In response to a player's question on Discord. I have reposted here for the community's review, input, and more than likely hate mail from my stalkers.
Scouts are not only the most group dependent, they are also strongest in a group due to the usefulness of the Shield (such as being able to block for another group member.)
Rangers, while fun, are the one-trick-ponies of the Archer classes. They have ranged and melee, that's it. Hunter's 2handers equal a Ranger's dual wielding capabilities for damage, but dual wielding has bonuses (such as extra weapon procs) and drawbacks (such as triggering more enemy armor procs.) The Hunter Pet makes the Hunter the master of controlling a fight at range, provided he can get his slow-ass pet to the enemy Caster or Archer in time. In addition the Pet puts out more damage than the Ranger's damage add even added to two weapons.
The range difference is minimal between the Archers. It's 2200 for Scouts, 2100 for Rangers, and 2000 for Hunters. Hunters suffer from having the fastest bows so they will not have the big critical shot numbers like Scouts and especially Rangers (who have a bow that is 0.2 slower than the Scout bows and add the Damage Add to the Critshot) but do not have to swap bows to hit cap firing speed when Rapid Firing which is important to keep enemy Casters and Archers locked down. Just think of Rapid Fire as a crew served weapon, rather than a precision damage weapon.
What the class choice really comes down to is what role do you want to play as an Archer. Pure sniper? Go Scout (a tiny bit more distance) or Ranger (a bit more damage.) Melee-heavy? Ranger or Hunter. Defensive and an incredible groupmate? Go Scout. Just keep in mind that the damage from any of the Archer classes either in Melee or in Archery is subpar. At the moment a Nightshade can put out equal or greater ranged damage-per-second with an unspecced skill line than an Archer can when comparing casting speed at 1.5 seconds vs an Archer Rapid Firing at 1.5 seconds.
Scouts are not only the most group dependent, they are also strongest in a group due to the usefulness of the Shield (such as being able to block for another group member.)
Rangers, while fun, are the one-trick-ponies of the Archer classes. They have ranged and melee, that's it. Hunter's 2handers equal a Ranger's dual wielding capabilities for damage, but dual wielding has bonuses (such as extra weapon procs) and drawbacks (such as triggering more enemy armor procs.) The Hunter Pet makes the Hunter the master of controlling a fight at range, provided he can get his slow-ass pet to the enemy Caster or Archer in time. In addition the Pet puts out more damage than the Ranger's damage add even added to two weapons.
The range difference is minimal between the Archers. It's 2200 for Scouts, 2100 for Rangers, and 2000 for Hunters. Hunters suffer from having the fastest bows so they will not have the big critical shot numbers like Scouts and especially Rangers (who have a bow that is 0.2 slower than the Scout bows and add the Damage Add to the Critshot) but do not have to swap bows to hit cap firing speed when Rapid Firing which is important to keep enemy Casters and Archers locked down. Just think of Rapid Fire as a crew served weapon, rather than a precision damage weapon.
What the class choice really comes down to is what role do you want to play as an Archer. Pure sniper? Go Scout (a tiny bit more distance) or Ranger (a bit more damage.) Melee-heavy? Ranger or Hunter. Defensive and an incredible groupmate? Go Scout. Just keep in mind that the damage from any of the Archer classes either in Melee or in Archery is subpar. At the moment a Nightshade can put out equal or greater ranged damage-per-second with an unspecced skill line than an Archer can when comparing casting speed at 1.5 seconds vs an Archer Rapid Firing at 1.5 seconds.