
: NECESSARY) sash as it is for all the other classes.
:>#6. Rangers solo, the best of all melee classes.
: Enchanters melee, the best of all pure caster classes.
Its not as ridiculous as it seems. Rangers won't tear through
levels soloing but if you carefully pick your targets it *is*
viable.
:>#7. Kunark was built for rangers. Tracking is almost necessary.
: Tracking is absolutely worthless. If you actually played a ranger you
: would know this.
If they sorted the list based on proximity it would be useful.
Why they don't do this I'll never know.
:>SoW is in use constantly.
: SoW is in use constantly everywhere else, too.
:>Equipment dropped for rangers in Kunark
:>is the best damn stuff I have ever seen. We have the best 2h
:>slashing found yet in the game, and it aint that hard to
:>camp...Ykeshas are harder to get in Guk. If we use a 1hs and
:>easy to obtain Swordbreaker, better than a briarzephyr, our AC
:>suddenly catches up to that of a paladin or SK.
: Yes, swarmcaller kicks some major ass... but does that one item fix
: the entire class?
: Oh, and a 10AC sword doesn't make up for 50 defense skill, my friend.
: It would have to be a 70AC sword.
:>#8. Archery. Anybody who doesn't understand the value of archery
:>is either willfully ignorant, totally inexperienced with it, or a
:>total moron. Prior to expansion, level 50 Shadowknights, with low
:>75 archery caps, if they took up archery late in the game, wished
:>they'd done so earlier. They love it...we take it for granted
:>because we've been doing it well since character creation.
:>Rangers of all classes can make the best use of this incredibly
:>useful skill.
: Umm? You're being sarcastic, right? Archery is only useful for
: pulling, everybody knows that.
: If you aren't being sarcastic here, you're a total imbecile. I mean,
: really.
You can also use it for taking down rares solo but yeah its too
resource-intensive to use as a soloing tactic (which is the way
it was designed so it should be no great surprise). Nor would
you stand back in group combat rather than wade in and start
swinging your swords.
:>#9. Style. Rangers have everybody else beat hands down.
: Two words: Troll Shadowknights.
Heh at least ranger's don't have quite the Troll SK exp peanlty. :-)
: Big n' ugly. Love em.
:>#10. Versatility. There is nothing we can't do decently. Hell,
:>by level 50 a ranger can nuke well,
: ... on low greens
:>and it gets better through expansion.
: You're right, I never thought of that! We're wizards now! Who needs
: to melee, we can manadump and med!
:>We are not the best at anything, but you don't need
:>to be. A person who is the best at one or two things and who
:>sucks at everything else, is inferior to someone who is good at
:>everything.
: You're absolutely wrong, at a very deep level. In Everquest,
: versatility means power for CASTERS. That's why enchanters,
: necromancers, druids, and shamen are so good.
Heres where you go off the deep end.
Necros are good because their spell damage is extremely efficient
and versatile and they have a cheap source of highly efficient
melee damage (their pets).
Magicians are good because of the same source of melee damage.
Don't forget their damage shields either.
Enchanters are good because they monopolise so many *necessary*
abilities (particularly crowd control and mana restoration).
Noone can ignore their speed buffs either.
Shamans are good because of their speed debuffs and they have
a pet too (not as good as a necro/mage pet for sure but hey
its still a great DoT). Oh and their poison DoT line isn't too
shabby either (quite the opposite).
Explain to me how druids fit into this category. The answer is
they don't.
: That just doesn't hold for melee characters. Melee characters need to
: do two things; do damage and absorb damage.
The more people you have the less important absorbing damage seems
to be. Preventing damage in the first place is far more important
(eg speed debuffs).
: In the <50 game, rangers were pretty good at doing damage and pretty
: bad at absorbing it.
: In the >50 game, rangers are going to be mediocre at doing damage and
: absolutely terrible at absorbing it.
I don't think you can call 50+ ranger damage poor by any stretch
of the imagination.
: And that's why we're broken.
Rangers aren't broken (except perhaps for the defense cap of 200).
The exp penalties are the only thing broken here.
:>Invalid arguments why ranger's suck:
:>
:>#1. Experience penalty. Who gives a fuck?
: Well... it's kind of a slap in the face, really. Why should a
: halfling druid require so much less experience than my wood elf
: ranger? Are halfling druids so much less powerful than wood elf
: rangers? Are they harder to play? Are they less flexible?
: That's why we care... it isn't that the penalty ITSELF makes such a
: huge difference (except for troll shadowknights, of course) it's more
: like we feel like we've been done wrong.
Actually the penalty does make a difference to efficiency minded
groups. That penalty is shared. What would you do if you were
organising a group--fill it up with rogues and warriors or fill
it up with monks, rangers and SKs?
:>The experience
:>penalties mean nothing anyway. In a group you advance as fast as
:>anybody else in your group.
: This is wrong. Create a level 1 troll shadowknight and group with a
: friend's newly created level 1 halfling druid. Stay grouped until the
: druid hits level three, then both of you check how much experience
: you have.
: It's really trivial to disprove that. Hybrids do NOT take more XP
: from a group, and they DO level slower, even when grouped.
This is not correct. The exact workings of the exp sharing in
groups has never been adequately explained by anyone looking at
the hard numbers but it is clear (from observations made by the
ShowEQ people and from in-game observations) that the exp penalty
is shared across the group. You don't level at the same rate
but I've seen instances where the SK would level *faster* than
the druid he was grouped with and the druid would've been *far*
better off soloing.
:>By the time you hit your high 40's
:>you don't care at all anymore. The experience penalty doesn't make
:>sense...if all classes are balanced at any one level, they should
:>all advance at the same rate, but it really makes no difference in
:>the long run.
: I agree, actually. It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make a big
: difference in the long run... the problem is that it *IS* unfair and
: silly.
I think exp penalties are utterly stupid. Early in retail it made
sense. Rangers were warriors who could cast spells and wear the
same armour (rubicite). That got fixed (rightly so) but the exp
penalty remained.
:>#2. We can't tank. This is bullshit. We can tank. The fact
:>that one class does it better and 2 other classes are marginally
:>better is irrelevant.
: In the <50 game I'd agree. We're decent before kunark.
:>#3. 2h damage was increased. So what, 1h is still better with
:>maxed dual weild skill and weapons of equivalent difficulty to
:>get. Not to mention that rangers now have the best 2 hander found
:>anywhere in the game so far, and compared to the far inferior
:>Firey Avenger, its trivially easy to get. (Paladins, don't get
:>your shorts in a knot, you are not supposed to do damage as well
:>as rangers.) On that note, there is the related complaint:
: Umm, we have the best 2-hander in the game? Oh wait... I know what
: you're talking about, the 31/35 Woodsman's Staff. You know what that
: is? It's a JOKE.
: Rangers get the 2HB skill, right? Well, guess what... there are no
: weapons we can use to raise the skill. Before Kunark, there were two
: 2HB weapons we could use in the ENTIRE GAME: a shovel (4/27) and the
: magicians' summoned staves.
I guess this is why you have 150+ unused practises. I know I do.
But yes I agree that if they're going to add good weapons of new
skill types to a class there should be lower level weapons they
can use to train.
: Dude, this isn't one of those "well, you should have raised your
: skill, you never know" kinds of things.... like getting paladins to
: raise their 1HB because the Sprinkler is in the game. This isn't like
: that.
: There were NO WEAPONS WE COULD USE AT ALL. NONE. I mean, NONE!!
If you're right then its ridiculous. I have trouble believing this
is so. I'll check the equipment lists later.
: It's a cruel fucking joke, seriously. A lot of rangers are going to
: have to slave away for over 100 hours pounding on Ping in west
: freeport to raise that 2HB skill. That really wasn't very nice,
: Verant.
: All that said, of course you do happen to be RIGHT. With a maxed 2HB
: skill, rangers do indeed have the best weapon in the entire game.
You can't forget those practises though. If you've squandered them
on throwing or something because you had nothing else to do with
em then yeah you're kinda screwed though.
:>#4. Giving rangers a great 2h weapon sucks...we are supposed to
:>dual weild! This is a garbage argument too. Aragorn did not dual
:>weild. Rangers CAN dual weild. If they have a compelling reason
:>to, they will use a 2 hander...versatility is the name of the game
:>folks. Giving us a great 2 handed weapon is a great idea...no
:>smart ranger will throw away his 1 handers if he gets a
:>swarmcaller, but being able to switch to whichever is better at
:>any one time is an advantage. It also cements our position as
:>the best soloing melee class in the game.
: Again, enchanters are the best pure caster class in melee....
: Swarmcaller does rock though. It's just a shame that Verant chose to
: fix the ranger overtaunting problem by giving us great 2-handers...
: rangers WERE supposed to dualwield in Everquest, it was part of
: brad's original Vision. Everquest's base is AD&D, not LoR.
Well... the way I see it ranger's were meant to have the *option*
of dual wielding. Bards have no choice (their skill caps with
2hs and 2hb are 1 I think) but rangers do have a choice.
They were certainly nudged in that direction though. Many of the
better pre-planes two handers weren't usable by rangers (the
mithril 2her and the skarlton sword namely).
:>#5. Our defensive skills are capped at level 40! Yes, they are,
:>for now. I think this is a slight imbalance, and eventually verant
:>will modify it slightly. That being said, we can still tank well
:>at 51. I hear a level 52 ranger was easily soloing Nox, as well
:>as bats and LDC's in Sol B yesterday. We can still tank.
: At 51, yes. At 60, no. A rogue in full banded will have more AC than
: a ranger in full thorny vine.
Personally I think rogues and rangers should have fairly equivalent
defense caps. Neither should be good as a warrior (or monk for that
matter). Come to think of it SKs and paladins should be better as
well.
:>#6. We don't have a unique skill! Big deal. Guess
:>what...wizards don't have a unique skill...
: (snip)
: We're a hybrid class. The other hybrids got a unique skill. Power-
: wise, it doesn't make a huge difference, but it's still lame that we
: don't get one.
I have trouble caring about that.
:>When all is said and done rangers are balanced decently well. We
:>have a lot of advantages over other classes, and some
:>disadvantages as well.
: Ok. At 60, then...
: ADVANTAGES
: 1) snare
: 2) damageshields
: 3) mediocre DD nuking
: 4) quaternary healing
: 5) SoW
: 6) enduring breath
: 7) chloroplast
: DISADVANTAGES
: 1) worst tank in the game by a huge margin
I don't think its THAT bad. It does hurt though.
: 2) second-worst damagedealer in the game
I think this is just plain wrong.
:>Is there a little tunining to do here and
:>there? Definitely...
: We're the worst tank and the second-worst damagedealer. Do the
: advantages balance the disadvantages? All of our advantages are
: mediocre spells... snare and chloroplast rock, but that's about it...
: oh, and don't forget that...
: Paladins get superior heal, resolution, ressurrect, shield of words,
: symbol of naltron, and divine aura....
: And shadowknights get the 44 necro pet (quad attacks for 47), a 700
: damage dot in 60 seconds, a 226 damage no-refresh lifetap, a 280
: damage 2-min refresh lifetap, a 504 damage in 2 min dot, fear, a
: damageshield, a 189 damage lifetap dot, a 1152 damage in 96 second
: dot....
: The spells aren't balanced either. A level 60 paladin is basically a
: level 50 cleric without complete heal! A level 60 shadowknight has a
: pet that quads for FORTY-SEVEN DAMAGE! And he can stack 2500 damage
: in DoTs then fear the mob while his pet attacks its ass!
Oh yeah I was forgetting about that 44 pet. That means they will
do pretty awesome melee damage.
This post is ridiculously long.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
Schlansky) wrote:
|LOL. This is gonna be fun.
Actually, it's tragic. This is the one post they're gonna lock on to and
applaud while 500 more denying it go unread.
|Rangers have three useful utility spells; snare, SoW, and enduring
|breath, period.
Oh, be fair Sam. Camouflage is useful, until you start playing in areas
where everything sees through it (like Kunark, I'm told). Levitate has its
uses. And even Bind Sight has saved me a death here and there. (If I'm
trying to pull a Harrier or Avocet from a tower and can't see what's on the
other side, I'll BS to it and get a look; another Harrier or Avocet means it's
time to look elsewhere.)
|But if I had to pick between 200 offense and 200 defense, I'd choose
|200 defense every time... and so would everybody else who has
|crunched the numbers.
It only makes sense: offense doesn't matter if you're DEAD.
|Wrong. Flat-out wrong. If you need more explanation I'll go into it,
|but I'm sure someone else will do the full thing for you.
It's been tried. She just doesn't get it.
|Yes, swarmcaller kicks some major ass... but does that one item fix
|the entire class?
And we haven't yet seen what the other guys are getting.
|Umm? You're being sarcastic, right? Archery is only useful for
|pulling, everybody knows that.
Oh, be fair again. You can use it to kill a high target. It's not
efficient to do so, being at least 10 times less efficient than a Shaman or
Druid's kiting, but if you WANT to kill the thing....
|You're right, I never thought of that! We're wizards now! Who needs
|to melee, we can manadump and med!
Believe it or else, there are people on the Glade arguing that we should
start playing the class like Wizards.
|This is wrong. Create a level 1 troll shadowknight and group with a
|friend's newly created level 1 halfling druid. Stay grouped until the
|druid hits level three, then both of you check how much experience
|you have.
|
|It's really trivial to disprove that. Hybrids do NOT take more XP
|from a group, and they DO level slower, even when grouped.
Wrong on this one, Sam.
What you propose will work at L1 because both PCs have the same amount of
EP when they start (0) so they will both get an equal share of earned EP.
Solo them both to L2 and try it again.
|Umm, we have the best 2-hander in the game? Oh wait... I know what
|you're talking about, the 31/35 Woodsman's Staff. You know what that
|is? It's a JOKE.
I want one just 'coz as a B5 fan I'm offended at being a Ranger with no
staff.
I'd never try to HIT ANYTHING WITH IT, of course.
|All that said, of course you do happen to be RIGHT. With a maxed 2HB
|skill, rangers do indeed have the best weapon in the entire game.
Until the door prizes for the other classes turn up.
|Swarmcaller does rock though. It's just a shame that Verant chose to
|fix the ranger overtaunting problem by giving us great 2-handers...
|rangers WERE supposed to dualwield in Everquest, it was part of
|brad's original Vision. Everquest's base is AD&D, not LoR.
Note that we are _constantly_ told that our AC and HP penalties are
_directly_ due to Dual Wield.
|The spells aren't balanced either. A level 60 paladin is basically a
|level 50 cleric without complete heal! A level 60 shadowknight has a
|pet that quads for FORTY-SEVEN DAMAGE! And he can stack 2500 damage
|in DoTs then fear the mob while his pet attacks its ass!
Here's the problem: Paladins and SKs had better spell lists to draw FROM.
Rant all we like, the truth is that looking at the Druid list there's really
not a whole lot else they could have done for us! They could have given us
self-only 'ports, but The Vision(tm) aside, that really wouldn't have helped
us with our real problems, and it would not have been fair to the Druids (as
it would create a second class that got all three travel powers). They could
have given us SLNature and Shield of Thorns instead of Diamond and Spikes,
respectively...umm, ok, but doesn't exactly rock my world. Certainly not on
the scale of the above. Drifting Death instead of Drones of Doom is about the
best they could have done for us. They could have jumped over to the Shaman
list and given us the weaker wolf pets, which would be about as useful to a
post-50 Ranger as the pre-50 SK pets were to that class, but then the SKs and
Shaman would probably whine. (I do wish they'd put in a L60 quest for the L34
pet...it would be totally useless, but being seen with a wolf companion is
what every Ranger wants. That's the real reason Rangers loved their
Mistwalkers, at least until they were nerfed to hell and yanked.)
What they *really* should have done was accepted that our spell list could
not possibly match what was possible for the other two hybrids and given us
better melee ability to compensate. Instead they made us WEAKER.
Sam Schlansky
<3909127e$0$15...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>:
>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote:
(snip)
>: Rangers have three useful utility spells; snare, SoW, and
>: enduring breath, period.
>
>Four: you forgot Harmony. Don't even try and tell me this isn't
>useful in Kunark. Prior to Kunark it wasn't really useful above
>level 35 though.
Oh, I suppose it would be useful in Kunark. I don't play my ranger
anymore, so I didn't think of it. You're right though.
>For soloing purposes you also have damage shields. Those make a
>BIG difference when soloing low blues for exp.
Heh. Soloing.
(snip)
>: In the <46 game, rangers end up doing around 40% more damage
>: with commonly available weapons (dual yaks+sash versus a mithril
>: 2hander).
>
>According to the 50+ warriors I know and careful analysis based
>on magic number theory the mith 2her is an awesome weapon and
>dual ykeshas + fbss have a hard time beating it. The only way
>they manage to do so if it the procs outweight the damage
>*deficiency* (thats right, the pure melee damage is *less*)
>between them and a mith 2her.
