So why is my Ranged dps Lower than my melee dps again?

Discussion in 'Ranger' started by ARCHIVED-bryan4171, Mar 11, 2010.

  1. ARCHIVED-bryan4171 Guest

    "Rangers are unrivaled in their ability to hunt foes and scout dangers in the untamed wilds of Norrath. Known for sneaking safely through dangerous territory, Rangers use stealth, perception and cunning to seek out enemies and fell them from a distance with a deadly volley of arrows."

    If this looks familiar it is our class description from the eq2 website.
    Just wondering.

  2. ARCHIVED-Scillion Guest

    Simple Answer? the Range Combat Arts Timers ... Our melee are between 10 seconds and 30 seconds, our Ranged are 1 minute plus ... reduce the Timers you get more DPS ...
  3. ARCHIVED-Kulaf Guest

    Why? There is more danger fighting at zero range than there is fighting 35m away. That is the simple answer. The complex answer is defining that risk vs. reward in a meanful way. Which of course is always going to be the subject of debate between ranged fighters and melee fighters.
  4. ARCHIVED-kartikeya Guest

    Except this is pretty much bunk in reality, because rangers don't fight 35m away, because mages are not held to this same 'balance' even though they are entirely capable at fighting at ranged, because there are fights that require jousting but no fights that come to mind that are ENTIRELY ranged fights wherein a ranged DPS class is absolutely required even if rangers did fight that far away (hint, we don't, we're up with the other scouts if we know anything about our class), in solo we have the mobs running into our faces, in groups we sure aren't standing that far back, in raids, ditto, and at what point does 'ranged' stop costing additional things? I would think paying extra plat to do any auto attack damage at all would be a significant cost, but apparently DPS is also a cost, and apparently so is not being able to move while casting combat arts, and so is not having any utility beyond a short term, group accuracy buff, so is having significantly weaker AAs than assassins, so is not being able to do our vaunted ranged DPS from closer than 2 meters unless you want to spend the rest of your life with the mythical even in T9...and well, we could go on for some time here.
    When's it stop costing again, and when do I get to see the great benefits of fighting at ranged that balance out all these costs?
  5. ARCHIVED-Sydares Guest

    Kulanae@Blackburrow wrote:
    It is also the stupid answer.
  6. ARCHIVED-Kulaf Guest

    Sydares wrote:
    Let's not discuss your comprehension skills.
    If you don't think there is more danger fighting right next to the MOB than there is standing at 35m then you are a moron. Personally I don't think you are a moron I just think you're a troll.
  7. ARCHIVED-Ranja Guest

    Kulanae@Blackburrow wrote:
    He is suggesting that rangers don't actually stand 35M away. Which if you read any of the threads or were up to date on ranger mechanics you would know is true. But your post suggests that you repeat the drivel that other classes say about rangers. I don't know how many times Rangers can say this before peopel understand.
    So yes your reply was the stupid answer because it is not based in reality.
  8. ARCHIVED-Neiloch Guest

    Also if melee's were dying regularly while mages and rangers could hang back and die much less you would have a point. Usually its mages AND scouts are dying or not, there isn't much of a line. This crap about dps at range, wearing chain, not needing to stealth for a bunch of CA's, weak debuffs all factoring in on balance is complete crap. Other players don't care that we can shoot far while wearing chain, or have piddly debuffs on some CA's, or don't need to stealth as much. All they care about is: A. How much damage we can do B. What we can do for THEM Balancing any class on anything other than these 2 factors is 100% dumb. Can you tank for them? Yes, Awesome your in. Can you heal for them? Yes, get in. Got utility for them? yes? cool deal. Can you DPS for them? Yes? Sweet get on....Oh wait theres another class that can DPS more AND has more utility? **** we want them then. Its that simple.
  9. ARCHIVED-kartikeya Guest

    You probably shouldn't lecture someone on their reading comprehension skills when the simple, basic fact that rangers do NOT fight 35m away (and if they are, dump them, they're not doing half the DPS they could be doing), has apparently not yet sunk in with you.
    Or you're the one who's trolling, one of the two.
  10. ARCHIVED-Dalannae Guest

    Ranja wrote:
    Not only that but to get the most dps we have to try and stay in the sweet spot where our Ranged and melee CAs work.
  11. ARCHIVED-bryan4171 Guest

    That sweet spot seems to be a little bit harder to hit with new x-pac. Spend most of fight jousting now.
  12. ARCHIVED-Kulaf Guest

    See it doesn't matter if you "are" fighting 35m away or not.....but that you "can" fight 35m away and still do pretty fair damage. I should know I have an 80 Ranger with 200AA as my alt.
    If you want to cut off the rest of my response where I quite clearly state that there is a delicate balance between the ability to fight at range and the need to fight at melee range then you just do yourself and your class a disservice as you sound like raving loons.
    When someone asks a silly question and uses the class description written when the game was created as a basis for their arguement and you all just stand there mute then you also look like unreasonable curmudgeons.
  13. ARCHIVED-bryan4171 Guest

    My silly point was we are a ranged class. Yes melee is part of our class make-up, but by our description (I dont care how old it is it is still sitting there, if it is not correct anymore change it) we are a ranged class so common sense would say my ranged dmg is higher than my melee.
    You know and god forbid a person new to EQ2 used the descrption to pick out a class.
    Or by your silly thinking since once a descrption is old it is no longer valid.
    How would you describe say a wheel? Round wait nope thats old no longer valid.
    And maybee i should have clarified for you trolls this is in ref. to AA.

