Are Rangers really powerful?

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
Note how I say that the differences still exist, and in my mind RNG is still more powerful 66+, but I don't know for sure since as PLD I don't always keep track of damage.

And that's why I said that your quote implies that they may not be the top from 65-75. I specifically chose the words "implied" and "may not" so that you wouldn't accuse me of claiming that you "said" that RNGs "are not" the top DD from 65-75. Obviously, it didn't work.

The point that I was making is that even if RNG does actually end up losing to DRK (or MNK) from 66-75, and even if they do actually lose to THF from 15-45, RNG would still beat every DD in damage output overall. Any DD, compared to RNG, would lose handily, when you view the entire scope of the game. That is what I meant by "destroys."

[John Doe III]

Who...gives...a....shit..

[Rones]

Well if you don't care you don't have to read the thread and you don't need to post in it either. :spin:

[Lynsy]

Originally posted by Rones
Well if you don't care you don't have to read the thread and you don't need to post in it either. :spin:

Oh, but its far more fun to make the point that you don't give a shit so everyone can step back and go "Oh, wow, you mean not everyone cares about the things we do? We must stop our discussions dead in their tracks because someone, somewhere does not care about it..."
...Wait, I forgot...noone gives a shit that he doesn't give a shit ;x

[imac2much]

Well Lynsy, I think it's obvious to me, dan, everyone that 99.9999% of the forum posters don't give a crap about what we're talking about... but that's the case of nearly ALL of the posts in any forum. So where's the problem? You're right, I ignore all of doe's posts anyway... in other words I don't give a shit about his posts. So I'd say it's about even.

Dan, I know what you're saying, but the fact remains that you tried to compare my supposed implication with your outright statement (THF > RNG 15-45) even though they are on TOTALLY different grounds... and even you can admit that. My post does not imply anything. I already posted why I said 1-65 (in both page 3 with the post you quoted, and in direct reply to the post you quoted me in) why I said 1-65, and it was solely because I do NOT have experience as RNG 65+. I *know* I am not implying that RNG is overshadowed by another job because I don't even believe that. I already stated that I don't want to say anything for sure since I don't have the experience to prove it.

In my mind, at high levels a very good MNK and perhaps DRK/THF can outdamage a crappy RNG. Well, MNK can outdamage RNG on skeletons, but that's a moot point... you don't ever have to fight skeletons if you don't want to (don't have to bother with KRT at all, you can go to ro'maeve, kuftal cockatrice+ladon, sky weapons, then sky golems). Skeletons were made for MNK :p But anyway that's beside the point. In my mind a RNG at high potential will beat out any other job, so I'm 100% sure I didn't imply otherwise :p Hopefully I will have the parses to give me some factual backup in a few weeks.. although I admit I've gotten tired of RNG as of late.

[Cat]

I haven't had the time to play and post and I see no productivity in replying to dan. He puts words in my mouth focuses on unimportant details. Picks apart what I say while missing the point entirely.

For example: I say Silver Arrows are horrible arrows when compared to horn because They are higher delay, not much more damage and a lot less accurate, and they don't bundle. My comment had 3 points. The least important obviously is whether or not they bundle which I was mistaken about and admitted to be mistaken several times. The point was silver arrows are a worse choice. Instead of addressing that with a counter argument such as Silver arrows give more TP back and if you use ____ bow you get 100 tp in 6 shots instead of 7 with horn arrows (or something along those lines) he just says I don't know what Im taking about because of the bundling comment.

To whoever said Dan should be a lawyer I'd have to say he'd make a better politician as much as he avoids addressing statements that he can't answer favorably, attacks people for unrelated points, puts words in peoples mouths, barrages hipocracy, and simply tries to win an argument by frustrating everyone with his countless falacies.

At least with Cayne, my discussions were on topic.

WTF! You NEVER EVER EVER stayed on topic. You always would get sidetracked with my freaking minor mistakes like skillchain names, and if daggers are piercing damage or not, and statements like "OH MY GOD one ranger who no one has ever heard of in the game said he averages 20 less damage than you claim you must prove how."

Oh by the way. I DID point out that in dunes because THF can't do the best damage with dagger they have to use H2H and VS flying Bow > H2H so I'd like you to admit that 15-17 you were wrong about THF dmg vs RNG dmg unless you can post a really good argument. And I guess we will move on from there.

[John Doe III]

Originally posted by Rones
Well if you don't care you don't have to read the thread and you don't need to post in it either. :spin:

I've already read the whole thing, if you haven't you noticed that I posted awhile back to. I hate seeing them just ramble on and on..>.>

[Lynsy]

Originally posted by imac2much
Well Lynsy, I think it's obvious to me, dan, everyone that 99.9999% of the forum posters don't give a crap about what we're talking about... but that's the case of nearly ALL of the posts in any forum. So where's the problem? You're right, I ignore all of doe's posts anyway... in other words I don't give a shit about his posts. So I'd say it's about even.

