Best solo melee class?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would consider the I'm rubber you're glue argument a bit more child-like. You see... I called you a child a few posts back and you can't just hit me back with that and expect it to be impactful. You wanna try another one?

People can read the thread. This is yet another weak response.

I am posting math, facts, logic, and in game evidence to back up my positions.

You respond by acting like a child, claiming you know everything.

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The presumption that you have anything to educate me with regarding a class I've leveled and raided with extensively which you also don't play is, quite frankly, presumptuous, and I don't appreciate it.

The person who is lacking in this thread is yourself. You can keep responding like this if you wish. It just means everybody can see your inability to counter my points.

You aren't hurting me, or helping yourself look like an authority.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Naethyn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ranger should be the least impacted by negative AC as they are only just above cloth when it comes to how much real ac they get.

In regards to damage reduction... when recognizing raid tanking
Warrior > Knight > Monk > Bard > Ranger = Rogue > Shaman > Necro (Who would make a Necro the raid tank!?!?)

But in an exp group tanking in an exp group with Velious gear is serious business!!!
Top BiS or nothing!!! /s

*sigh -.- Rangers can tank in an exp group just fine.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by Naethyn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ranger should be the least impacted by negative AC as they are only just above cloth when it comes to how much real ac they get.

Yeah it seems like most people with a lot of experience with melee in EQ think AC isn't very important on a ranger. When I did a little parsing I didn't find any ranger-specific limitations on AC, but I was also comparing to a druid and a cleric so I don't have a high degree of confidence in my conclusions. I found that there's a hit distribution where roughly a third of hits are either for min or max value, and that adding AC shifts hits from max value to min, and that once there's <3% hits for min value adding AC doesn't help.

My interpretation of the "don't bother gearing rangers for AC" school of thought is that when raiding you're either not getting hit or you're bumping, so it's not a priority. That makes a ton of sense, but I'm not 60 yet so I'm still gearing AC for when I'm tanking.

I'd love to hear your detailed thoughts on ranger AC, and perhaps your thoughts on the parsing I did in this thread.

Originally Posted by zelld52 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are entire pages of this post that are hidden from me. Ah, well. Was it anything good?

Just the usual.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just the usual.

Unfortunately true. Bcbrown and Cecily will continue to use the argument from authority fallacy, while proving no evidence or counter points of their own.

If they are so confident in their knowledge, they wouldn't use fallacies to try and win a debate.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When you can't win with facts and logic, you act like a child.

The problem is that there is no point engaging with someone who has a very poor capacity for logic themselves. Your ability to coherently progress from premises to conclusions across multiple variables is pitiful and embarrassing; your "arguments" are rhetoric disguised as reasoning.

It should be a clue for you that almost everyone who engages with you eventually realizes this; in thread after thread, you develop this reputation. It took me two years and being on a different account that didn't have you on ignore to make this mistake again.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Unfortunately true. Bcbrown and Cecily will continue to use the argument from authority fallacy, while proving no evidence or counter points of their own.

If they are so confident in their knowledge, they wouldn't use fallacies to try and win a debate.

What they didn't teach you in your undergrad writing class is that appeal to authority isn't a fallacy when the conduct of your argument is generating such a negative consensus about you that it's undermining your ability to effectively engage with the community. It's like a man waving his dick at traffic and chastising all the honking cars for honking instead of using 'logic'.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah it seems like most people with a lot of experience with melee in EQ think AC isn't very important on a ranger. When I did a little parsing I didn't find any ranger-specific limitations on AC, but I was also comparing to a druid and a cleric so I don't have a high degree of confidence in my conclusions. I found that there's a hit distribution where roughly a third of hits are either for min or max value, and that adding AC shifts hits from max value to min, and that once there's <3% hits for min value adding AC doesn't help.

My interpretation of the "don't bother gearing rangers for AC" school of thought is that when raiding you're either not getting hit or you're bumping, so it's not a priority. That makes a ton of sense, but I'm not 60 yet so I'm still gearing AC for when I'm tanking.

