Guild Wars 2

As I was observing classes when I first launched this game, it was very surprising
to me that Ranger (this means ranged, right?) Don’t have access to pistols,
fine, but RIFLE?! Seriously? But instead Ranger can wield Greatsword, how more
wierd it might seem? Greatsword can carry Warrrior/Guardian/Ranger/Mesmer,
4 classes in total, but Rifle can wield only Warrior and Engineer, isn’t that a bit off
the logic? I don’t question Ranger’s skills for Greatsword, they are fine, but having
this weapon and not having other ranged ones is just nonsense, seriously…
I hoped back then that it’s just not added for some reason yet, but even no talks
about it?
Please add.

Apparently, as I’ve heard argued, ANet wants Rangers to be more spiritual and druidy nature oriented. As such rifles don’t fit.

I think that’s bunk and I really wish Rangers could have rifles as well.

The term ranger does not refer to ranged combat. I’m in utter astonishment how many people seem to assume this despite it being a common real world term you should have learned in junior high.

The term ranger refers to someone who ranges land; i.e. a scout or a warden; as a fantasy trope it originates from Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, who was primarily a swordsman.

Einlanzer.1627:

The term ranger does not refer to ranged combat. I’m in utter astonishment how many people seem to assume this despite it being a common real world term you should have learned in junior high.

The term ranger refers to someone who ranges land; i.e. a scout or a warden; as a fantasy trope it originates from Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, who was primarily a swordsman.

This.

I hate to jump into this thread just to mock or insult the OP, but… it really baffles me how many think “ranger” means “uses ranged weapons.”

Guys, it’s kinda funny how you point to wrong meaning of “ranger”
since there are thousands of interpretations of this term, and LoTR
or school education have nothing to do with this since we are dealing
here with GAME, which is GW2, and person must be blind not to notice
that Ranger in GW2 is directed more towards ranged combat since his
melee skills aren’t that good as Warrior’s for example.
Seriously, I’m not saying that ranger must ride on horse with hat and
two colts, and yes, in MOST RPG games ranger really uses ranged combat,
nothing wrong with it.
P.S. I don’t see how “spiritual and druidy nature oriented” can be fitted with
Greatsword brutally smashing his enemies… ROFL*

Senticon.3452:

P.S. I don’t see how “spiritual and druidy nature oriented” can be fitted with
Greatsword brutally smashing his enemies… ROFL*

Key 2 and 3 are spiritual and druidy nature oriented when you merge with the spirit of a bear and eagle respectively to pull off the attacks. That’s how.

Senticon.3452:

It was very surprising
to me that Ranger (this means ranged, right?)

Sorry bro.

Definition of a Ranger:

rang·er (rnjr)

1. A wanderer; a rover.
2. A member of an armed troop employed in patrolling a specific region.
3. Ranger A member of a group of U.S. soldiers specially trained for making raids either on foot, in ground vehicles, or by airlift.

4.
a. A warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a forest or park.
b. Chiefly British The keeper of a royal forest or park.

Nowhere does it state that a Ranger is one who is focused around ranged combat.

Senticon.3452:

Guys, it’s kinda funny how you point to wrong meaning of “ranger” since there are thousands of interpretations of this term,

No there aren’t. It’s one who ranges land; i.e. a warden or a scout. Any organization referred to as “rangers” are called that based on this definition, including patrols and army rangers. There is no definition of the term having anything to do with using ranged weapons. Sorry. Furthermore, games can’t take real world terms and totally change the definitions to suit their whims, it doesn’t work that way. That’s like what Blizzard kept trying to argue with the “shamans” vs. “shaman” debate in WoW. They only succeeded in making themselves sound foolish – there is no debate, it’s “shamans”.

On the game-play side, this need people have to think of classes as ‘melee’ or ‘ranged’ amazes me as well. It’s a useless and purely gamist dichotomy- that’s not how classes are designed in this game and it’s not how classes should be designed period. All classes are competent at both melee and range and are expected to adjust their tactics based on need.

I’d prefer thieves getting a rifle to fit their assassin/hit man theme. A few of my guildies would love to see rangers use Staves as quarter staves, and Must say I agree that is certainly fits them thematically.

Dual.8953:

I’d prefer thieves getting a rifle to fit their assassin/hit man theme. A few of my guildies would love to see rangers use Staves as quarter staves, and Must say I agree that is certainly fits them thematically.

A bow fits their assassin/hit man theme more in this setting, as I can hardly imagine a silent blunderbuss. Even the guns who have a silencer on them are purely cosmetic, as they are still loud as kitten. Nope… A silent arrow is the better choice for the hitmen/assassins in this game.

Einlanzer.1627:

On the game-play side, this need people have to think of classes as ‘melee’ or ‘ranged’ amazes me as well. It’s a useless and purely gamist dichotomy- that’s not how classes are designed in this game and it’s not how classes should be designed period. All classes are competent at both melee and range and are expected to adjust their tactics based on need.

Sadly this game is nothing special, and designed like rest of the games of this type.
I would gladly see devastating melee Engineer, but there’s none. Mesmer, Ele and
Necro are casters, and despite they have few melee weapons, they can’t successfully
engage in melee combat, they have to keep distance. There are very clear classifications here, strong and durable melee, ranged, and casters with few details.
You cannot overhaul class and turn Thief into Guardian (i.e. D/D into Tank)

We cannot seriously define RL application of terms in game, Ranger here have
nothing to roam, gameplay is all about combat mechanics, so we have to classify
terms as they fit. I really never though that I have to say such obvious things to
anyone…

Senticon.3452:

Einlanzer.1627:

On the game-play side, this need people have to think of classes as ‘melee’ or ‘ranged’ amazes me as well. It’s a useless and purely gamist dichotomy- that’s not how classes are designed in this game and it’s not how classes should be designed period. All classes are competent at both melee and range and are expected to adjust their tactics based on need.

Sadly this game is nothing special, and designed like rest of the games of this type.
I would gladly see devastating melee Engineer, but there’s none. Mesmer, Ele and
Necro are casters, and despite they have few melee weapons, they can’t successfully
engage in melee combat, they have to keep distance. There are very clear classifications here, strong and durable melee, ranged, and casters with few details.
You cannot overhaul class and turn Thief into Guardian (i.e. D/D into Tank)

We cannot seriously define RL application of terms in game, Ranger here have
nothing to roam, gameplay is all about combat mechanics, so we have to classify
terms as they fit. I really never though that I have to say such obvious things to
anyone…

This is a lot of nonsense. All classes have melee options, including Elementalist and Necromancer and they can successfully engage in melee. More importantly, the classes are defined by themes, not gameplay mechanics, so your assertion about the identity of the Ranger class is entirely wrong.

Once again – The Ranger class is named a ranger because it is designed around the theme of rangers from other settings who roam ranges of land. You are in fact doing exactly what I was complaining about in the above post in being seemingly incapable of thinking of classes outside of silly and overly simplistic gamist ways like “melee class” and “ranged class” when no good game designs classes that way.

Oh…We’re taking this discussion out of ranger boards (yet again)?