>
>My warrior (level 35) has both a mith 2her and the fbss/2yks combo
>and just looking at how often they proc (they don't proc yet but
>you still get the message "You lack the will to command this
>weapon") I simply don't buy that they're better (especially now
>with the two handed damage adjustment).
Oh, I didn't think of the 2HS damage adjustment... they very well may
be about equal now. I haven't played my ranger in months, heh.
Before damage was adjusted, dual yaks would *always* beat a mithril
2hander, *always*.
>: In the >46 game, rangers do 60% more damage than paladins with
>: commonly available weapons (whip+fluxbladed axe versus a mithril
>: 2hander).
>
>: In the 50 uberguild game, rangers hit between 60% and 80% more
>: damage than paladins. (spined dragon claws+briarzephyr/cof/rbb
>: versus, umm.... a mithril 2hander)
>
>: Actually SDC+BZ/COF versus a skarlon/cof is much closer though;
>: the ranger only wins by 40%.
>
>: And, of course, SDC+BZ/COF versus Sprinkler/COF is closer yet...
>: the ranger only wins by maybe 25%.
>
>I don't think the margin is even as large as that. The experience
>of 50+ tanks I know doesn't back it up nor does the current
>incarnation of magic number theory.
OK, perhaps I overdid it a bit... maybe as low as 20%... but it's
definitely at least that big. Sprinkler is slower and it isn't
dualwielded... it's still a great weapon, though.
>: In the 51-60 game, who knows, honestly. Some AMAZING weapons are
>: out there now that are relatively easy to get, like the
>: Polyphenomenal Axe (37/48), Throneblade of the Ykesha (33/51,
>: procs ykesha), Jade- Inlaid Axe (32/40), etc.
>
>Heh, have you seen the 15/33 spear yet?
If the 15/33 spear came out pre-kunark, my ranger would use it. Now,
with the many weapons out there, it's only good for rogues. It's too
damn slow.
(snip)
>: Both paladins and rangers are screwed with the expansion
>: skillcaps. Only shadowknights made off well, with higher caps in
>: both offense AND defense.
>
>I'm not sure we can judge that so quickly but the 200 Defense cap
>for rangers definitely (imho) *hurts*.
It doesn't just "hurt", it's devestating. Rangers will be worthless
as tanks at 60, WORTHLESS.
(snip)
>: Sure, rangers still outdamage shadowknights in melee <50... but
>: not nearly as bad as paladins. Oh, and in the >50 game,
>: shadowknights will do the most damage of the hybrids by far...
>: not even close. And they'll be able to tank too.
>
>Hmm, I'm not convinced of that (yet).
Rangers are being pushed to use 2-handed weapons in the expansion.
Ranger skills in 2HB/2HS cap 10 points higher than
shadowknights/paladins, a fairly minor difference. What DOES make the
difference is that historically the ranger two-handed weapons have
been crap. Sure, some (very) nice ones have come out in Kunark... but
it's only been FOUR DAYS. Who knows what's going to drop off the boss
mobs?
If the ranger 2H-weapons are as good as the SK/Paladin 2H-weapons,
we'll be equal or a little bit better at dealing damage than SKs and
MUCH better than paladins. However, rogues, warriors, and monks will
be several orders of magnitude better than us. I mean, a LOT.
And not just with backstabs for the rogue, with dualwielding.
(snip)
>:>#5. Rangers are incredibly fun. With some of the best, easiest
>:>to obtain equipment in the game, and some of the most
>:>interesting, fun, and reasonably easy to do quests, rangers are
>:>great fun.
>
>: Up to level 35, I'd have to agree with you. After that, we're
>: weak as hell.
>
>Funny. People try and shoot me down for using the same argument
>about druids.
Well... druids are great until 35ish, then they suck until 49, where
they're great again. Between 35 and 48, druids are actually fairly
weak.
>:>#6. Rangers solo, the best of all melee classes.
>
>: Enchanters melee, the best of all pure caster classes.
>
>Its not as ridiculous as it seems. Rangers won't tear through
>levels soloing but if you carefully pick your targets it *is*
>viable.
No, it's not.
Tell me what you soloed, efficiently, to get from 49 to 50. Before
Kunark opened, mind you.
>:>#7. Kunark was built for rangers. Tracking is almost
>:>necessary.
>
>: Tracking is absolutely worthless. If you actually played a
>: ranger you would know this.
>
>If they sorted the list based on proximity it would be useful.
>Why they don't do this I'll never know.
Why? The WHY is easy to answer.
It's extra work.
(snip)
>: Umm? You're being sarcastic, right? Archery is only useful for
>: pulling, everybody knows that.
>
>: If you aren't being sarcastic here, you're a total imbecile. I
>: mean, really.
>
>You can also use it for taking down rares solo but yeah its too
>resource-intensive to use as a soloing tactic (which is the way
>it was designed so it should be no great surprise). Nor would
>you stand back in group combat rather than wade in and start
>swinging your swords.
Obviously. I really hope he was kidding, or just fucking with people,
because if he meant it, he's really an imbecile.
(snip)
>:>We are not the best at anything, but you don't need
>:>to be. A person who is the best at one or two things and who
>:>sucks at everything else, is inferior to someone who is good at
>:>everything.
>
>: You're absolutely wrong, at a very deep level. In Everquest,
>: versatility means power for CASTERS. That's why enchanters,
>: necromancers, druids, and shamen are so good.
>
>Heres where you go off the deep end.
Nope! :)
>Necros are good because their spell damage is extremely efficient
>and versatile and they have a cheap source of highly efficient
>melee damage (their pets).
Yes, versatile. Flexibility... although it's mostly aimed at solo
play.
>Magicians are good because of the same source of melee damage.
>Don't forget their damage shields either.
Magicians suck. They have raw power but no flexibility.
>Enchanters are good because they monopolise so many *necessary*
>abilities (particularly crowd control and mana restoration).
>Noone can ignore their speed buffs either.
Yes, they're VERSATILE. They're FLEXIBLE. They're great both in
groups and solo. They have great buffs, great debuffs, a pet for
soloing, and can even nuke.
>Shamans are good because of their speed debuffs and they have
>a pet too (not as good as a necro/mage pet for sure but hey
>its still a great DoT). Oh and their poison DoT line isn't too
>shabby either (quite the opposite).
Yes, shamen are VERSATILE. Again, great both in groups and solo.
Again, decent buffs, great debuffs, a pet that can be used in groups,
and wonderful dots.
>Explain to me how druids fit into this category. The answer is
>they don't.
Druids? Sure they do. They get pretty much everything but a pet and
speed buffs/debuffs. They've got the second best DD nukes, they have
the third best dots, they have slowdown, they have (animal) fear,
they can heal, they have chloroplast, they have great AC/HP buffs,
they have damageshields... they're versatile.
Druids are great!
I'd play one myself, but there are just too many damn druids in the
game... they're lame now. :(
>: That just doesn't hold for melee characters. Melee characters
>: need to do two things; do damage and absorb damage.
>
>The more people you have the less important absorbing damage seems
>to be. Preventing damage in the first place is far more important
>(eg speed debuffs).
I couldn't agree more. But... what's your point?
Melee character still need to do those two things, and rangers aren't
any good at either.
>: In the <50 game, rangers were pretty good at doing damage and
>: pretty bad at absorbing it.
>
>: In the >50 game, rangers are going to be mediocre at doing
>: damage and absolutely terrible at absorbing it.
>
>I don't think you can call 50+ ranger damage poor by any stretch
>of the imagination.
Ahhhhh you're missing the point, my friend.
You're not thinking of 50+ ranger damage. You're thinking of 51
ranger damage... not 57 or 60.
>: And that's why we're broken.
>
>Rangers aren't broken (except perhaps for the defense cap of 200).
>The exp penalties are the only thing broken here.
I disagree.
(snip)
>: That's why we care... it isn't that the penalty ITSELF makes
>: such a huge difference (except for troll shadowknights, of
>: course) it's more like we feel like we've been done wrong.
>
>Actually the penalty does make a difference to efficiency minded
>groups. That penalty is shared. What would you do if you were
>organising a group--fill it up with rogues and warriors or fill
>it up with monks, rangers and SKs?
I'd fill it with warriors, rogues, and monks, because they're better
classes at absorbing and dealing damage. The XP penalty does not
matter.
>:>The experience
>:>penalties mean nothing anyway. In a group you advance as fast
>:>as anybody else in your group.
>
>: This is wrong. Create a level 1 troll shadowknight and group
>: with a friend's newly created level 1 halfling druid. Stay
>: grouped until the druid hits level three, then both of you check
>: how much experience you have.
>
>: It's really trivial to disprove that. Hybrids do NOT take more
>: XP from a group, and they DO level slower, even when grouped.
>
>This is not correct. The exact workings of the exp sharing in
>groups has never been adequately explained by anyone looking at
>the hard numbers but it is clear (from observations made by the
>ShowEQ people and from in-game observations) that the exp penalty
>is shared across the group. You don't level at the same rate
>but I've seen instances where the SK would level *faster* than
>the druid he was grouped with and the druid would've been *far*
>better off soloing.
Dude. Stop saying "this is not correct" and run the test, okay? It
doesn't take very long.
>:>By the time you hit your high 40's
>:>you don't care at all anymore. The experience penalty doesn't
>:>make sense...if all classes are balanced at any one level, they
>:>should all advance at the same rate, but it really makes no
>:>difference in the long run.
>
>: I agree, actually. It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make a
>: big difference in the long run... the problem is that it *IS*
>: unfair and silly.
>
>I think exp penalties are utterly stupid. Early in retail it made
>sense. Rangers were warriors who could cast spells and wear the
>same armour (rubicite). That got fixed (rightly so) but the exp
>penalty remained.
Yep, rangers were the PowerGamer's Choice(tm) at the beginning of
final. :)
Umm, whoops...
(snip)
>: Rangers get the 2HB skill, right? Well, guess what... there are
>: no weapons we can use to raise the skill. Before Kunark, there
>: were two 2HB weapons we could use in the ENTIRE GAME: a shovel
>: (4/27) and the magicians' summoned staves.
>
>I guess this is why you have 150+ unused practises. I know I do.
>But yes I agree that if they're going to add good weapons of new
>skill types to a class there should be lower level weapons they
>can use to train.
Well there are, NOW. There are a couple of ranger-usable 2HB items in
Kunark, aimed at all level ranges from 1 to 50.
The PROBLEM is that we didn't get a chance to train with them all
along, and now we're being forced to USE those training points
instead of doing it properly. That's bullshit, and it's unfair.
>: Dude, this isn't one of those "well, you should have raised your
>: skill, you never know" kinds of things.... like getting paladins
>: to raise their 1HB because the Sprinkler is in the game. This
>: isn't like that.
>
>: There were NO WEAPONS WE COULD USE AT ALL. NONE. I mean, NONE!!
>
>If you're right then its ridiculous. I have trouble believing
>this is so. I'll check the equipment lists later.
Next time double-check the equipment lists as you post, I did.
You sound much smarter when you have the information at hand, and it
only takes a minute to look up.
>: It's a cruel fucking joke, seriously. A lot of rangers are going
>: to have to slave away for over 100 hours pounding on Ping in
>: west freeport to raise that 2HB skill. That really wasn't very
>: nice, Verant.
(snip)
>You can't forget those practises though. If you've squandered
>them on throwing or something because you had nothing else to do
>with em then yeah you're kinda screwed though.
How the fuck were we supposed to know? There literally were NO 2hb
weapons in the damn game! Just the shovel!
(snip)
>Well... the way I see it ranger's were meant to have the *option*
>of dual wielding. Bards have no choice (their skill caps with
>2hs and 2hb are 1 I think) but rangers do have a choice.
>
>They were certainly nudged in that direction though. Many of the
>better pre-planes two handers weren't usable by rangers (the
>mithril 2her and the skarlton sword namely).
We weren't "nudged" in that direction. We were forced in it...
otherwise, sure, we could use a GZ or Lamentation Blade at level 50
and suck, or we could use SDC+BZ and kick ass.
ALL the good 2HS weapons were war/pal/sk only. ALL of em.
>:>#5. Our defensive skills are capped at level 40! Yes, they
>:>are, for now. I think this is a slight imbalance, and eventually
>:>verant will modify it slightly. That being said, we can still
>:>tank well at 51. I hear a level 52 ranger was easily soloing
>:>Nox, as well as bats and LDC's in Sol B yesterday. We can still
>:>tank.
>
>: At 51, yes. At 60, no. A rogue in full banded will have more AC
>: than a ranger in full thorny vine.
>
>Personally I think rogues and rangers should have fairly
>equivalent defense caps. Neither should be good as a warrior (or
>monk for that matter). Come to think of it SKs and paladins
>should be better as well.
I disagree.
I think we should all have equivalent defense caps but the
shadowknights and paladins should have better, more easily acquired,
equipment available to them.
(snip)
>: DISADVANTAGES
>: 1) worst tank in the game by a huge margin
>
>I don't think its THAT bad. It does hurt though.
Remember I'm talking about level 60. With a defense cap 15 points
lower than *BARDS*, 30 points lower than SK/Paladins, and 52 points
lower than ROGUES, warriors, and monks.
Thirty points of defense skill is not thirty armorclass. It's a hell
of a lot more.
>: 2) second-worst damagedealer in the game
>
>I think this is just plain wrong.
Really? What class besides paladins will do less damage than us?
Oh wait... OK, bards.... sorry, forgot about 'em. OK, third-worst.
(snip)
>Oh yeah I was forgetting about that 44 pet. That means they will
>do pretty awesome melee damage.
All I can say is... quad attack for 47. That 44 necro pet kicks the
hell out of my 49 shaman pet.
>This post is ridiculously long.
My posts usually are. Thanks for an intelligent response!
JackiePrice
dynamics.
> >#1. Rangers do more damage than Warriors.
> >Yes, they do. Spells make a big damage difference. Over the
> >course of the average fight, at level 50, slightly higher
> >offensive skill caps and a higher kick cap, and criticals, will
> >likely do as much extra damage as one "Stinging Swarm" spell can
> >make up for (about 120 damage).
>
> In the <50 game, without using spells rangers do slightly less damage
> than warriors. That's a proven fact. But, they're pretty darn
> close... within 5-10% at the most.
>
> If rangers use spells, we can win a KS battle with a warrior every
> time. Of course, you've got to remember our offensive spells are only
> of use when soloing which is pretty much impossible to do
> effectively.
Most good rangers use offensive spells in combat at a rate that does not
leave them depleted so they will be back to full very quickly. This means
an average of 2 nukes per fight, a DOT if there is no druid with you.
>
> >They also solo far better than warriors,
>
> Yes, and we solo better than rogues too. So what?
>
> None of us can effectively solo, it's like saying that enchanters
> melee better than wizards because they get a bigger damageshield.
>
Are you kidding? I've solo'd entire levels. Soloing is viable for any
class. Some more than others, but rangers do it better than: all other
melee classes (with the possible exception of monks), wizards, clerics, and
if indoors, druids. The only classes who can regularly outsolo a ranger are
classes that have pets or can charm pets easily (ie Necros, Magicians,
Shamans, Enchanters.)
> Ranger offensive spells are worthless in a grouping situation;
> they're only useful when soloing. Our mana is best kept for snaring
> every monster and topping off heals between pulls. If you played a
> high level ranger you would know this.
Bullshit. Snaring and healing are important, yes. An extra 200-300 damage
with spells is trivial for a ranger in combat, and does not limit his melee
efficiency.
Most groups would rather see a hybrid cast a hit point buff in constant
battle situations than have their druid waste tons of mana on SLN. The
lowly flamelick/immolate spells are the best taunt in the game, and if not
resisted are actually incredibly effective spells. Wolf form adds
substantially to damage output as well.
> >and utility wise. (Note I am not saying rangers are BETTER than
> >warriors, just that we can outdamage them.)
>
> Rangers have three useful utility spells; snare, SoW, and enduring
> breath, period.
And camoflauge/superior camoflauge, probably the MOST useful utility spell.
> Like I already said, we can't outdamage warriors in melee, only when
> using spells, which are inefficient in a group.
>
More efficient in a group than alone.
> >#2. Rangers do FAR more damage than Paladins. There is no
> >comparison here. With weapons that are the same difficulty to
> >obtain, a ranger will almost double a paladin in damage over the
> >course of an average fight, even with the new changes to 2h
> >damage. Paladins have some other advantages, but when it comes
> >to damage, rangers own them.
>
> Heh. No, not almost double.
>
> In the <46 game, rangers end up doing around 40% more damage with
> commonly available weapons (dual yaks+sash versus a mithril 2hander).
I'd debate this, actually, in two respects. One: Mithril 2h is equal to or
better than dual yaks. Secondly, up until recently, below 46 had no chance
of getting an M2H. A couple months ago it would trade even for an FBSS/SMR.
