He regrets making it because SoE has been beaten up about not adhering to the tiers; not because there is no such system. Look, the notion that there is no "system" is ludicrous. Of course SoE has to have some system...some design goals for each class in the game. So that every class can be viable, they must have design goals for dps, utility, "tankability", healing, etc, etc, etc. The problem they have is meeting these design goals across all types of playstyles: Solo, group, and raid. More recently, PvP as well. Meeting design goals solo is one thing. The dynamics involved in continuing to meet them increase exponentially as you move to group and raid play. To one extent, I commend SoE for doing as well as they have in maintaining balance among classes in most playstyles. But that won't mean that I can't post to point out where they have missed the boat. And they have clearly missed the boat when it comes to rangers in the raid level playstyle. Even if you want to quibble about where rogues and brawlers (for example) should be on the dps scale relative to predators, there is zero justification for there being such a wide disparity between ranger and assassin dps. The disparity represents a missed design goal on the part of SoE. Nothing less. Rangers have even less utility than assassins on raids yet assassin raid dps is substantially greater than ranger raid dps. Rangers have zero raid utility, yet only are about equal (or slightly lower) than rogues and mages who have substantial raid utility. What I have yet to understand is why SoE won't fix the problem. I can only conclude that they simply don't have the capability (or the desire) to properly measure raid dps using real players who actually know what they are doing.
Well said. Regardless of whether there are "tiers" or not, there is still the old tradeoffs of damage, utility, healing, and tanking. I can give you three things on that list that rangers do not do, and do not want to do. I think since every class feels its shortcomings, it might just be impossible to really get this looked at. If you are talking, for example, 1200 dps versus 1000 dps, SOE could easily think that it's just situational (meaning player skills, gear, buffs, color of the moon, etc.) How do you combat a perception when a lot of data has been provided and nobody cares? Heh.
This thread is so funny. SoE could never balance the classes in eqlive what makes anyone think that if SoE started a new game divided most classes by two they could work out a system that we all could call "balance" .
Data??? Look at the highest melee hit for every server... No it's not important, but it does reveal who they think should be T1...
I should have been clearer. I didn't mean that there is "no system at all," I meant that the so-called DPS tiers that some PR guy described in a forum shouldn't be taken as the Bible of EQ2 class balance. Yes, of course there are all the tradeoffs and balance issues regarding basic abilities (DPS, tanking, healing, utility) but regarding the "tiers system" as if it's some definitive breakdown or a master plan is just silly. Nobody is arguing that we should do less damage than templars, and FWIW, I agree with your statement about balancing classes across radically different situations and playstyles. It can't be easy; a game this vast is Byzantine in its complexity when it comes to those issues. So yes, they're dropping the ball in some areas with certain classes - some folks can't solo, others find themselves falling short on raids, some classes excel in PvP and others don't. I've never subscribed to the belief that all classes must be absolutely equal in all contexts, but there needs to be a general sense of balance, and that's missing in some areas right now.
So, when I get it through myhead there is no system.. No bow, no dagger... That I will suddenly equip myself with uzi's and m4's and start going after the devs and there plot to controll our minds. And harvest our organs for there own pleasures.
