AC and p99

[Snaggles]

In 2002 we referred to rangers as “paper bag tanks”. There is nothing wrong with tanking a Docks group with a ranger especially if stuff is slowed. It’s just when stuff gets difficult they either bump and often die, bump and sometimes live, or just pray they never pull aggro.

Mitigation tanks like monks and warriors get the best gains from AC. Knights get some benefit. The rest of classes get gains but with asterisks as to how useful it is. None of this is surprising though. I feel Rangers should tank better than rogues but it’s never been the case.

[Troxx]

To be honest my ranger does fine tanking in groups (granted I never tried to tank things like the high level DN rats with the ranger). What is given up in tanking mitigation and broken ac is compensated for by all the other things the ranger can do. Not ideal - but they totally get the job done adequately.

I felt/feel it most when soloing. The fight to fight variability can be pretty 'ick'. The bad fights are just more 'bad' with ranger than war/pal/bard/monk.

In my ideal world, it would have been:

Mitigation:
Warrior > Knight >>> ranger/bard >> monk/rogue

Avoidance:

Monk > rogue > ranger >> Bard/Warrior > Knight

Net damage intake (global tankiness excluding disc):

Warrior >> Knight >> ranger/monk > bard/rogue

... but the NATURE of the damage taken comes in differently with the plate tanks having the least incoming but coming in more steadily and predictably vs the other "not tanks".

Oh well ... opinions are simply that.

BUT - AC for rangers just seems not to work. They should tank better than they do vs group content.

[Danth]

Trials run some years ago--I think during one of the periods you were on break--indicated rangers have a very low effective worn AC cap and virtually no return overcap. All other classes, even clothies like enchanters, appear to have a much higher worn AC cap with considerable return beyond. There was some debate as to whether rangers were glitched, or whether it was part of unfinished construction from the Velious-beta AC overhaul and class-specific AC caps were never implemented to the other classes. Regardless, for now it appears optimal ranger gearing is something like 120-130 worn AC then gearing for stats.

[Goregasmic]

Didn't a p99 dev pop in and say the worn AC formula pre 50 was changed to

level * 6 +25

Which would mean at least 385 at 60 but its probably an even higher cap post 50.

Then I guess defense + obscure mitigation would play a role to fudge stuff depending on class.

[Goregasmic]

*softcap

[Duik]

Sounds like poor rangers always get to wear soft caps.

[Crede]

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

To be honest my ranger does fine tanking in groups (granted I never tried to tank things like the high level DN rats with the ranger). What is given up in tanking mitigation and broken ac is compensated for by all the other things the ranger can do. Not ideal - but they totally get the job done adequately.

I felt/feel it most when soloing. The fight to fight variability can be pretty 'ick'. The bad fights are just more 'bad' with ranger than war/pal/bard/monk.

In my ideal world, it would have been:

Mitigation:
Warrior > Knight >>> ranger/bard >> monk/rogue

Avoidance:

Monk > rogue > ranger >> Bard/Warrior > Knight

Net damage intake (global tankiness excluding disc):

Warrior >> Knight >> ranger/monk > bard/rogue

... but the NATURE of the damage taken comes in differently with the plate tanks having the least incoming but coming in more steadily and predictably vs the other "not tanks".

Oh well ... opinions are simply that.

BUT - AC for rangers just seems not to work. They should tank better than they do vs group content.

I think Ranger lack of tankiness is fine. They’re glass cannons. Where they got it completely wrong is how much dps monks do. Monks should be lower than bard dps. Take that away and I think there’s more of a reason to be a ranger being a high dps class with utility.

[Duik]

That is bang on Crede.

[Snaggles]

I have no issue with ranger dps but am biased.

AC vs Hps gear comes down to what is accessible to the person, or what they were lucky enough to secure on a specific raid. HGL’s are in a weird category because of the - AC but a huge boost in Hp’s, they also are worn by many people who have the best gear in the game and also EC geared casuals. If you have access to bags of literally the best gear and can swap as you see fit, that’s great but also not the shared experience of all players. Personally for my pally I could carry two cougar claw earrings as well but I’m not sure I’d ever swap to them. Bag space management is the true end-game.

[Nickelback8469]

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

I think Ranger lack of tankiness is fine. They’re glass cannons. Where they got it completely wrong is how much dps monks do. Monks should be lower than bard dps. Take that away and I think there’s more of a reason to be a ranger being a high dps class with utility.

Rangers have more HP than other DPS and they get the Taunt skill which communicates that they were designed to be a decent option to tank in the absence of a warrior or a knight. They're definitely not a cannon either, just glass with mediocre damage.

Also why should bards be better DPS than monks? Monks were busted because of how good their avoidance was but they're a pure melee without any of the utility a Bard has. They should be decent off tanks and good DPS to compensate for their lack of options.