Ok this should not seem odd at all. But I am a little confused as to why the Ranger does not have a rifle. Rifle is ranged and range is in the name of Ranger. I don’t think they should have pistols but in a world where there are rifles, and rangers being hunters, it would make sense for them to have a rifle option to “hunt” with. As to why no pistols, you don’t go hunting with a handgun. But a rifle just makes sense. If a Dev or Moderator reads this, could you elaborate on your thinking of why rangers don’t have rifles?
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
No they don’t. A ranger isn’t a shooter class, it’s a “nature” class. The bow has always been the main weapon of rangers. Rifles are for ‘developed’ classes, such as the engineer.
And the Warrior is a “Developed” class? In which btw uses more weapons than I feel they should have or feel like typing out. A supposed melee class that uses ranged weapons now? How many people do you know that use rifles for hunting in which they stalk their prey like a Ranger? Rangers are trackers, hunters, trappers, and just happen to be ranged. They have animal companions that are used to sniff out their prey. It makes perfect sense for the ranger to have a rifle option. And saying the ranger isn’t a “shooter” class is preposterous, they “shoot” arrows from their bows. Why cant they have a rifle to shoot?
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
I believe Sirendor means ‘developed’ in a technological manner. That said, as far as the Tyrian eye is concerned, all the classes are as developed as each other.
Sirendor is right about the developers wanting the Ranger to be the ‘nature’ themed class while Warriors are the martial weapon masters. I do think that Rangers need a little work when it comes to balance but adding another weapon isn’t going to help the ones they already have.
Yeah, you’re right Safer. I don’t think the rifle fits in with the ranger as a nature class. The warrior does have a use for it. Warrior is practically a weaponmaster, the one that blasts opponents with a fierce rifle, slashes here and there with greatsword, strucks blows with the mighty hammer etc. It fits in with the warrior cause it’s sort of a “mercenary” class, that knows how to handle everything there is.
Ranger is more of a background, without that blackguard look to them.
Rangers do not need rifles. It would not hurt if they had them but need them? Nah. Class is fine without it. And according to AN philosophy Ranger is a guy who is closer in tune with nature, survivalist type that uses whatever he himself can make from readily available things to him.
They should’ve been able to use rifles, yes. Rifles don’t fit the “nature” theme? Tell any outdoorsman that and watch them laugh. Rangers are hunters, and hunters have used longbarrel guns for as long as they’ve existed. It’s stupid that rangers can’t. I’ve thought so since the beginning. Doesn’t matter now, of course.
Is this so hard to realize? Listen…My SpearGUN doesn’t fit into the “Nature” class.. but why does the ranger have it? Oh yeahhhhh its ranged and the Ranger prefers the ranged weapons…. Oh and the Bow’s???? Don’t get me started…… The Bows are made of wood and oh oh oh oh wait for it METAL oh oh oh isn’t that against the “Nature” aspect? Oh and wait there’s more…..you reading? The Sorrows Embrace medium armor…….hmmmm that doesnt look to natural to me….. I can go on and on and on and on. Bottom line is Rangers are hunters, which if you don’t believe me then why are most Norn hunters rangers???? There are only 2 out of 5 professions that can use a rifle, warrior and engineer. that leaves the rifle as an unbalanced weapon that needs to be added to another profession, preferably ranger. Oh and btw rangers are also MARKSMEN *gasp. Pull yourself out of the D&D book. This is not D&D they don’t get penalized for having metal on their armor or using guns. If you want that then I suggest another game. Go eat some Cheetos and drink some more Mtn Dew because your Magic Missile just got cast at the darkness.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
They should’ve been able to use rifles, yes. Rifles don’t fit the “nature” theme? Tell any outdoorsman that and watch them laugh. Rangers are hunters, and hunters have used longbarrel guns for as long as they’ve existed. It’s stupid that rangers can’t. I’ve thought so since the beginning. Doesn’t matter now, of course.
Is this so hard to realize? Listen…My SpearGUN doesn’t fit into the “Nature” class.. but why does the ranger have it? Oh yeahhhhh its ranged and the Ranger prefers the ranged weapons…. Oh and the Bow’s???? Don’t get me started…… The Bows are made of wood and oh oh oh oh wait for it METAL oh oh oh isn’t that against the “Nature” aspect? Oh and wait there’s more…..you reading? The Sorrows Embrace medium armor…….hmmmm that doesnt look to natural to me….. I can go on and on and on and on. Bottom line is Rangers are hunters, which if you don’t believe me then why are most Norn hunters rangers???? There are only 2 out of 5 professions that can use a rifle, warrior and engineer. that leaves the rifle as an unbalanced weapon that needs to be added to another profession, preferably ranger. Oh and btw rangers are also MARKSMEN *gasp. Pull yourself out of the D&D book. This is not D&D they don’t get penalized for having metal on their armor or using guns. If you want that then I suggest another game. Go eat some Cheetos and drink some more Mtn Dew because your Magic Missile just got cast at the darkness.
