Aaramis wrote: Sorry I have not had a chance to post details yet. As one of the few rangers that did post his wall parse before LU44 I will definitly post my new one just as soon as I can get online long enough to do so. I did notice that for me the damage boost to the listed CAs was about 10% for each one. And the total damage for Bleeding Cut is about the same but goes off in 24 sec instead of 36 sec so this is a significant DPS boost. As for the Auto-Attack combat adjustment, I don't own a level 80 bow so I cannot speak to them. However I have 6 bows level 57-79, and each and every one of them had their auto-attack damage rating significantly reduced. Even my old reliable Raincaller does less damage per hit on average today than it did before LU44. Another thing that is confusing me is that I thought that after these arrow changes, the listed damage rating on a bow would be a good indication of which bow would do more auto attack damage. It would not take into consideration special procs or other issues so the user would have to evaluate the value of them, but if a bow had a damage rating of say 110, he could be confident that the bow would do more damage than a bow with a rating of 100. For me that is NOT the case. The damage rating of my BoEH is higher than that of my Flimflam bow. And when I do a /weapon the "base" damage of the BoEH is higher. However the "actual" damage of my flimflam is higher. Why??? Sorry I am at work atm so I don't have the exact numbers but I will post them later when I can. I am far from wanting to leave the game. The last time there was a major percentage shift in the source of our damage (Bow AA, Rng CAs, Melee CAs, Stance Proc, Poisons) it took me almost two months to adjust. I understand that is the nature of playing a ranger. It seems that we need to relearn how to play the class with each new LU. Sorry but I guess I was one of those that really liked doing 90% of my damage from 35m. Not looking forward to having to go back to scrambling around with the other 23 peeps in the melee.
Let me preface this with a reminder that I'm a casual player and at the moment do solo and group our guild is not a raid guild we are just out to have some fun and relax, and as of yet dont' have enough people to make us a raid guild anyway. As I have not really concentrated on the whole dps thing and don't have one of those parsers{sp}others are talking about I won't be going into how much damage I did. just my general feel for the changes. I was using a Pristine imbued Briarwood bow and the feyiron fieldpoint like always(don't have any Epics, fabled or legendary drops yet to check and no plat to buy them.) and had upped my Triple shot to Apprentice IV(the only think different then before. While our 60+ berserker Tank who'd mentored down to our level 29 mystic in the Crypt of Betrayal did not see much change when I used steady aim my brother's level 30 Ratonga Swashie did and liked it. So IMHO Steady Aim and its upgrades do bring something to the group that will please your groupmates and hopefully will work in a Raid. I did notice I was able to shoot off the trick arrow, and my double shot more often but since I dont' have one of those parsers you guys keep talking about I don't know if that did or did not compensate for the lower damage of bows. One of my Combat arts must have been hitting pretty hard because a couple of times I forgot to wait before shooting and pulled the agro of our tank even though I used trick shot which happened to me before. Later that evening the tank and the swashie had to call so it was just me and the mystic and that is where I saw a little difference I couldn't stay far enough away to get shots out before the mob came in melee range but still managed not to have to worry about loosing to much health(of course this was a dungeon not out in the field so it is always hard to stay out of melee range.) Now this is just one night and in a dungeon and not outside so I will try to see what happens in an "open air" environment later this week. For the fun factor I'd give it about an 8(but that could be because I was trying to see what the changes did to my character) for me I plan to work on my Ranger as much as possible and while i have fun with my other alts the Ranger is still to my mind my Main. I'll just have to do some thinking on how to make her work at her best. like get more adepts and masters if i can and until then try and get some of my CA up to Apprentice IV at least.
Good information there. Keep it coming. Danean - I noticed auto-attack damage similarly reduced on my bow as an Assassin (at 64 he's using the Gnomish Mechanized (lvl 46 bow) with fulginate broadheads (lvl 40 I think?), although working on obtaining Raincaller. Just a general observation though, no parses to back it up), so while this is a nerf to all Scouts, I'd say it does bode well for Rangers overall *if* your CAs are increased accordingly to counter-balance this. In much the same way as Assassins are known for their ultra-high damaging melee CAs, and not their melee auto-attack damage, it would be nice if Rangers were known for their ranged CAs, as opposed to their ranged auto-attack damage. Then again, as an ex-Ranger perhaps I'm not entitled to this opinion, but that's just my 2cp. I would have liked "good" damage on bow auto-attacks, and "whoa!" damage on the CAs, personally. Especially as several of them have very long re-use timers. So perhaps in the end, this will be a step in the right direction. It would seem then that the "stand at 35m" days aren't as effective anymore, and perhaps sitting in the 'sweet spot" where you can use ranged attacks but still fire off your melee CAs (which are now improved) is now going to be the better option. Especially as you want to be in range of your melee folks when you fire off your Focus Aim buff. *edit for grammar*
Yeah, I played for about an hour and a half last night in Chardok with a tank I'm not really familiar with yet. The upgraded damage to my epic and shorter casting time on a few CA's made me feel a little more bursty in my damage, which was causing me to pull aggro here and there. The fact that we were fighting 83-85's though probably factors into that somewhat because the tank probably didn't have everything landing as I was. End of the night though, I wasn't noticing too much of a difference in parses. I'm looking forward to grouping with some tanks I'm comfortable enough with to know how far I can push it. The wall was busy when I showed up.