    Thank you for shopping at Kwik-E-Mart come again!!!
  14. ARCHIVED-Nevao Guest

    Kulanae@Blackburrow wrote:
  15. ARCHIVED-Kulaf Guest

    bryan4171 wrote:
    The class description is still accurate. No other class can do as much ranged damage with a weapon as a Ranger can. It is only because of the balance I am referring to that Rangers can attack with their bows from ranges others cannot. This was an effort by the last mechanics dev to increase Ranger DPS while still offering some element of danger that the other Scouts face with 180 frontals and everything else that can kill you in an instant if a raid mob flips its facing.
    Your ranged damage is higher than your melee. Don't use any ranged CA's nor use your bow at all to attack and tell me your melee DPS is higher than your "ranged" DPS.
    I'm not trolling Rangers.....I play one. Hell I play a Troubadour as my main and we have more issues than Rangers have so I know what its like to be the "read headed step child" in a world that only seems to value you based on where you fall on the DPS charts.
  16. ARCHIVED-kidpaul Guest

    Kulanae@Blackburrow wrote:
    I dont know if troubadors have worse issues than rangers or if your on par with us since I dont play one but I only know that I frequently see groups looking for coercers, illys, dirges and troubs for raid forces or plain groups on the server I play on every night. So even with issues your class have it is still desired by groups and raid force. Sure maybe I dont see "group looking for a troub to fill last slot" that often maybe once in a blue moon even but it does happen. I can't even remember that last time I saw a raid force announing that they want a ranger to fill their roster or a group looking for a ranger.
    Maybe guilds are looking for troubs to fill their ranks cause their last one quit cause of boredom or the class have issues that is so frustrating that it's not fun to play anymore but atleast new ones are welcomed. So if your class have worse issues than us and are still desirable by groups and raid forces I dont even know what kind of respone I should type to that.
    Sorry that your class is broken but still desired by other groups and raid forces and hope SOE fixes it. And sorry if your groups or raid force dont see the value in buffs and debuffs a troub brings to the table and only go by the numbers they seen in the parse.
  17. ARCHIVED-Dalannae Guest

    Kulanae@Blackburrow wrote:
    Sorry some one did a test with 2 swords that were fabled if I recall and discovered that he did better using the swords then with the Mythic bow after the "fixes" in this expansion, and before you say he didn't know how to play it was Strykor(sp) who did that and tried to get the Devs to see that during beta.
  18. ARCHIVED-Kulaf Guest

    kidpaul wrote:
    The reason you see people asking for Troubs in groups is because we are now at last count the 2nd least played class in EQ2. And again you see us desired in raids and on guild recruitment pages because of our low play numbers and our raid utility. However I am quite often out DPS'd by Fury and Inquisitors. I can top parse around 15k on a raid if the stars all align properly. Some of the Troub issues were helped by the expansions consolidation of ranged and melee DA and Ranged/Melee and Spell crit. Prior to that I was a Scout that only had 4 CA's and everything else spells and no real way to build spell crit as all of the Scout gear was centered on enhancing melee crit.
    As you might or might not be aware, there was a movement to make Bards and Enchanters less desireabile on raids by making many of our buffs either raid-wide or group castable. This would have pretty much dealt a death blow to the least played Scout class in the game as most guilds would have then had the option of just bringing along a Troub bot who doesn't compete with other classes for gear drops. Fortunatly there were issues with the group castable buffs in beta and the entire change was scrapped for the time being. But I am sure it is still looming out there somewhere.
    I hope both classes get attention. But if I have to be honest here I hope it is Troubs first as we have NEVER received any attention from the Devs.
  19. ARCHIVED-Kulaf Guest

    Alenna@Guk wrote:
    I assume that was posted in the beta forums. I must have missed it but I would be interested in reading his testing methodology because I cannot fathom how that could be unless he is only speaking about auto attack damage.
  20. ARCHIVED-Geothe Guest

    If i recall from the Beta boards on that melee vs autoattack comparison, the issue arose because for some reason Double Attack wasn't applying correctly to range attacks.
    (ie melee autoattack had the expected DA amount based on gear, but ranged autoattack wasnt DAing nearly as much).

    Is that still an issue?
    Have any of you rangers actually tried comparing melee and ranged Autoattack since release?

Share This Page