How does a Bow needs a metal? You can make it just from wood and hair from horse’s tail.
Also Ranger per idea of it in GW2 are meant to use whatever else they can make or get. I can understand why they decided for this even if some armors don’t look part a ranger. Bow makes less sound than gun. When you hunt something you rather stay silent to not scare your prey and every other animal in 5-10km radius.
I wouldn’t mind ranger’s having rifles at all. But ANet wants them to be forest survivalist type of class that relies on nature tiself (spirits, troll unguent, traps, beasts).
How does a Bow needs a metal? You can make it just from wood and hair from horse’s tail.
Obviously you haven’t made a rare bow in the Huntsman crafting category where you have to use METAL to craft them….oh and why is the rifle and the bow in the huntsman crafting category oh because they are used for hunters “Rangers”. Also how can you say what Anet wants it to be unless you are a developer or one of the lore writers? Did they tell you personally “We want the rangers to be forest survivalist type of class that relies on nature tiself.”? As far as Anet goes they have always given the community what they desired. This the rifle should be no different. I really wish the 30+ people I had a discussion with in map chat last night that agreed they should have rifles were all avid forum users such as myself. But alot of people remain quiet and just go with the flow. And then there are the people that just disagree with every suggestion they read just because its now WoWy enough or D&Dy enough.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
My key statement here is the ranger can still be a master of their natural surroundings but still have a rifle for a nice clean shot on the 1 large prey they just used their tracking skills to hunt whose skin is too tough for an arrow.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
How does a Bow needs a metal? You can make it just from wood and hair from horse’s tail.
Obviously you haven’t made a rare bow in the Huntsman crafting category where you have to use METAL to craft them….oh and why is the rifle and the bow in the huntsman crafting category oh because they are used for hunters “Rangers”. Also how can you say what Anet wants it to be unless you are a developer or one of the lore writers? Did they tell you personally “We want the rangers to be forest survivalist type of class that relies on nature tiself.”? As far as Anet goes they have always given the community what they desired. This the rifle should be no different. I really wish the 30+ people I had a discussion with in map chat last night that agreed they should have rifles were all avid forum users such as myself. But alot of people remain quiet and just go with the flow. And then there are the people that just disagree with every suggestion they read just because its now WoWy enough or D&Dy enough.
I pointed out a flaw in your sentence. Why you ask? Because you said what is NEEDED to make a bow. Metal is not needed, you can make a fine bow without any of it. I am not talking about crafting professions because i already made clear that this and some armors don’t really stand in line with idea of ranger at all. Flaming armor from COF is not good for forest;p
ANet gives community what they desire but only
if it benefits the game overall
if it doesn’t hit their pocket
example: I am sure everyone would like to have 20 char slots for free if given option but that will not happen
Anyways like I mentioned before I don’t have anything against it personally. Right now you shouldn’t expect new weapons before Expansion. They must focus on existing weapons and skills and need something for expansion as well.
I don’t expect new weapon choices yet. Its just a suggestion hence the thread its in. And it would make sense giving the lore of the world. In which I am a lore nut as well as a history nut. See this is where a developer needs to step in and clarify everything for us so we don’t sit here and argue on stupid crud.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
The arrows of Tyria are magically infused. Only the Engineer class has no magical attributes, and one could argue that their alchemical skill nullifies that statement.
As for how it’s possible to say that the developers intended for Rangers to be a nature themed class… well, it’s because they said it. Do you believe you are the first person to question why Rangers don’t have access to rifles or pistols? Back before the game was launched, when the class and its weapon limitations had been revealed, people asked why Rangers had the limitations they did. The response was that Rangers were ‘Masters of the Wild’, survivalists, and nature themed.
Well I’m moving to Oregon anyway. I think when I move ill go down there to Anet and ask them personally why they don’t have rifles and bring the info back. Or maybe someone going to the meet and greet in Seattle could get that answer.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
“Rangers actually can’t use firearms,” Flannum explains. “When we were looking at how we wanted the Ranger to look and feel we decided quite early on that we wanted to emphasize the Ranger’s bond with nature.”
In case anyone wondered about which developer said what.
I don’t have an issue with crossbows becoming part of the Ranger’s equipment… but I’d hope that other weapons, existing weapons, get more balancing first.
Crossbows would be awesome. I just think rangers lack in the ranged department really when that’s what they are supposed to be specialized in. Your a wise one Killyox, you make some good posts. I just wish you saw where i’m coming from.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
Crossbows would be awesome. I just think rangers lack in the ranged department really when that’s what they are supposed to be specialized in. Your a wise one Killyox, you make some good posts. I just wish you saw where i’m coming from.