Irrelevant now, now <46 rangers have 9/20, ac10 swords....
>
> In the >46 game, rangers do 60% more damage than paladins with
> commonly available weapons (whip+fluxbladed axe versus a mithril
> 2hander).
60% is almost double in my mind, and this is the area I am aiming at.
>
> In the 50 uberguild game, rangers hit between 60% and 80% more damage
> than paladins. (spined dragon claws+briarzephyr/cof/rbb versus,
> umm.... a mithril 2hander)
>
The uberguild game is irrelevant. It is interesting to note that the
Swordbreaker is almost as good as the BZ....and better than the SDC, and its
damned easy to get.
> In the 51-60 game, who knows, honestly. Some AMAZING weapons are out
> there now that are relatively easy to get, like the Polyphenomenal
> Axe (37/48), Throneblade of the Ykesha (33/51, procs ykesha), Jade-
> Inlaid Axe (32/40), etc.
>
For dual weilders, there is the Ringed Mace of the Ykesha (10/22, Effect:
Ykesha.) My personal favorite is still the sword breaker. And one weapon
that moves the soloability of a ranger up to the equivalent of a pet class,
the ranger-only Swarmcaller (29/41, effect: Tagar's Insects.)
> From what I've seen of the skill caps in the expansion, paladins cap
> at 200 offense and rangers cap at 200 defense. This makes paladins
> the worst damage-doers of all the tank classes, and rangers by far
> the worst damage-takers.
>
> Honestly, defense is one HELL of a lot more important than offense; a
> 60 rogue wearing banded will have a higher base armorclass than a 60
> ranger in full thorny vine.
right. You are saying that a rogues extra 100 armor class from defense, is
going to make up for a difference of about 200 armor points?
I said all along ranger's need higher defense caps. 220 would be
approrpriate. It isn't a make or break issue though.
> >#3. Rangers slightly outdamage Shadowknights. Due to offensive
> >spells of the SK, the difference is less pronounced than against
> >the paladin,
>
> The spells don't matter.
>
The don't matter if you've got a necro with you, otherwise they matter.
> >but melee wise rangers outdamage them as badly as they do Paladins.
>
> Heh. No way, man.
>
> There are some VERY nice shadowknight-usable 2HS weapons in the <50
> game. What you're saying just isn't true.
>
Bullshit. Skarlon, M2H, they are all irrelevant. Nicest SK weapon not on a
god or a dragon I've ever seen is the 1hs Blade of Abrogation on Nepenthe in
our guild. It still doesn't outdamage rangers at level 50 with easier to
get Flux Axe/Rev whip.
> Sure, rangers still outdamage shadowknights in melee <50... but not
> nearly as bad as paladins. Oh, and in the >50 game, shadowknights
> will do the most damage of the hybrids by far... not even close. And
> they'll be able to tank too.
>
Rangers have a higher offense cap do they not? And nicer weaponry.
> >#4. Rangers can tank, and can tank well. They are NOT warriors.
> >They do not absorb damage quite as efficiently or absorb as much
> >of it, but in pre-expansion Norrath there is NOWHERE, not dragons,
> >not planes, not dungeons, where a Ranger is not a viable tank.
> >Yes, you'll heal them slightly more often than you would a
> >warrior. And yes, Paladins or Shadowknights are minutely better
> >with an insignificantly higher AC and HP than a ranger. But
> >rangers can tank anywhere, anytime. Take it from rangers who do
> >it.
>
> Wrong. Flat-out wrong. If you need more explanation I'll go into it,
> but I'm sure someone else will do the full thing for you.
>
Okay, I am NOT wrong. We've done it, it works fine. You can have a ranger
tanking in the planes, its no different than if a warrior does. You've
gotta heal 1 second sooner. Same with dragons. Same in Sol B. Same in
Guk. Rangers at 50 tank well. Are they as good as warriors? No. But they
are not fragile, they are not the instant puree you idiots pretend they
are...at least no more than any other melee class who draws the attention of
something that big.
> >#5. Rangers are incredibly fun. With some of the best, easiest
> >to obtain equipment in the game, and some of the most interesting,
> >fun, and reasonably easy to do quests, rangers are great fun.
>
> Up to level 35, I'd have to agree with you. After that, we're weak as
> hell.
I'm in my 40's with my ranger...still loving it. We have a number of 51+
rangers...they all love it too. And they can tank...
>
> >Even our planar equipment is mostly trivially easy to get in
> >comparison to other classes. Not a lot of long camps for rangers.
>
> Umm, the planar equipment is, yes, since Fear was retuned... but not
> the rest of it. It's just as hard for us to get a (absolutely
> NECESSARY) sash as it is for all the other classes.
The sash is the hard part for all melee classes. But that's about the only
one for us.
> Enchanters melee, the best of all pure caster classes.
>
No, its more like saying that Shamans tank the best of priestly classes.
Shamans can actually tank adequately. Not as good as rangers, mind you...
> >#7. Kunark was built for rangers. Tracking is almost necessary.
>
> Tracking is absolutely worthless. If you actually played a ranger you
> would know this.
I do. Have you been in Kunark much? Tracking is amazing there...
>
> >SoW is in use constantly.
>
> SoW is in use constantly everywhere else, too.
Let's just say everywhere else its a luxury. In Kunark, if you travel
without it you're nuts.
>
> >Equipment dropped for rangers in Kunark
> >is the best damn stuff I have ever seen. We have the best 2h
> >slashing found yet in the game, and it aint that hard to
> >camp...Ykeshas are harder to get in Guk. If we use a 1hs and
> >easy to obtain Swordbreaker, better than a briarzephyr, our AC
> >suddenly catches up to that of a paladin or SK.
>
> Yes, swarmcaller kicks some major ass... but does that one item fix
> the entire class?
>
The class isn't broken. If you happen to get this sword, you become a god,
however.
> Oh, and a 10AC sword doesn't make up for 50 defense skill, my friend.
> It would have to be a 70AC sword.
Don't forget the sword is for all intents and purposes as good as the BZ in
combat too...
And we don't need to make up the entire defense skill, we aren't supposed to
be heavy tanks, we've got other advantages.
>
> >#8. Archery. Anybody who doesn't understand the value of archery
> >is either willfully ignorant, totally inexperienced with it, or a
> >total moron. Prior to expansion, level 50 Shadowknights, with low
> >75 archery caps, if they took up archery late in the game, wished
> >they'd done so earlier. They love it...we take it for granted
> >because we've been doing it well since character creation.
> >Rangers of all classes can make the best use of this incredibly
> >useful skill.
>
> Umm? You're being sarcastic, right? Archery is only useful for
> pulling, everybody knows that.
>
> If you aren't being sarcastic here, you're a total imbecile. I mean,
> really.
Try playing a melee class without it and you'll see what I mean.
By the way, pulling with my ranger in Guk, any target I pull usually has
taken about 100 - 200 damage before it ever reaches melee range or the rest
of the group sees it. That's in a group. Alone its even better.
> >#10. Versatility. There is nothing we can't do decently. Hell,
> >by level 50 a ranger can nuke well,
>
> ... on low greens
I get almost no resistances on my spells.
>
> >and it gets better through expansion.
>
> You're right, I never thought of that! We're wizards now! Who needs
> to melee, we can manadump and med!
Almost all spells we get are fast casting...we will not lose much melee time
to casting any of them. Don't forget that you don't lose the first 2
seconds of time you spend casting...that's your melee recharge time anyway.
By 60 a ranger will be nuking for 1000 damage a fight without using more
than a bubble and a half of mana, and not losing more than 100 points of
melee damage doing so.
> You're absolutely wrong, at a very deep level. In Everquest,
> versatility means power for CASTERS. That's why enchanters,
> necromancers, druids, and shamen are so good.
>
> That just doesn't hold for melee characters. Melee characters need to
> do two things; do damage and absorb damage.
You are describing a pet. Melee characters are a lot more.
>
> In the <50 game, rangers were pretty good at doing damage and pretty
> bad at absorbing it.
Speak for yourself. I absorb it just fine. Don't break a sweat...
>
> In the >50 game, rangers are going to be mediocre at doing damage and
> absolutely terrible at absorbing it.
No. A druid is terrible at absorbing damage. A bard is terrible at
absorbing damage. A rogue is terrible (and I maintain, despite the cap,
will remain terrible--the cap being equal to warriors never helped them
before) at absorbing damage. A wizard is terrible at absorbing damage. A
shaman is mediocre at absorbing damage.
Rangers fall somewhere in between shamans and Paladins. You figure it out.
> This is wrong. Create a level 1 troll shadowknight and group with a
> friend's newly created level 1 halfling druid. Stay grouped until the
> druid hits level three, then both of you check how much experience
> you have.
>
This is a bad example. You don't group until level 5, and your method
doesn't give the ranger the extra few kills they need to hit level 5 ahead
of the other class in experience. Try this test again when you are both 5th
level, without having killed anything yet, you will advance at the same
rate.
> It's really trivial to disprove that. Hybrids do NOT take more XP
> from a group, and they DO level slower, even when grouped.
I used to say this. I was proven wrong. ShowEQ has proven it too.
The reason your example actually works is this...experience is given based
on how much you already have.
If it takes a ranger 50,000 experience points to hit level 10, and it takes
a halfling druid 25,000 experience points to hit level ten, when you group
together, the ranger will take exactly twice as much experience from every
kill as the halfling does, because he has twice as much experience. It's
been proven, they hammered it into my head enough times, time for you to
learn it.
> >#2. We can't tank. This is bullshit. We can tank. The fact
> >that one class does it better and 2 other classes are marginally
> >better is irrelevant.
>
> In the <50 game I'd agree. We're decent before kunark.
>
> >#3. 2h damage was increased. So what, 1h is still better with
> >maxed dual weild skill and weapons of equivalent difficulty to
> >get. Not to mention that rangers now have the best 2 hander found
> >anywhere in the game so far, and compared to the far inferior
> >Firey Avenger, its trivially easy to get. (Paladins, don't get
> >your shorts in a knot, you are not supposed to do damage as well
> >as rangers.) On that note, there is the related complaint:
>
> Umm, we have the best 2-hander in the game? Oh wait... I know what
> you're talking about, the 31/35 Woodsman's Staff. You know what that
> is? It's a JOKE.
>
No, the Swarmcaller is the best 2h weapon in the game, by virtue of its
proc, and very good, if not the best, ratio.
I'd actually never heard of the woodsmans staff...but at that ratio, I'd
learn 2hb if i got it.
Honestly, you know it would only take a week to max out a 250 weapons skill
from zero with a 35 delay weapon...
>
> All that said, of course you do happen to be RIGHT. With a maxed 2HB
> skill, rangers do indeed have the best weapon in the entire game.
>
Cool...and I'd never even heard of the thing.
> Swarmcaller does rock though. It's just a shame that Verant chose to
> fix the ranger overtaunting problem by giving us great 2-handers...
> rangers WERE supposed to dualwield in Everquest, it was part of
> brad's original Vision. Everquest's base is AD&D, not LoR.
>
We've got some awesome 1 handers in kunark too...
> At 51, yes. At 60, no. A rogue in full banded will have more AC than
> a ranger in full thorny vine.
>
No, he won't.
> >#6. We don't have a unique skill! Big deal. Guess
> >what...wizards don't have a unique skill...
> (snip)
>
> We're a hybrid class. The other hybrids got a unique skill. Power-
> wise, it doesn't make a huge difference, but it's still lame that we
> don't get one.
>
> >When all is said and done rangers are balanced decently well. We
> >have a lot of advantages over other classes, and some
> >disadvantages as well.
>
> Ok. At 60, then...
>
> ADVANTAGES
> 1) snare
> 2) damageshields
> 3) mediocre DD nuking
> 4) quaternary healing
> 5) SoW
> 6) enduring breath
> 7) chloroplast
8) Camoflauge
9) HP/AC buffs
10) Greater Heal
11) Mediocre DOTs
12) AC debuffs
>
> DISADVANTAGES
> 1) worst tank in the game by a huge margin
> 2) second-worst damagedealer in the game
Hmmm...second worst huh? If you are just talking melee, lets see, over the
long haul, we will outdamage: Bards, Paladins, Shadowknights, Warriors.
We can tank better than rogues, bards. Paladins and Shadowknights will be
marginally better. Warriors are much better. Monks, for melee tanking, are
the best in the game now and will continue to be. For casters, move them
below rangers.
If you are including all classes, none of the casting/priestly classes,
including shamen, can outtank a ranger. That being said, a ranger will
outdamage wizards and clerics over a long period of time. Druids won't
actually be that far ahead of us either. Enchanters value lies elsewhere,
ideally, in a fight, they aren't actually doing any damage. If they were
trying to, due to mana constraints, rangers would outdamage them too.
>
> >Is there a little tunining to do here and
> >there? Definitely...
>
> We're the worst tank and the second-worst damagedealer. Do the
> advantages balance the disadvantages? All of our advantages are
> mediocre spells... snare and chloroplast rock, but that's about it...
> oh, and don't forget that...
>
> Paladins get superior heal, resolution, ressurrect, shield of words,
> symbol of naltron, and divine aura....
>
Superior heal is nice, but mostly useless. We've never needed more than
greater heal yet except on the planes/dragon runs. The rest of the spells
are quite nice...throw the paladins a bone.
Divine aura on a tank...nice. You do know divine aura has an automatic
reverse taunt...causing the target to seek out the next group member who its
ticked off at right away, don't you? First paladin to use that spell
regularly is going to kill a lot of casters/healers.
> And shadowknights get the 44 necro pet (quad attacks for 47),
You seem to forget that at the level an SK gets that, that pet will barely
be able to hit his opponents, let alone connect for full damage.
> a 700
> damage dot in 60 seconds, a 226 damage no-refresh lifetap, a 280
> damage 2-min refresh lifetap, a 504 damage in 2 min dot, fear, a
> damageshield, a 189 damage lifetap dot, a 1152 damage in 96 second
> dot....
Lets see, if the SK casts all of those, they will have done just about zero
melee combat, and be nearly out of mana.
During this time, a ranger will have dotted/DD'd for about 1500+ damage
without skipping more than a few attacks. The damage shield on the ranger
will be doing an additional 29 points per hit taken, and they'll be doing
awesome melee damage. They will also be at half mana.
>
> The spells aren't balanced either. A level 60 paladin is basically a
> level 50 cleric without complete heal!
Just how many superior heals do you think a 60 paladin is going to get off?
Nobody uses a level 50 paladin as their primary healer now. He can't heal
enough. This is not because of his spells, because druids and shamans work
fine as primary healers with the exact same heal spell. The difference is
mana. its a HUGE difference. A level 60 paladin with Superior heal is like
giving a level 30 cleric superior heal and expecting him to keep your 60's
healthy on a run to Veeshan's peak...
> A level 60 shadowknight has a
> pet that quads for FORTY-SEVEN DAMAGE! And he can stack 2500 damage
> in DoTs then fear the mob while his pet attacks its ass!
Yes, he could, assuming he is fighting a green or low-low blue target his
pet can actually hit. And he'd be totally OOM afterwards.
> Except for the "archery is useful" thing, I'm very impressed by your
> post, Jackie. Usually you post some pretty ridiculous stuff.
Archery is amazing. It's a handicap on my primary monk to not have a decent
means of pulling...shuriken of tranquility just don't last that long.
JackiePrice
> what bow and arrows was he using that has got to take a month if it can be
> done.
I did it, at level 35, with a raincaller and 3 damage arrows, snare,
stinging swarm.
Got the giant down to half health before I waded in and finished it melee.
Took just under ten minutes, yes.
JackiePrice
> 2hander, *always*.
>
Actually, replace *always* with *rarely*.
Mithril 2h was a superior weapon in pure melee damage. The procs made them
even. now its likely better all around.
> > It doesn't just "hurt", it's devestating. Rangers will be worthless
> as tanks at 60, WORTHLESS.
Guess what, take all other tanks out of the game and you could still get by
doing anything at level 60 with ranger tanks. They are not worthless.
Hell, shamans make adequate tanks and they aren't near as good as rangers in
that regard.
> Rangers are being pushed to use 2-handed weapons in the expansion.
> Ranger skills in 2HB/2HS cap 10 points higher than
> shadowknights/paladins, a fairly minor difference. What DOES make the
> difference is that historically the ranger two-handed weapons have
> been crap. Sure, some (very) nice ones have come out in Kunark... but
> it's only been FOUR DAYS. Who knows what's going to drop off the boss
> mobs?
There are also some absolutely incredible 1h weapons in there...
> >Its not as ridiculous as it seems. Rangers won't tear through
> >levels soloing but if you carefully pick your targets it *is*
> >viable.
>
> No, it's not.
Just cause you couldn't do it doesn't make it not viable. I can do it fine.
