• You've discovered RedGuides 📕 an EverQuest multi-boxing community 🛡️🧙🗡️. We want you to play several EQ characters at once, come join us and say hello! 👋
  • IS THIS SITE UGLY? Change the look. To dismiss this notice, click the X --->

Question - Rangers - why so unpopular? (1 Viewer)

Joined
Jun 20, 2014
RedCents
1,549¢
This not a bait question. I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning - assuming it's reasoned - behind the unpopularity of RNGs.

I rolled one up and played a bit and I was favorably impressed. I also spent some time studying their spells and abilities which added to my favorable impression. Now, the thing that puzzles me is that RNGs have a line of spells which all stack with one another and also stack with dedicated healer AC/HP buffs that grant such useful melee/tank aDPS as +attack, +combat abilities, AC, HPs, and DS. They also have an AA ability that grants a very nice boost to caster crit chance which lasts for 1:30. You have to choice of melee DPS, or ranged DPS. They have lots of useful utilities, and they can even heal for respectable amounts at higher levels.

So why are they so unpopular?
Is it just that they fail the max/min test?
Am I over-stating their goodies?
What are the issues?

Thanks for your insights.
 
The hate us cause we are beautiful and they are jealous.

Unless your talking about England and then they are hated because the Rangers is a Protestant club. It's neighbor, Glasgow Celtic is Catholic

Or if you are in America then you hate the NY Rangers cause they can't play hockey at all for years and were an embarrassment but are turning around now a little.

Or in EQ there is no Tonto.
 
I certainly don't hate rangers, though I think they are poorly implemented.

Obviously there are periods when they are solid... PoP is when their archery DPS is king.

But thats a brief window and suddenly you're just another melee DPS, except you also have to spam spells to make your DPS even kinda okay. Meanwhile the monks and zerks can nearly just autoattack and get more out of it. And if you say anything about 'ranger tanking' then you're not a serious person.

Rangers do have some utility. Bit of healing and curing is handy, snares, DS, and their buffs are loved by all. WS has some fantastic strategic uses, of course.

But they missed an obvious niche - rangers ought to have been the only real ranged DPS in the game that didn't rely on spells. I can understand the devs thinking a manaless ranged DPS that kept up with the melee was a bit unfair. But all that means is their actual damage output shoulda been tuned a bit lower than melee, while still being... you know... not total shite. Which is where they ended up. You can be bad DPS at ranged, or meh DPS in melee. And have to work way harder to even accomplish that.

So tl;dr.... I wanted to be Legolas and I wasn't Legolas.
 
This not a bait question. I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning - assuming it's reasoned - behind the unpopularity of RNGs.

I rolled one up and played a bit and I was favorably impressed. I also spent some time studying their spells and abilities which added to my favorable impression. Now, the thing that puzzles me is that RNGs have a line of spells which all stack with one another and also stack with dedicated healer AC/HP buffs that grant such useful melee/tank aDPS as +attack, +combat abilities, AC, HPs, and DS. They also have an AA ability that grants a very nice boost to caster crit chance which lasts for 1:30. You have to choice of melee DPS, or ranged DPS. They have lots of useful utilities, and they can even heal for respectable amounts at higher levels.

So why are they so unpopular?
Is it just that they fail the max/min test?
Am I over-stating their goodies?
What are the issues?

Thanks for your insights.
I think a lot of the hate can be attributed to the early days of EQ when EVERYONE played a ranger and thought they were Aragorn or some crap. There were some REALLY bad rangers around and the class went through fits and starts of being relatively poor contributors.

That being said, in the modern game, they're in a pretty good place. Solid second tier DPS with great ADPS.
 
I certainly don't hate rangers, though I think they are poorly implemented.

Obviously there are periods when they are solid... PoP is when their archery DPS is king.

But thats a brief window and suddenly you're just another melee DPS, except you also have to spam spells to make your DPS even kinda okay. Meanwhile the monks and zerks can nearly just autoattack and get more out of it. And if you say anything about 'ranger tanking' then you're not a serious person.

Rangers do have some utility. Bit of healing and curing is handy, snares, DS, and their buffs are loved by all. WS has some fantastic strategic uses, of course.