I do see where you are coming from. I don’t mind rifles but I think there are ways to give you guys something same/similar while staying true to the idea of the class. If in functionality crossbow skills would be the same as in rifle (not name wise but mechanic/effects wise) would it make you a difference?
Crossbows also have a lot more potential to be cooler looking than rifles and you could share it with thieves as a weapon type.
Still whether it will be rifle or something else I wouldn’t expect a new weapon before an expansion.
that’s not the link for the interview were he got this “Rangers actually can’t use firearms,” Flannum explains. “When we were looking at how we wanted the Ranger to look and feel we decided quite early on that we wanted to emphasize the Ranger’s bond with nature.” I need that source.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
Is this so hard to realize? Listen…My SpearGUN doesn’t fit into the “Nature” class.. but why does the ranger have it? Oh yeahhhhh its ranged and the Ranger prefers the ranged weapons….
A spear gun is functionally more like a crossbow than a rifle.
Crossbows would be awesome. I just think rangers lack in the ranged department really when that’s what they are supposed to be specialized in. Your a wise one Killyox, you make some good posts. I just wish you saw where i’m coming from.
Rangers are not “specialised” in ranged weapons. It’s a misnomer that the class name has anything to do with ranged weapons; the “range” in “ranger” refers to ranging, as in wandering over a territory.
In classic fantasy literature, there is a tradition of rangers being skilled with a bow, as it’s a valuable skill to have when you lead that kind of lifestyle, but there’s little if any mention of them using rifles, and there’s plenty of precedent for rangers being equally adept with melee weapons. In GW2, Rangers are perfectly viable with both ranged and melee weapons, and there are quite a few of us who play them as predominantly melee characters.
“How about this! Let’s add a bow to the engineer profession!
Because a bow with some bomb arrows or time shift shafts would be awesome to use!”
Come on guys! Everyone thinks their class needs more weapons. The engineer forum has seen bladesaw, hammer, torch, mace, bows, minigun and dredge sound gun threads about why this weapon perfectly fits the engineer.
Every weapon actually could fit every profession. Rifles to the necroes with a steampunky style like ‘being a witch hunter’ would fit it. As would sword fit an engineer with a elixer charged shaft to speed up the reflexes (quickness?) of the wielder.
For every weapon we can find a reason why it ‘perfectly fits’ our own class..
Aetra Ironbender, Rated E for Engineer- [WoT] Warlocks of Tyria- Far Shiverpeaks
Slien when I said range is in ranger I was making a pun. Im not an idiot and don’t portray me as such. This isn’t CNN and your not Piers Morgan. And the ranger in any fantasy MMO, Roleplay, etc. has always been a primarily ranged. Yes they focus also on melee but that need is normally rare. Seriously people if you don’t agree with a suggestion about class changes don’t post in it. You forum lifers are making it to where a ton of people don’t want to post new ideas because you guys and gals immediately tell every person who posts something that they are crazy for even thinking that. There’s a +1 for a reason and there is not a -1 for a reason. And also Slein I read your post’s on the forum and they are all you completely disagreeing with other peoples idea’s with the exception of one post. How about you come up with an idea and post it in the suggestions thread.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
“How about this! Let’s add a bow to the engineer profession!
Because a bow with some bomb arrows or time shift shafts would be awesome to use!”
Come on guys! Everyone thinks their class needs more weapons. The engineer forum has seen bladesaw, hammer, torch, mace, bows, minigun and dredge sound gun threads about why this weapon perfectly fits the engineer.
Every weapon actually could fit every profession. Rifles to the necroes with a steampunky style like ‘being a witch hunter’ would fit it. As would sword fit an engineer with a elixer charged shaft to speed up the reflexes (quickness?) of the wielder.
For every weapon we can find a reason why it ‘perfectly fits’ our own class..
Rangers are natural survivalists with a big connection to animals and spirits. Rifles wouldn’t fit their theme at all and they don’t really need another ranged weapon at the moment. They already got 3 ranged weapons on land (axe, shortbow, longbow) and they basically cover up most ranged playstyles needed ( axe does med-ranged AOE, shortbow does ranged conditions and a bit flanking, and the longbow does long-ranged direct damage)
I understand the ‘one with nature’ argument, but I still would prefer the ranger had access to a hunting rifle. It just makes sense thematically, even if that theme is ‘closeness to nature/spirits.’ A rifle doesn’t preclude any sort of nature/spirit affiliation. To me, it just highlights the ranger/pet bond, like a real-life hunter and their hunting dog. Suppose the rifle’s skills excel and specialize in pet boons and on-hit pet conditions. The other ranged weapons each have one similar ability, but it would be the rifle’s forte. Where the rifle itself is decidely single-target and/or piercing, a couple skills give the pet the ability to lay on AoE condition damage of some sort.
It makes a hell of a lot more sense than a greatsword does. The fact that rangers have greatswords really does just blow my mind.