> Tell me what you soloed, efficiently, to get from 49 to 50. Before
> Kunark opened, mind you.
>
Well, I can't speak for 49 to 50, but you can solo 47 to 48 really easy in
Guk or Sol B.
> Obviously. I really hope he was kidding, or just fucking with people,
> because if he meant it, he's really an imbecile.
>
SHE. I am a woman! And if you don't see the value of archery, you are a
narrow minded buffoon.
> You're not thinking of 50+ ranger damage. You're thinking of 51
> ranger damage... not 57 or 60.
>
Say that again when we've got some 57-60 rangers. Until then your argument
looks thin. You'll have to prove it the hard way.
> >Rangers aren't broken (except perhaps for the defense cap of 200).
> >The exp penalties are the only thing broken here.
>
> I disagree.
>
Well, it isn't the first time you are wrong, but stubbornly and stupidly
continue to insist you are right, despite all logic to the contrary.
> Dude. Stop saying "this is not correct" and run the test, okay? It
> doesn't take very long.
Your test is flawed. Start them both at level 5 and try again.
> >Personally I think rogues and rangers should have fairly
> >equivalent defense caps. Neither should be good as a warrior (or
> >monk for that matter). Come to think of it SKs and paladins
> >should be better as well.
>
> I disagree.
>
> I think we should all have equivalent defense caps but the
> shadowknights and paladins should have better, more easily acquired,
> equipment available to them.
This is the first thing you have said at all that makes any sense
whatsoever. You are actually right on one point. Congratulations.
>
> (snip)
> >: DISADVANTAGES
> >: 1) worst tank in the game by a huge margin
> >
> >I don't think its THAT bad. It does hurt though.
>
> Remember I'm talking about level 60. With a defense cap 15 points
> lower than *BARDS*, 30 points lower than SK/Paladins, and 52 points
> lower than ROGUES, warriors, and monks.
>
> Thirty points of defense skill is not thirty armorclass. It's a hell
> of a lot more.
>
Try a test, for me.
Take a level 30 ranger and a level 33 bard, both with their class armor,
both with their skills maxed.
Let the ranger stand their and take damage from an even con, level 30 mob,
see how long it takes him to drop to half.
Let the level 33 bard stand their and take the damage from another mob of
that same level for the same length of time. I'll let you in on a
secret...that bard, despite more armor in AC and 15 more defense points,
will be dead in the amount of time it took the ranger to get down to half.
Next put a level 30 monk in that same situation. Note that in that length
of time the monk barely takes any damage whatsoever.
Food for thought. Defense skill isn't everything.
Sam Schlansky
<l33igsc34l2ju7hbp...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:32:35 GMT, s...@deletethis.operation3d.com
>(Sam Schlansky) wrote:
(snip)
>|You're right, I never thought of that! We're wizards now! Who
>|needs to melee, we can manadump and med!
>
>Believe it or else, there are people on the Glade arguing
>that we should start playing the class like Wizards.
When I played my ranger, the only way I could solo a blue (a DUNGEON
blue, a level 34 greater kobold, mind you) was to manadump it with
careless lightning. They ain't that far off.
(snip)
>|Umm, we have the best 2-hander in the game? Oh wait... I know
>|what you're talking about, the 31/35 Woodsman's Staff. You know
>|what that is? It's a JOKE.
>
>I want one just 'coz as a B5 fan I'm offended at being a
>Ranger with no staff.
>
>I'd never try to HIT ANYTHING WITH IT, of course.
For a 31/35 weapon, if I still played my ranger, I'd kick Ping's ass
for days on end. It's just sad that it's being forced on us.
>|All that said, of course you do happen to be RIGHT. With a maxed
>|2HB skill, rangers do indeed have the best weapon in the entire
>|game.
>
> Until the door prizes for the other classes turn up.
I dunno.... 31/35... that's pretty goddamn good. Actually, it's
amazing. I suppose they could put in a 40/45 spear for shadowknights
or something, but SOME shadowknights have trained piercing, since
there were actually piercing weapons in the pre-kunark game they
could use.
That's why rangers get the staff, of course. Just because absolutely
no ranger in the entire game of everquest, on all the servers, has a
200 2hb skill. That's why. I kept every weapon skill maxed on my
ranger except 2HB, because I could never find a damn 2HB I could use.
If they were so rare that I had to find a damn SHOVEL, why bother to
train it up?
>|Swarmcaller does rock though. It's just a shame that Verant chose
>|to fix the ranger overtaunting problem by giving us great
>|2-handers... rangers WERE supposed to dualwield in Everquest, it
>|was part of brad's original Vision. Everquest's base is AD&D, not
>|LoR.
>
>Note that we are _constantly_ told that our AC and HP
>penalties are _directly_ due to Dual Wield.
Indeed.
>|The spells aren't balanced either. A level 60 paladin is
>|basically a level 50 cleric without complete heal! A level 60
>|shadowknight has a pet that quads for FORTY-SEVEN DAMAGE! And he
>|can stack 2500 damage in DoTs then fear the mob while his pet
>|attacks its ass!
>
>Here's the problem: Paladins and SKs had better spell lists
>to draw FROM.
Oh, I dunno. The druid list has a lot of possibilities.
>Rant all we like, the truth is that looking at the Druid list
>there's really not a whole lot else they could have done for us!
>They could have given us self-only 'ports, but The Vision(tm)
>aside, that really wouldn't have helped us with our real problems,
>and it would not have been fair to the Druids (as it would create
>a second class that got all three travel powers).
All three? We still wouldn't have bind or gate. Self-ports wouldn't
be unbalancing, they'd be neat.
>They could have
>given us SLNature and Shield of Thorns instead of Diamond and
>Spikes, respectively...umm, ok, but doesn't exactly rock my world.
> Certainly not on the scale of the above.
It would be a nice complement to the paladins' resolution and shield
of words, though!
>Drifting Death instead
>of Drones of Doom is about the best they could have done for us.
Yes, and that's a significant difference. Drifting death is 650
damage in 1 min versus 340 damage in 1 minute.
Compare that to the shadowknights' 1152 damage in 1 min 36 seconds.
Drones of Doom: 34 druid spell (lvl 54 RNG), 340 total damage, 60
seconds, 5.677 dam/second, 141 mana, 2.41 efficiency
Drifting Death: 44 druid spell, 650 total damage, 60 seconds, 10.833
dam/second, 200 mana, 3.25 efficiency
Cascading Darkness: 49 necro spell (lvl 59 SK), 1152 total damage, 96
seconds, 12 dam/sec, 300 mana, 3.84 efficiency
Now I have no problems with getting drones of doom as a level 54
spell... but compare our 59 and 60 spells to the shadowknights' and
paladins.
Rangers get enveloping roots, calefaction, and thorncoat. The root is
crap and the thorncoat is a really nice self-only buff. Calefaction
is a spell created for rangers, basically, that does 450DD for 250
mana with a 45 second recast delay. Kinda like CoF 2. It isn't bad,
in of itself.
Paladins get SHIELD OF WORDS (best <50 cleric AC buff), RESOLUTION
(best <50 cleric AC/HP buff), and RESSURECTION (best <50 ressurect).
Shadowknights get DRAIN SPIRIT (second-best lifetap <50), ASYSTOLE
(690 damage debuff dot), and CASCADING DARKNESS (second best necro
dot <50). Oh, and they get that 44 necro pet at 58.
I mean, compare em. You know what I think rangers should get?
51: Greater Healing (29 druid spell)
52: Firestrike (39 druid spell)
52: Ring of Butcher (19 druid spell)
53: Form of the Great Wolf (44 druid spell)
54: Ring of Commons (19 druid spell)
54: Skin like Diamond (39 druid spell)
55: Ring of Karana (19 druid spell)
56: Storm Strength (44 druid spell)
56: Chloroplast (44 druid spell)
57: Drifting Death (44 druid spell)
58: Thorncoat (49 druid spell)
58: Shield of Spikes (39 druid spell)
59: Nullify Magic (44 druid spell)
60: Starfire (49 druid spell)
60: Pack Chloroplast (49 druid spell)
Now THAT'S a spell list.
A paladin is basically a 50 cleric without complete heal, right?
Well, we don't get skin like nature or any group teleports.
A shadowknight gets the amazingly powerful 44 necro pet and a lvl 49
DoT, right? Well, we get drifting death and Starfire.
Hell, maybe pack chloroplast will make us useful in groups. That's
one kickass spell.
>They could have jumped over to the Shaman list and given us the
>weaker wolf pets, which would be about as useful to a post-50
>Ranger as the pre-50 SK pets were to that class, but then the SKs
>and Shaman would probably whine. (I do wish they'd put in a L60
>quest for the L34 pet...it would be totally useless, but being
>seen with a wolf companion is what every Ranger wants. That's the
>real reason Rangers loved their Mistwalkers, at least until they
>were nerfed to hell and yanked.)
I dunno. You think the shaman pets are weak, but they're not as bad
as you think they are. My old 34 puppy doubleattacked for up to 30
damage every 30 delay. Sure, the max level was 26... but that's a LOT
of added damage. Even the 34 pet would add significantly to rangers'
solo potential. I mean, a LOT.
>What they *really* should have done was accepted that our
>spell list could not possibly match what was possible for the other
>two hybrids and given us better melee ability to compensate.
>Instead they made us WEAKER.
Oh I dunno. My spell list above sounds a little overpowered, sure...
but I think it matches up nicely. I mean, shadowknights get the
FOURTY-FOUR NECRO PET and a 1152 damage dot, for crying out loud.
Not that I care, I play a shaman.
Billy Shields
: ran...@opera.iinet.net.au (Billy Shields) wrote in
: <3909127e$0$15...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>:
:>Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote:
:>: In the <46 game, rangers end up doing around 40% more damage
:>: with commonly available weapons (dual yaks+sash versus a mithril
:>: 2hander).
:>
:>According to the 50+ warriors I know and careful analysis based
:>on magic number theory the mith 2her is an awesome weapon and
:>dual ykeshas + fbss have a hard time beating it. The only way
:>they manage to do so if it the procs outweight the damage
:>*deficiency* (thats right, the pure melee damage is *less*)
:>between them and a mith 2her.
:>
:>My warrior (level 35) has both a mith 2her and the fbss/2yks combo
:>and just looking at how often they proc (they don't proc yet but
:>you still get the message "You lack the will to command this
:>weapon") I simply don't buy that they're better (especially now
:>with the two handed damage adjustment).
: Oh, I didn't think of the 2HS damage adjustment... they very well may
: be about equal now. I haven't played my ranger in months, heh.
: Before damage was adjusted, dual yaks would *always* beat a mithril
: 2hander, *always*.
Dual yks relies on:
1. A big magic number (ie being 50 or close to it).
2. The procs not getting resisted.
3. Having a maxed dual wield skill.
If the procs are resisted then an m2h is *unquestionably* better
than 2yks+fbss at *every* level up to 50.
The question is whether the procs make up that deficiency. From
what I've seen thus far they do not go off often enough (and
thats with a dex in the 130s FWIW which doesn't seem to be much).
Now the reason this is the case is that if you're comparing (say)
warriors and rangers they both get a third attack. If you compare
a ranger with 2yks+fbss to a paladin with a mith 2her the ranger
still has kick whereas the paladin can't bash. That kick attacks
accounts for another 1.5-2damage/second which puts the ranger
in front of the paladin. Against a warrior the ranger doesn't
get the same headstart.
No magic number for the offhand and a chance of an offhand attack
being just over 40% doesn't equate to that much damage (an 8/24
weapon at 50 in the offhand is only about 2.94MN/s before double
attack compared to 10MN/s for the primary hand).
Compare that with the 13.5MN/s the mithril two hander starts with
*before* you even factor in its superior haste (you need dragon
or planes loot to match that haste).
:>: In the 51-60 game, who knows, honestly. Some AMAZING weapons are
:>: out there now that are relatively easy to get, like the
:>: Polyphenomenal Axe (37/48), Throneblade of the Ykesha (33/51,
:>: procs ykesha), Jade- Inlaid Axe (32/40), etc.
:>
:>Heh, have you seen the 15/33 spear yet?
: If the 15/33 spear came out pre-kunark, my ranger would use it. Now,
: with the many weapons out there, it's only good for rogues. It's too
: damn slow.
My warrior wants a pair of 9/20 10ac piercers. I even have a piercing
skill already. Woo hoo! Those are the choice Kunark weapons that
I've seen tus far (along with the 32/40 axe).
:>:>#5. Rangers are incredibly fun. With some of the best, easiest
:>:>to obtain equipment in the game, and some of the most
:>:>interesting, fun, and reasonably easy to do quests, rangers are
:>:>great fun.
:>
:>: Up to level 35, I'd have to agree with you. After that, we're
:>: weak as hell.
:>
:>Funny. People try and shoot me down for using the same argument
:>about druids.
: Well... druids are great until 35ish, then they suck until 49, where
: they're great again. Between 35 and 48, druids are actually fairly
: weak.
I used to buy into that belief. In fact it kept me going through
the 34-48 range (repeat the mantra "at 49 everything gets better").
And it does get better. Unfortunately you still suck and it wasn't
quite enough to make up for the shortfall of the last 15 levels.
:>:>#6. Rangers solo, the best of all melee classes.
:>
:>: Enchanters melee, the best of all pure caster classes.
:>
:>Its not as ridiculous as it seems. Rangers won't tear through
:>levels soloing but if you carefully pick your targets it *is*
:>viable.
: No, it's not.
: Tell me what you soloed, efficiently, to get from 49 to 50. Before
: Kunark opened, mind you.
I do actually have a creature in mind but since I still regularly
use it myself (always blue at 50) and not many people seem to
know about it I think I'll keep it to myself for now. :-)
:>:>#7. Kunark was built for rangers. Tracking is almost
:>:>necessary.
:>
:>: Tracking is absolutely worthless. If you actually played a
:>: ranger you would know this.
:>
:>If they sorted the list based on proximity it would be useful.
:>Why they don't do this I'll never know.
: Why? The WHY is easy to answer.
: It's extra work.
Yeah this is Verant we're talking about isn't it?
:>Necros are good because their spell damage is extremely efficient
:>and versatile and they have a cheap source of highly efficient
:>melee damage (their pets).
: Yes, versatile. Flexibility... although it's mostly aimed at solo
: play.
:>Magicians are good because of the same source of melee damage.
:>Don't forget their damage shields either.
: Magicians suck. They have raw power but no flexibility.
They don't suck. Not in the slightest. Hell my 51 magician friend
(I think hes 52 already) told me his 51 earth pet could practically
solo ice giant on its own. Magician pets even get backstab now.
According to Verant they're going to be based on other classes
in the expansion level as well (like wizard).
:>Enchanters are good because they monopolise so many *necessary*
:>abilities (particularly crowd control and mana restoration).
:>Noone can ignore their speed buffs either.
: Yes, they're VERSATILE. They're FLEXIBLE. They're great both in
: groups and solo. They have great buffs, great debuffs, a pet for
: soloing, and can even nuke.
:>Shamans are good because of their speed debuffs and they have
:>a pet too (not as good as a necro/mage pet for sure but hey
:>its still a great DoT). Oh and their poison DoT line isn't too
:>shabby either (quite the opposite).
: Yes, shamen are VERSATILE. Again, great both in groups and solo.
: Again, decent buffs, great debuffs, a pet that can be used in groups,
: and wonderful dots.
:>Explain to me how druids fit into this category. The answer is
:>they don't.
: Druids? Sure they do. They get pretty much everything but a pet and
: speed buffs/debuffs. They've got the second best DD nukes, they have
: the third best dots, they have slowdown, they have (animal) fear,
: they can heal, they have chloroplast, they have great AC/HP buffs,
: they have damageshields... they're versatile.
Versatility doesn't mean a damn thing. The above classes aren't
powerful because they're versatile. They're powerful because:
1. They can do something noone else can thats necessary (eg
enchanters); and/or
2. They have an efficient source of damage (pets or good DoTs).
: Druids are great!
: I'd play one myself, but there are just too many damn druids in the
: game... they're lame now. :(
They're not great. Borrow a L50 druid and play it for awhile.
You'll see.
:>: That just doesn't hold for melee characters. Melee characters
:>: need to do two things; do damage and absorb damage.
:>
:>The more people you have the less important absorbing damage seems
:>to be. Preventing damage in the first place is far more important
:>(eg speed debuffs).
: I couldn't agree more. But... what's your point?
The point is that noone can really take the pain of something
hitting them for 100+ damage a hit for extended periods. Not
even a warrior. Thats why you need so many people to do dragons
and the planes. As such your ability to absorb damage becomes
increasingly irrelevant in the face of:
1. Weight of numbers
2. The need to reduce the target's damage output
Yes the ranger tanking problem IS a problem but its not the end.
: Melee character still need to do those two things, and rangers aren't
: any good at either.
