I'm new to the forums and EQII but I think I have found an issue here that may reflect the reason SOE screws with Rangers so bad (with the exception of the arrow mechanic issue which they acknowledge but don't really say they will fix, here's hoping)
I think they look at certain classes, Rangers included as soloing classes first.
They probably get whining from spell casters who say "they get chain armor, they get more hit points so they can live longer, I need to do more damage than them"
whining from the other scouts "they can do 80% of their damage from Range, I need to get up close and personal taking more risk, so I need to do more damage than them."
These would ALMOST be valid arguments, even in the group setting, if not only the arrow issue was fixed BUT they were free for Rangers, but they aren't we need to spend gold.
Additionally they neglect that this game is largely about team work. This being the case you form a team based on what it brings to the table and the other classes do bring more to the table outside of damage.
This came to a head for me the other day duoing with one of my Guildmates (also one of the first level 80 Furys on the server.) She is doing more than fair DPS, I don't even want to talk about the max damage that her "nuke" attacks do or the advantage that her lvl 80 spell, ball lighting brings, to the table. On top of this she invisis the entire party, heals, buffs and debuffs like gang busters, root and all that good stuff. She can do these things with even average to good equipment for her class. Now if I am the team leader of a group and have one slot left who am I going to chose? The Fury who is largely independant of her gear and can swap between offensive and support as the flow of battle dictates, or the Ranger who without luck, Plat or a Guild willing to give up the good gear, is going to be doing marginally better DPS (if he's lucky) but brings nothing else to the party?
I love my Ranger and he will ALWAYS be my Main regardless of the mechanics. I am on a Roleplaying server for a reason. Still it would be nice to be in a fight and not be saying "jeez when was the last time I, the class thats supposed to be ALL about damage, actually saw my name as the toon that killed the opponent", since doing damage is in theory what my Class is supposed to be about.
If my character was about other things too (like my Alt Dirge) I wouldn't care about it. When I play my Dirge I bring other things to the table. But since as a Ranger all I am bringing is my Bow and sword, its an issue I am flabergasted by the occassional Dev that pops over here to say "your good, with the POSSIBLE exception of the arrow issue." I don't know if they are clueless, have never actually played a Ranger from creation the hardway (having to earn your gear and gold), or simply have an overly defensive attitude and go on the atatck when they are critiqued.
Regardless I have to salute you on this initial post. It put things in a logical format which invite only 2 intelligent responses. A reasoned analysis that will result in change, or a complete dismissing of the post, to avoid having to admit to the problems, as they exist, were created by developers not fully reasoning out mechanical changes. That seems to be the way of developers though. In CoH they got complaints from non-tankers that Tanks were too, well, tankable, so they nerfed tanks and made them a class that you can do without. People began to turn to Controllers that indirectly manipulate and manage aggro and can buff the party to boot. There is a middle ground, but the powers that be never seem to find it.
Re: State of our Class - Rangers
