Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Which class has higher single-target DPS: Fighter, Ranger or Mage?

2

Comments

  • MyosotysMyosotys Member
    edited October 22
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Artharion wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?

    They mean ranger would have steady damage output (lower tooltips hitting more frequently), while fighter would have more sporadic burst (higher tooltips hitting less frequently).

    Average dps about the same, but burst is key in PvP especially in fights with strong healers on the other side.
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?

    They mean ranger would have steady damage output (lower tooltips hitting more frequently), while fighter would have more sporadic burst (higher tooltips hitting less frequently).

    Average dps about the same, but burst is key in PvP especially in fights with strong healers on the other side.

    which one has more burst, fighter o ranger?
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Artharion wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?

    They mean ranger would have steady damage output (lower tooltips hitting more frequently), while fighter would have more sporadic burst (higher tooltips hitting less frequently).

    Average dps about the same, but burst is key in PvP especially in fights with strong healers on the other side.

    which one has more burst, fighter o ranger?

    Who knows, it's all conjecture for now while balance is in the wild alpha flux
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Heard somewhere tank is the highest burst
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    Actual answer to this thread: Dunir. 🤔
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • MyosotysMyosotys Member
    edited October 23
    Artharion wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?

    I mean that damage is not only about dps. Melee classes usually have less dps than range bow classes but they can hit harder. And in pvp, hitting harder can be the best option because less predictable.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?

    I mean that damage is not only about dps. Melee classes usually have less dps than range bow classes but they can hit harder. And in pvp, hitting harder can be the best option because less predictable.

    ^ Exactly, predictable damage patterns make it easy for actual humans to counteract your damage

    Other damage patterns would be front-loaded burst and execution scaling. In PvP, I'd place ranger as more of a chip damage kind of class.
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?

    I mean that damage is not only about dps. Melee classes usually have less dps than range bow classes but they can hit harder. And in pvp, hitting harder can be the best option because less predictable.

    ^ Exactly, predictable damage patterns make it easy for actual humans to counteract your damage

    Other damage patterns would be front-loaded burst and execution scaling. In PvP, I'd place ranger as more of a chip damage kind of class.

    You mean ranger does mroe damage than fighter? More DPS as well?
  • Hutchy1989Hutchy1989 Member, Alpha Two
    What I've heard is the Ranger is on par with the Bard for dps so there's no point in taking a Ranger over a Bard.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I just heard cleric is BiS due to sustain and damage
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    I just heard cleric is BiS due to sustain and damage
    I've watched several classic CCs and majority say every archetype is op in their own way and depending on some conditionals (i.e. ranger requiring good gear and higher lvl). Though cleric has definitely been called a bit too op by several people.

    This is what happens when you give you supports dps abilities. Both bard and cleric have been called quite op cause they have mana and hp regen on top of damage. They shoulda just made Tanks out of them. Someone who specializes in particular content (pvp for Tank) and are nowhere near good in other content (tank is shit in pve outside of parties).
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Artharion wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    I guess the ranger is number one in the strict meaning of Dps. But I hope Fighter will make the most damage per shot in melee to be able to frag in pvp.

    what you mean. If tyhe ranger is the number one, how the fighter can do more DPS?

    I mean that damage is not only about dps. Melee classes usually have less dps than range bow classes but they can hit harder. And in pvp, hitting harder can be the best option because less predictable.

    ^ Exactly, predictable damage patterns make it easy for actual humans to counteract your damage

    Other damage patterns would be front-loaded burst and execution scaling. In PvP, I'd place ranger as more of a chip damage kind of class.

    You mean ranger does mroe damage than fighter? More DPS as well?

    We're talking about damage patterns, not damage numbers. Fighters and Rangers will have different patterns of damage, like a lot of classes will depending on their intended role within combat.

    No one knows yet which one will end up with higher raw DPS.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I really don't wanna overcomplicate this thread but one of the big problems that comes up in discussing games like this is 'exactly how Ranger works'.