But they missed an obvious niche - rangers ought to have been the only real ranged DPS in the game that didn't rely on spells. I can understand the devs thinking a manaless ranged DPS that kept up with the melee was a bit unfair. But all that means is their actual damage output shoulda been tuned a bit lower than melee, while still being... you know... not total shite. Which is where they ended up. You can be bad DPS at ranged, or meh DPS in melee. And have to work way harder to even accomplish that.

So tl;dr.... I wanted to be Legolas and I wasn't Legolas.
Not that I doubt what you're saying, as your comments about back-in-the-day ring true with me, but reference the claim that RNG melee DPS is meh, is that your opinion or is it fact?

Again, don't misunderstand, it's just that we live in a world where opinion and supposition seems to substitute for facts and in the words of my homies, "I ain't down with that." I'm just interested in the ugly facts.

All-in-all, it sounds like you're saying they failed max/min test for DPS.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.
 
I love them in certain eras - they are rather meh in classic outside of niche things like great tracking. Can't quite tank - but can fill in - use a billion arrows on a blue mob - archery was meh - then suddenly Luclin and PoP and AA and rangers are seriously dangerous - then nerfed to high hell... its a roller coaster love affair I think.

the original epic still looks sexy as hell though
 
Care to elaborate? I'd like to understand because your comment seems to reflect the general opinion.

Thanks.
I think especially on here for people looking to do box groups, for a long time none of the publicly available coded options ran a ranger even marginally well compared to what they could do while other classes had more options available that performed well. That's since improved. Also, I think a lot of it comes down to people being misinformed/clueless about how many Eq mechanics function, for example I wouldn’t make a 54 man raid force without 4-5 rangers in it simply because of tb/mgb auspice rotations raw power. Continuing on that line, there are a lot that just look at single mob parses/guestimate their groups power/don’t use a real parser which can lead to inaccurate conclusions being drawn.
 
They can be tricky to automate, but good manual rangers are just fine

An active ranger does acceptable dps, headshot helps with grinding. Their Adps is solid and they bring good attack buffs.

Unfortunately most rangers just autofire with little else, They are similar to beastlords in that you need to be casting to get the most out of them. We have rangers that may not be top 5 during most burn fights but at the end of the night they are in the 7-3 range for overall damage done during a raid.

I 100% enjoy playing a ranger, I'd probably pass on using them in my group composition and favor a beastlord. I'd 100% allow my ranger friends into my group because a good ranger is noticeable.
 
This not a bait question. I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning - assuming it's reasoned - behind the unpopularity of RNGs.

I rolled one up and played a bit and I was favorably impressed. I also spent some time studying their spells and abilities which added to my favorable impression. Now, the thing that puzzles me is that RNGs have a line of spells which all stack with one another and also stack with dedicated healer AC/HP buffs that grant such useful melee/tank aDPS as +attack, +combat abilities, AC, HPs, and DS. They also have an AA ability that grants a very nice boost to caster crit chance which lasts for 1:30. You have to choice of melee DPS, or ranged DPS. They have lots of useful utilities, and they can even heal for respectable amounts at higher levels.

So why are they so unpopular?
Is it just that they fail the max/min test?
Am I over-stating their goodies?
What are the issues?

Thanks for your insights.
Meh...who cares we rule! Pew Pew motherf...

Stephen Amell Arrow GIF
Broken Heart Reaction GIF by Travis
 
I think especially on here for people looking to do box groups, for a long time none of the publicly available coded options ran a ranger even marginally well compared to what they could do while other classes had more options available that performed well. That's since improved. Also, I think a lot of it comes down to people being misinformed/clueless about how many Eq mechanics function, for example I wouldn’t make a 54 man raid force without 4-5 rangers in it simply because of tb/mgb auspice rotations raw power. Continuing on that line, there are a lot that just look at single mob parses/guestimate their groups power/don’t use a real parser which can lead to inaccurate conclusions being drawn.
Yeah, I am truly mystified by it.

Take for example a BRD. They have horrible personal melee DPS. I've seen a number of parses of many combats on various forums that consistently show that SHMs and DRUs will out DPS a BRD. But everyone wants a BRD.