Aaramis wrote: So should be be called SweetSpotters now? I agree with your statements, but really wish we could return to the days of standing at max range and letting loose. From a psycological standpoint, that was one of the things that drew me to rangers.... Things like Legolas nailing that goblin between the eyes all the way from the Bridge of Khazad'Dum, for instance.
Webin@Befallen wrote: How about Assassin Lites ? We could ask to get our forum moved into the assassin forum as a sub-board and get twice the hits to the (formally known as) ranger boards.
My major concern is that rangers and DPS are still .. "black magic" .. I have put in ALOT of time trying to get a solid grasp of how gear/buffs/adorns/etc etc etc impact the overall ability of a ranger to do damage. This effort is detailed in the "Testing feedback forum" - > http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=414036 I am still working on it and its a mess .. I am not quite sure how Strength factors in given it seems to be based on more then just level and/or Strength. Perhaps I will have time to dig into it later today. Hopefully I will be able to provide fellow rangers with some real way to understand how +(fill in the blank) actually impacts our characters. Ent aka Etesith
I won't bother posting the numbers, but I did a significant amount of testing against the wall the night before the update and again last night after the patch using both Rigid Scale Bow and fabled Eagle's Talon. My results show that there was no significant change at all to overall dps, either negative or positive. Eagle's Talon now appears to match the previous dps of Rigid Scale, while Rigid Scale dps was significantly decreased. Auto attack damage was down significantly, around 350 dps over a long fight while CA damage and proc damage went up. I did not have a strength ring before the update therefore I didn't use a strength ring after the update. In my opinion, we got exactly what Aerilik said we would get. A lateral shift in damage resulting in equivalent dps. I am pretty disappointed in the changes to bow and arrow mechanics. Choosing a good bow is no more intuitive now than it was before. My conclusions may differ from others', but we did not get nerfed...nor did we get buffed. Most disappointing is that we still do not scale proportionately with other dps classes. Unfortunately, I feel that it will remain this way as long as the current developer is responsible for our class. It is very frustrating. Over the years since EQ2 launch, we have had several different developers responsible for combat, each with a different 'vision' of what the ranger class should be and how it should function. And as each one implements this 'vision', we are stuck waiting for them to finalize the job. It just seems that we spend more time waiting than actually being able to play the class as the finished product.
Catareina@Butcherblock wrote: This is my opinion too, although I haven't been able to get good wall parse data to back up my position. I don't have RSB or ET, which seem to be the focal point, and I stupidly swapped out a bunch of equipment last weekend and can't seem to get back to the same stats I had for my "before" wall parse tests.
Webin@Befallen wrote: This may be so - "we got exactly what Aerilik said we would get" .. but (there is always a but it seems) I decided to really dig into rangers and how things <stats,procs,arrows,bows,etc..> worked ... should I use this or that .... I like the stun .. but what am I giving up by taking lower stats to get it ... These are questions that never really seemed to have an answer with any solid facts to backup it up. What I have found is not at all what I expected - #1 - These questions are REALLY hard to answer. The complexity of the behind the "curtains" ranged mechanics is unreal, Despite that the melee mechanics are straight forward. #2 - After wading into the deep end ... it turns out that the current set of "mechanics" are MUCH more favorable for melee then ranged. I just have a problem with striving to improve and say ... buying an +12 DPS adorn for 'X' plat and knowing that I will not see the ~12% increase while melee classes will get exactly the % viewed via the mouse over in the persona window. #3 - The factors are multiplicative < A x B x C x D ... > hence the better your other overall stats/gear, the more impact that +1% to any given stat/mod will have. So as you and others strive to get a new BP (for example).. all scouts can use it ... the benefits of the item (assuming equiv ranged and melee stats) is much greater for the melee classes. So same risk, same Effort .... less reward .... and the further you progress .. the worse it becomes because the factors multiply through. #4 - It became clear that this was not really needed (one set of scaling factors for ranged and a separate one set for melee) and it leaves me more than a little confused. #5 - The separate scaling will continue to create havoc with class balance given that a change can have such a drastically different impact on the different scaling mechanics. And that is what I have found .. I actually wish I had not headed for the 'deep end' given that it has ruined the class for me. And no I am not saying that this is the end all be all for rangers .... they are a blast solo and do fine in groups. They are ok on raids and for the average guild that tries to raid from time to time there always seem to be slots that need to be filled. Just keep in mind ... as you progress the gap will increase and there is not alot you can do about it. Ent aka Etesith Edit - I will finish with my efforts and provide the results to the ranger community ... hopefully I will be done soon and there will be a "Tool" to help with those what is better and how much questions we all seem to have ...
