Azleya

You see, when you state that giving predators a significant dps advantage would make 3/4 of the other classes useless, you're essentially saying that utility has no value. This is an exceedingly stupid argument and I am at a loss to determine how any intelligent person could come to this conclusion. If I create 2 identical dps classes, they are of equal overall value. If, however, I give one of those classes some bit of utility (it could be anything), that class immediately becomes more desirable, just by common logic. Thus, it is obvious that utility has value. Therefore, in order to make up for utility deficiencies, classes with low utility must do more dps in order to be equally desirable. I really can't spell it out in simpler terms, and quite frankly I'm embarrassed for you that I have had to spell it out in such basic terms.

Exel1

owned

Slippery

What utility would that be that you need from the other classes that you would bring them on the raid? The only utility that would need to be brought was what buffs you. You would need 1 swash and 1 brig, 1 of each shaman, 2 tanks, 1 templar, then all you need is classes that make you do more dps. So you'd fill the rest of the raid with rangers, dirges, inquisitors, and illusionists? Grats on excluding 5 mage classes, 2 scout classes, and most of the tank classes. You could even do without a fury, mystic, and warden. Yep, you need to have your dps so we can build raids like that to maximize our effectiveness.

Rangers do not need more, Rangers will be fine when hit rate gets fixed. If you want balance you don't need anything other than hit rate, other classes need to be brought into line with what should be (read rogues and illusionists).

When you want to stop fighting predominately on the side of dps and more for utility I would fully support that. However Rangers predominately fight for the side of dps. Most Rangers cry foul at the proposition of having to sacrifice even an ounce of dps for utility (see hook arrow!)

Oizen

This thread finally started delivering. It took a surprisingly long time for it to become a "my class is better/worse than your class" thread.

Rhymez

yea we start soonish the bitching and throwing mud at each other

btw /flame on

__________________

Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom

Azleya

Except building a raid like that isn't optimal when you consider in the bigger picture the constraints of what else is needed on the raid and the buffs required by a ranger to achieve that top dps potential. You first of all need a MT group, in which a ranger clearly has no place, and an OT group, which could theoretically support 1 ranger if it was stacked properly (tank, dirge, illu, cleric, shaman, ranger), but whose spot would clearly be better filled by a hate transfer (preferably swash). Then you have 2 dps groups (let's assume properly working hit rates vs. orange here), and you still need a brigand on the raid. You could theoretically fill these groups with 1 brigand and 5 rangers (along with the obvious priests and support). However, sorcerors (summoners are gimp and currently have no place in an optimal raid) support each other and the illusionist (in a scout group an illu gets minimal dps support) with several group-wide buffs, while the rangers do not, and are thus less reliant on TC for dps than a ranger is on IA, those buffs being only available to one person per group. Thus, I would say that with a ranger class doing superior dps when properly buffed, there is still overall balance between a mage and scout dps group due to the sorcerors supporting each other and the illu in a mage group.

Also, despite my statements that I am fine with either superior dps or equal utility, you still seem to think that I am strongly in favor of superior dps. Since you seem to have a hard time remembering what I say, I'll say it again. I am perfectly fine with either solution.

SacDaddy

Give rangers a group-wide STR buff and STFU azleya. You aint gonna be number 1 perma easy-button DPS no matter how many thesauruses you use to make your posts. Fuck that. No class should.

Enjoy

Azleya

I do not apologize for having a well-developed vocabulary and knowing how to write in English properly. I haven't used any overly obscure words, so if you have trouble understanding me I suggest you go work on your education. If on the other hand you find my use of proper English pretentious or something along those lines, I suggest you grow the fuck up because that is how intelligent people write.

Once again, I am not making any statements about what will or will not be, but rather what ought to be. I also have not argued that any class should be "easy-button" #1 dps. The statements I have made about class balance take equal skill between 2 players as an obviously necessary condition. Obviously, player skill should always be a factor, and thus a less-skilled predator should not beat a more-skilled sorceror. I really feel that I've already made this clear in my previous posts, but again you guys seem to like to ignore or forget or fail to understand things I say, so oh well.

Additionally, I am astonished that you dumbass fucking wizards still don't seem to understand that I am indifferent between the 2 distinct solutions of 1) giving predators superior dps, and 2) giving predators equal utility. If the utility route was to be taken, a group str buff for rangers would not be enough to put them on par with sorcerors with respect to utility. For potential ranger utility, I personally favor 2 actions, both of which would have to be taken to bring rangers up to par in the utility department:

1. Fix the hawk so that it doesn't break stealth and is thus usable.
2. Give rangers a short-duration group proc that triggers off melee and bow (basically the scout equivalent of wizard group spell proc).

Rhymez

thats actually a pretty nice Idea

__________________

Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom

SacDaddy

that is a pretty cool idea. While we're at it give coercers the melee version of Tandem =)

also, edit = to everything you said in your first paragraph in post 118. Don't assume I have any trouble understanding you, my friend. However though you present valid points, I counter with the notion that I find your writing style arrogant, presumptuous, contumelious, and pushy.

In Composition 101 you learn to write to your audience. This is a video game forum, not the Harvard forums.

thank you