So if crappy personal DPS was the reason to exclude a RNG, then why not exclude BRDs for the same reason, right? Obviously, the answer is because BRD aDPS more than compensates for their crap melee DPS, plus all the utility they bring.

Now maybe RNG aDPS is not on par with BRD aDPS, but the personal melee of a RNG is still much better than BRD. So it begs the question then that if BRD DPS can be excused because of the superior aDPS, then why is the same logic not applied to RNGs?

This seems to be a relevant question given the prevailing meta for a single end-game group is melee focused. Tank + BRD + Healer + 3x melee of your choice. If that is the meta, then any class that can contribute to melee aDPS like a RNG deserves consideration for one of those slots?

What do you think? And thanks for the thoughtful response.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I am truly mystified by it.

Take for example a BRD. They have horrible personal melee DPS. I've seen a number of parses of many combats on various forums that consistently show that SHMs and DRUs will out DPS a BRD. But everyone wants a BRD.

So if crappy personal DPS was the reason to exclude a RNG, then why not exclude BRDs for the same reason, right? Obviously, the answer is because BRD aDPS more than compensates for their crap melee DPS, plus all the utility they bring.

Now maybe RNG aDPS is not on par with BRD aDPS, but the personal melee of a RNG is still much better than BRD. So it begs the question then that if BRD DPS can be excused because of the superior aDPS, then why is the same logic not applied to RNGs?

This seems to be a relevant question given the prevailing meta for a single late-group is melee focused. Tank + BRD + Healer + 3x melee of your choice. If that is the meta, then any class that can contribute to melee aDPS like a RNG deserves consideration for one of those slots?

What do you think? And thanks for the thoughtful response.
Yea bro...you gotta be doing something wrong. My ranger is top parse consistently, gotta work on your quiver, arrows, clickies, bow, weapons and have a good routine to switch from melee to ranged based on your team configuration.
 
They can be tricky to automate, but good manual rangers are just fine

An active ranger does acceptable dps, headshot helps with grinding. Their Adps is solid and they bring good attack buffs.

Unfortunately most rangers just autofire with little else, They are similar to beastlords in that you need to be casting to get the most out of them. We have rangers that may not be top 5 during most burn fights but at the end of the night they are in the 7-3 range for overall damage done during a raid.

I 100% enjoy playing a ranger, I'd probably pass on using them in my group composition and favor a beastlord. I'd 100% allow my ranger friends into my group because a good ranger is noticeable.
Thanks. Great reply. Appreciate it.
 
Yea bro...you gotta be doing something wrong. My ranger is top parse consistently, gotta work on your quiver, arrows, clickies, bow, weapons and have a good routine to switch from melee to ranged based on your team configuration.
I think you might have misread my post. I'm not saying RNG DPS is bad, other people are saying that. I'm just assuming they are correct and strongmaning their argument to make the point that if BRD personal DPS sucks and BRDs are still desirable because of aDPS, then why wouldn't the same logic apply to RNGs.

Thanks.
 
As a Ranger Main through Depths of Darkhallow from launch.

Rangers were kinda always joked upon because of how underwhelming they were.

Never enough melee dps. Couldnt tank effectively. Couldnt range until Shadows of Luclin well. Not really good compared to their parts, warrior and druid.

Rangers were desired still though, and jokes about them being dead all the time, or "ranger Gate" is because they were VERY good aggro pullers mid fight, and were top of the line sacrifices for death touches, and this was never something I ever got the feeling I was relegated to because of disdain, but more of "I can do this, and it keeps the raid going, so im gonna do it". Guilds that I raided in were always super supportive of their rangers for their sacrifices.

I dont think ive ever experienced someone with actual malice in their joking of the class.

Most ranger's understand where they fit by raiding point, and it can be fulfilling.
 
For raids they have trouble cracking the top ten in dps, but their buffs are highly desirable. They also are nice to have when your killing trash or have mobs that you can headshot. Can make things go a little faster. Overall I think they get a bad wrap.
 