Ranja wrote: Yeah. Every once in awhile, I'd use it between auto-attacks when nothing else was up. But as I was thinking about it yesterday, I realized I never did that anymore. So I kept my 5 points in Pathfinding, and moved stream over to hawk.
Entilor wrote: Pretty much agree with everything you said Entilor. I felt like a broken record hammering on about these 2 issue on the testing feedback. Very discouraging...
Entilor wrote: This makes me sick! Im not one of thoes people that consider canceling there account but this is pushing me a bit far. No reason to bring my Ranger on a raid....my alt No reason to bring my Zerker on a raid...my main Really wanna quit right now but ya know what? Theres nothing out there to play! I mean it i have played most of them and they all suck compared to EQ2. Sick huh? PS: im an crackhead for eq...even going back to eq1, so u gatta understand how hard it is for me to quit. What i need is a good MMO to go to, but ever since the success of WoW all the new MMO's r cookie cutter MMO's-for-kids.../sigh
Effidian wrote: Ok first I need to appologize. The reason my Flimflam bow is better than my BoEH is because I have a +10 DPS adornment on my Flimflam, not because /weapon is "broken". However I find it very interesting that a +10 DPS adornment is so powerful that it will more than make up a 6.7 point difference in the damage rating between two bows. I guess adornments are not just a "little extra". Anyway here are the numbers for each of my bows as promised: Slythe's Bow of Flimflam (with +10 DPS Adorn) Damage 107-607 (102.0 Rating) Delay 7.0 sec LU43 Base Damage 203-736 (134.1 Base Rating) Actual Damage 428-2010 (594.6 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.1 LU44 Base Damage 238-861 (157 Base Rating) Actual Damage 421-1903 (566.8 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.1 I am totaly confused by these numbers. My Base rating went way up (they made the bow better?), but my actual rating went down (they nerfed me?). Bow of Eternal Hunger Damage 174-696 (108.7 Rating) Delay 8.0 sec LU43 Base Damage 248-724 (121.5 Base Rating) Actual Damage 558-1964 (548.3 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.6 LU44 Base Damage 306-900 (150.75 Base Rating) Actual Damage 576-1978 (555.2 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.6 This is only one of my bows in which BOTH the Base AND the Actual Rating numbers went UP. Now is when I wish I could move my adornment from one bow to another. I might even consider getting an adornment for my BoEH anyway just to see how much better it makes it. Calcified Timber Longbow Damage 121-485 (86.5 Rating) Delay 7.0 sec LU43 Base Damage 224-629 (121.9 Base Rating) Actual Damage 498-1726 (542.4 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.1 LU44 Base Damage 229-643 (124.6 Base Rating) Actual Damage 425-1428 (452.0 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.1 Again the Base Rating went up. But look at the Actual Rating, a 16% drop in Rating (i.e. DPS). Was this bow that overpowered? Oh wait no it is a level 68 bow and all bows <70 got nerfed. Di'Zok Bow of Flame LU43 Damage 152-457 (101.5 Rating) Delay 6.0 Base Damage 228-507 (122.5 Base Rating) Actual Damage 504-1333 (524.9 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 3.5 LU44 Damage 180-539 (102.7 Rating) Delay 7.0 sec Base Damage 313-722 (147.9 Base Rating) Actual Damage 595-1570 (528.0 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.1 This is the only bow that I have that according to the patch notes the Damage and Delay numbers were changed with LU44, so it is in effect a totaly different bow. And yes, with the LU44 adjustments it is overall a better bow, higher rating, higher base rating and higher actual rating. Not as good as the BoEH but I suspect it would be better than a "basic" (non-adorned) Flimflam. But no I am not going to adorn it just to find out. Rain Caller Damage 131-394 (75.0 Rating) Delay 7.0 LU43 Base Damage 223-522 (106.4 Base Rating) Actual Damage 545-1488 (495.9 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.1 LU44 Base Damage 223-522 (106.4 Base Rating) Actual Damage 451-1205 (403.9 Actual Rating) Actual Delay 4.1 This is the one that just blows my mind. It has exactly the same Base Rating, however the Actual Rating is 18.5% LOWER. I feel very bad for any ranger between 57 and 77. What was once THE ranger bow to have has gotten a MAJOR damage nerf. Did they really boost T7 CA damage by 18% to make up for this? Given how bad the two "lower level" (<70) bows I have got nerfed, did anyone happen to record the numbers on the really low level bows, like the player made mastercrafted bows, or a Legendary or Fabled one like Stormfire or Valian Bow? It would be interesting to find out how these faired since in reality they will effect far more rangers than the "non-change" to the ET bow will. As others have said, it is a lateral shift, a change in the way we need to play our rangers in order to maximize their abilities. Time to relearn the class yet again.