:>: That's why we care... it isn't that the penalty ITSELF makes
:>: such a huge difference (except for troll shadowknights, of
:>: course) it's more like we feel like we've been done wrong.
:>
:>Actually the penalty does make a difference to efficiency minded
:>groups. That penalty is shared. What would you do if you were
:>organising a group--fill it up with rogues and warriors or fill
:>it up with monks, rangers and SKs?
: I'd fill it with warriors, rogues, and monks, because they're better
: classes at absorbing and dealing damage. The XP penalty does not
: matter.
Yeah it does. Moreso now with the need to level up to 60 and the
huge exp requirements this entails.
:>:>The experience
:>:>penalties mean nothing anyway. In a group you advance as fast
:>:>as anybody else in your group.
:>
:>: This is wrong. Create a level 1 troll shadowknight and group
:>: with a friend's newly created level 1 halfling druid. Stay
:>: grouped until the druid hits level three, then both of you check
:>: how much experience you have.
:>
:>: It's really trivial to disprove that. Hybrids do NOT take more
:>: XP from a group, and they DO level slower, even when grouped.
:>
:>This is not correct. The exact workings of the exp sharing in
:>groups has never been adequately explained by anyone looking at
:>the hard numbers but it is clear (from observations made by the
:>ShowEQ people and from in-game observations) that the exp penalty
:>is shared across the group. You don't level at the same rate
:>but I've seen instances where the SK would level *faster* than
:>the druid he was grouped with and the druid would've been *far*
:>better off soloing.
: Dude. Stop saying "this is not correct" and run the test, okay? It
: doesn't take very long.
I don't think the test can be considered an entirely accurate
analysis. Anyway its a simple case of proof by counterexample:
the theory of yours is proven incorrect by the evidence to the
contrary.
:>: Rangers get the 2HB skill, right? Well, guess what... there are
:>: no weapons we can use to raise the skill. Before Kunark, there
:>: were two 2HB weapons we could use in the ENTIRE GAME: a shovel
:>: (4/27) and the magicians' summoned staves.
:>
:>I guess this is why you have 150+ unused practises. I know I do.
:>But yes I agree that if they're going to add good weapons of new
:>skill types to a class there should be lower level weapons they
:>can use to train.
: Well there are, NOW. There are a couple of ranger-usable 2HB items in
: Kunark, aimed at all level ranges from 1 to 50.
: The PROBLEM is that we didn't get a chance to train with them all
: along, and now we're being forced to USE those training points
: instead of doing it properly. That's bullshit, and it's unfair.
I agree. Still its never been a good policy to squander practises.
You never know what you might need them for.
:>: Dude, this isn't one of those "well, you should have raised your
:>: skill, you never know" kinds of things.... like getting paladins
:>: to raise their 1HB because the Sprinkler is in the game. This
:>: isn't like that.
:>
:>: There were NO WEAPONS WE COULD USE AT ALL. NONE. I mean, NONE!!
:>
:>If you're right then its ridiculous. I have trouble believing
:>this is so. I'll check the equipment lists later.
: Next time double-check the equipment lists as you post, I did.
: You sound much smarter when you have the information at hand, and it
: only takes a minute to look up.
Its probably a case of wanting to believe that Verant wasn't dumb
enough to give you a skill and then no way to use it. Then again
this is Verant we're talking about (its funny how many times that
statement is appropriate).
:>Well... the way I see it ranger's were meant to have the *option*
:>of dual wielding. Bards have no choice (their skill caps with
:>2hs and 2hb are 1 I think) but rangers do have a choice.
:>
:>They were certainly nudged in that direction though. Many of the
:>better pre-planes two handers weren't usable by rangers (the
:>mithril 2her and the skarlton sword namely).
: We weren't "nudged" in that direction. We were forced in it...
: otherwise, sure, we could use a GZ or Lamentation Blade at level 50
: and suck, or we could use SDC+BZ and kick ass.
Oh at 45+ its no question. Dual wield was the *only* option for
rangers. Prior to that a GZ wasn't so bad though (well prior to
40 anyway).
No sensible planes ranger would be wielding two handed weapons.
: ALL the good 2HS weapons were war/pal/sk only. ALL of em.
True enough.
:>:>#5. Our defensive skills are capped at level 40! Yes, they
:>:>are, for now. I think this is a slight imbalance, and eventually
:>:>verant will modify it slightly. That being said, we can still
:>:>tank well at 51. I hear a level 52 ranger was easily soloing
:>:>Nox, as well as bats and LDC's in Sol B yesterday. We can still
:>:>tank.
:>
:>: At 51, yes. At 60, no. A rogue in full banded will have more AC
:>: than a ranger in full thorny vine.
:>
:>Personally I think rogues and rangers should have fairly
:>equivalent defense caps. Neither should be good as a warrior (or
:>monk for that matter). Come to think of it SKs and paladins
:>should be better as well.
: I disagree.
: I think we should all have equivalent defense caps but the
: shadowknights and paladins should have better, more easily acquired,
: equipment available to them.
Interestingly its only now that the plate/chain/leather armour
restrictions are starting to actually mean something. Prior to
Kunark the difference in ranger and warrior armour was only
apparent once the warriors got indicolite.
: (snip)
:>: DISADVANTAGES
:>: 1) worst tank in the game by a huge margin
:>
:>I don't think its THAT bad. It does hurt though.
: Remember I'm talking about level 60. With a defense cap 15 points
: lower than *BARDS*, 30 points lower than SK/Paladins, and 52 points
: lower than ROGUES, warriors, and monks.
Heh having a defense cap lower than bards is an insult. Thats just
plain ridiculous.
: Thirty points of defense skill is not thirty armorclass. It's a hell
: of a lot more.
Yep Defense is King.
:>: 2) second-worst damagedealer in the game
:>
:>I think this is just plain wrong.
: Really? What class besides paladins will do less damage than us?
: Oh wait... OK, bards.... sorry, forgot about 'em. OK, third-worst.
Yeah if you ignore the SK pet then rangers are still probably going
to be better off. Unfortunately that pet is a big thing to ignore.
Like I said (below) I keep forgetting about that pet (maybe I'm
trying to block it out).
Hey I shaved 150 lines of this post. Maybe someone will read it
now.
Sam Schlansky
<ky9O4.151579$1C2.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>> Umm? You're being sarcastic, right? Archery is only useful for
>> pulling, everybody knows that.
>>
>> If you aren't being sarcastic here, you're a total imbecile. I
>> mean, really.
>
>Try playing a melee class without it and you'll see what I mean.
Good enough for me, you're an idiot. Welcome to my killfile.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|I did it, at level 35, with a raincaller and 3 damage arrows, snare,
|stinging swarm.
|Got the giant down to half health before I waded in and finished it melee.
|Took just under ten minutes, yes.
Probably could have done it in less time if you weren't moronic enough to
use a DOT on a moving target.
Free clue -- when you account for the damage reduction, Stinging Swarm is
*NOT AS GOOD AS* Ignite.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
Schlansky) wrote:
|Good enough for me, you're an idiot. Welcome to my killfile.
You mean I have to tear her in half all by myself? That's not much fun.
JackiePrice
> use a DOT on a moving target.
>
> Free clue -- when you account for the damage reduction, Stinging Swarm is
> *NOT AS GOOD AS* Ignite.
Are you nuts? Stinging swarm does 120 damage in 45 seconds . If the target
is moving it does 80 damage in 45 seconds. You are telling me it would be
better NOT to spend 3 seconds casting that spell between firing arrows, 45
seconds apart, than to waist 3 seconds casting a spell that will hit for 37
damage tops? Not even for mana efficiency, and I was nowhere near being low
on mana when it was over. I would have been had I been chain casting
ignite...I also would have had to stop backing up a lot more.
JackiePrice
39th level. At 39 I could solo a GK with no magic used other than my buffs
(including damage shield) and a snare...and did so regularly...gained about
2 bubbles of my level that way. (Soloing GK's is FAST.) I assume your
equipment was lousy...
Bashugud
wrote:
>#4. Rangers can tank, and can tank well. They are NOT warriors. They do
>not absorb damage quite as efficiently or absorb as much of it, but in
>pre-expansion Norrath there is NOWHERE, not dragons, not planes, not
>dungeons, where a Ranger is not a viable tank.
Ranger's main concern is defense cap post level 50, which you have
neatly avoided.
JackiePrice
Dark Tyger
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:04:46 GMT, dark...@mindspring.com (Dark Tyger) wrote:
>
>|Nope, sorry. It's your argument, you do the work.
>
> I don't think anyone would appreciate it if I dumped about a year's worth
>of mailing lists digests to the group.
Wasn't asking you do do that. You don't *HAVE* to do that to pick out
the reasons to support your argument.
>|Plus, use personal
>|experience or your arguments will be (by me, anyway) discounted as
>|invalid rantings of a sheep who lets others tell him how to think.
>
> It's a math problem. It's not about 'how to think'. It only has one
>answer.
Math? Not even close. It's a matter of preferrences, skill, and
knowing how to use the class efficiently. Math is only a small factor.
Overall, it's opinion. There is no "right answer" or "wrong answer".
In the end, you have no right to tell anyone they can't have a certain
opinion.
Trickle
> That kick attacks
>accounts for another 1.5-2damage/second which puts the ranger
>in front of the paladin.
Before 50, kick is caped at a 150 skill. After 50 it is capped at 175.
When rangers give an example of a round of combat against a plains
level mob, you don't hear them including kick.
That is because kick usually misses, or does 1pt of damage.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Are you nuts?
No. Mana efficiency is vital. The only thing that would convince me to
use Swarm instead is if the mob is extra-resistant to fire attacks.
|Stinging swarm does 120 damage in 45 seconds . If the target
|is moving it does 80 damage in 45 seconds. You are telling me it would be
|better NOT to spend 3 seconds casting that spell between firing arrows, 45
|seconds apart, than to waist 3 seconds casting a spell that will hit for 37
|damage tops?
I stop and fire off an Ignite after every five arrows. If you can't do
that without getting hit then either a) the mob is too fast to be safely
bowkited or b) you do not have the technique for what you are trying to do,
IE, u suk.
|Not even for mana efficiency
Yes, for mana efficiency. We're not Druids, we can't hose it around.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|Wasn't asking you do do that. You don't *HAVE* to do that to pick out
|the reasons to support your argument.
Well, that's the problem: I wouldn't be picking them out. What good would
it do? You'll just, as you try below, dismiss individual accounts.
|Math? Not even close.
Yes, math. Nothing but math. One fucking hundred percent MATH. GAMES
ARE MATH. They are not about "preferences" or "opinions", they are PURELY
mathematical structures AND NOTHING ELSE.
|Overall, it's opinion. There is no "right answer" or "wrong answer".
Yes, there are right and wrong answers. Every possible strategy has
statistical outcomes associated with it. Some of these outcomes are better
than others, and usually one is better than all the rest. The ones that are
worse are the wrong answers. You can't make a strategy work if the math is
against you.
|In the end, you have no right to tell anyone they can't have a certain
|opinion.
I have every right to tell someone they can't have a particular opinion,
because you are only entitled to an opinion that you can justify.
Sam Schlansky
>Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>> That kick attacks
>>accounts for another 1.5-2damage/second which puts the ranger
>>in front of the paladin.
>
>Before 50, kick is caped at a 150 skill. After 50 it is capped at
>175.
>
>When rangers give an example of a round of combat against a plains
>level mob, you don't hear them including kick.
>
>That is because kick usually misses, or does 1pt of damage.
I never had kick do more than 16 damage on my ranger (pre-cap,
though). It just isn't worthwhile to bother. All kick does is
contribute to my carpal tunnel.
JackiePrice
"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:j6kjgsgdi5v1dcogk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:01:13 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
> |Are you nuts?
>
> No. Mana efficiency is vital. The only thing that would convince me to
> use Swarm instead is if the mob is extra-resistant to fire attacks.
>
> |Stinging swarm does 120 damage in 45 seconds . If the target
> |is moving it does 80 damage in 45 seconds. You are telling me it would
be
> |better NOT to spend 3 seconds casting that spell between firing arrows,
45
> |seconds apart, than to waist 3 seconds casting a spell that will hit for
37
> |damage tops?
>
> I stop and fire off an Ignite after every five arrows. If you can't do
> that without getting hit then either a) the mob is too fast to be safely
> bowkited or b) you do not have the technique for what you are trying to
do,
> IE, u suk.
>
> |Not even for mana efficiency
>
> Yes, for mana efficiency. We're not Druids, we can't hose it around.
First of all, I wasn't near out of mana. Mana from a Stinging Swarm is an
insignificant 65. I still had well over half mana by the time I stopped
kiting the big lugg and moved in to melee.
Secondly you prove your ignorance in this, because the mana efficiency ratio
of Stinging Swarm IF the mob is moving is 1.23 (80/65). The mana efficiency
of ignite is 1.23 (37/30), assuming you do full damage, which you often
don't. Stinging swarm has an almost ZERO resist rate (I can cast it on
things 5 levels higher than me and only get a resist 5 - 10% of the time.)
Ignite is partially resisted about 50% of the time, so stinging swarm has a
more efficient ratio even if your target is moving.
(As a side note, when you finally stop to melee, stinging swarm does 120
damage instead of 80, and the efficiency is a better, but still unimpressive
1.85).
JackiePrice
>
> Yes, math. Nothing but math. One fucking hundred percent MATH. GAMES
> ARE MATH. They are not about "preferences" or "opinions", they are PURELY
> mathematical structures AND NOTHING ELSE.
>
No wonder you have no fun. By that argument, music is purely mathematical
arrangement of vibrations through the air. Life is a collection of
chemicals, nothing more.
> |In the end, you have no right to tell anyone they can't have a certain
> |opinion.
>
> I have every right to tell someone they can't have a particular opinion,
> because you are only entitled to an opinion that you can justify.
>
Strange thing is, you maintain your opinion even when your justification is
proven wrong.
Sang K. Choe
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 05:52:13 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
>|I did it, at level 35, with a raincaller and 3 damage arrows, snare,
>|stinging swarm.
>|Got the giant down to half health before I waded in and finished it melee.
>|Took just under ten minutes, yes.
>
> Probably could have done it in less time if you weren't moronic enough to
>use a DOT on a moving target.
>
> Free clue -- when you account for the damage reduction, Stinging Swarm is
>*NOT AS GOOD AS* Ignite.
If you account for the potential resists of Ignite vs. SS, it may be
more effective. The swarm line of DoTs are far less resisted than the
fire based nukes at least from my experience with my druid.
-- Sang.
bmc...@no.spam.ca
>> because you are only entitled to an opinion that you can justify.
>>
>
>Strange thing is, you maintain your opinion even when your justification is
>proven wrong.
>
groups but by his own admission, solo's 90% of the time. Hmm, maybe
it's not coincidence =)
- Boone
>
>
Rollin Severance
twink at 35 or a liar.
JackiePrice wrote in message ...
Xenomorph
think Magicians and Druids would be tied there then..
Rangers also get Wolf Form...
--
- ICQ: 1372712, AoL/AiM: Silicon18
- http://xenomorph.net
- Constantly waging my battle to destroy
the evil forces of the Decepticons.
Matt N <matt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Se_N4.37358$WF.18...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
: i agree with you all the way. i dont play a ranger but i do have a 20
druid
: and i can do anything with him. i can heal the second best in the game, i
: nuke second best in the game i can stop creatures in there tracks and i
can
: fight if i have to. + i get wolfform later on which i dont believe anyone
: else gets. it is much better to be good at different things to to have one
: big thing you can do!
:
JackiePrice
kiting, but not that bad at half health.
Not twinked...was using dual ebonies, full ivy.
"Rollin Severance" <sevca...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:JEoO4.982$l51.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Dark Tyger
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:39:46 GMT, dark...@mindspring.com (Dark Tyger) wrote:
>
>|Wasn't asking you do do that. You don't *HAVE* to do that to pick out
>|the reasons to support your argument.
>
> Well, that's the problem: I wouldn't be picking them out. What good would
>it do? You'll just, as you try below, dismiss individual accounts.
You mean just like you try to dismiss everyone else's opinions that
don't coincide with yours? Pot. Kettle. Black. Now, go home.
>|Math? Not even close.
>
> Yes, math. Nothing but math. One fucking hundred percent MATH. GAMES
>ARE MATH. They are not about "preferences" or "opinions", they are PURELY
>mathematical structures AND NOTHING ELSE.
Sure, that's what CREATES the game, but that's not the topic. The
topic is PLAYING the game. The topic is the RESULT of those numbers.
The interaction with what the numbers create. IT'S A GAME, not a math
problem.
>|Overall, it's opinion. There is no "right answer" or "wrong answer".
