Most of these 'fixes' are a god damn joke - Page 16

Ranja · 04-03-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuantum

I have absolutely no idea what this is in response to and/or referring to.

Again, kind of lost as to where this statement is coming from or what it is in regards to. My only mention of a WW guild was in regards to my belief that most raiding rangers aren't in those "hardcore" minded guilds who run with a twenty some man roster.

Well I was going to look up what guild you were in because I'm willing to bet you raid with pretty close to the same raid composition on a regular basis. It never had anything to do with being a WW guild, that statement was an example of the types of guilds which generally run tight rosters. Which has been my point from the get go, that most rangers get swapped around with a suboptimal group in most guilds.

Here is a simple model explaining my point since you've still failed to comprehend it:

Guild A - 28 members, raids with just about the same 20 some people every night, possibly swapping someone different in here and there to better suite an encounter, etc.

Guild B - 35 members - raid composition varies more often. Dps, healers, offtanks, and some utility are sometimes interchanged for others to allow other members to get into raids.

-A ranger in Guild A, is more likely to have an optimal supporting group on a regular basis.

-A ranger in Guild B, is less likely to have an optimal supporting group on a regular basis.

Now since you seem to be distracted by all the labels that people like to use to describe a guild, allow me cure that ailment:

You could call guild A a worldwide guild, a hardcore guild, a fuckin crafting guild, you can call it whatever the fuck you want, my point was the guilds roster and raid compositions.

Getting through yet?

This is like my guild. We raid 3x a week but we are not hardcore although our goals are lofty

We have about 50 mains on the roster of which maybe 35 are interested in raiding.

Of those 35, maybe 15 are regular raiders (show up every night we raid). The remaining 20 usally raid 1-2 times a week.

Now, with this set-up, besides the 15 who raid all the time the other 9 could be any classes. Some nights we have 3 dirges, 2 illys and we rock the house. Other nights we have no dirge and 1 illy and we are light on healers.

We roll with the punches and change targets on nights we are light.

But i agree with you Kuantum. My raid group differs almost every night depending on how signs up.

Dantel · 04-03-2008, 05:30 PM

Ok, let's go over this from the very beginning so that stupid people can stop calling me dumb.
You say this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuantum

Miller you know I have nothing but respect for you but I'd have to agree that seeing your parses are an innaccurate depiction of what most rangers will do in a raid. While I realize, this comparison was more to look at Ranger vs. Assassin with comparable groups, the following should still be noted:

- Most rangers do not get the disgusting group setup you usually have. Correct me if I'm wrong but you usually have: Bard/Illy/Inquis at the least right? Those 3 right there put your DPS capabilities MUCH higher than say a ranger with only an Illy or only a bard.

- As well as assassin's are often utilized in MT or OT groups where they are likely to have plenty of buff support. As opposed to rangers who get thrown around wherever they can find room for on most raids, if said guild even still employs any rangers.

I appreciate you taking the time to post those numbers because it does provide some feedback for us who haven't gotten to test the changes out, so for that I thank you. I'm just not convinced that raids will desire a ranger still.

To which I reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dantel

A raid leader that doesn't give all of his raiders every chance to excell fails as a raid leader.

To which you reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuantum

Thats a pretty moronic statement. It is tough to give all 24 people an optimal setup. Especially if you aren't lucky enough to be a guild who fields the same 24 people every night. Most guilds have different raiders on different nights which makes it even more difficult to have an optimal setup for all 24 people. I mean hell, encounters themselves can make your raid setup less than optimal so I don't see the point of your statement. You can't satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time, someone is going to be less than optimal, whether its a warlock, assassin, or fury, someone isn't going to get "every chance to excell"

I could write out a complete raid setup and display this to you more visually, but if you're too stupid to understand the truth in my first post then you aren't worth wasting anymore of my time on.