I know...My point being there is no topic anywhere that can be discussed by anyone that everyone across the board will care about--so sitting there saying "I don't care what you're talking about" is fundamentally idiotic, cause, well, that can be said of anything, as well as highly ironic as he is protesting the fact that people are posting things he thinks people don't care about by stating something that...well...people don't care about >.>

[John Doe III]

Originally posted by Lynsy
I know...My point being there is no topic anywhere that can be discussed by anyone that everyone across the board will care about--so sitting there saying "I don't care what you're talking about" is fundamentally idiotic, cause, well, that can be said of anything, as well as highly ironic as he is protesting the fact that people are posting things he thinks people don't care about by stating something that...well...people don't care about >.>

Who are you? Why did you even post? I dont really give a crap what Imac2much says, it's all crap anyways and he just wants to win against Dan. Hopefully he added me to his ignore list already.

Lynsy..you obviously dont read posts do you? I said some 7 pages ago that I posted for no reason and usually for more posts. It's pretty much a fact now that Dan, Cat(???), and Imac are still argueing about the same thing. They fought about who's theory was better for some 6 pages.

[poweryoga]

I haven't had the time to play and post and I see no productivity in replying to dan. He puts words in my mouth focuses on unimportant details. Picks apart what I say while missing the point entirely.

Hit it right on the spot. I agree with the politician remark also because basically he circumnavigates the question and details at hand and provides something that's related but completely irrelevant to the question asked. Sidetracking is a specialty of his.

Either that or work at microsoft tech support.

[Cat]

Originally posted by poweryoga
Hit it right on the spot. I agree with the politician remark also because basically he circumnavigates the question and details at hand and provides something that's related but completely irrelevant to the question asked. Sidetracking is a specialty of his.

Either that or work at microsoft tech support.

I'm so glad someone is pointing it out also it was driving me nuts because I knew someone saw it too!

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Cat
The point was silver arrows are a worse choice. Instead of addressing that with a counter argument such as Silver arrows give more TP back and if you use ____ bow you get 100 tp in 6 shots instead of 7 with horn arrows (or something along those lines) he just says I don't know what Im taking about because of the bundling comment.

No, you actually said that silver arrows are "for rangers with mental handicaps" because of all of those reasons. Just because I didn't specifically disagree with every one doesn't mean I concede them. If I addressed every single detail that you stated that I disagreed with, this thread would be three times as long. I just addressed the most ridiculous ones.

WTF! You NEVER EVER EVER stayed on topic. You always would get sidetracked with my freaking minor mistakes like skillchain names, and if daggers are piercing damage or not, and statements like "OH MY GOD one ranger who no one has ever heard of in the game said he averages 20 less damage than you claim you must prove how."

Daggers doing piercing damage is not a "minor mistake." Even Clyde said that if you don't know that, he doubts you have a high level THF, straight up. It is that fundamental, and it is directly related to damage output. I mentioned skillchain names exactly once, just as a bullet point in a list of all the obvious things you got wrong. The amount of damage you do at ~LV30 (re: Tokitoki) is completely on topic.

Oh by the way. I DID point out that in dunes because THF can't do the best damage with dagger they have to use H2H and VS flying Bow > H2H so I'd like you to admit that 15-17 you were wrong about THF dmg vs RNG dmg unless you can post a really good argument.

Like any other decent THF, I assumed from the start that THF would be using sword/H2H in dunes. I still don't think RNG would outdamage them. RNG's accuracy in dunes is not good enough to make up for SA (yet).

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by poweryoga
Hit it right on the spot. I agree with the politician remark also because basically he circumnavigates the question and details at hand and provides something that's related but completely irrelevant to the question asked. Sidetracking is a specialty of his.

Either that or work at microsoft tech support.

Maybe no one else noticed that all of your posts in this thread (save the first one) are simply attacks on me. No, you don't actually discuss the topic, or dispute my points... just point out repeatedly how horrible I am.

If I'm a politician, you're one of the robotic party shills that just mindlessly chants how the opposing candidate is ruining the government.

I like how the current anti-me tactic is not to discuss facts about the game (whatever for?) but instead talk about whether I'm like a lawyer, or a politician. Don't worry, even if you have no clue what you are talking about at all, if I call you out on it, then you can just start talking about how pointless it is to discuss anything with me and ride the wave of discontent.

[truong]

Time for the ultimate DRK fanboy (me) to come out and say it: DRK > RNG from 66-75. SA/TA + Spin + Soul Eater, 300 damage per slash for 1 minute. GGPO RNG. DRK 4 LIFE.


Oh and Spiderdan: what's this other class that you hinted at as doing more damage than RNG from 66-75. It damn well better not be MNK. :mad: But if you're thinking DRK, then good man.

[Lynsy]

Originally posted by John Doe III
Who are you? Why did you even post? I dont really give a crap what Imac2much says, it's all crap anyways and he just wants to win against Dan. Hopefully he added me to his ignore list already.

Lynsy..you obviously dont read posts do you? I said some 7 pages ago that I posted for no reason and usually for more posts. It's pretty much a fact now that Dan, Cat(???), and Imac are still argueing about the same thing. They fought about who's theory was better for some 6 pages.

I posted because I find much hypocritical irony in telling a bunch of people who dont care what you say to stop posting because you dont care what they say... :spin:
And I've read every post in this thread.