>
> Yes, there are right and wrong answers. Every possible strategy has
>statistical outcomes associated with it. Some of these outcomes are better
>than others, and usually one is better than all the rest. The ones that are
>worse are the wrong answers. You can't make a strategy work if the math is
>against you.
....you really have no idea how to have fun, do you? It's pretty clear
you don't if all that matters to you are statistics, numbers, etc.
Simple fact is, a properly player ranger can compete with any class.
Screw the numbers and statistics, statistics have been definately
PROVEN to be misleading at times. And this is one of those times.
>|In the end, you have no right to tell anyone they can't have a certain
>|opinion.
>
> I have every right to tell someone they can't have a particular opinion,
<sarcasm>Yes, Big Brother. You're allowed to tell me what to
think.</sarcasm>
>because you are only entitled to an opinion that you can justify.
Justify yours or STFU. Last I checked, we were entilted to hold any
opinion we damn well wanted. You have no right to tell me I can't like
blue better than green or asparagus over pizza.
Dark Tyger
>>> I have every right to tell someone they can't have a particular opinion,
>>> because you are only entitled to an opinion that you can justify.
>>>
>>
>>Strange thing is, you maintain your opinion even when your justification is
>>proven wrong.
>>
>Funny thing is that he also tells everyone how Rangers are useless in
>groups but by his own admission, solo's 90% of the time. Hmm, maybe
>it's not coincidence =)
Point.
Game. Set. Match. Wave goodbye to Dennis.
Sean Kennedy
Sam Schlansky <s...@deletethis.operation3d.com> wrote in message
news:8F249798vi...@207.126.101.100...
>
> Oh wait... OK, bards.... sorry, forgot about 'em. OK, third-worst.
>
Any bard who primarily melee's in a group at that level isn't living up to
their potential. An all instrument attack (FCC, CoFl, CoFr) using Selo's
Drum does FAR more damage than they can with weapons.
guess away
>ARE MATH. They are not about "preferences" or "opinions", they are PURELY
>mathematical structures AND NOTHING ELSE.
>
>statistical outcomes associated with it. Some of these outcomes are better
>than others, and usually one is better than all the rest. The ones that are
>worse are the wrong answers. You can't make a strategy work if the math is
>against you.
These two paragraphs pretty much sum up what is so fucked about you,
Heff. A *GAME* is 'one fucking hundred percent' preferences and
opinions. People play to have fun, no more, no less. Just because you
get off on math doesn't mean everyone else does, or even should. Just
because you only believe in the shortest line between two points is
best, doesn't mean everyone else does.
>|In the end, you have no right to tell anyone they can't have a certain
>|opinion.
>
> I have every right to tell someone they can't have a particular opinion,
>because you are only entitled to an opinion that you can justify.
No. Everyone is entitled to any opinion they wish. You have the right
to disagree, but such as the case above, your limited mindset is
rarely going to be right.
Eric Harding
>Magicians are better nukers than Druids i believe.. if not, then i would
>think Magicians and Druids would be tied there then..
>
>Rangers also get Wolf Form...
>
Wrong! Druids out nuke mages by level 60. This, combined with half of our
spells being useless summons after level 50, is why we got fucked over in the
expansion. Call of Hero is nice, but I refuse to group with people who
just want me there to taxi the people around the zone.
Eric
NBarnes
> Wrong! Druids out nuke mages by level 60. This, combined with
> half of our spells being useless summons after level 50, is why we
> got fucked over in the expansion. Call of Hero is nice, but I
> refuse to group with people who just want me there to taxi the
> people around the zone.
Bullshit. Nukes are just about the most inefficient spells in the
game, and you're whining because you get outnuked? You get _massive_
pets, one of the most efficient spells in the game, and you're pissed
because you don't have the most _inefficent_ spells in the game?
Grab a clue, man.
Druids get, basically, Ice Comet at 59th level. Let me put it this
way; wizards get Ice Comet at _50th_, and wizards _suck_, _hard_.
If Ice Comet can't keep wizards from being useless at 50th, it's
hardly going to do much for druids at 59th.
NBarnes - Dina Demeteran, 50th circle druid, Sol Ro
Sang K. Choe
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:01:13 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
>|Are you nuts?
>
> No. Mana efficiency is vital.
Right, which is why our (druid which is the same as the ranger
DoT/DDs) DoTs are as efficient than our DD at the prior ring even if
the mob is moving. Go and check the numbers. Factor in potential
resists, and the DoTs will usually come out ahead. Only at the *9
levels (at least for druids) would it not make sense to use DDs (at
the *9 levels we get our new DD which is more mana efficient and the
DoTs we got at the previous *4 level).
-- Sang.
Eric Harding
>Eric Harding wrote:
>
>> Wrong! Druids out nuke mages by level 60. This, combined with
>> half of our spells being useless summons after level 50, is why we
>> got fucked over in the expansion. Call of Hero is nice, but I
>> refuse to group with people who just want me there to taxi the
>> people around the zone.
>
> Bullshit. Nukes are just about the most inefficient spells in the
>game, and you're whining because you get outnuked? You get _massive_
>pets, one of the most efficient spells in the game, and you're pissed
>because you don't have the most _inefficent_ spells in the game?
>Grab a clue, man.
From what I've heard, in all the important places in the game around level 50,
ie, planes and dragon runs, pets, thanks to bad pathing, will get entire
groups killed. So, if we cannot bring in a pet on these runs, who is going
to want us magicians there? Druids have almost as good damage shields, can
heal if needed, and nuke as good as us, and evac if things get sticky. I
don't want to be brought along just so I can TP Bigbutt Smellsbhad the troll
warrior from the zone line to where the group is camping at.
Or am I supposed to hang out killing guards like all the other lame ass druids
and casters seem to do?
Eric
NBarnes
> > Bullshit. Nukes are just about the most inefficient spells in the
> >game, and you're whining because you get outnuked? You get _massive_
> >pets, one of the most efficient spells in the game, and you're pissed
> >because you don't have the most _inefficent_ spells in the game?
> >Grab a clue, man.
> From what I've heard, in all the important places in the game
> around level 50, ie, planes and dragon runs, pets, thanks to bad
> pathing, will get entire groups killed. So, if we cannot bring in
> a pet on these runs, who is going to want us magicians there?
> Druids have almost as good damage shields, can heal if needed, and
> nuke as good as us, and evac if things get sticky. I don't want
> to be brought along just so I can TP Bigbutt Smellsbhad the troll
> warrior from the zone line to where the group is camping at.
Well, yeah. Without pets, magicians are sucky wizards, and wizards
suck enough already. But you just plain heard wrong. While pets
used by _bad_ pet casters, the sorts who thing pet control is '/pet
kill' and nothing more, can and will cause the death of hundreds,
a _good_ pet caster is able to keep his pet under control. If you
run into people that don't let you use your pet, either talk them
out of it or find a new group. And good groups will welcome you
and your pet, because they know that magicians, with their pets,
are damage _machines_, especially on the planes or against dragons.
Magicians and necros are always welcome in my groups.
But make sure you've got good pet control before either of those.
Hotkey '/pet back off' and '/pet get lost'. Keep invis memmed for
killing it if it gets out of range. Losing the mana and stone is
a small price to pay to keep it from training you.
NBarnes - Dina Demeteran, 51st circle wanderer, Sol Ro
Billy Shields
Good advice.
The other thing is *never* use /pet guard me or even /pet sit down.
*Always* use /pet guard here. That way if it does chase something
down to finish it off it will come back. And while its guarding
it won't wander back and forth either. Only use /pet follow
when you actually want to switch locations that you're pulling
to. As soon as you get to your new temporary base do another
/pet guard here.
Having /pet taunt off is often a good idea as well.
Sang K. Choe
>From what I've heard, in all the important places in the game around level 50,
>ie, planes and dragon runs, pets, thanks to bad pathing, will get entire
>groups killed.
Usually pet + pathing problem isn't in Fear, it's in Hate. And it's
not the player's pets, it's the mob's pets. You pull the mob, it's
pet takes an assinine route to your group, training everything along
the way.
The worst that a player pet will do is wake up a messed mob--which is
pretty bad, but not the insta-death that bad pathing can be.
Nevertheless, against the boss mob of Fear (ie., CT), pets are very
useful since you basically have to melee the crtter to death.
>...Druids have almost as good damage shields,
Damage shields are largely useless in plane situations. You will
often have 8 to 15 meleers on a single plane mob, who do you damage
shield? All the meleers? Besides in many situations the plane mob
will spend a large portion of the time stunned.
>can
>heal if needed,
Actually, it's can heal if not-really needed. Greater Heal will not
keep folks alive against plane mobs. I can keep one tank alive
(assuming it's a real tank with high AC and a ton of hit points) by
chain casting greater heals, but I will no doubt:
1. Go OOM very quickly.
2. Piss off the mob sufficiently, I'll be getting pounded on instead.
Forget about keeping an INT caster alive--those have far too few hit
points and absolute crap AC. Healing 270hps inside of 6 seconds won't
be enough when they can lose about 1000hps in the same period. The
best I can hope for is to sufficiently aggro the mob in question so
that it will hit me (somewhat better AC and somewhat better hit
points) for a bit giving the tanks time to taunt it off me.
>and nuke as good as us, and evac if things get sticky.
You never evac from the planes. You either camp or die.
-- Sang.
Eric Harding
>Eric Harding wrote:
>> NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Eric Harding wrote:
>
>> > Bullshit. Nukes are just about the most inefficient spells in the
>> >game, and you're whining because you get outnuked? You get _massive_
>> >pets, one of the most efficient spells in the game, and you're pissed
>> >because you don't have the most _inefficent_ spells in the game?
>> >Grab a clue, man.
>
>> around level 50, ie, planes and dragon runs, pets, thanks to bad
>> a pet on these runs, who is going to want us magicians there?
>> nuke as good as us, and evac if things get sticky. I don't want
>> to be brought along just so I can TP Bigbutt Smellsbhad the troll
>> warrior from the zone line to where the group is camping at.
>
> Well, yeah. Without pets, magicians are sucky wizards, and wizards
>suck enough already. But you just plain heard wrong. While pets
>used by _bad_ pet casters, the sorts who thing pet control is '/pet
>kill' and nothing more, can and will cause the death of hundreds,
>a _good_ pet caster is able to keep his pet under control. If you
>run into people that don't let you use your pet, either talk them
>out of it or find a new group. And good groups will welcome you
>and your pet, because they know that magicians, with their pets,
>are damage _machines_, especially on the planes or against dragons.
>Magicians and necros are always welcome in my groups.
> But make sure you've got good pet control before either of those.
>Hotkey '/pet back off' and '/pet get lost'. Keep invis memmed for
>killing it if it gets out of range. Losing the mana and stone is
>a small price to pay to keep it from training you.
Well, I have a tendancy not to summon a pet until we get to the place we are
camping, call it a cautionary measure after a bunch of invis seeing greenies
decided to that the air pet I had with me had to die right there and then (
about 8 ghouls in the bottom of Befallen), and some of thm figured out to kill
the guy with the bad ac and hit points to make the pet go away.
My main hot key menu is /pet guard, /pet kill, /pet back off and /pet get
lost. Next piece of Ro armor I get will be the Earthen Boots, aka the Boots
of Pet Killing (Effect: Invis to Animals). Wish I had gone for those first
instead of the worthless Circlet of Mist (AKA The piece of shit that cost 3
times as much as Savant's Cap, and has the same stats except for 3 more ac).
But, and this is what I am afraid of, if the pathing in the plains are as bad
as I hear, I really don't want the party to die because Goner decided that
flying around the lake and through the house is a better path than the
straight line ten feet forward that the party took, and yes, I've seen this
happen in Paw before they revamped it. I miis the old paw, was gonna level up
my secondaries in there until the screwed it up.
Eric
John Henders
Only for about the last 4 weeks, and I still meet bards who don't know
those songs were fixed, as it was never mentioned in a patch message.
Most bards probably still think they're useless. Of course, most bards
probably don't have Selo's drum either, but the damage is still
respectable with a MM drum. However, did they fix the horrendous resist
rates on these? They used to be resisted about 60% of the time, which
would knock their damage dealing down considerably.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Mason Barge
>>From what I've heard, in all the important places in the game around level
>50,
>>ie, planes and dragon runs, pets, thanks to bad pathing, will get entire
>>groups killed.
You heard this from some emotionally-driven tank with a dangerous chip on his
shoulder about pets. NOT having pets in dragon runs and oftimes in the
planes will get groups killed. A group leader in any non-planes raid who does
not insist on at least mage and necro pets is incompetent and should not be
leading a major raid.
(unless the mage/necro is known to be incompetent, but then, why allow them on
the raid in the first place?).
The one exception I know is breaking into either Hate or Fear, where pets are a
huge danger, no matter how well-handled.
>
>The worst that a player pet will do is wake up a messed mob--which is
>pretty bad, but not the insta-death that bad pathing can be.
This is one of the 10 great misconceptions. It is impossible for a pet to wake
up a mezzed mob. No pet will ever initiate an attack against a mob. It is
entirely possible for a group to be in a furious battle and a pet to pace back
and forth aimlessly.
A pet will engage a mob if and only if (in order of preference) 1) it is
attacked, 2) it's master is attacked, 3) it's master orders it to attack.
That said, there are two problems with mezzed mobs. First, the mob breaks mez
and hits either the pet or the owner. (This is usually why unknowledgeable
enchanters claim a pet has "broken a mez")
Now it is very hard to pull the furious pet off the mob and takes a lot of
co-ordination between the petcaster and the enchanter. You can either let the
pet solo until one of them is dead (or the group kills the main mob and can
turn to the one being attacked by the pet), or coordinate pet backoff commands
and mez/trance commands.
Second, the pet, like any mob, has a hate list. The petcaster must wipe this
list from time to time by using the backoff command, which completely wipes the
list clean. Otherwise, once a mob is dead, the pet will proceed to attack the
second mob on its list.
So if a pet is fighting a mob, and is aggro'd on it because the mob has hit it,
and a second mob hits the petcaster, the petcaster needs to back the mob off
once during the battle. Otherwise, as soon as mob one is dead the pet will go
looking for the mob that hit its master.
>Nevertheless, against the boss mob of Fear (ie., CT), pets are very
>useful since you basically have to melee the crtter to death.
>
Pets are a major asset against any ubermob. Has anyone seen Vox or Najena
killed without pets?
>>...Druids have almost as good damage shields,
>
>Damage shields are largely useless in plane situations. You will
>often have 8 to 15 meleers on a single plane mob, who do you damage
>shield? All the meleers?
This has actually changed somewhat with the "group damage shield" spells.
Druids get one at 51 and now I just let the druid shield the entire group, even
though it does less damage (20 as opposed to 25).
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
Mason Barge
>Well, I have a tendancy not to summon a pet until we get to the place we are
>camping,
Usually a good idea. Actually this is pure laziness for me, it is tiring
pulling a pet through a dungeon. Not so much dangerous, once you get the hang
of it, as it is irritating -- and it slows down the group.
But if the breakin is difficult, you can cast a pet and then kill it after the
fight. This is easier as you get higher, especially if you specialize in
conjuration.
> Wish I had gone for those first
>instead of the worthless Circlet of Mist (AKA The piece of shit that cost 3
>times as much as Savant's Cap, and has the same stats except for 3 more ac).
I don't understand this. The Circlet of Mist is no-drop so how could it have
cost anything? Also it has +3 agi in addition to 5AC.
I have to admit that I never attempted to get it -- I just picked up the
elements for it in the normal course of business (two of them in adjacent
zones) and picked it up, at no cost whatsoever, from Joyce. So I would
recommend this as it is basically a freebie.
>
>But, and this is what I am afraid of, if the pathing in the plains are as bad
>
>as I hear, I really don't want the party to die because Goner
Good attitude. Don't get a pet during a breakin. When you have a camp you can
get a pet and watch his pathing closely. A good group in the planes will want
you to have a pet.
Eric Harding
>> Wish I had gone for those first
>>instead of the worthless Circlet of Mist (AKA The piece of shit that cost 3
>>times as much as Savant's Cap, and has the same stats except for 3 more ac).
>
>I don't understand this. The Circlet of Mist is no-drop so how could it have
>cost anything? Also it has +3 agi in addition to 5AC.
>
>I have to admit that I never attempted to get it -- I just picked up the
>elements for it in the normal course of business (two of them in adjacent
>zones) and picked it up, at no cost whatsoever, from Joyce. So I would
>recommend this as it is basically a freebie.
None of mobs I fought at 30th dropped the 110pp gem needed for it. +3 AGI
doesn't help an INT spellcaster. I know when I get hit most of the time now,
if something doesn't get it off my back in few secs, I'm dead. So I stand
there and hit my "It's on me!" Hotkey, and hope that the group healer, pet,
tank, etc. can somehow aggro it onto them. But I will admit, somehow my
defense and doge skills manage to stay maxed out all the time for some reason.
