Ranger DPS (vs Rogue too!)

Timir said:
I would be happy with backstab dmg upped a tiny bit and the accuracy upped cause missing 3 4 backstabs then getting 1 or 2 in the 300-600 range and maybe seeing one in the 2000's kinda sucks considering rangers can hit for 1000+ just with a normal shot.
Click to expand...

This is magnificently awful logic. I could just as well say that "missing 3 4 shots in a row then getting 1 or 2 in the 100-200 range considering rogues can backstab for 2000".

Regardless, I will take a look at archery DPS.
 
From what I hear you have basically ruined the class role with bow damage, rogues and rangers should be near even maybe rogues a little higher but rangers are terrible now, that is too bad.
 
Allielyn said:
I think Wiz has a better idea of where rangers and rogues "should be" on his server than you do.
Click to expand...
Well, thats true, but rangers definitly sux now, no place in raid for em imo.
 
xacebop said:
From what I hear you have basically ruined the class role with bow damage, rogues and rangers should be near even maybe rogues a little higher but rangers are terrible now, that is too bad.
Click to expand...
Why should a class that can completely ignore WW and rampage mobs, as well as most AE's be able to do damage on par with the highest DPS and most physically weak melee class ? I don't see why rangers should do more damage at range than a monk/bst or even that very same ranger can do in melee... let alone come anywhere near a rogue.
 
taishar said:
I don't see why rangers should do more damage at range than a monk/bst or even that very same ranger can do in melee... let alone come anywhere near a rogue.
Click to expand...

Its called a RANGER. Not to sound likea prick, but bows are our lil niche. Its idiocy to think that a RANGEr would do more damage in melee.

Anyways, none of these posts really contributes to the thread at all, i just wanted to point out the whole idea of what a RANGEr is.
 
Diodimus said:
Its called a RANGER. Not to sound likea prick, but bows are our lil niche. Its idiocy to think that a RANGEr would do more damage in melee.
Click to expand...
A ranger is someone who excels at using a bow. That is, they do more damage using a bow than anyone else. How does that get translated by everyone into meaning they should do more damage with a bow than anyone else can with melee ? If they can do on par damage with it, I think that's damn well good enough. I swear, it seems like 1/3 of the fights in NDHK I have to sit out or chuck shurikens... trash and names alike. Avoiding Ramp/WW/AE is fucking huge.
 
i guess i should have been more specific with what i was calling into question. You asked why a ranger should do more damage with a bow than melee. That made me go :psyduck:. And there is no reason that a ranger should do more damage than a Rogue, its already been established that a Rogue is supposed to be the DPS king. The issue anymore is that after the two recent nerfs, Rangers aren't doing the damage that they are supposed to. Rangers have been listed in the little table that Iae has provided, if not in this thread than another related one, as on par with monks, and ahead of beastlords. From the Parses that i have seen posted by Allielyn we are being out DPSed by rogues by up to 70dps, and there was one instance i saw where a beast do more DPS than a ranger. The point of a ranger on a raid is to do dps, and caste CoTP. With DPS as it is, there is no reason to have more than one Ranger in a raid unless all mobs are going to be whilrwind mobs. Brimz, who was one of the biggest advocates of the ranger nerf, in another thread has stated that rangers are now underpowered. In my mind thats a sign that things went a little to far.
 
I think Brimz was wanting Rogue DPS upped more then Ranger DPS being lowered. I could be way off base here, though.
 
Spiritplx said:
I think Brimz was wanting Rogue DPS upped more then Ranger DPS being lowered. I could be way off base here, though.
Click to expand...
It really depends when.

Rangers were overpowered before the last nerf went in. And now they are underpowered IMO. You guys need real Endless Quiver back or something to make using arrows worth it if they are going to keep the DPS where it is now.

I really want Ranger DPS upped a bit and Rogue DPS to stay the same now.

EDIT:I'm going to post a couple parses from last night to continue in my trend of posting parses.

7/16/07 - Magmar

Arraz - 124,450 Total, 352.55 DPS (Rogues)
Tocuus - 68,199 Total, 195.97 DPS (Plus pet, Bacchus - 34,851 Total, 99.86 DPS) (Beastlord)
Draxx - 95,828 Total, 269.94 DPS (Monk)
Kaloft - 58,374 Total, 163.97 DPS (Thats what happens when I say I'm parsing, Kaloft wakes up) (Paladin)
Finster - 53,218 Total, 151.62 DPS (Shadownknight)
Sald - 44,316 Total, 124.83 DPS (Warrior)
Regasin - 33,106 Total, 100.63 DPS (Bard)

And!
Kade - 127,557 Total, 358.31 DPS (Wizard)
Shazu - 96,348 Total, 270.64 DPS(WRU Archaic :() (Wizard)

7/16/07 - Nashtav, Forger of Souls
Arraz - 97,182 Total, 304.65 DPS (Boxing Brimz Woo Yeah)
Draxx - 87,057 Total, 280.83 DPS
Kaloft - 49,063 Total, 188.70 DPS
Regasin - 26,097 Total, 107.40 DPS
Sald - 43,007 Total, 133.56 DPS
Tocuus 66,084 Total, 212.49 DPS

