Celtic Heroes

Non dl/partial dl 180 Rogues should not out dps 190 rangers with full dl along with dl bow and quiv. Lets Just put it at that.

Perhaps the way the skills are implemented into each class would be a more effective way to balance each role,
Eg: a skill tree with a path to each skillset type and direction, similar to the way the classes have been defined above,
Direction towards auto attack affects skill damage and or support capabilities,
Towards certain skillsets affects in other areas and so on, this could be implemented towards all classes bringing greater balance overall

I believe that same geared rogues and rangers should have comparable dps. If a rogue has better gear than a ranger or vice-versa, obviously the better gear should be able to win out.

I agree with the chart in the above post.

Agreed. For a short fight, relatively same tier (godly imperial etc) geared DPS rogues rangers and warriors should have same DPS.
At the beginning of fight, mages should have the most DPS, couple minutes in the fight, rangers, warriors and rogues should have the upper hand, and as the fight drags on rogues win.

This will change the way lock groups are made and will call for more strategy when forming them.

Would simply go from a rogue to all mages, wouldn't it?

If any class should be best short term dps it is mages, worst armor rating and survivability should be compensated for by nuke dmg, but because of rogues ss and u4 mage nerfs they cant even do that. #magebuffspls

I believe that same geared rogues and rangers should have comparable dps. If a rogue has better gear than a ranger or vice-versa, obviously the better gear should be able to win out.

I agree with the chart in the above post.

Agreed. For a short fight, relatively same tier (godly imperial etc) geared DPS rogues rangers and warriors should have same DPS.
At the beginning of fight, mages should have the most DPS, couple minutes in the fight, rangers, warriors and rogues should have the upper hand, and as the fight drags on rogues win.

This will change the way lock groups are made and will call for more strategy when forming them.

Would simply go from a rogue to all mages, wouldn't it?

Ummm no, it would simply go from all rogue groups to a mixed group like what was stated.

For those that think rangers are "well rounded", ill give you another example of what a "well rounded" ranger looks like.

Here's your 'well rounded" ranger.

For those that think rangers are "well rounded", ill give you another example of what a "well rounded" ranger looks like.

Here's your 'well rounded" ranger.

Triangle!

How are rangers not a jack of all trades class?

How are rangers not a jack of all trades class?

Go get a ranger high level and ask yourself that after OK?

Regarding Yakat's post:

If the right initiatives were taken towards class balance as I proposed, then group strategy importance would shoot up. Here is my take on it and based on the basis that currently, top clans are pretty homogenous meaning that 2 opposing clans are not drastically different level-wise. They pretty much both have a good amount of lvl 190's, 180's and 170's. With this out of the way let's delve into group strategy:

-If the fight will be long and the battle for lock will be tight (i.e. Hrung, Mordris, Event-Boss), then the main group will be homogenous meaning that it will be composed of around 2 rogues, rangers, warriors and mages.

The mages will provide the burst damage needed for the beginning of the fight, rogues, warriors and rangers will add to the DPS and rogues will make it so that their damage over time can tip the tables in their favor.

-If the fight is a relatively short one (i.e. DL bosses), then the group will primarily have mages with rangers and DPS warriors.

Again, mages will provide the nuking power primordial for the first few seconds of fight and rangers and warriors will complement with their relatively higher ranged and melee attacks.

This is just my take on it, and again, depending on the gear of the clan members, every strategy will be specialized for every clan. All I am stressing is the need for strategy. This will be the case only if class roles are truly defined and implemented

Regarding Yakat's post:

If the right initiatives were taken towards class balance as I proposed, then group strategy importance would shoot up. Here is my take on it and based on the basis that currently, top clans are pretty homogenous meaning that 2 opposing clans are not drastically different level-wise. They pretty much both have a good amount of lvl 190's, 180's and 170's. With this out of the way let's delve into group strategy:

-If the fight will be long and the battle for lock will be tight (i.e. Hrung, Mordris, Event-Boss), then the main group will be homogenous meaning that it will be composed of around 2 rogues, rangers, warriors and mages.

The mages will provide the burst damage needed for the beginning of the fight, rogues, warriors and rangers will add to the DPS and rogues will make it so that their damage over time can tip the tables in their favor.

-If the fight is a relatively short one (i.e. DL bosses), then the group will primarily have mages with rangers and DPS warriors.

Again, mages will provide the nuking power primordial for the first few seconds of fight and rangers and warriors will complement with their relatively higher ranged and melee attacks.

This is just my take on it, and again, depending on the gear of the clan members, every strategy will be specialized for every clan. All I am stressing is the need for strategy. This will be the case only if class roles are truly defined and implemented

I think the part we disagree on is dps being a universal role. I don't think every class should have equal dps. That's like saying every class should have big heals and the ability to keep agro. Dps is as much a main role in itself as tanking or healing.