    Do we start counting Ranger DPS from the moment they start charging their big Sniping move, or from the moment it hits?

    Similarly, for Fighters, do we count 'Fighter using its Execute-type skill on a beefy target', on an average Target, or do we ignore it? What about Fighters that work out that they don't benefit from speccing that skill in normal play and don't take it because it would be 'more DPS' to not take it, but then lose to any other in any simplistic method of measuring DPS?

    Maybe this will help therefore, Artharion.

    Fighter does more damage if you get aggro or social aggro, Ranger does more damage if you are always the stalker or always have more time to set up your big shot.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    What I've heard is the Ranger is on par with the Bard for dps so there's no point in taking a Ranger over a Bard.

    That's good or bad? How is bard DPS?
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    I really don't wanna overcomplicate this thread but one of the big problems that comes up in discussing games like this is 'exactly how Ranger works'.

    Do we start counting Ranger DPS from the moment they start charging their big Sniping move, or from the moment it hits?

    Similarly, for Fighters, do we count 'Fighter using its Execute-type skill on a beefy target', on an average Target, or do we ignore it? What about Fighters that work out that they don't benefit from speccing that skill in normal play and don't take it because it would be 'more DPS' to not take it, but then lose to any other in any simplistic method of measuring DPS?

    Maybe this will help therefore, Artharion.

    Fighter does more damage if you get aggro or social aggro, Ranger does more damage if you are always the stalker or always have more time to set up your big shot.

    In a situation where the Ranger starts shooting and keeps kiting, versus a Fighter who remains in range of their target most of the time. Which one has more DPS? I know this is an ideal scenario, but I'm comparing pure DPS in these situations, even though they are not always realistic.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Artharion wrote: »
    Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    What I've heard is the Ranger is on par with the Bard for dps so there's no point in taking a Ranger over a Bard.

    That's good or bad? How is bard DPS?

    It's pretty good but I feel like maybe this is misunderstanding another aspect of Ashes in the current build.

    To get anywhere near good exp, you are aiming to kill things at-level or above your level. This means that your survivability matters just as much, if not more (depending on situation) than your damage.

    Bards are good at surviving and controlling those hard hitting enemies. Rangers are slightly less good at it. If you do good DPS but always end up nearly dead, then you have to stop to rest for HP. The Bard doesn't have to do that, and can move to the next target while healing up.

    Oldschool stuff.

    Bards definitely do not match Ranger's raw DPS, but again, this depends on what exactly you are fighting and where you are fighting it.

    And to be clear, this game is 'hard', like 'closer to EverQuest' hard, 'you stop getting exp from things only 3-4 levels under you' hard (I actually haven't confirmed this lately because I never fight anything below my level, but I can go check for you soon).

    This thread's question is very hard to answer in a game like that, but I honestly believe that anyone who claims Ranger DPS is similar to Bard DPS is messing with you or talking about Damage Per 'Minute' moreso.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • ralangorfralangorf Member, Alpha Two
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    Bard rn

    Bard is insane. But like previous posts. Just play what you like. This is an alpha and they're gonna tune things fast and quick.
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    ralangorf wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?

    Bard rn

    Bard is insane. But like previous posts. Just play what you like. This is an alpha and they're gonna tune things fast and quick.

    Bard is gonna be nerfed. For the 3 classes are on the title, which one?
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Artharion wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    I really don't wanna overcomplicate this thread but one of the big problems that comes up in discussing games like this is 'exactly how Ranger works'.

    Do we start counting Ranger DPS from the moment they start charging their big Sniping move, or from the moment it hits?

    Similarly, for Fighters, do we count 'Fighter using its Execute-type skill on a beefy target', on an average Target, or do we ignore it? What about Fighters that work out that they don't benefit from speccing that skill in normal play and don't take it because it would be 'more DPS' to not take it, but then lose to any other in any simplistic method of measuring DPS?

    Maybe this will help therefore, Artharion.

    Fighter does more damage if you get aggro or social aggro, Ranger does more damage if you are always the stalker or always have more time to set up your big shot.