Now right away my first impression was that either you were the raid leader, or someone you liked was the raid leader. I say something accurate, without cursing or singling anyone out, and you respond with I'm an idiot blah blah.
You call me stupid in a second post then Azleya uses more words to politely explain what I had mentioned previously about raids:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azleya

Well it doesn't make sense to argue that rangers in subpar setups should be competitive with or above other classes in optimal setups, which is what I think some of you are implicitly arguing. It is true that mages, for example, typically operate in pretty optimal troub/illu/fury setups, and while it's certainly true that it's harder to buff a ranger properly in a raid setting, this fact doesn't justify making mechanics such that rangers can achieve #1 dps in a mediocre setup while competing against other classes in better setups. A mage in a troub/illu/fury (or maybe templar) setup is to be equivalent to (meaning balanced against) a ranger in a dirge/illu/inq setup. If your raid can't give you a good setup on a regular basis or on a given day, that sucks for you/your raid and your raid needs to have its composition adjusted so as to achieve optimal raid performace, be those changes removing people in favor of buff classes for you or removing you in favor of buff classes for others or a better dps class for your group's buffs.

You point this out:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuantum

All I originally was pointing out was that the parses from Miller are beneficial to see some of the capability of the class with the changes, but that it shouldn't be viewed as numbers portraying the average raiding ranger. I guess our difference is that you all believe that the average raid guild operates with a 24 to maybe 28 man roster. My personal opinion is that I don't think that is the case. I think the majority of guilds run with larger rosters and raid with more varied setups more often. I guess you would refer to it as being "casual" although our mentality and goals are nothing of the sort.

Skipping past the few meaningless-to-this-line-of-discussion arguments I post this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dantel

Hard to accomplish with 24 classes. Bad idea from the start heh.

I never said the Ranger had to be in a WW raiding guild in order for my reasoning to be true. What I said still holds up. My guild wasn't, and as far as I know still isn't, a world-wide raiding guild, and it still holds up.

You, in your insane intelligence, can not infer who I am talking to despite the fact that it was the people in the posts immediately preceding that one. 24 classes are too many classes to have in a game that allows 24 players in a raid. That was a bad idea by Sony.

Regardless, let's go over this a bit. You have stated that as a Ranger in a non-hardcore/worldwide raid force, you have troubles being put into a group with adequate buffs and thus can not parse the same as Miller.

Nevermind the fact that, having more than 24-28 people in your guild as you have stated, it should be easier for you to have the proper buff classes at your disposal. Having less people in the guild/raid force makes it harder to find the proper buffers, not easier. Your logic is flawed.

You imply that I would refer to you as a casual guild, except that your goals and mentallity are nothing of the sort. If this were the case, and your goals and mentallity were to maximize DPS with a hard-core raiders mindset, then everything I have said has weight and everything you have said is simply from being a douche.

I'm sorry you're butthurt over me calling your raid leader a moron, but if he isn't optimizing your raid force then don't whine about the numbers Miller posts, because obviously they don't apply to you now do they?

Dantel · 04-03-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranja

But i agree with you Kuantum. My raid group differs almost every night depending on how signs up.

I've been in a raid force where this happens, and what I have said still holds up.

If you don't maximize your raid for success, why bother raiding? You do the best with what you have. It doesn't matter if what you have is 24 raiders every night or 15 one 23 another and 8912312 the next, the logic is still the same.

Kuantum · 04-03-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

You have stated that as a Ranger in a non-hardcore/worldwide raid force, you have troubles being put into a group with adequate buffs and thus can not parse the same as Miller.

#1 - I consider our guild pretty hardcore, although not to the extreme that some guilds are, again I don't like to label. We are a top tier raiding guild with a lot of dedicated members who raid daily.

#2 - Nowhere did I state that I personally have trouble getting a good support group in raids, nor did I say I could not parse what Miller does. My arguement was never personal, it isn't about me and my experiences, it is about our class as a raider, thats it.

Quote:

Nevermind the fact that, having more than 24-28 people in your guild as you have stated, it should be easier for you to have the proper buff classes at your disposal. Having less people in the guild/raid force makes it harder to find the proper buffers, not easier. Your logic is flawed.

