People believe the game is unbalanced. When you understand the damage formula's, you can actually build good mages and archers that can out perform 2 handed warrior.
When was this ever debated? It's pretty established that Rangers are the most dominant physical class for the majority of the game. By far.
Regardless, your post didn't offer any actual insight as to why you believe "good mages" can outdo two-handed melee; besides, they can't. All you did was list semi-useful information on where to place stats to actually deal damage at all with a Mage. Problem is, the people who know there's an issue already did this.
Also, true hybrids don't work in this game at all. Having 1-2 points invested in a school that grants buffs, heals or any other non scaling ability isn't really a hybrid. You cannot divide your attributes unless you want to have a character who is crummy at multiple things, where those parts as a whole do not make them comparable to a more focused build.
It's also nothing but a detriment trying to play a character that mixes both elemental damage as well as physical. It really doesn't accomplish anything because of the way the armor system works. You need to be all physical or all elemental per character, or at worst, a Mage with Bouncing Shield in a group that also has at least two physical. Summoners are pretty much the only exception to this rule, but they work better in a group that's either all elemental, or one that has two physical and at least one other that's elemental.
Also, of the two Mage builds you listed at the bottom, the second is much better than the first. Huntsman is good, but it's not that good, especially when there are so many fights where you can't even take advantage of it, either because there is simply no good spots or your spells don't curve to hit. Crit/Scoundrel is the build to use for damage, but having at least a few in Huntsman is a good idea. Rank two at least for Tactical Retreat, and this will give you a 30% bonus when elevated.