Eric
Eric Harding
>>
>Pets are a major asset against any ubermob. Has anyone seen Vox or Najena
>killed without pets?
Heh, I don't know about Najena, when we fought in her room, given how the nice
group leaving broke the spawn for us, when she popped, between the necro pet
and my pet, I don't think she lived long enough for my group to see her alive.
:) Gotta love those red spawn with low hitpoints.
Eric
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>> Wish I had gone for those first
>>instead of the worthless Circlet of Mist (AKA The piece of shit that cost 3
>>times as much as Savant's Cap, and has the same stats except for 3 more ac).
>
>I don't understand this. The Circlet of Mist is no-drop so how could it have
>cost anything? Also it has +3 agi in addition to 5AC.
The sapphire required to complete the quest is approximately 3 times
the price of a typical savant's cap.
As for worthless, I consider a 5AC head piece pretty good for 110
plats especially for an INT caster, what the hell else are you gonna
get?
-- Sang.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>>>From what I've heard, in all the important places in the game around level
>>50,
>>>ie, planes and dragon runs, pets, thanks to bad pathing, will get entire
>>>groups killed.
>
>You heard this from some emotionally-driven tank with a dangerous chip on his
>shoulder about pets.
Usually, the folks who don't want pets around are our enchanters. The
tanks could careless--infact, they kinda like the extra melee damage
the pets dishout.
> NOT having pets in dragon runs and oftimes in the
>planes will get groups killed. A group leader in any non-planes raid who does
>not insist on at least mage and necro pets is incompetent and should not be
>leading a major raid.
We've never summoned a pet during a raid on Fear/Hate. For the simple
reason that you can't reliably tell a pet to back the hell off from a
mob.
During the end of Fear when there are no other mobs remaining except
CT--we have everyone summon their pets since melee damage is the only
reliable source of damage we have.
>>The worst that a player pet will do is wake up a messed mob--which is
>>pretty bad, but not the insta-death that bad pathing can be.
>
>This is one of the 10 great misconceptions. It is impossible for a pet to wake
>up a mezzed mob. No pet will ever initiate an attack against a mob. It is
>entirely possible for a group to be in a furious battle and a pet to pace back
>and forth aimlessly.
No, it can wake up a messed mob.
If the mob hits the pet, and then gets messed, the pet will smack the
mob back, resulting in a mob waking up. This happens quite often as
the mage tries to call the pet off, but can't because the mob is
constantly being "re-awaken" by the pet (and of course, the mob is
hitting back--usually after about two mess attempts, the pets can no
longer keep the mobs attention...of course, by this point no one can
get the mob's attention off the enchanters).
>That said, there are two problems with mezzed mobs. First, the mob breaks mez
>and hits either the pet or the owner. (This is usually why unknowledgeable
>enchanters claim a pet has "broken a mez")
When a few plane mob arrives to your camp (ie., get pulled there),
they aren't messed immediately simply because it takes a bit of time
to cast the spell. During that time if the pets were given the order
to "guard here" (or if the mage/necro was sitting and medding and get
jumped), they will attack the mob. Once it attacks, the mob's
attention is focused on the pet. AE mes is now cast. It sticks and
messes the mob. However, because the brain-dead pet is "engaged" in
melee with the mob, it will continue to hit the mob, waking it up
repeatedly.
This is the reason why our enchanters get really pissed when
necros/mages summon pets without warning them.
>>Nevertheless, against the boss mob of Fear (ie., CT), pets are very
>>useful since you basically have to melee the crtter to death.
>
>Pets are a major asset against any ubermob. Has anyone seen Vox or Najena
>killed without pets?
Vox? Yeah.
Our guild took out Vox with just meleers and healers. The offensive
casters weren't even called into the action.
>>Damage shields are largely useless in plane situations. You will
>>often have 8 to 15 meleers on a single plane mob, who do you damage
>>shield? All the meleers?
>
>This has actually changed somewhat with the "group damage shield" spells.
No it hasn't.
Casting damage shield on INT casters is useless. And no plane group I
know is comprised of one druid + 5 tanks since there's no way a single
druid can keep 5 tanks alive.
Damage shield works well in a zone where you "do" things with a single
group with a couple of tanks in it. In plane/dragon raids, forget it.
It's a waste of mana, save the mana for the heals instead.
-- Sang.
Mason Barge
>Usually, the folks who don't want pets around are our enchanters. The
>tanks could careless--infact, they kinda like the extra melee damage
>the pets dishout.
>
Well, in personal experience, I have never had an enchanter who didn't come to
love my mage. The only people who irrationally hate pets are melee players.
>
>No, it can wake up a messed mob.
>If the mob hits the pet, and then gets messed, the pet will smack the
>mob back, resulting in a mob waking up.
Ok we're saying the same thing then.
One solution to this problem, if there is only one pet, is just to let the pet
solo the mob. As long as the mob is hitting the pet instead of the enchanter
this is not a bad situation, as it keeps the enchanter low on the mobs hate
list. You need some trust and expertise from both mage/necro and enchanter
here though.
Enchanters don't like it at first because they want to stay in control. This
isn't a perjorative statement, enchanters die a lot. They don't want to see
the pet die and the mob coming after them; they'd rather have it mezzed where
they can control it. But a good mage/necro won't let this happen, and if this
works it works well, because when the target mob is dead and the group turns to
the pet-solo mob, it is already worn down. That is, a lot of the mob's damage
has been absorbed by the pet, which is a good thing and difficult to do.
>During that time if the pets were given the order
>to "guard here" (or if the mage/necro was sitting and medding and get
>jumped), they will attack the mob.
Almost. The pet's setting doesn't matter. The only way the pet will hit a mob
is if it or its owner is attacked.
>>>Damage shields are largely useless in plane situations. You will
>>>often have 8 to 15 meleers on a single plane mob, who do you damage
>>>shield? All the meleers?
>>
>>This has actually changed somewhat with the "group damage shield" spells.
>
>No it hasn't.
>Casting damage shield on INT casters is useless. And no plane group I
>know is comprised of one druid + 5 tanks since there's no way a single
>druid can keep 5 tanks alive.
You have completely contradicted yourself.
The answer to your original question is yes. With group damage shield, you
damage shield all the meleers, or at least the ones with a druid in the group.
And mages will sometimes individually fireshield melee players depending on
their taunt skill.
And while this may not be mana efficient in theory, it uses mana to do damage
without aggro'ing the mob on the mage or druid. This gets very mana efficient
when compared to a dead caster with mana in his tank. And also a damage shield
is more reliable, as it hits without resists.
And a free group damage shield on a caster is not "useless". It is 20/21
damage. The whole concept of a group damage shield is that it doesn't matter
who the mob hits, every time the mob melees it gets hit for 20 or 21.
It might well be better to have the druid healing depending on the composition
of the group. A druid heals 540 HP for 300 mana at level 51. For DD it would
be maybe 700 damage for 300 mana maximum, but this would likely be closer to
400-500 counting full and partial resists.
So if you say 450 damage, that would be about 23 hits before the shield
expired. You just have to look at the situation.
In other words, the question is not whether you would rather have the druid
healing. If you need the druid for healing and he is not participating in the
offense, the issue is settled.
The question is, if you have a druid who is casting offensive magic, is a mob
hitting the group more than 23 times? If so, the group damage shield is a good
use of mana.
Also against caster mobs, damage shields are TRULY a waste of mana. Here your
casters need to be casting debuffs and DD.
Mason Barge
>As for worthless, I consider a 5AC head piece pretty good for 110
>plats especially for an INT caster, what the hell else are you gonna
>get?
Circlet of Runes. Benefit -- +4 int/wis and you can resell it, but it ties up
300-400pp.
Personally, I just didn't want to run around looking like I had a fish stuck to
my head. This is a very ugly item, while the Circlet of Mist doesn't show at
all.
Plus, I have to admit a bias in favor of quest armor. It's just more fun. If
you want to go to Perm and camp the Preacher though . . . .
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>>As for worthless, I consider a 5AC head piece pretty good for 110
>>plats especially for an INT caster, what the hell else are you gonna
>>get?
>
>Circlet of Runes. Benefit -- +4 int/wis and you can resell it, but it ties up
>300-400pp.
The name is Runed Circlet and yes, I know what it is, but it's also
more than 110pp and it's lower AC (4 vs 5).
I would think any caster in their right minds would realize that
INT/WIS is NOT the end all be all stat to be worrying about.
Especially since it's drop dead trivial to get your INT/WIS to 200.
I get tremendously annoyed when I see clerics, druids, and shamans
running around with the god damn testament at level 50+ instead of a
freaking shield. All because the stupid testament at most gives you
20 extra mana over a CGS.
INT casters might have an excuse given that no matter what equipment
they have, they will never get past 800AC (well, maybe the Iksars can
and with some of the wacky armor coming out of Kunrak others might as
well)--but it's still annoying as hell having to chain heal an INT
caster against a low blue/green because they chose to use some stupid
no AC giving item rather than just losing a few points of INT.
Give me a froggie crown over a nightshade any day of the week and
twice on weekends.
-- Sang.
Sang K. Choe
wrote:
>>No, it can wake up a messed mob.
>>If the mob hits the pet, and then gets messed, the pet will smack the
>>mob back, resulting in a mob waking up.
>
>Ok we're saying the same thing then.
>One solution to this problem, if there is only one pet, is just to let the pet
>solo the mob.
A 50th level mage earth elemental (highest hit point possible for a
50th level summoning) will be at most level 41. Against a plane mob
that pet will last about 30 seconds after which the plane mob will
either kill the mage (if it already hasn't--ie. summon the mage over
to explain why their pet is attacking them) or kill the enchanter for
daring to try and mes it (more than likely, it'll kill the mage first
and then the chanter).
>>During that time if the pets were given the order
>>to "guard here" (or if the mage/necro was sitting and medding and get
>>jumped), they will attack the mob.
>
>Almost. The pet's setting doesn't matter. The only way the pet will hit a mob
>is if it or its owner is attacked.
Try it.
Guard here, let the plane mob enter the range for the pet--it will
attack. Seen it.
>>>>Damage shields are largely useless in plane situations. You will
>>>>often have 8 to 15 meleers on a single plane mob, who do you damage
>>>>shield? All the meleers?
>>>
>>>This has actually changed somewhat with the "group damage shield" spells.
>>
>>No it hasn't.
>>Casting damage shield on INT casters is useless. And no plane group I
>>know is comprised of one druid + 5 tanks since there's no way a single
>>druid can keep 5 tanks alive.
>
>You have completely contradicted yourself.
>
>The answer to your original question is yes. With group damage shield, you
>damage shield all the meleers, or at least the ones with a druid in the group.
Look, to make the damage shield on the entire group effective, the mob
has to be hitting everyone in the group at some point in the combat.
At plane level mobs, the only people who can really tank those mobs
for any length of time to make damage shields even slightly effective
(and not waste even more mana healing because you're exchanging 24hps
for 130+ hps) are big fat high AC, high hit point warriors. Even
here, you can't expect them to tank it too long because they WILL DIE.
And no way you're going to have a single druid in a group with 5
warriors--the druid simply does not have the healing capability to
keep them alive against a plane mob.
You *MIGHT* have a cleric + druid + 4 tanks in a group, but even that
isn't a very good ratio since that cleric is gonna have a real hard
time trying to keep those tanks alive. Usually you want one druid to
a tank, and one cleric to two tanks as far as healing is concerned.
Given this sort of tank to healer ratio, group damage shield isn't all
that great. Also consider the following: Against a typical plane
mob, you'll often have 8 to 15 meleers whacking on it at the same
time. The mob will often spend a large portion of that time
stunned/togored if everyone is doing their jobs. That means it won't
be hitting as much--making damage sheilds even less effective.
Given all this, damage shields in plane runs are just not worthwhile
mana use.
>And mages will sometimes individually fireshield melee players depending on
>their taunt skill.
If a mage wastes mana damage shielding meleers in a plane raid, that
mage needs to have his head examined. Infact, even nuking would be
more useful use of his/her mana--wait for a tashani from an enchanter,
malosi the mob, and nuke. But basically the only thing I want from a
mage in the planes are:
1. Mod rods for everyone so we'll have some emergency mana batteries.
2. Malosi--and I mean every single mob here.
3. Occasional nukes if you're sitting on near FM and the mob is
relatively hurt.
4. Oh yeah, when it comes time to summon pets, weapons so those pets
will dual weild.
>And a free group damage shield on a caster is not "useless". It is 20/21
>damage. The whole concept of a group damage shield is that it doesn't matter
>who the mob hits, every time the mob melees it gets hit for 20 or 21.
No it does matter.
If the plane mob hits an INT caster with their AC and hit points,
you're looking at about 300+ hitpoints of damage in a single round
(double attack for 140+, and a kick). An INT caster will have about
1000hps with self buffs at level 50. Group damage shield costs 300
mana points. You just exchanged 60hps of damage from the damage
shield and took over 300hps of damage for 300 mana points. Not a good
exchange at all!
You don't ever want plane mobs hitting anyone other than tanks and
even those guys you want the mobs to hit as little as possible:
stun/togor always.
>It might well be better to have the druid healing depending on the composition
>of the group. A druid heals 540 HP for 300 mana at level 51. For DD it would
>be maybe 700 damage for 300 mana maximum, but this would likely be closer to
>400-500 counting full and partial resists.
Against plane mobs?!?
My starfire regularly does double digit damage if lucky if I don't
wait for someone to get malosi the damn thing first. With Malosi I
can get it to stick pretty well, but by the time malosi is cast, the
mob is nearly dead and the nukes are just to "finish it off"--which
the wizards can do a better job of. I can use my mana for those GHs
and pack choloro instead.
Against plane mobs, the most efficient use of druid mana is for
healing/buffing. Only if I'm sitting on FM, in a caster group, and
have clarity + bard mana song do I bother getting up to nuke. All
other times, I don't even have a damage shield nor a nuke memorized.
It's buffs, resists, heals, and maybe a wind spell to interrupt the
casters. I don't even bother with dots these days since we have
shamans and necros dotting those critters--and I have this horrible
feeling one day I'm going to dot a messed mob and get everyone killed.
>So if you say 450 damage, that would be about 23 hits before the shield
>expired. You just have to look at the situation.
23 hits...even against 1000+AC tanks, you've taken way more than 450
damage to the group. Not a good exchange. In a war of attrition like
this, you will lose.
>The question is, if you have a druid who is casting offensive magic, is a mob
>hitting the group more than 23 times? If so, the group damage shield is a good
>use of mana.
Even with very high AC, that's usually about 40 to 50 hps per
hit--that's over 1000hps of damage your group just absorbed. All to
give out 450 damage. No, damage shield isn't effective in the planes
for this one reason. Against 50+ level mobs, you simply cannot win a
war of attrition with damage shields because you simply cannot let
them hit you often enough to make damage shields effective.
>Also against caster mobs, damage shields are TRULY a waste of mana. Here your
>casters need to be casting debuffs and DD.
Ummm, try stuns. As in everyone is chain casting stuns.
Also, remember a caster plane mob is still a plane mob. Those fright
fingers and worry wraiths will put the serious hurt on you without
ever casting a single spell...just because they are caster doesn't
mean they don't hit in the 140 range...
Oh here's another reason why damage shields don't work very well:
Plane mobs have AE debuffs--those most likely to be debuffed are those
in melee range of the mob, ie., the ones wearing the damage shield.
Nothing pisses me off more than losing 800 mana points of buffs to a
glarelord.
-- Sang.
abatt...@netscape.net
> You mean just like you try to dismiss everyone else's opinions that
> don't coincide with yours? Pot. Kettle. Black. Now, go home.
Hehehhe. Dennis has been doing that for years.
> ....you really have no idea how to have fun, do you? It's pretty clear
> you don't if all that matters to you are statistics, numbers, etc.
i've read dennis's posts on the magic the gathering newsgroups a few years
ago. he's always been that way about numbers and will always be that way with
numbers. its just how it is. flaming him doesn't do any good. his retorts
and responses here are just as poor and unsupported as his retorts and
responses on rec.games.magic...
dennis is a sad little man. i've said that before, i'll say it again.
>>because you are only entitled to an opinion that you can justify.
> Justify yours or STFU. Last I checked, we were entilted to hold any
> opinion we damn well wanted. You have no right to tell me I can't like
> blue better than green or asparagus over pizza.
Indeed. opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, right?
opinions are like assholes, and Dennis needs to wipe his.
--
josh
Dark Jedi of the Sysadmin Sith Darth ddifdevrandomofslash
Jeremy Music
>
>Try it.
>Guard here, let the plane mob enter the range for the pet--it will
>attack. Seen it.
>
It's the pet's (being a NPC itself) psychic ability that it knows the planes
mob has already decided to attack either the pet or its master. I see the
same thing happen all the time when I'm sitting down somewhere and my pet
will toast some greenie that was going to agro on me but hadn't actually hit
me yet.