Sorry but again I disagree, yes while having more members on your roster you have a larger pool of people to select from. However, the CLASSES of that larger pool of people is what dictates whether or not it is easier/harder to get proper support.

Example:

Guild A - 35 man roster, including 4 bards, 2 Illusionist, an Inquis, and lets say a zerker.

Guild B - 35 man roster, including 3 bards, 1 Illy, 1 Coercer, no Inquis, and an SK.

Now tell me a ranger in guild B has the same chances of getting proper support, as a ranger in guild A.

On the other hand, Guild C (hardcore high raid percentage) has only a 28 man roster, but includes 4 bards, 2 Illy's, an Inquis, etc. The ranger in this guild, is most likely going to have his optimal support on a nightly basis. Strike and Disso are perfect examples of these types of guilds.

Quote:

You imply that I would refer to you as a casual guild, except that your goals and mentallity are nothing of the sort. If this were the case, and your goals and mentallity were to maximize DPS with a hard-core raiders mindset, then everything I have said has weight and everything you have said is simply from being a douche.

Ok lets talk about that original statement because I see a misconception: "A raid leader that doesn't give all of his raiders every chance to excell fails as a raid leader." Since you followed my original post with this response, I took it as "You're guild doesn't have the optimal roster, and therefore your raid leader is an idiot"

Again, you are turning this on me as if I was speaking for myself originally, which I was not if you go fuckin read, but I'll humor this arguement none the less.

There is a large difference between optimizing WHAT YOU HAVE, and reformatting your roster around optimizing a raid. Our guild does not do the latter. You can label us whatever you want by that, it is irrelevant. We DO however, optimize our raid with what we DO HAVE. That is of course, as displayed in my previous example, limited by the classes in our roster. So if your statement was about raid leaders optimizing thier ROSTER, then my original opinion stands, you may as well not have a ranger unless you're providing him nightly with proper support. If your statement was raid leaders optimizing thier RAID, then yes, that is a valid statement BY ITSELF, but has no merit in regards to my original post.

Quote:

I'm sorry you're butthurt over me calling your raid leader a moron, but if he isn't optimizing your raid force then don't whine about the numbers Miller posts, because obviously they don't apply to you now do they?

Ok NOW I understand why you've been posting all this fuckin nonsense. You're one of those cuntrags who likes to chastise someones feedback on an issue as "whining" if it isn't something you wanted to see get said. Anyone who read my original post regarding Millerz parses, would recognize that I was not whining because I can't achieve what he does. I was merely pointing out the validity of those parses. I don't think other raiding rangers should look at those parses and go, "WOW, rangers are gonna rape with these new changes! I can't wait!" Cause odds are, those rangers won't be reaching those numbers in most raid guilds.

Oh, and as a matter of fact, his parses do pertain to me, because I do get the support I need most of the time. Just because I speak up in regards to the "casual raiding ranger", doesn't mean I am one you cocksmoker. Again, you're the fuckin prick trying to act as if everything I stated in this thread was about me, it wasn't jackass, and it is plain to see.

Pinski · 04-03-2008, 06:40 PM

Who's Disso?

Crychtonn - Bylar · 04-03-2008, 07:49 PM

Some has been guild I think.

Lethe5683 · 04-03-2008, 07:50 PM

Excuse my ignorance but can anyone tell me if this change has come live yet or when it is scheduled to?

Hexus · 04-03-2008, 08:21 PM

Supposedly next Tuesday...

/wince

-Hexus-

Dantel · 04-04-2008, 03:55 AM

You're a dumb fuck Kuantum. I've consistently proven my point and you've done nothing but call me a dumbass while being wrong the entire time.

I had thought it was just because you didn't understand my point. You flip-flop more than that other guy a while back who couldn't decide what parse numbers he wanted to stick with, and would continue to backtrack rather than admit he was wrong.

You...

Kuantum · 04-04-2008, 04:30 AM

Yeah I fail alright...

I fail to see how you putting words into my mouth = me backtracking.