Dolyem wrote: » I just heard cleric is BiS due to sustain and damage
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Artharion wrote: » For those who have played it, which one has higher single-target DPS?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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'.
