Since Rangers are being locked to T7 DPS why aren't Assassins?

Aeralik wrote:

I totally disagree with this and I think you need to look into more data. Ill agree that we are right behind assassians and wizards but that is only every 3rd 4th pull and the majority of the raid we are trailing 1-2k.

Aeralik wrote:

Are you even talking about the same game? I'm not sure where you are getting your "DATA' but its got to be the single most inaccurate data you could possibly collect.
To say that rangers parsing anywhere from 3-4K is on par, or right behind assassins parsing 4-6K is completely talking out of the other side of your head. Which is what all the complaining is about Aeralik. Unless the data you are looking at is coming from EoF, then you couldnt be more wrong about being "close". EoF pretty much nailed how the DPS classes should mix it up. I dont think one person could argue that fact.
Assassins are pretty much the golden child of EQ2 right now. In the mean time, Rangers have seen a very minor increase to their DPS, mostly due to upgaded CAs of the new tier. One things for sure, it certainly wasnt from the fact that we had weapon upgrades. In fact, we STILL dont have weapon upgrades. Lowering the performance of RSB to "bring it in line" when DPS classes were nearly perfectly balanced in T7 makes no sense what so ever other then to "justify" keeping T8 bows where they are. Making T8 completely worthless for rangers who actually played (raided) in T7.
Theres no improvement from T7 to T8... every other class saw a decent increase in their dps. Rangers have been asking to scale the arrow mechanice properly, since they have been out of wack for way too long. You make that adjustment, which gets rangers every excited that they might in fact be able to compete, only to find out thats not going to be the case, and the increase we asked for... well.. ISNT!

Aeralik wrote:

I highlighted the part you should note Aerlick. You just mentioned the problem without even knowing it. Why are parsing with Swashies? They do so much more than us. If we are parsing with Swashies then why not take 2 swashies instead of a ranger. Thank you for summing up the problem without even knowing it.

Aeralik wrote:

So we're behind two classes and even with one? You do realize that the wizard, assassin and swashbuckler all bring far more utility to a raid force then a ranger does? We bring DPS. Period. Those 3 classes have hate transfers, group buffs, apply poisons, procs and much more. We have Pathfinding, Hawk Attack (which IMHO isn't that useful) and a short term buff on Focus Aim that now also benefits melee classes.

Based on this we should be even and probably slightly ahead of assassins and wizards and DEFINITELY ahead of swashbucklers. Why? Because as stated in my above paragraph the other 3 classes all bring more to a raid force via their buffs, procs etc...

Personally, I'm not concerned with group DPS, as Aeralik stated group fights are so fast it's hard to get a good read on a classes DPS output based on groups.

Aeralik, what I really don't understand is why the only data you appear to look at is parses. Surely you must have a mathematical model by which you can assess the DPS potential of each class at different gear levels.
The reason I ask this is because, based on my own math, assassins have a higher DPS potential from combat arts and from auto attack than rangers do. The CA part is more difficult for me to make a case for since I don't play an assassin, but conventional wisdom does hold that assassins do more CA damage than rangers so I don't think it's unreasonable to state that at best, rangers do the same CA damage as assassins, and at worst, they do less CA damage than assassins.
So, in the best case scenario where ranger CA damage is equivalent to assassin CA damage, then the auto attack damage potential of the two classes should be the same as well, since they are meant to be opposite sides of the same coin. However, the potential auto attack damage of the two classes is not equivalent, at least not according to the numbers listed on weapons in game.
In order for the stats listed on a weapon to mean anything, they must be affected by STR and +DPS the same way regardless of weapon type. Currently I believe this is the case on live, so that's the assumption I'm going to go with.


I wasn't intending to post this today so my selection of DW weapons isn't complete but it's close enough to prove my point. (Tables are adapted from Webin's 'bow list' post).
Fang of Ichor (Mythical) + Witchdoctor Doomblade = 7086 DPM
Eagle's Talon (Mythical) = 6389.56 DPM (a number which, given current ammo mechanics, has never been attainable)
Fang of Ichor (Fabled) + Betrayal's Song = 5898.28 DPM
Eagle's Talon (Fabled) = 4870 DPM (again, not currently achievable due to ammo mechanics)
Rigid Scale Bow = 4696.23 DPM
The numbers for the mythical epics don't take into account the effects on them.
Now, parse data may not entirely support the disparities between potential ranger and assassin auto-attack DPS shown by these numbers, but parses do show a disparity (which you yourself mentioned in your post, Aeralik, when you said that rangers were behind assassins).
I would really love to know how mathematics support your current attempts at balancing rangers, especially since you are so vague about what "data" you are looking at and the wording of your posts always seems to point at parses being your sole data source.
Is the math in EQ2 so screwed up that players should just ignore any numbers given to them by the devs on weapons and the like? Or is there actually a problem here that you are overlooking in your fixation on parses? An answer either way would be appreciated.

Aeralik wrote:

Why are we only neck and neck with swashy and outclassed by wizzies and assassins when we have to pay plat for dps? None of them pay plat to get as much if not more dps than us. If you are going to keep nerfing out dps, get rid of our arrow costs. Completely blank them, don't reduce the costs, completely get rid of them. I could accept other classes outdpsing me IF I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY PLAT TO KEEP MY DPS JUST BELOW THEM!!!

Just the 3 classes you mentioned out do rangers as far as utility; do they have to outdps us while not having anything that costs like our arrow costs? We should be above them at least for the amount of plat we have to pay just to try to keep up with swashies!