To all those whom say rifles aren’t part of the nature aspect, Sylvari have rifle cultural weapons and you can’t get more “natural” than sylvari. So there’s really no reason rangers can’t have rifles.
To all those whom say rifles aren’t part of the nature aspect, Sylvari have rifle cultural weapons and you can’t get more “natural” than sylvari. So there’s really no reason rangers can’t have rifles.
By that argument, we should give Engineer access to every weapon in the game since every Charr weapon is mechanical.
To all those whom say rifles aren’t part of the nature aspect, Sylvari have rifle cultural weapons and you can’t get more “natural” than sylvari. So there’s really no reason rangers can’t have rifles.
By that argument, we should give Engineer access to every weapon in the game since every Charr weapon is mechanical.
Only the mechanical ones. You know, rifle, pistol, speargun… Oh wait…
But to be fair, they should have access to bows too. The mechanics may be primitive but they are still mechanics. Hammers would be a good fit too.
To all those whom say rifles aren’t part of the nature aspect, Sylvari have rifle cultural weapons and you can’t get more “natural” than sylvari. So there’s really no reason rangers can’t have rifles.
By that argument, we should give Engineer access to every weapon in the game since every Charr weapon is mechanical.
Only the mechanical ones. You know, rifle, pistol, speargun… Oh wait…
But to be fair, they should have access to bows too. The mechanics may be primitive but they are still mechanics. Hammers would be a good fit too.
You realize that all the charr weapons are motorized steampunk things right?
Therefore, machines, therefore, Engineer. All of them.
Im glad I see people that actually agree with me on this instead of the same people I see over and over again bashing threads and following me around the forum.
(TLE) The Legendary Eternum, Devona’s Rest Guild Founder
No they don’t. A ranger isn’t a shooter class, it’s a “nature” class. The bow has always been the main weapon of rangers. Rifles are for ‘developed’ classes, such as the engineer.
LoL at you…. Its *RANGE*r. Not “nature” class, even if some hippie or arenanet thinks that.
It would be good if we can “snipe” with rifles. Only problem is that it requires no skill at all. Bows neither
Game Designer || iREVOLUTION.Design \\
“A man chooses; a slave obeys.” | “Want HardMode? Play Ranger!”
No they don’t. A ranger isn’t a shooter class, it’s a “nature” class. The bow has always been the main weapon of rangers. Rifles are for ‘developed’ classes, such as the engineer.
LoL at you…. Its *RANGE*r. Not “nature” class, even if some hippie or arenanet thinks that.
It would be good if we can “snipe” with rifles. Only problem is that it requires no skill at all. Bows neither
Just for clarity’s sake, the name ‘ranger’ refers to scouting over long distances, i.e. ranging. It’s about how far they travel abroad, not their combat tactics. That’s why they’re wilderness experts.
No they don’t. A ranger isn’t a shooter class, it’s a “nature” class. The bow has always been the main weapon of rangers. Rifles are for ‘developed’ classes, such as the engineer.
LoL at you…. Its *RANGE*r. Not “nature” class, even if some hippie or arenanet thinks that.
It would be good if we can “snipe” with rifles. Only problem is that it requires no skill at all. Bows neither
That reply is quite much wrong. It doesn’t refer to “sniping” in any way. The ranger is the traditional roamer, surviver class, that uses the nature to his benefit and shoots enemies from the bushes using his bow. Gunpower is in no way part of that, and while bows are silent weapons, guns are not.
Oh and btw, I’m not trying to hinder you guys in any way. I don’t care if ranger gets a new weapon, but at least let it be a weapon that actually fits the class, e.g. crossbow.
The class has nature/elemental spirits, so yes it is ‘hippy’ in that way. Bullets just don’t fit that image. It’s also one of the few ranger plus points that it’s one of the less noisy classes – although I like my warrior rifle I find myself turning down the sound for it. It would be good to have more ranged weapon diversity though. I don’t have the equivalent of the recurve which was so great at interrupting, or the flatbow with its curved shot that was good for firing downhill. Crossbows wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
No they don’t. A ranger isn’t a shooter class, it’s a “nature” class. The bow has always been the main weapon of rangers. Rifles are for ‘developed’ classes, such as the engineer.
We need staves for support builds. Rifles are a nice idea, but it’ll never happen, Anet likes to pretend that we’re actually good with our bows(we’re not, by their fault). It’d make sense that a ranger would use a bow if it was 200% more efficient in some ways than a rifle, but it isn’t. Not even in one way, it isn’t.
I’d rather see a rifle on my Guardian, since we lack any decent ranged weapon (scepter doesn’t cut it in pvp), it would have to be OP and our autoattack should be called “holy shot”.
“We have no first-person view because stupid people would lock into it”
“You can’t have more than 10 HS decks because that would confuse people”
“30 fps is more cinematic”