Catareina@Butcherblock wrote: 100% agree. I think, fundamentally, this is the a huge problem. The concept / view of the Ranger has shifted alot, both from a Dev perspective, but also from a player perspective. Take a look at this thread alone - you have players who want the fantasy uber archer (aka Legolas), whereas others envision more of a mix of melee and ranged (which is similar to EQ2 Ranger version 1.0 when the game began). And, of course, what draws one gamer to the class may turn away another gamer. So it's quite the complex issue, to be honest, and why Rangers have bickered over what the class *should* be since day 1. It would seem, as mentioned above, that with the current patch the Ranger is swinging back towards EQ2 early-release Ranger where damage was similar to 50% melee / 50% ranged (and the ranged damage was mostly from spamming CAs in succession, and then going back to melee while you waited for your bow CAs to refresh). I guess the closest ingame comparison at this point right now would be the Troub, who on the majority of parses, is about 50% melee / 50% spells, while it's mirror, the Dirge, is moreso 66% melee / 33% spells, although that's not entirely accurate as a comparison, as the Ranger mirror, the Assassin, is probably 90% melee / 10% ranged. *sigh* On the bright side, things could be worse! *edit* - Danean, awesome solid information. I think that's the sort of thing that Devs need to see or be pointed out to them. Good job.
Alenna@Guk wrote: Alenna, thanks so much for your input. It's important to see how this affects rangers of all level ranges. The most important question is if you feel you were doing more or less damage after the patch. Without a parser that may be hard to gauge but thanks for doing your best anyway. P.S. the "parser" thing that everyone is talking about is here: http://home.maine.rr.com/eqaditu/ACT/ It's a program that shows you how much damage per second everyone in the group is doing. It's good for testing changes like this, testing to see what weapon is better for you, etc. In the end it's good to see that you're having fun with the character. Good luck, and thanks again for the input.
Entilor wrote: Unfortunately, from what I observed this is correct and I have total confidence in Etesith ability to work the numbers. I should say that I am also actually very proud of how seriously and positively rangers like Entilor, Effidian, Harry, Anekuh, Tyberion,..., and so many, undertook those test. Thats the spririt of our Ranger community. I was a pleasure to meet all of you at the parsing wall. I will stop testing too. I already provided my results and I am not quite sure that it helped anything but to confirm the lateral shift that Aeralik intended to do. The issue of melee mechanics/effectiveness vs range mechanics/effectiveness is still very much untouched and I doubt that it will be tackled anytime soon. The path the devs seem to take is to make us do more melee damage to compensate our range damage because it is mechanics more harnesssed and predictible for them. Aside from that, at least I do not see this update as a nerf and I like our new utility, could have been better but eh I can spam a " <insert your beneficial splell here> incoming for xx seconds !!!" too instead of "patfinding !" and get laughed at. Cheers Corwin/Oasis/Cotw
Corwinus wrote: Bah, I forgot you Runewind, thank you for your input throughout this. You are the man,..., or should I say you're the Elf lol. Cor
First of, thank you very much to all who have spent time to not only run parse tests before and after LU 44, but also to post those results and offer critiques -- your research is invaluable to those of us who either don't want to do it (i'm very lazy) or don't have the time. Again, Thank You! I have been playing EQ2 for about 2 years now, about 1 1/2 as a ranger. I have only raided about once or twice and spend most of my time grouping up for instances and helping/getting help for quests with guild members. Without doing any testing specifically, I "feel" I do more damage after running through CoA with a group consisting of a Dirge, Swashy, Monk, Fury and Inquisitor. I was able to parse first on 3 or 4 of the names and before LU 44 I was never able to outdo a swashy (though instance-wide I was second to him, but only by a bit). But all of this could just be group dynamics and buffs that I was unaccustomed to(random group). So I feel we have more damage but I will wait and talk to the hardcore raiding ranger buddy of mine, who taught me almost all I know, to give me the truth . Personally, I love the Ranger class and as long as we aren't getting beat out by plate healers in the parse or lose the ability to solo as well as we do, I'm not going to gripe about damage (this of course is convenient for me to say, I'm not expected to show up to raids and do uber~damage). But sometimes it's important to remember why we play this class in the first place, because quite honestly it is fun to pull back and release a flurry of arrows and watch multiple orange numbers fly up, AND because we look good doing it . There are many things that need to be fixed, but every class isn't perfect. Those are my thoughts and I know they are not universal and are quite biased to a quasi~noob ranger with no raid experience, but I have fun playing this game and this class. Thanks again for everyone's great input here and in so many other posts.