    In a situation where the Ranger starts shooting and keeps kiting, versus a Fighter who remains in range of their target most of the time. Which one has more DPS? I know this is an ideal scenario, but I'm comparing pure DPS in these situations, even though they are not always realistic.

    I still say Fighter in this comparison.

    People who disagree know where to find the DPS Meter Megathread :)
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • Azherae wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    What I've heard is the Ranger is on par with the Bard for dps so there's no point in taking a Ranger over a Bard.

    That's good or bad? How is bard DPS?

    It's pretty good but I feel like maybe this is misunderstanding another aspect of Ashes in the current build.

    To get anywhere near good exp, you are aiming to kill things at-level or above your level. This means that your survivability matters just as much, if not more (depending on situation) than your damage.

    Bards are good at surviving and controlling those hard hitting enemies. Rangers are slightly less good at it. If you do good DPS but always end up nearly dead, then you have to stop to rest for HP. The Bard doesn't have to do that, and can move to the next target while healing up.

    Oldschool stuff.

    Bards definitely do not match Ranger's raw DPS, but again, this depends on what exactly you are fighting and where you are fighting it.

    And to be clear, this game is 'hard', like 'closer to EverQuest' hard, 'you stop getting exp from things only 3-4 levels under you' hard (I actually haven't confirmed this lately because I never fight anything below my level, but I can go check for you soon).

    This thread's question is very hard to answer in a game like that, but I honestly believe that anyone who claims Ranger DPS is similar to Bard DPS is messing with you or talking about Damage Per 'Minute' moreso.

    Dps is damage per second, so to have an accurate value about dps, you calculate total damage on 1 minute and then divide by 60.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    What I've heard is the Ranger is on par with the Bard for dps so there's no point in taking a Ranger over a Bard.

    That's good or bad? How is bard DPS?

    It's pretty good but I feel like maybe this is misunderstanding another aspect of Ashes in the current build.

    To get anywhere near good exp, you are aiming to kill things at-level or above your level. This means that your survivability matters just as much, if not more (depending on situation) than your damage.

    Bards are good at surviving and controlling those hard hitting enemies. Rangers are slightly less good at it. If you do good DPS but always end up nearly dead, then you have to stop to rest for HP. The Bard doesn't have to do that, and can move to the next target while healing up.

    Oldschool stuff.

    Bards definitely do not match Ranger's raw DPS, but again, this depends on what exactly you are fighting and where you are fighting it.

    And to be clear, this game is 'hard', like 'closer to EverQuest' hard, 'you stop getting exp from things only 3-4 levels under you' hard (I actually haven't confirmed this lately because I never fight anything below my level, but I can go check for you soon).

    This thread's question is very hard to answer in a game like that, but I honestly believe that anyone who claims Ranger DPS is similar to Bard DPS is messing with you or talking about Damage Per 'Minute' moreso.

    Dps is damage per second, so to have an accurate value about dps, you calculate total damage on 1 minute and then divide by 60.

    Except that the TTK in the current test against nearly anything, especially players, when you have good gear, is...

    (someone fill in the blank here, for me, because my information on this is largely indirect and therefore 'NDA')

    Point is that calculating 'solo DPS' in a game with a 10s TTK followed by 16 seconds 'lining up next target' (shift around these numbers based on your opinion of the Sniping thing) might be misleading according to the goals of the thread.

    That part, I hope should be clear. Steven's instruction to the team was to make it so that TTK was enough for 3 or so abilities and some autoattacks on DPS characters. Realistically that comes out to closer to 10s than the 6s or so he said in that quote, but it's not high.

    Just in case anyone thought we can calculate DPS 'normally' due to high TTK, Steven's instruction was somewhat followed, making it harder to judge things like 'Bard vs Fighter'.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • nanfoodlenanfoodle Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    All the things I looked into over the past 24hrs. Fighter is a good sustained DPS but not great at burst. Ranger and Mage have burst but Mages seems to be more powerful. IS is taking feedback from top ranger players on how they can be fixed.
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    nanfoodle wrote: »
    All the things I looked into over the past 24hrs. Fighter is a good sustained DPS but not great at burst. Ranger and Mage have burst but Mages seems to be more powerful. IS is taking feedback from top ranger players on how they can be fixed.

