Bored at work, so here's a ranger thread

[koros]

Why does everyone hate on the ranger xp penalty, but are perfectly fine with a 44% monk penalty?

Yeah a monk might do a little more dps, but with nukes and a woodsmans staff, a ranger isn't going to be very far behind. Add in another 5-10 dps from thorns (if no other DSer), and a ranger is on par in many exp situations with tons of added utility.

Edit: 44% iksar monk penalty

[falkun]

Stigma.

[Egil]

posting in thread per sig requirements

[SirAlvarex]

But Monks jump in the air and fall on the ground and stuff...Rangers are just another wolf in a group. How could a WOLF contribute??!"?!1/

[Schortt]

The damage difference is more than you're making it out to be - monks and rogues are pretty much on a par at this point in progression for group DPS while rangers end up a peg or two down with warriors. Monks can also take damage much better, pull in pretty much any situation (though rangers are quite handy for that in outdoor zones as well), and due to a number of factors like twinking tendencies, ease-of-epic, and the weapon balance during Kunark in general the average monk tends to be better equipped for damage dealing than the average ranger at pretty much all levels of play.

It doesn't help rangers that many people don't realize that Iksar monks have a higher penalty than the average hybrid. However, hybrids are partially at fault for this. Rangers, paladins, and bards sometimes still bitch to me about how bad they have it for leveling and often don't believe me when I tell them that Iksar monks have it worse (not to mention the fatty and iksar SKs out there). Maybe it's because you don't really hear any of them complaining about how terrible leveling is for them, while every time you turn around there's another hybrid complaining about that 40%? ;)

I agree with your overall point though. Rangers do get a bad rep and can bring a lot more to groups than many people realize. I really don't think you'll be able to change 13 years of DT fodder and "ranger gate" jokes at this point (the stigma that Falkun mentioned), but I do think individual rangers can and have been able to make themselves stand out as excellent group and guildmates by making good use of their utility skills - but that's up to you to do in game.

[Xanthias]

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71153

[Splorf22]

One of the things that really sucks on P1999 currently is the difference in difficulty in acquiring good gear.

Rogues are trivial to gear, get your Ragebringer MQ for 50k. No one says 'EPIC ROG LFG' any more, because the epic part is implied. Ragebringer gives 40% haste, so throw in a CSS in the offhand and your rogue will do 95% of the damage of a top end raid rogue.

Monks are harder but not that bad. The monk epic is pretty straightforward, if somewhat tedious, and if you don't want to put that time in grab a Tranquil Staff (25k) and a RBG (50k) and you'll be doing pretty well. The monk sky belt requires drops off the Eye, but at least you don't have to batphone for it.

Warriors are much, much harder. The warrior Sky belt is extremely rare because its the only belt that requires components off the Efreetis. The warrior epic requires 3! rare drops off of 3+ day spawns; the rogue and monk epics require 0.

Rangers don't even get a sky haste belt, and they can't wear a Cloak of Flames owing to the Dark Cloak of the Sky. Their epic would be a bit easier than Warriors simply because there are so few of them, except that they share a rare drop or two with the Druids IIRC.

TL;DR: In actual XP groups, the Ragebringer Rogue is going to do considerably more damage than the Tstaff/RBG monk, who is going to do considerably more damage than the CSS ranger and the Sarnak Warhammer/Silken Whip warrior. If all four of them were epicced, things would be a lot closer.

[Snagglepuss]

Has anyone ever grouped with an Oakwynd ranger on live? Stories? What type of damage would be done with trueshot disc on?

[Nirgon]

Maybe because a lot of people around here just repeat what some other goof says and don't actually really know anything. Masters of the classic up in here.

Play your class like a boss.

[Ephirith]

shitty dps

Don't know what kind of rangers you have been grouping with. DPS isn't as good as a monk or rogue, but it also isn't abysmally low compared to them. At higher gear levels it's still greater than a mage, necro, or wizard in many situations, and come velious there won't even be a penalty.

[kaev]

... anyone running damage meters here should be flogged...

I am definitely not empty quoting this rare bit of wisdom I found buried on this here forum.

[agdros]

I played a ranger on live and enjoyed the character.
With that said, I play a cleric now and I can tell you exactly what is wrong with people that play rangers:
They think they can tank or take a few hits and it will be ok.

This is completely wrong.

The reason they think this is because they have taunt, they have a DS, and they have the ability to heal themselves.

Depending on the person playing the ranger, I usually dread having one in the group because I am constantly having to cast an extra heal to keep them alive. They are a mana sink with a lower return on investment than a rogue or monk.

[fadetree]

Grouped rangers who are not tanking and not trying to peel from a caster or root park something should never, ever, taunt. Not even to skill up. If I am grouped as a dps'er and I take hits, its a fail on my part. I'll switch down to crappier weapons if I need to. Jolt helps quite a bit later.