Guild Wars 2

Now I am working on a viable skill set to go with this thread so keep posted.

Rangers don’t use rifles. End of story. This suggestion has been around since the second day after the full release (not headstart event) and has been answered the same way.

If you would really like to see rifle rangers, please come up with a way to make them viable compared to the current weapons, balanced with other classes, and fit with the look, feel, and general idea of the class. If you’re not going to even try to make a good suggestion, at least don’t make suggestions at all.

My friend just came over and looked at this post, and said “Rangers don’t have rifles?” I said “Nope!” and then he said “But that’s the history of Rangers is hunting.” He then gave me a very confused look and shook his head in displeasure. Now this is coming from someone who doesn’t even play GW2 and is a teacher. C’mon now. Now I’m going to get off and play some D&D.

Your friend has no idea what a ranger is.

TL;DR Read some and got offended.

I’m from a line of hunters. Rangers make sense to have rifles. Pistols not so much. They are trackers/hunters not stalker/assassins. By the logic of “keeping quiet” you give more reason to remove firearms altogether from Thieves and giving them long bows since they are the descendants of the assassins.

A Ranger/Hunter/Tracker weapon selection from what we have in game should be:

Dagger
Rifle
Bows (Long and Short)
Torch
Axe
Harpoon Gun
Spear

No swords, great swords, or war horns.

Anyone including developers that think Rifles are not very natural obviously don’t realize that the ingredients to gunpowder are sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter (naturally occurring potassium nitrate).

And there is nothing more natural than the forging of metal which requires ALL 5 elements to make.

Earth = where the ore comes from
Fire = used to make the metal malleable
Air = used to make the fire hotter for the forging
Water = used to quench the hot metal
Spirit = the one who puts the other 4 elements to use while forging the metal.

Basically, ALL MMOs use D&D as their base model for classes. No one wants to use some sense when making classes. This leads to arguments over class balance. Real hunters will tell you how a Ranger would work. Real Soldiers will tell you how a Soldier class would work according to history and their training. Real Thieves and Assassins might not come forward and tell you how they really work, but a little sense could get you going in the right direction.

Hence why I am offended with any MMO that has a Druid class. I’m an actual Druid and we Druids DO NOT do anything remotely associated with the “cookie cutter” MMO Druid.

If @net give ranger rifle and killshot skill then it’s gonna be my second character.

This thread made my head hurt. Half the arguments against rangers with rifles bring up crossbows or rifles for thieves, etc. The ammo argument holds no weight. We don’t have to purchase/smith/steal ammunition. The ranger class doesn’t come from the forest in the game, they come from a major town or city just like any other profession in the game and lore.

The idea for the rifle synchronizing with beast mastery was a really good suggestion. There isn’t a ranger set that leans heavily towards that playstyle. The Duck Hunt metaphor was genius too. Hunters are attuned to nature. There haven’t been any arguments to this suggestion brought up so far. As for the skills themselves, they could lean towards buffing your pet, marking targets, and supporting other allies as well.

yeah give us killshot and warrior dmg to replace our terrible bow dmg.

it’s kind of sad that the RANGEr is outclassed at RANGE by the warrior.

Since I’m tired of posting in this thread, I’ll leave with this:
What’s the very first thing you consider once you decide to add a ranged weapon to a game? “Do we put this on the ranged physical attacker class?”
The very first thing they would have done when they decided that rifles and pistols would be in the game was determine whether or not the Ranger should use them.
Considering there’s no meaningful difference in looks between longbow and shortbow, they could have just gone with “bow”, given it to Warrior, Thief, and Ranger, and then given the Ranger the rifle in place of what it currently uses for one of the two bows and there would be no difference in current gameplay, except that Ranger would have a rifle.
The only real reason why they did it the way they did is that they felt that the rifle did not belong on the Ranger.

Trying to convince them to break their own lore, to do something that they explicitly decided not to do, is the same as all the people who try to get them to add mounts.

And a constructive suggestion for those who want rifle for pet synergy: considering the history of GW1, the much more likely route would be giving the Ranger a hammer for a pet build, due to the popularity of the Bunny Thumper builds in GW1.

This is not a pretty good suggestion. It’s a bad idea that has been shot down dozens of times.

So give us a good reason to drop it then. You’re on the wrong board if you think you can just “shoot us down.” All you’ve contributed is “this guy is right” and “this guy is wrong.” If you aren’t going to contribute to either discussion why even post?