I'd love to hear your detailed thoughts on ranger AC, and perhaps your thoughts on the parsing I did in this thread.

Just to add another kinda weak data point, when I played my ranger there was a time I went the ultra-high AC route, given that I was often tanking for groups, and I thought I was being clever. I parsed a few sessions (not enough sessions for it to be super meaningful data), but I never really noticed a difference between my very high AC set and my normal set (and the normal set had low-moderate priority for AC).

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just to add another data point, when I played my ranger there was a time I went the ultra-high AC route, given that I was often tanking for groups, and I thought I was being clever. I parsed a few sessions (not enough sessions for it to be super meaningful data), but I never really noticed a difference between my very high AC set and my normal set (and the normal set had low-moderate priority for AC).

Appreciate the data point. I'd love it if you'd read that thread and give your thoughts. One conclusion is that there's a mob-specific "squelch point" above which there's minimal hits for max damage, and more AC above that value isn't helpful. For level 40-45 mobs that value is around 150-200 worn AC. How much worn AC was in your normal set and what level were the mobs you were fighting?

[Danth]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For level 40-45 mobs that value is around 150-200 worn AC.

Note that these values are higher than can readily be reached during the classic period. Later-era Kunark and Velious equipment trickling down throws a lot of impressions out of whack. A era-appropriate ranger wearing banded and maybe a few nicer random pieces like crested spauldors will typically gain from whatever AC he can scrounge up. Today's ranger alt wearing a bunch of Velious hand-me-downs, perhaps not so much.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Naethyn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ranger should be the least impacted by negative AC as they are only just above cloth when it comes to how much real ac they get.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of it's a bad idea to make a weak point worse. Like there's certainly a point where piling on more AC to a ranger offers minimal benefits, but I don't think it works the other way around. You're bringing your character closer to the naked baseline, and I don't see any way that's not worse.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Appreciate the data point. I'd love it if you'd read that thread and give your thoughts. One conclusion is that there's a mob-specific "squelch point" above which there's minimal hits for max damage, and more AC above that value isn't helpful. For level 40-45 mobs that value is around 150-200 worn AC. How much worn AC was in your normal set and what level were the mobs you were fighting?

I call it weak/minimally meaningful data because this was in Kunark, I was in my high 50's, the sessions ranged from Karnor's basement to Seb, and it was long enough ago that I don't remember what my worn AC was. So mobs ranging from mid 40's to low 50's (krups). Also tanked Emperor Chottal; god bless my poor healer. It was about as much AC as you were capable of getting at the time with droppables/not raid gear... gem encrusted ring, targishins bone mask, idol of the thorned instead of a bow, etc etc.

It resulted in... really an intuition rather than a conclusion at the time that the extra AC wasn't really noticeable but losing the resistances certainly was.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is that there is no point engaging with someone who has a very poor capacity for logic themselves. Your ability to coherently progress from premises to conclusions across multiple variables is pitiful and embarrassing; your "arguments" are rhetoric disguised as reasoning.

It should be a clue for you that almost everyone who engages with you eventually realizes this; in thread after thread, you develop this reputation. It took me two years and being on a different account that didn't have you on ignore to make this mistake again.

Your dishonestly about my posts and your clear bias are the biggest clue here.

People can read the posts you provided and see your analysis of my posts and positions are incorrect.

If you want to take the easy path and use the ad populum falllacy, I can't stop you.

"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." - Marcus Aurelius

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What they didn't teach you in your undergrad writing class is that appeal to authority isn't a fallacy when the conduct of your argument is generating such a negative consensus about you that it's undermining your ability to effectively engage with the community. It's like a man waving his dick at traffic and chastising all the honking cars for honking instead of using 'logic'.

Facts, math, logic, and in-game evidence trump authority every time. A person can level all classes to 60, and they would still be wrong if they said something factually incorrect.

You are also acting quite poorly with the insults and lies. Perhaps fix yourself before trying to fix others.