J
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wyld Knight - wyld.qx.net 3333
http://wyld.qx.net/~rezo
re...@lords.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ed Bradley
Sang K. Choe <sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote in message
news:b9urgs4os79h0oq3c...@4ax.com...
> On 01 May 2000 20:18:07 GMT, mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge)
> wrote:
> >
> INT casters might have an excuse given that no matter what equipment
> they have, they will never get past 800AC (well, maybe the Iksars can
> and with some of the wacky armor coming out of Kunrak others might as
> well)--but it's still annoying as hell having to chain heal an INT
> caster against a low blue/green because they chose to use some stupid
> no AC giving item rather than just losing a few points of INT.
>
> Give me a froggie crown over a nightshade any day of the week and
> twice on weekends.
>
Well this raised a chuckle. As an INT caster mana is king. Without mana I am
_nothing_ but dead. Can't run fast, cant take a hit, have few hp. They day I
pass up some extra mana for a few points of AC is the day I hang up my SMR
and walk away (resists are different IMHO and I'll wear the crown if I need
to for that reason).
If im in combat and getting hit Ive either done my job wrong (heck it
happens =)) or the group is in _very_ dire straits. A handful of AC isnt
gonna help.
Sergey Dashevskiy
It may be different with Iksar Necros that get natural AC bonus. I never
tested it yet, but it may be possible for them to break the 700 ac at
level 40 if they wear best AC gear instead of INT. It would be very
helpful too, as they'd get more chances to cast FD, lifetap or gate when
they are getting beat on
>
>
>
>
--
Vedun, 30th tank mage
Xirin, 31st retired druid
Xirinia Gusl'ar, 41st tanking bard of Povar, guildless
Run fast, die often, leave a well dressed corpse.
Mason Barge
>_nothing_ but dead. Can't run fast, cant take a hit, have few hp. They day I
>pass up some extra mana for a few points of AC is the day I hang up my SMR
>and walk away (resists are different IMHO and I'll we
I don't agree. When soloing, there are occasions where IMHO it makes a LOT of
sense to sacrifice mana for AC or even HP. You can't use mana if you are dead,
and there are mobs that will break an earth pet's root (if you have an earth
pet and, at Level 44 you may not) and run right through his taunt to get you.
In other words, it is sometimes impossible to use your mana without getting
knocked down to dangerously low HP.
Mason Barge
>It's the pet's (being a NPC itself) psychic ability that it knows the planes
>mob has already decided to attack either the pet or its master.
Nah, this is just the way fight reporting works. If you attack a mob, you will
often notice that the first message is a hit or miss by the mob.
Ben Pocock
wrote:
>>Well this raised a chuckle. As an INT caster mana is king. Without mana I am
>>_nothing_ but dead. Can't run fast, cant take a hit, have few hp. They day I
>>pass up some extra mana for a few points of AC is the day I hang up my SMR
>>and walk away (resists are different IMHO and I'll we
>
>I don't agree. When soloing, there are occasions where IMHO it makes a LOT of
>sense to sacrifice mana for AC or even HP. You can't use mana if you are dead,
>and there are mobs that will break an earth pet's root (if you have an earth
>pet and, at Level 44 you may not) and run right through his taunt to get you.
>In other words, it is sometimes impossible to use your mana without getting
>knocked down to dangerously low HP.
Int & Wis is one of those things that doesn't really make that big of
a difference in the grand scheme of things. I mean, you definately
should try to acquire some of the better ones, but it's not a biggie.
It is important if you are breaking a spawn and require all your mana
(in which case, the spawn is probably too tough for your group to
take) or you are soloing and using all your mana (in which case, you
are probably fighting the wrong creatures).
In a group, most casters are never at full mana. So it doesn't matter
about the size of your mana pool compared to the rate at which your
mana comes back.
Now int is still nice to have, especially on those long hauls where
you get to rest to full mana (someone dies, or you are forced to zone,
you have a real nice enchanter help you out). From what I've found,
anything over 130 is acceptable, over 160 is very good and 200 is just
gravy.
Sang K. Choe
<brad...@sdreams.co.uk> wrote:
>Well this raised a chuckle. As an INT caster mana is king. Without mana I am
>_nothing_ but dead. Can't run fast, cant take a hit, have few hp. They day I
>pass up some extra mana for a few points of AC is the day I hang up my SMR
>and walk away (resists are different IMHO and I'll wear the crown if I need
>to for that reason).
>If im in combat and getting hit Ive either done my job wrong (heck it
>happens =)) or the group is in _very_ dire straits. A handful of AC isnt
>gonna help.
Well, which would you rather have:
AC 700, INT 190
or
AC 600, INT 210?
I find an alarming number of INT caster choosing the latter over the
former. Alarming since at AC 700, an enchanter whose mes just broke
can potentially last long enough for me to cast a heal which can be
just enough to get the mob onto me--giving them a second attempt at a
mes.
Remember, I'm not asking INT casters to tank anything blue. I'm
merely asking that they last long enough for me get my damn heals off.
I can taunt that mob off you real easy by chain healing you--but it
doesn't work if you die in less than 5 seconds...
-- Sang.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
<sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote:
|I can taunt that mob off you real easy by chain healing you--but it
|doesn't work if you die in less than 5 seconds...
Just ask any Ranger.
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
Inner Child and kick its little ass!" -- D. Henley & G. Fry, "Get Over It"
Sang K. Choe
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 13:17:07 -0700, Sang K. Choe
><sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote:
>
>
>|I can taunt that mob off you real easy by chain healing you--but it
>|doesn't work if you die in less than 5 seconds...
>
> Just ask any Ranger.
About what? That rangers can't tank more then 5 seconds? Or that I
can't taunt things off by chain healing?
-- Sang.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
<sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote:
|On Tue, 02 May 2000 21:12:58 GMT, Dennis Francis Heffernan
|<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
|
|>On Tue, 02 May 2000 13:17:07 -0700, Sang K. Choe
|><sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote:
|>
|>
|>|I can taunt that mob off you real easy by chain healing you--but it
|>|doesn't work if you die in less than 5 seconds...
|>
|> Just ask any Ranger.
|
|About what? That rangers can't tank more then 5 seconds? Or that I
|can't taunt things off by chain healing?
The former, of course....
JackiePrice
multiple mobs that are at least 10 levels his senior.
Hell, a ranger can tank Vox longer than 5 seconds...
"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:shpugsgctrgbsnjn2...@4ax.com...
Ed Bradley
Like I say, mana is everything. If Im getting hit I better have mana for a
Root. Or Im dead whether Ive got 700AC or 70.
My character has been at 200INT for a while and every time a new item pushes
it over the boundary again I accessorize to tweak it back down to 200
focusssing first and foremost on +mana items, with resists then AC as
secondary considerations.
For the record his ac is about 550buffed at level 45 and he is pretty well
equipped. If you know any casters with 700AC Id love to know how they got it
and what price they payed for it in terms of mana availability.
Sang K. Choe <sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote in message
news:6ndugsokdij8mh2k0...@4ax.com...
> I can taunt that mob off you real easy by chain healing you--but it
> doesn't work if you die in less than 5 seconds...
>
> -- Sang.
Ed Bradley
while Im sitting there on 80% full I have the same if not MORE mana than a
160INT caster who is fom.
I realise this is all a matter of opinion in the end (any log-analysers care
to disagree?) but my character has PLENTY of mana, by and large does a good
job of not getting hit and rarely dies. Until this scenario changes I'll
still continue to prioritise equipment this way.
Ben Pocock <bpo...@admmail.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:391219ba.21417019@news...
> On 02 May 2000 16:26:09 GMT, mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge)
> wrote:
>
> >>Well this raised a chuckle. As an INT caster mana is king. Without mana
I am
> >>_nothing_ but dead. Can't run fast, cant take a hit, have few hp. They
day I
> >>pass up some extra mana for a few points of AC is the day I hang up my
SMR
Ed Bradley
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000502122609...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >Well this raised a chuckle. As an INT caster mana is king. Without mana I
am
> >_nothing_ but dead. Can't run fast, cant take a hit, have few hp. They
day I
> >pass up some extra mana for a few points of AC is the day I hang up my
SMR
> >and walk away (resists are different IMHO and I'll we
>
> I don't agree. When soloing, there are occasions where IMHO it makes a
LOT of
> sense to sacrifice mana for AC or even HP. You can't use mana if you are
dead,
> and there are mobs that will break an earth pet's root (if you have an
earth
> pet and, at Level 44 you may not) and run right through his taunt to get
you.
> In other words, it is sometimes impossible to use your mana without
getting
> knocked down to dangerously low HP.
>
>
bring me
> some coffee."
> - Abraham
Lincoln
Well I do 99.5% of my playing in a group so soloing effectiveness isn't much
of a concern for me I must say.
Ben Pocock
<brad...@sdreams.co.uk> wrote:
>True I dont often run at full mana, but with 200INT and many +mana items,
>while Im sitting there on 80% full I have the same if not MORE mana than a
>160INT caster who is fom.
>I realise this is all a matter of opinion in the end (any log-analysers care
>to disagree?) but my character has PLENTY of mana, by and large does a good
>job of not getting hit and rarely dies. Until this scenario changes I'll
>still continue to prioritise equipment this way.
It still works anyway you feel like playing. The point I'm trying to
make is when you are sitting there at 80% mana, the person with a 160
int and a couple good mana items is at full mana. When you are a 60%
mana, I'm at 80% mana.
Now, if we sit there long enough to rest to 100% mana, you can cast
more. Of course, this is somewhat irrelevant since in most cases, you
should never need to use all your mana in a battle. Typically
speaking, I damage shield the tank and on the occasional situation
burn a couple times. I try never to drop below 50% mana because the
med time is too long (unless of course the cleric is OOM and I know
I'll be sitting there forever).
Ed Bradley
I don't mind med time if the situation is right. Give you a chance to banter
with the group/guild whatever. With Clarity even a 40->100 med is more than
bearable. Of course being a Wizard I also have to keep a bubble back for
Evac which means I have to pack all my offensive/crowd control punch packed
into the top 4 bars of mana.
Ed Bradley
shaman for Nimble/Health if he has mana but generally rely on Steelskin
instead. No Cleric in my regular group y'see.
Ed Bradley <brad...@sdreams.co.uk> wrote in message
news:390F...@sdreams.co.uk...
> Well everyone knows there's no point in taking INT over 200 right?
> Like I say, mana is everything. If Im getting hit I better have mana for a
> Root. Or Im dead whether Ive got 700AC or 70.
> My character has been at 200INT for a while and every time a new item
pushes
> it over the boundary again I accessorize to tweak it back down to 200
> focusssing first and foremost on +mana items, with resists then AC as
> secondary considerations.
> For the record his ac is about 550buffed at level 45 and he is pretty well
> equipped. If you know any casters with 700AC Id love to know how they got
it
> and what price they payed for it in terms of mana availability.
>
> Sang K. Choe <sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote in message
> news:6ndugsokdij8mh2k0...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 2 May 2000 15:49:33 +0100, "Ed Bradley"
> > <brad...@sdreams.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Well this raised a chuckle. As an INT caster mana is king. Without mana
I
> am
> > >_nothing_ but dead. Can't run fast, cant take a hit, have few hp. They
> day I
> > >pass up some extra mana for a few points of AC is the day I hang up my
> SMR
abatt...@netscape.net
> |About what? That rangers can't tank more then 5 seconds? Or that I
> |can't taunt things off by chain healing?
> The former, of course....
oh really?
against what? nagafen? vox?
bah.
i was in a party that had two "tanks". 1 ranger, 1 monk. the ranger was
taking almost all the hits from the mobs we were fighting, as the monk was
about level 40 (ranger level 49). did i mention that the mobs he was tanking
against were lava duct crawlers? dennis, do you know what a lava duct crawler
is? have you ever fought one? if so, then you know they are one of the more
dangerous mobs in soldungb aside from fire giants/naggy. if so, then you know
they hit for 90+, and fast.
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|i was in a party that had two "tanks". 1 ranger, 1 monk. the ranger was
|taking almost all the hits from the mobs we were fighting, as the monk was
|about level 40 (ranger level 49). did i mention that the mobs he was tanking
|against were lava duct crawlers? dennis, do you know what a lava duct crawler
|is? have you ever fought one?
Yes, I know what they are, no, I haven't fought one: what's your point?
Every aspect of this game has been documented. It's a math problem, not a
matter of personal testimonials.
|if so, then you know they are one of the more
|dangerous mobs in soldungb aside from fire giants/naggy. if so, then you know
|they hit for 90+, and fast.
I know that nobody tanks LDCs. You have someone healing you (and several
other someones trying to kill the thing) or you die. The question is how much
mana do you want your healer to have when the fight's over, and if you're
using a Ranger to tank, the answer will be 'not much'. Low AC, low HP, high
taunt from fast weapons and extra ripostes from fast weapons are a killer
combination. (Ever see a Ranger get quad-riposted by something nasty? I did,
against a Cyclops. Oh wait, that was me.)
Sergey Dashevskiy
@netscape.net says...
> Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote:
> > |About what? That rangers can't tank more then 5 seconds? Or that I
> > |can't taunt things off by chain healing?
>
> > The former, of course....
>
> oh really?
>
> against what? nagafen? vox?
Hehe, sure they can. My bard tanked Nagafen for 2 full rounds, and was
alive for another half a second. That's at level 41. I'd imagine ranger
would stand much longer.
So, yes, warriors do make better tanks than rangers, which by no means
makes rangers useless tanks
>
> bah.
>
> i was in a party that had two "tanks". 1 ranger, 1 monk. the ranger was
> taking almost all the hits from the mobs we were fighting, as the monk was
> about level 40 (ranger level 49). did i mention that the mobs he was tanking
> against were lava duct crawlers? dennis, do you know what a lava duct crawler
> is? have you ever fought one? if so, then you know they are one of the more
> dangerous mobs in soldungb aside from fire giants/naggy. if so, then you know
> they hit for 90+, and fast.
The raid on Nagafen that I participated in did have rangers (1 in my
group at least). They were intentionally trying to taunt less than
warriors, but he took some damage too. He was in a group of tanks and
doing very decent damage, being about as useful as warriors there.
Sergey Dashevskiy
dfra...@email.com says...
> I know that nobody tanks LDCs.
People do kill them. Efficient groups kill them as well. Most efficient
groups don't burn very often. That leaves us with what? Melee. Yes,
people do tank them
> You have someone healing you (and several
> other someones trying to kill the thing) or you die.
That's the case in most fights. Several other someones would be more
meleers
> The question is how much
> mana do you want your healer to have when the fight's over, and if you're
> using a Ranger to tank, the answer will be 'not much'.
That's why their taunt skill is lower than that of warriors. Let the
warrior be the primary tank. If you can't find a warrior, accept the
fact that your healer will spend more mana. I mean, if you can't find
anyone, and you have a bard tanking, you wouldn't expect the healer to
have much mana either. Just give every class a chance to do his job, and
things get better
> Low AC, low HP, high
> taunt from fast weapons and extra ripostes from fast weapons are a killer
> combination.
Hmm, before planes, what weapons does a ranger use? Yaks. What about
warrior? Yaks. What about rogue? A couple of much faster daggers. If you
want to make an argument about rangers using fast weapons, and that
being a problem, Swarmcaller would be a solution for you. It's not quite
as rare as it seems -- about 80% of rangers I've seen in Karnor's use it
> (Ever see a Ranger get quad-riposted by something nasty? I did,
> against a Cyclops. Oh wait, that was me.)
You mean that only rangers would have that problem? Besides, a clops
quad riposting is a very rare thing. Most of 50+ mobs I've seen and
fought never riposted against me more than once in a long while
Sang K. Choe
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>|>|I can taunt that mob off you real easy by chain healing you--but it
>|>|doesn't work if you die in less than 5 seconds...
>|>
>|> Just ask any Ranger.
>|
>|About what? That rangers can't tank more then 5 seconds? Or that I
>|can't taunt things off by chain healing?
>
> The former, of course....
You're telling me a ranger can't tank more than 5 seconds against blue
con mob?
If so, I think a lot of your complaint has little to do with the
ranger class and more to do with the fact that "you suck d00d".
Sorry, my *druid* tanked the Knight of Sathir (yellow con) for more
than 5 seconds--yes, I did zone with about 1 and 1/2 bubble of health
but I did tank the mother long enough for the enchanter to get out of
dodge.
-- Sang.
Jeremy Music
Yeah, my _magician_ tanked the Knight of Sathir for more than 5 seconds. I
think I had 20 hp left before I got away, but hey, I was alive. :)
dre
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 15:54:21 -0700, Sang K. Choe
><sa...@choenet.com.remove.this.com> wrote:
Feh.
I can last at least 15 seconds even when tanking nags.