Aeralik wrote:

"I've been looking through the data again."

Pictures or it isn't real.

"In a raid perspective you are not far behind the assassin. wizard and assassin are pretty much neck and neck. "

Depends on the raid. Pretty sure the wizards are obviously the top DPS class in game.

"The ranger is right behind them with the swashbuckler."

100% of the time? Really?

It seems to me that you are basing your data off a raid force that is stacked a certain way.

Just saying.

Aeralik wrote:

Not attempting to de-rail the thread .. but since you brought it up. Where are Warlocks in this data? Do we fall in line even with Wizards (as we should)?

Aeralik wrote:
...,The ranger is right behind them with the swashbuckler,...

Hmm that isnt correct ranger is T1 and swash is T2 .

ZababEW wrote:


Hmm that isnt correct ranger is T1 and swash is T2 .

2 things.

1) The DPS tiers have been abandoned so stop bringing them up
2) Swashys have very little utility with the way offensive/defensive skills debuffs are currently setup. I would bet Rangers have more utility with their new buffs than Swashys do now.

Nere wrote:

Be careful not to be quick to make assumptions. Traditionally it was commonly accepted and originally designed so that rangers and assassins "should" fall in line even with one another. Aeralik has pretty much stated in the above post that in actuality:
(assasins > rangers) + (rangers = swashbucklers) is "working as intended."
Lord only knows where the devs believe that warlocks should fit in at this point. I'm curious on this point as well.
Now I still have some small hope that I've misinterpreted his comment, and that the data Aeralik is discussing above was pulled from his tests on the live servers. Then it would be feasible that he's still working to bring rangers and assassins to parity, as they should be. While the changes introduced so far may not be enough to achieve this end, it'd be encouraging to know that that's the ultimate goal. I could continue playing confident that through a few more tweaks we'd end up back where we should be.
Unfortunately, given what we've seen so far, the latter possibility seems unlikely.
Assuming the worst case scenario, I'd like to pose the following question: can anyone (including Aeralik or any other dev) think of a good reason why a leader would want to bring a ranger to a raid over any other DPS class at this point (including assassins, rogues, bards, sorcerors, conjurors, enchanters, brawlers, furies)? Again, the lack of utility and added cost of playing a ranger make the class undesirable on raids. The changes so far have done nothing to improve this.

Computer MAn wrote:

Why were the DPS tiers abandoned? Not arguing that it isn't so, but don't understand why they'd give up their overall vision for the game?
And no, even with our new buff (singular), we still lag far behind swashies in terms of raid utility...if for no other reason than for our lack of aggro transfer.

Aeralik wrote:

I'm not saying I believe your data, but you seem to be stuck on using it as the primary basis for your decisions, so if we accept it as an accurate representation of reality just for the sake of argument, w t f are rangers on par with swashbucklers? Lol are you kidding me? Swashbucklers have important debuffs, group AE immunity, and hate transfer that amount to a substantial amount of utility for them. Rangers are about to have a short-duration group buff that, while decent, won't put them anywhere near the utility of a swash. How could it be considered the "perfect balance" that rangers are on par with swashbucklers with respect to dps?

Azleya@Lucan DLere wrote:

A related question: what do we have that's so wonderful that assassins don't, which would warrant them being top DPS? Understand, I am in NO way calling for an assassins nerf. Assassins are where they should be. Unfortunately, they're also where rangers should be.
And again, assassins have hate transfer and a killer melee buff, and cost much less to supply with arrows. I'm willing to accept the added expense as a way of offsetting the advantage of being able to do damage at range (a dubious benefit in a raid setting). But again, we see a class with greater utility doing greater damage.

...

Computer MAn wrote:

LMAO, really.......really....shall we tally them up!

Cochy are you seriously trying to tell us that Swashbuckler utility is less than Ranger utility?

Swashbuckler:

1. Hate Transfer
2. Offensive Skills Debuff
3. Defensive Skills Debuff
4. DPS Debuff
5. Mitigation Debuffs
6. Snare with Resist Debuff.
   
7. Swipe
8. Buff Stripping Taunt
9. AE Avoidance

Ranger:

1. Defense Debuff
2. Snare with Resist Debuff
   
3. Accuracy Buff

You're right. Ranger utility is overpowered.

As for the DPS Tiers they were abandoned so to speak awhile ago by the development team for SOE. Not by the players to define the DPS ranges certain classes fall into.

Go troll somewhere else, who cares abot people like you

Corwinus wrote:

bah ignore, it was not meant to be in this thread. Sorry

Aeralik wrote:

Where are you getting this data? Why have you not said where you are getting it? Why are you saying that we should be on par with swash and brigs? Is this the plan to make rangers with no or crappy utility to be on par with ones that have great utility? Do you think that rangers are overpowered or are you just trying to get the rangers to go away? I don't care about the plat cost, I don't care about having no utility. I only care about being on par with my evil counterparts. I am not asking to nerf any other class. I am only asking that you stop nerfing my class the class I have played for over 3 years. I am loyal to the point of cancelling my account$, because you are messing with us like you have a personal vendetta against us. I am not insinuating that you do but from this side of the looking glass it seems that way. Now for those that are trolling these forums to start something go away because some of you are so clueless about rangers you are only making yourselves look like an idiot. I don't presume to know everything about every class but I also don't go assuming and professing about them either.