If I were boxing a raid I would want some, but when thinking about a maximum of 6 classes for a box crew, I can't make it work.
I'm running paladin, sham, ranger, monk, beast. bard and having a blast with it so far. Monk is still lacking gear and AA so his dps will increase a bunch still. Haven't had any issues with this group setup.
 
As a Ranger Main through Depths of Darkhallow from launch.

Rangers were kinda always joked upon because of how underwhelming they were.

Never enough melee dps. Couldnt tank effectively. Couldnt range until Shadows of Luclin well. Not really good compared to their parts, warrior and druid.

Rangers were desired still though, and jokes about them being dead all the time, or "ranger Gate" is because they were VERY good aggro pullers mid fight, and were top of the line sacrifices for death touches, and this was never something I ever got the feeling I was relegated to because of disdain, but more of "I can do this, and it keeps the raid going, so im gonna do it". Guilds that I raided in were always super supportive of their rangers for their sacrifices.

I dont think ive ever experienced someone with actual malice in their joking of the class.

Most ranger's understand where they fit by raiding point, and it can be fulfilling.
Thanks for the response.

So what do you think of their aDPS spells? The spell lines are XXXX of the Earth, XXXX of the Predator, and Strength of XXXX lines that RNGs get starting at level 50.
 
Not discounting any other points but there's probably some old school bias in there for a lot of people. I'm a 99 player just returning recently and ranger was pretty much the last on my list to add to a team just because back then, at least on my server, public opinion was that rangers were among the weakest classes if not the worst.

To be honest I never did any math on this on my own (though as a cleric I know they were often troublesome to heal), but ranger = bad seemed to be the prevailing opinion at the time.

I've since added a ranger and love him (though I'm still struggling to fit him into my group comps)... but those old opinions die hard.
 
For raids they have trouble cracking the top ten in dps
Then there slacking, I'm always in the top 10 (7-12ish) even in a non ADPS group. Gaming keypad to spam spells make it very easy. Just got to keep an eye on the blue bar and cycle Rods and Feathers and your AA refreshes.
 
I don't know why they would be unpopular.

The can Headshot and do massive range damage , they can dual wield, they can somewhat tank, The got snares , roots and dots , nukes and very nice AA abilities

I was thinking of making a 5 ranger team with shaman
 
We have two main rangers who rarely make the top 15. If there are allot of headshot mobs on a fight they get closer to top 10. Overall its a helpful class, just not a class I would want when it comes time to "raid burn". You may say they are slacking, I would counter by saying you have other dps slacking if a dps class not parsing better than a ranger. Dps class as in Rogue, Monk, Zerker, Bst or Mage Necro and Wiz (this expansion). They all should be killing rangers on a parse.
 
I think you might have misread my post. I'm not saying RNG DPS is bad, other people are saying that. I'm just assuming they are correct and strongmaning their argument to make the point that if BRD personal DPS sucks and BRDs are still desirable because of aDPS, then why wouldn't the same logic apply to RNGs.

Thanks.
Because bards can mez ...
 
Not that I doubt what you're saying, as your comments about back-in-the-day ring true with me, but reference the claim that RNG melee DPS is meh, is that your opinion or is it fact?

Again, don't misunderstand, it's just that we live in a world where opinion and supposition seems to substitute for facts and in the words of my homies, "I ain't down with that." I'm just interested in the ugly facts.

All-in-all, it sounds like you're saying they failed max/min test for DPS.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Ah yeah, admittedly I'm a TLP player. I have no idea what becomes of rangers in the late game/current era.
 
Thanks for the response.

So what do you think of their aDPS spells? The spell lines are XXXX of the Earth, XXXX of the Predator, and Strength of XXXX lines that RNGs get starting at level 50.
Also missed the xxxxx Enrichment line but that starts much later on

Arguably their largest contribution to a group/raid though is auspice
 
We have two main rangers who rarely make the top 15. If there are allot of headshot mobs on a fight they get closer to top 10. Overall its a helpful class, just not a class I would want when it comes time to "raid burn". You may say they are slacking, I would counter by saying you have other dps slacking if a dps class not parsing better than a ranger. Dps class as in Rogue, Monk, Zerker, Bst or Mage Necro and Wiz (this expansion). They all should be killing rangers on a parse.
Those classes you listed are in our top 10, and im keeping up right along with them...comes down to spell counts which can be parsed using eqlogparser. Most of the time we are all bunched up by the Banner for AE heals...so there not casting.
 
My second char has been a ranger. From the beginning of my EQ-life I liked him. Whenever I felt like traveling around and explore the world, I went with my ranger. The main problem actually is, that I have to take care about the mana-pool. Going full out, his mana-pool consuption seems second only to druids.
But with the actual T3 wapons and bow he isn’t anymore that bad in dealing damage as he has been.
For my every-evening group I play my shaman, my first-ever char. But if someone of the team is missing the others like when I box him to fill the group. Even boxed he parses on par with the casters in the group.

In the past there has been a lot of ups and downs at the attempt to balance rangers. My guess is, that this might be one of the reasons, that not all like the ranger.
 
Also missed the xxxxx Enrichment line but that starts much later on

Arguably their largest contribution to a group/raid though is auspice
You're right, I did. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was thinking of doing a separate post comparing the aDPS bonuses RNGs can provide vs. BRDs and BSTs just to illustrate the point, but I've decided not to. I'd get the same old "Their DPS suxors", and unfair comparisons to pure melee and pure caster

classes. If you're a max/min player, then the only classes that matter are the top DPS classes and you only bring a tank and healer because you have to.

Thanks again.
 
Because bards can mez ...
It took me a minute to understand your reply. Honestly, it didn't make any sense to me, and I just assumed you were being flippant.

Then I realized. I've never suggested that you should replace a BRD with a RNG. That would be foolish. BRD aDPS is enormous and much better than RNG aDPS. So this is not an either/or discussion. You'd still have your BRD.

The point I'm trying to make about RNG aDPS is that 1) it exists. And 2) that if you want to maximize melee aDPS for a melee-oriented group that a BRD and RNG can both contribute a lot to that goal.

So perhaps a group might look like, Tank + BRD + Healer + RNG + 2 melee of your choice.
 
Thanks for the response.

So what do you think of their aDPS spells? The spell lines are XXXX of the Earth, XXXX of the Predator, and Strength of XXXX lines that RNGs get starting at level 50.
Id say they are awesome. They came out during a period that all the hybrids got niche filling buffs similar to that. Paladins got Brells something, Rangers Got Predator line. no idea what SKs got. I think it was to bring them "in line" with Beastlords at the time, as BSTs were always chosen over their group spells and AAs *cough* paragon *cough*.

What makes that line of spells awesome, is they stack with most others that do similar things (iirc), and i think near end game the line gets the shaman buff attributes of it increasing beyond cap? maybe thinking of the wrong line. NVM me. again, DoDH was really the furthest i got with my ranger, but i loved every minute of it, and my time as the ranger is easily the best everquest memories of my time.
 
Care to elaborate? I'd like to understand because your comment seems to reflect the general opinion.

Thanks.

My case might not be reflective of everyone else's, but here's a walkthrough of my thought process:

When I created my crew on Rizlona I wanted to main a shaman (to raid alone with in a guild). I felt like a Paladin would be the best tank option, and would eliminate the need for a cleric.
I'm running paladin, sham, ranger, monk, beast. bard and having a blast with it so far. Monk is still lacking gear and AA so his dps will increase a bunch still. Haven't had any issues with this group setup.

We've got a lot of overlap. I wanted caster DPS in my mix too, so no beastlord or ranger for me. Enchanter and wizard instead.
 
It took me a minute to understand your reply. Honestly, it didn't make any sense to me, and I just assumed you were being flippant.

Then I realized. I've never suggested that you should replace a BRD with a RNG. That would be foolish. BRD aDPS is enormous and much better than RNG aDPS. So this is not an either/or discussion. You'd still have your BRD.

The point I'm trying to make about RNG aDPS is that 1) it exists. And 2) that if you want to maximize melee aDPS for a melee-oriented group that a BRD and RNG can both contribute a lot to that goal.

So perhaps a group might look like, Tank + BRD + Healer + RNG + 2 melee of your choice.
That makes more sense then. I thought you were suggesting the bard be replaced!
 
Question - Rangers - why so unpopular?

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top