Why do Rangers have the best of everything?

You disagree, fair enough.

Proofs are ingame equipment stats and mix-max rolls on gear for each class, among other stuffs mentioned in my earlier posts. You chose to ignore them and then proceed with personal attacks. I guess it's too much of an opportunity cost for you to read lol

And what's up with all the personal attacks? You need to take a deep breath and lighten up

Anyways, let's leave it at that. You disagree with my analysis. Ok no problem. I have no interest in taking your bait for starting a flame war with you.

 

Thought I would pop up here to say that, while some seem to disagree, I believe your post was as accurate as it could get. Definitely expressed my exact thoughts on the matter when not taking the player's skill into consideration.

It's a shame we have people in this community who must take it personal though, before I quit 2 years ago I remember these forums were a LOT more active and had a bunch of helpful people who were always willing to give advice, now it seems that most people around here rather act like EDIT.

 

Thanks. I appreciate it.

We can not all be like darwarren the godlike pvp player who can launch out a thousand hits without missing once and slay a thousand players before receiving one hit in return. That must be why he thinks all the facts are irrelevant.

For the rest of us normal human players, stats on gears along with skillsets of classes (among other things) do affect our chance of winning in pvp, especially if we assume our opponents are just as capable in (playing) skills as us.

 

Speaking of 1vs1 i completely agree with ScientiaPotestasEst too, and in general with his methodology too, the only way to compare 2 classes is starting with same 'ability' and same gems/glyphs amount. Theoretically it's like a fight against yourself, but in the case you picked a different class.

When we move to different fights, i think a good mix it's always the best choice.

 

I completely agree. Especially in 3v3, it is best to have DK+Mage+Ranger combination.

Mage + Ranger (ice bolt + mark) will effectively disable opponent team's DK and ofc other classes as well. If your opponent can't move, then it's an easy kill.

DK + Ranger (armor break + marked precision shot) will 1 shot even opponent's DK.

Mage is the controller, master of CC, with incredible damage; great for protecting team, give team significant advantages with area denials (singularity, meteor, etc.) and hunting down retreating opponents.

DK's purpose at the start is to harass mage first, then ranger (after mage's death) and putting out as many armor breaks as possible. DK will also want to protect own team's mage with numerous stuns.

Ranger is the burst damage and responsible for landing all those kill shots.

As soon as your opponent's mage is dead, your own team's DK just became infinitely more mobile. If the ranger dies, DK becomes much more difficult to kill. If the DK dies, then your team becomes much more fragile as you can expect a lot more stuns and armor breaks coming your way (more than you can evade). This is because the opponent team's mage and ranger are free to initiate attacks without your DK harassing them.

Each of the three classes are equally important in 3v3. DK is the protector/harass, mage is the controller/cc and ranger is the burst damage/nuke. I have yet to find a role for dwarf that's not covered by the above 3 classes. I think the other three does it better because dwarf lack the ability to protect/harass, good stuns/cc, and certainly can not burst (iron dwarf is somewhat debatable). Honestly, turrets do not provide that great of a synergy with other classes in pvp, even if they don't miss most of the time.

Of course, everything above is just theory on team play. In practice, I find the 3v3 matches have very little coordination between players and usually 1 player on the team will be so overpowered in gear that he/she will destroy the entire opponent's team singlehandedly.

 

Again you tout personal opinions not supported by facts. Ever hear of hasty generalizations and projection fallacies? They were talking about you.
I eagerly await the next phase. What bs you going to roll out next? Is your congregation buying into this?

P.S. Rhetoric is still the "last refuge of scoundrels and fools."

 

Here we go again... Perhaps you should read up and learn what are hasty generalizations and projection fallacies first before attempting to apply it to my analysis? lol. You seem to have a vague idea of what they are, but fail to apply them properly. For example (as one of many examples to get you started), I did not say ALL P2P DKs are better than P2P Mages/Rangers, I said P2P DK has the advantage implying most, not all, will be better. I already acknowledged the exceptions.

You're making a fool out of yourself and I grow tired of responding to your replies. Your entire counter-argument is an appeal to ignorance fallacy / negative proof: Player skills must be the everything / determining factor in pvp, because you can't prove it is not due to the difficulty of quantifying player skills (and by extension everything else mentioned in my analysis must also be false).

Here is your proof in case you don't understand appeal to ignorance, go make a level 10 fresh off tutorial and fight those level 10 marshals equipped with full gems and then come back and tell us how your "playing skills" net you the loss and how gear/gems don't matter at all. Those DK marshals probably regen more hp (level 40 pvp talent) than you can deal damage. Perhaps then, you will see player skills is not everything.

Others clearly agree with me; and you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. To keep this thread clear from your pointless spams, this will be my last reply to you. If you have further anger to vent or just bored, feel free to spam my forum inbox (although I prefer you don't).

p.s. if you want to sound smart, ad hominem and red herrings are not the way to go in a debate.

 

ScientiaPotestasEst, I liked your post, but can't you and Darwarren just agree to disagree? As you can see below, you brought personal attacks, ad hominem and unnecessary comments to him too.

In that respect, none of the two of you are better. Then again, he is one of the veterans, so his words can't all be all that unfounded, same as your info can't just be thrown down the bin. Simply, I think you guys are talking about two different sides of the same topic: you're on the theoretical based on general facts part, while he rather sees the pragmatic and the exceptions. Not taking sides or criticizing, but you both could use some cooling down .

LOL, I feel like a mother trying to make her two kids make up... though it's certainly not the case at all ad literam .

 

Yep I tried that earlier. I tried to be polite and patient with him, but he failed to see reason. The sarcasm was made in a last attempt to help him see the faults in his counter-argument after numerous logic attempts failed (as you can see from the replies). The fool comment I agree wholeheartedly. Also, take a look at how many insults he made before I used that sarcasm.

I gave my results based on the ingame stats of gears and class skills, to support my claim on how different classes have the advantage over others with varying time & money investment. He comes and says everything is garbage and insults me on my dissertation skills (and the people who agrees) because he is a veteran pvp player and his skills at pvp disprove everything. Then he proceed to call everything a hasty generalization and projection fallacy because he chose to ignore the important assumptions made in the analysis and because he failed to identify the overall claim. He can't see the irony of his "substantive prove" being his own pvp skills. To be honest, I think the reason for all of this is because I bruised his ego by not listing his class at the top of the list, therefore he felt the need to trash everything; and/or because he just wants others to appreciate his pvp skills as a veteran pvp player.

Edit:
One last thing I want to add is that I stand by what I said with:

Instead of adding value to the analysis through disagreement with the "hierarchy", like the valuable comments Sebastian made earlier. Darwarren uses the ignorance and diversion tactics to call everything false. The entire point of this thread is to discuss whether rangers (and by extension other classes) are balanced in PvP. If we followed his example and put everything as inconclusive without trying because we're not allowed to make any assumptions/must know every single variable, then it would defeat the purpose of discussion. Hence, you can see why his comments are worthless. If we know every single variable, then there would not be a discussion. For example, 2 is greater than 1, what's there to discuss/disprove?

 

I agree ranking got nothing to do with the character's strength ... it is a meter of how much and how many people are ganging up one account (usually).

BTW where is the midget in your story? I can't see it.

comments are not valuable because we like them ... (it got nothing to do with the Sebastian's comment)

 

Illegitimi non corborundum implies that all illegitimate authority must be necessarily challenged.

Otherwise, it would have been easier to let ScietiaPotestasEst wither with lack of attention.

 

Sebastian's comment was valuable because he gave reason (ie. using the skills combos available to the classes) on why he disagreed with me, and that makes it valuable. I like valuable comments.

Whereas for darwarren's reason was he's a self-proclaimed veteran pvp player with his own pvp skills/experience, thus makes it valueless. Had he gave reason on why he disagree using combos and gears available to the classes for disagreement, (instead of only his experience as veteran pvp player,) then I would have equally valued his comments and liked it.

As you can see, liking a comment is just the byproduct of the value of the comment itself.

 

He said that he would leave them out from the start, because he feels they're only good at 5v5.



OK, people, enough with the latin and debate... you're making this a far bigger load of quarreling that it's necessary. You don't need to show your debate skills so heatedly... it's just a game. If both of you refuse to halt, then you're both just as guilty. As I've already said, you're both not saying nonsense, but you're viewing from different standpoints.

 

The dwarf is better than DK in 5v5 and it is at least on pair with the SW in 6v6 ...

 

That's just what he said; I didn't say I agreed.

 

Agree on dwarf + 5v5, it's that class' forte

Disagree on dwarf + 6v6

 

Please don't start a "war" with traki now xD.

 

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact.
I think you are lacking experience.

Do you know what this skill is capable of? 600% base damage ... and not one but four bombs. It is only class that can destroy towers with the level 40 PVP skill ... the towers are immune to other classes level 40 skill.
Not to mention the meteor shower and the godlike turrets that no one can destroy/mind control.
The battle is decided in few moments.

The knowledge is power ... they say.
But one quote from a good friend of mine is my motto: "I came, I saw, I kicked EDIT (buttock)"

 

Just to point it out, the dwarf's level 40 pvp skill is a game bug vs towers and will be fixed in the future. That is why I did not take it into consideration for 6v6.

 

In this case I assume I am speaking to one of the developers ... because your logic is in place (accurate) ... only if you are developing this game.
And gamer's logic is little bit different.