    I head fighter have geat burst, they can one shot people.
  • nanfoodlenanfoodle Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Artharion wrote: »
    nanfoodle wrote: »
    All the things I looked into over the past 24hrs. Fighter is a good sustained DPS but not great at burst. Ranger and Mage have burst but Mages seems to be more powerful. IS is taking feedback from top ranger players on how they can be fixed.

    I head fighter have geat burst, they can one shot people.

    Not a tester, just watched a dozen vid from streams and that seems to be the main consensus. I wonder if some figured out a spec that many did not?
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    nanfoodle wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    nanfoodle wrote: »
    All the things I looked into over the past 24hrs. Fighter is a good sustained DPS but not great at burst. Ranger and Mage have burst but Mages seems to be more powerful. IS is taking feedback from top ranger players on how they can be fixed.

    I head fighter have geat burst, they can one shot people.

    Not a tester, just watched a dozen vid from streams and that seems to be the main consensus. I wonder if some figured out a spec that many did not?

    lol but we have to rely on the last build man.
  • ArtharionArtharion Member, Alpha Two
    up
  • Azherae wrote: »
    Myosotys wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Artharion wrote: »
    Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    What I've heard is the Ranger is on par with the Bard for dps so there's no point in taking a Ranger over a Bard.

    That's good or bad? How is bard DPS?

    It's pretty good but I feel like maybe this is misunderstanding another aspect of Ashes in the current build.

    To get anywhere near good exp, you are aiming to kill things at-level or above your level. This means that your survivability matters just as much, if not more (depending on situation) than your damage.

    Bards are good at surviving and controlling those hard hitting enemies. Rangers are slightly less good at it. If you do good DPS but always end up nearly dead, then you have to stop to rest for HP. The Bard doesn't have to do that, and can move to the next target while healing up.

    Oldschool stuff.

    Bards definitely do not match Ranger's raw DPS, but again, this depends on what exactly you are fighting and where you are fighting it.

    And to be clear, this game is 'hard', like 'closer to EverQuest' hard, 'you stop getting exp from things only 3-4 levels under you' hard (I actually haven't confirmed this lately because I never fight anything below my level, but I can go check for you soon).

    This thread's question is very hard to answer in a game like that, but I honestly believe that anyone who claims Ranger DPS is similar to Bard DPS is messing with you or talking about Damage Per 'Minute' moreso.

    Dps is damage per second, so to have an accurate value about dps, you calculate total damage on 1 minute and then divide by 60.

    Except that the TTK in the current test against nearly anything, especially players, when you have good gear, is...

    (someone fill in the blank here, for me, because my information on this is largely indirect and therefore 'NDA')

    Point is that calculating 'solo DPS' in a game with a 10s TTK followed by 16 seconds 'lining up next target' (shift around these numbers based on your opinion of the Sniping thing) might be misleading according to the goals of the thread.

    That part, I hope should be clear. Steven's instruction to the team was to make it so that TTK was enough for 3 or so abilities and some autoattacks on DPS characters. Realistically that comes out to closer to 10s than the 6s or so he said in that quote, but it's not high.

    Just in case anyone thought we can calculate DPS 'normally' due to high TTK, Steven's instruction was somewhat followed, making it harder to judge things like 'Bard vs Fighter'.

    I don't understand what the ttk has to see with dps. Dps can be calculated on none player target if they provide some. And no need any gear for the target, just naked to calculate pure dps.

    After that, you use theory to include the gear of the opponent. As usually it will not be reliable at 100% because formulas are never 100% clear and transparent but still it has sense.
  • P0GG0P0GG0 Member, Alpha Two
    melee ranged dmg is always rewarded by devs in most games i played. i'd bet on fighter
Sign In or Register to comment.