And!
Kade - 121,156 Total, 435.81 DPS(Wizard)
Shazu - 48,174 Total, 165.55 DPS(Wizard)
Brimz - 36,627 Total, 105.25 DPS(Mage)
Brimz's Pet - 6,338 Total, 218.55 DPS(For 30 Secs)
Firstrelic - 20,143 Total, 63.74 DPS
 
Diodimus said:
The issue anymore is that after the two recent nerfs, Rangers aren't doing the damage that they are supposed to. Rangers have been listed in the little table that Iae has provided, if not in this thread than another related one, as on par with monks, and ahead of beastlords. From the Parses that i have seen posted by Allielyn we are being out DPSed by rogues by up to 70dps, and there was one instance i saw where a beast do more DPS than a ranger.
Click to expand...
Who determines what DPS they are supposed to do ? Not you, not me. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a ranger doing the exact same DPS as a monk - which is substantially less than a rogue. Any other melee class that wants to switch to a range attack loses a substantial amount of DPS. Rangers don't - and that's their "lil niche." If rangers can do the same DPS at range or in melee, on par with other what a monk can put out, I don't see the problem. Why pick up a second monk instead of a second ranger when you know the monk will be useless on any mob that rampages ?

I think the problem is that players of rangers want to just be able to outrange everything and have that be their only form of attack. If that's the case, why the hell would they be given triple attack ? Rangers are built to switch it up. They are meant to excel in melee and bow. They do more damage with a bow than any other class, and are only one of two classes that get triple attack.

A ranger should have to decide for each encounter if they want to do the nice simple melee auto attack - or spend some money to do the same/higher DPS (according to the parses I've seen) at range.

The fact that they have that option, when all other melee classes don't, is a pretty damn nice advantage.

If you compared the overall DPS over the course of a raid including all the mobs other melee classes had to sit out on because of ramp/WW/AEs, rangers would probably look a lot better.
 
taishar said:
Who determines what DPS they are supposed to do ? Not you, not me. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a ranger doing the exact same DPS as a monk - which is substantially less than a rogue. Any other melee class that wants to switch to a range attack loses a substantial amount of DPS. Rangers don't - and that's their "lil niche." If rangers can do the same DPS at range or in melee, on par with other what a monk can put out, I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

Everything i have argued is not based of of personal opinion. It has come from parses and information supplied by other players as to what Wiz+staff has stated to be thier intent. If I am wrong about any of my conclusions, please show me where i err. Belive it or not, i like to be proven wrong.

taishar said:
They are meant to excel in melee and bow.
Click to expand...

if this is true, then why is it on every parse i've seen that rangers lose DPS when switching to melee.
 
Diodimus said:
Everything i have argued is not based of of personal opinion. It has come from parses and information supplied by other players as to what Wiz+staff has stated to be thier intent. If I am wrong about any of my conclusions, please show me where i err. Belive it or not, i like to be proven wrong.

if this is true, then why is it on every parse i've seen that rangers lose DPS when switching to melee.
Click to expand...
The parses I was looking at were posted by Allielyn, but I can't seem to find them to quote some numbers. In those parses though, rangers did more damage at range than in melee, and their overall place in the damage rankings put them about the same as a monks (again, my recollection may be off, but I can't find the damn numbers to see one way or another).

As for losing damage in melee, that doesn't seem right to me. It seems to me that rangers should be able to do comparable DPS regardless of which method they choose. Each type has its advantages/disadvantages. What's the point of rangers having triple attack if they're never going to use it because ranged DPS is clearly better in all situations over melee ?
 
taishar said:
The parses I was looking at were posted by Allielyn, but I can't seem to find them to quote some numbers. In those parses though, rangers did more damage at range than in melee, and their overall place in the damage rankings put them about the same as a monks (again, my recollection may be off, but I can't find the damn numbers to see one way or another).
Click to expand...
Keep im mind, some of Allielyn's parses are before the first nerf, and to be honest i believe that the others are pre-second nerf.
The parses i have looked at are those supplied by brimz (god i talk about him to much) and are under the Rogues, my 2cp thread.

taishar said:
As for losing damage in melee, that doesn't seem right to me. It seems to me that rangers should be able to do comparable DPS regardless of which method they choose. Each type has its advantages/disadvantages. What's the point of rangers having triple attack if they're never going to use it because ranged DPS is clearly better in all situations over melee ?
Click to expand...
It might not seem right, but thats how it is. I havent done any personal parses, which i plan on doing soon, but i'm fairly confident that using Ashenstrike with Dmg 5 arrows gives me more DPS than using the Ruby Hilted Longsword/Fang of Si'thl'li'thara duel wield. All of those imho are on par with eachother. Once i get a chance to supply numbers back/negating my arguement i will.

Also another downfall i have seen is that all the parses seem to be high end raiders. All this changing effects other tiers, so i feel my contribution will add in a view of what happens to us 'gimp' rangers. Look at my fomelo, i dont really have anything that could be considered uber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom