Guild Wars 2

I think what I’ve learned after reading all 39 pages of this discussion…

When ArenaNet asked the community which profession they would like to see fixed/impoved, ArenaNet was really hoping the community would pick an easier one than ranger.

Why couldn’t the community have picked warrior? Anet would have loved to talk about tweaking warrior. Ranger’s too hard.

ArenaNet knows perfectly well (as do we) which profession is the most broken. They were just hoping they could look like they cared without actually having to fix it. If we’d picked a different profession, they could have blamed the next year of continued broken ranger on the community. Too bad we didn’t play along.

Specific Game Mode
WvW (though it would apply broadly too)

Proposal Overview
Provide ranger bows with three default timings of attacks (slow, normal, and fast). This would impact cast times AND skill refresh times. It would apply to both the longbow and short bow.

Goal of Proposal
1. Increase the differentiation of the bows styles between condition (fast hits and refreshes of skills for lots of conditions at miserable base strength) or (slow hits and long refreshes of skills but you do the highest single target ranged damage in the game).
2. To move the ranger to more of a viable shoot first-finish in melee class.

Proposal Functionality
Each class of pet would be defined as “slow” (bear) “normal” (drakes) and “fast” (felines and birds).
While a pet is alive, you get the bonus of the adjusted speed. When it dies, you default to normal.

Slow (Power Based) = 33% longer cast time, 30% longer ICDs and 60% more damage.
Fast (Condition Based) = 33% shorter cast times, 30% shorter ICDs and 60% less base damage. Condition damage remains unchanged. You do less physical and much more condition because you shoot faster.

Only applies to skills 1-4. Does not apply to barrage (longbow) or concussion shot (short bow).

Associated Risks
1. Are the numbers sufficient without being too much?
2. Would this change how concerned you are about keeping your pet alive?
3. Is changing on pet swap too much (cool dynamic but could be OP)? Balanced by having to keep it alive?
4. Would that make the ranger’s single target damage the highest ranged damage in both condition and power?

Fozzik.1742:

I think what I’ve learned after reading all 39 pages of this discussion…

When ArenaNet asked the community which profession they would like to see fixed/impoved, ArenaNet was really hoping the community would pick an easier one than ranger.

Why couldn’t the community have picked warrior? Anet would have loved to talk about tweaking warrior. Ranger’s too hard.

ArenaNet knows perfectly well (as do we) which profession is the most broken. They were just hoping they could look like they cared without actually having to fix it. If we’d picked a different profession, they could have blamed the next year of continued broken ranger on the community. Too bad we didn’t play along.

Man this… this so hard my head hurts. I thought they really cared at the beginning but after page 20+ it seemed like they just pretended to care

I really sincerly had high hopes for this CDI and the beginning of this CDI felt like there was hope at the end of the tunnel and finnaly the ranger class would get some positive attention and be on par with other classes. But then as i kept reading towards page 20+ i realized the fixes and aditions most wanted for the ranger are now being ignored and will not be discussed. Now there are talks about fixing the pets which will probably not work instead of permastowing. There are so many good ideas here that are not even being consider probably. The issues are so simple yet the struggle is so hard. Time to level that warrior i guess.

Akisame.9508:

I love this game and don’t really want to leave but if they do not either fix pets or give ranger’s 100% of their damage back, I’m gone on 4/4.

Well, if you think they can implement any of these suggestions, including balancing, testing, bug testing and effect/animation changes/improvements within 4/4 then you are sorely wrong.

So, goodbye for now, and i’d also use this opportunity to wager that you will be back on this game within the end of july.

Prysin.8542:

Akisame.9508:

I love this game and don’t really want to leave but if they do not either fix pets or give ranger’s 100% of their damage back, I’m gone on 4/4.

Well, if you think they can implement any of these suggestions, including balancing, testing, bug testing and effect/animation changes/improvements within 4/4 then you are sorely wrong.

So, goodbye for now, and i’d also use this opportunity to wager that you will be back on this game within the end of july.

To be honest, I’m of a similar train of thought.

If the next feature patch doesn’t contain anything interesting, I’m probably moving on from this game. Ranger obviously is going to take some time to fix, but my concerns are with the game in general; it’s grown so stale and none of the issues that stand out to me have been properly addressed.

Arghore.8340:

Higher Priority isn’t Cancelling
In this sense I would also want to point out that Anet stated that fixing the pet is higher on the priority list than making a perma stow option, now obviously you can disagree with that, but I read that somewhat different than it being entirely off the table. Thing is though, that introducing a perma stow that is an integral part of the ranger, while in essence seemingly easy, does offer a lot of issues when you get to the details of skills and traits. In this sense putting in a good solution that would also work intuitively for new players, might be just as much work as giving the pets their own AI…

Well, there can’t be an easy fix to any deep-rooted problems. Given the fact that they’re all equally challenging…

What I find weird is that a lot of people are already quite pleased to have a permastow option without the buff. They are prepared for the damage-loss for the window of time their pets are not out. Does the balance team think that this will make the rangers too weak? (Really? They can feel guilty about that? Lol)

Secondly, to make the pet an integral part of the Ranger if a permastow option is given a buff I think can be solved by making sure that the buff is temporary. So it will only last let’s say 30 seconds (I don’t know how long is appropriate) in which case they have to summon their pets and stow it back again to gain the Aspect buff.

I think this gives incentives to even people who don’t want to play with pets to use the pet (IF this is their main concern. With the lack of feedback from the dev team, it’s hard to know why certain approaches aren’t taken).

Power-Creep Nerf and Timing
I’m guessing another difficulty they’re facing is the power-creep nerf direction. Seems like that one has a higher priority. So, let’s nerf the damage of all classes first, and let’s see how far behind the Ranger still is and then pick up from there.

If that’s the case, what can they expect from a CDI placed in such an awkward timeframe?

Prysin.8542:

Akisame.9508:

I love this game and don’t really want to leave but if they do not either fix pets or give ranger’s 100% of their damage back, I’m gone on 4/4.

Well, if you think they can implement any of these suggestions, including balancing, testing, bug testing and effect/animation changes/improvements within 4/4 then you are sorely wrong.

So, goodbye for now, and i’d also use this opportunity to wager that you will be back on this game within the end of july.

July, probably July of 2016. And yes, it is an easy fix, lets do the fix right now…

step one. remove damage from pet. We know they can do this because they have already nerfed pet damage by 50 percent in the past. So this is easy for them, it’s a nerf, how hard can it be right? their pro’s at nerfing ranger’s. Now pet only does slight damage when a land actually hits, which is like once a week.

step two, add the missing damage back to ranger’s, the pet was suppose to deal 30% of the ranger’s damage, so they will have to up our damage to fill in that 30% gap.

step three, beastmaster trait work, for those that want to run beastmaster, allow this trait to up the damage by 20%, like the warrior’s adrenaline does 15%, but since ours is trait lined, it should give more damage. This balance’s out because we will not have as many trait points left over to buff the character’s damage, so it’s not overpowered.

step four, put it live and you tweak it on the following patch like they do for all other professions!

All of this is simple for them to do. pet’s are still in the game, and ranger’s now have full command over the damage they are suppose to do instead of a stupid AI that will NEVER be fixed.

But you see, they won’t do this, they need that easy kill in the game to make it enjoyable for all the other classes, so they can feel like gods. “you see that, I took that ranger out in two hits instead of three!” They are only giving us the illusion that they care and want to fix the class while throwing scraps at you to keep you from leaving on 4/4. open your eye’s man and read the dev posts. How do you go from a couple of months ago saying that pets F2 cannot be altered because it changes the way pet’s “think”. it means rewriting tons of code which is something they are not prepared to do. Then all of a sudden, ESO is coming out in one month and they are like, yea, we got a fix for the f2 command coming in on next patch, so stick around. This kitten should have happened over a year ago! Not before the release of a new game that has the potential to draw an exodus of this game. And in the end, they are still unwilling to fix the real problem at heart, pet AI, or removal of the pet. Because honestly, the F2 fix is crap because the pet still can’t hit a single thing that’s moving. It’s a waste of time without fixing AI!

Flytrap.8075:

To be honest, I’m of a similar train of thought.

If the next feature patch doesn’t contain anything interesting, I’m probably moving on from this game. Ranger obviously is going to take some time to fix, but my concerns are with the game in general; it’s grown so stale and none of the issues that stand out to me have been properly addressed.

There are a lot of people who feel this way. The bulk of my guild is taking an extended break from this game because we all feel that it currently has very little to offer. Living story, while nice on paper, just wasn’t implemented well enough to actually make a profound impact on the game. What we got instead were bi-weekly updates that would add something small while removing everything that was available to us from the previous update. Nothing truly built upon itself to make changes that were actually permanent and consequential, which left everyone who’s done everything else just wanting for so much more.

And that’s not even going into the current state of everything that isn’t living story related.

xallever.1874:

Arghore.8340:

Power-Creep Nerf and Balancing

I’m guessing another difficulty they’re facing is the power-creep nerf direction. Seems like that one has a higher priority. So, let’s nerf the damage of all classes first, and let’s see how far behind the Ranger still is and then pick up from there.

If that’s the case, what can they expect from a CDI placed in such an awkward timeframe?

This is my biggest concern with this whole CDI thread.

We now know why all the changes the class has received up until this point have been such a failure… apparently the vision for this class that ANet’s using for the Ranger simply doesn’t work in the game they’ve created.

So instead of trying to reallign their vision to one that would actually fit into the game they’ve made, they’re going to try and bring the other classes down and wait and see how the class fairs then? Effectively resolving nothing? Which will take another year at best?

And where will that leave us? A sustained DPS model will never work in a PvP setting so the power builds for this class are still a non-factor. We still haven’t even begun to discuss why this class is such a failure in WvW that no one in their right mind wants anything to do with us… so that will still likely be an issue. Pet responsiveness seems to be a big deal with some improvements coming, but we still haven’t discussed why the pet simply doesn’t work in WvW at all, so we’ll still be faced with that.

It’s not fair to expect Rangers to sit, sidelined for another 1.5 years waiting for 7 other classes to be toned down only to be faced with the same problems regardless.

Suggested Proposal Format:
Specific Game Mode
PvX.

Proposal Overview:
New pet type for buffing ranger.

Goal of Proposal:
Give option to thous ranger that doesn’t want use pet.

Proposal Functionality:
Make new or rework some of old pet classes to total support pets, which only purpose is give buffs on other effects to ranger and (s)hes attacks. In fight these pets stay close to ranger and only start dealing damage when enemy comes to melee range.
Example:
Firefly(Offensive supporter)
Skill1: Adds 1 sec burn on every ranger attack.
Skill2(F2): Add blind near by enemies(600 range).
Sklill3: When enemy come in range pet start pulse something like flame blast every 6 sec.
Skill4: Pet add Burning retreat type of effect on our dodges.

Associated Risks:
May not work very well with some of ranger utilities and weapon skills that effect on pet.

McWolfy.5924:

nagymbear.5280:

McWolfy.5924:

nagymbear.5280:

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

Try them in wvw

I used to wvw a lot on my ranger, recently not so much. I did a lot of roaming, flipping camps, slapping yaks. In a zerg fight pets die to easily, I agree witht that. But 95% of the game modes is just bullkitten.

Yeah. Flipping camps and smack dollis are super fun… I want to fight real battles! I wars ranged units was the most valuable units.

In wars there was no wall of reflection or retailiation boon. Pets have nothing to do with our inability to play a ranged damage backline to zergs. Its reflection, retal, and of course the unstoppable hammer train. I do understand what you are trying to say though.

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

I’ll bet $100 that after this is all said and done, rangers end up with more nerfs than buffs.

Also can someone at Anet provide some sort of synopsis of what they’ve gained from this thread? They said “just because we don’t respond doesn’t mean we’re not reading”. So if Anet is reading, how about proving it with some notes/
takeaways of the last 39 pages of posts.

Patiently waiting , Anet.

Atherakhia.4086:

xallever.1874:

Arghore.8340:

Power-Creep Nerf and Balancing

I’m guessing another difficulty they’re facing is the power-creep nerf direction. Seems like that one has a higher priority. So, let’s nerf the damage of all classes first, and let’s see how far behind the Ranger still is and then pick up from there.

If that’s the case, what can they expect from a CDI placed in such an awkward timeframe?

This is my biggest concern with this whole CDI thread.

We now know why all the changes the class has received up until this point have been such a failure… apparently the vision for this class that ANet’s using for the Ranger simply doesn’t work in the game they’ve created.

So instead of trying to reallign their vision to one that would actually fit into the game they’ve made, they’re going to try and bring the other classes down and wait and see how the class fairs then? Effectively resolving nothing? Which will take another year at best?

And where will that leave us? A sustained DPS model will never work in a PvP setting so the power builds for this class are still a non-factor. We still haven’t even begun to discuss why this class is such a failure in WvW that no one in their right mind wants anything to do with us… so that will still likely be an issue. Pet responsiveness seems to be a big deal with some improvements coming, but we still haven’t discussed why the pet simply doesn’t work in WvW at all, so we’ll still be faced with that.

It’s not fair to expect Rangers to sit, sidelined for another 1.5 years waiting for 7 other classes to be toned down only to be faced with the same problems regardless.

I’d rather have Ranger brought up to their level instead of bringing the other seven professions down.

I can only hope that ANet has realized that this isn’t going to be an easy fix, but it’s hard to tell where we stand at this point since we haven’t gotten any directional updates.

Flytrap.8075:

Atherakhia.4086:

xallever.1874:

Arghore.8340:

Power-Creep Nerf and Balancing

I’m guessing another difficulty they’re facing is the power-creep nerf direction. Seems like that one has a higher priority. So, let’s nerf the damage of all classes first, and let’s see how far behind the Ranger still is and then pick up from there.

If that’s the case, what can they expect from a CDI placed in such an awkward timeframe?

This is my biggest concern with this whole CDI thread.

We now know why all the changes the class has received up until this point have been such a failure… apparently the vision for this class that ANet’s using for the Ranger simply doesn’t work in the game they’ve created.

So instead of trying to reallign their vision to one that would actually fit into the game they’ve made, they’re going to try and bring the other classes down and wait and see how the class fairs then? Effectively resolving nothing? Which will take another year at best?

And where will that leave us? A sustained DPS model will never work in a PvP setting so the power builds for this class are still a non-factor. We still haven’t even begun to discuss why this class is such a failure in WvW that no one in their right mind wants anything to do with us… so that will still likely be an issue. Pet responsiveness seems to be a big deal with some improvements coming, but we still haven’t discussed why the pet simply doesn’t work in WvW at all, so we’ll still be faced with that.

It’s not fair to expect Rangers to sit, sidelined for another 1.5 years waiting for 7 other classes to be toned down only to be faced with the same problems regardless.

I’d rather have Ranger brought up to their level instead of bringing the other seven professions down.

I can only hope that ANet has realized that this isn’t going to be an easy fix, but it’s hard to tell where we stand at this point since we haven’t gotten any directional updates.

we get red post once every 2 days… I’m almost positive the Fractals CDI gets more red post in one day than this CDI has total…

Not blaming Allie at all, but anet for not giving proper support for this CDI

This is about an entire class and to only assign 1 person to it was obviously bad
And the fact devs only jump in maybe once every 5 days is even worse.

The lack of feedback from anet side shows one thing – they don’t have any concrete plans on what to do.
They know they can’t pour in the full support our class re-work requires so they have very limited options.

All we can do right now is wait and see what the summary is….
40 pages of suggestions is enough IMO… the balls in anet’s court now…

Flytrap.8075:

Atherakhia.4086:

xallever.1874:

Arghore.8340:

Power-Creep Nerf and Balancing

I’m guessing another difficulty they’re facing is the power-creep nerf direction. Seems like that one has a higher priority. So, let’s nerf the damage of all classes first, and let’s see how far behind the Ranger still is and then pick up from there.

If that’s the case, what can they expect from a CDI placed in such an awkward timeframe?

This is my biggest concern with this whole CDI thread.

We now know why all the changes the class has received up until this point have been such a failure… apparently the vision for this class that ANet’s using for the Ranger simply doesn’t work in the game they’ve created.

So instead of trying to reallign their vision to one that would actually fit into the game they’ve made, they’re going to try and bring the other classes down and wait and see how the class fairs then? Effectively resolving nothing? Which will take another year at best?

And where will that leave us? A sustained DPS model will never work in a PvP setting so the power builds for this class are still a non-factor. We still haven’t even begun to discuss why this class is such a failure in WvW that no one in their right mind wants anything to do with us… so that will still likely be an issue. Pet responsiveness seems to be a big deal with some improvements coming, but we still haven’t discussed why the pet simply doesn’t work in WvW at all, so we’ll still be faced with that.

It’s not fair to expect Rangers to sit, sidelined for another 1.5 years waiting for 7 other classes to be toned down only to be faced with the same problems regardless.

I’d rather have Ranger brought up to their level instead of bringing the other seven professions down.

I can only hope that ANet has realized that this isn’t going to be an easy fix, but it’s hard to tell where we stand at this point since we haven’t gotten any directional updates.

I certainly understand the issue they’re having but the class is designed in a way that runs counter to the way the rest of the game works. Let the class fit in first, then worry about scaling it back with the other classes if it’s too high.

The sustained model just isn’t working. And worse, it has made the class the least engaging/fun one to play because none of the weapon skills amount to anything but the auto attack.

Paulie.6215:

I’ll bet $100 that after this is all said and done, rangers end up with more nerfs than buffs.

Also can someone at Anet provide some sort of synopsis of what they’ve gained from this thread? They said “just because we don’t respond doesn’t mean we’re not reading”. So if Anet is reading, how about proving it with some notes/
takeaways of the last 39 pages of posts.

Patiently waiting , Anet.

ya im waiting too… on forums and in game lol

I have finally collected eveything i need for a full set of ascended armor,, but no chance i’m going to risk putting that on my ranger…. so i’m getting really antsy lol.

If we could just get some kind of summary about what to expect… i can finally make a decision if i want to keep playing on ranger or not lol.

Right now, I would also put my money on rangers still not being a useful option across the board in all game modes like other classes.

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Diversify pet families.

Goal of Proposal
Make pets into unique tools that fill specific roles.

Proposal Functionality
Give pet families unique characteristics. For example, canines could give a damage bonus while flanking, birds could ignore terrain, etc. Basically give each family a role that they fulfill well and give them abilities that bypass some of the AI limitations.

Associated Risks
This would probably take lots of work.

misterdevious.6482:

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

Thieves and mesmer will laugh hard at your pet , all other classes will kite it until the end of the fight

phys.7689:

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Oh yes, without traits, max LB range 1200 SB 900, gap closers have 600-1200 range, you hit 1 time and in 1 second your enemy is at melee distance, it is really stupid, on the other side a warrior can hit like a truck and run like the roadrunner ( WITH HEAVY ARMOR…)

LB/SB are boring because the best dps is always the AutoAttack, this is a DESIGN FLAW.

SB is supposed to be a condition weapon.

And LB is supposed to be a Power weapon, but DOESNT HAVE a real burst skill.

Specific Game Mode:

WvW (would apply broadly too)

Proposal Overview:

Adjustments to skills

Goal of Proposal:

To allow the ranger better build diversity, give more synergy to the class and potentially allow viability in group content.

Proposal Functionality:

1. Rampage as One: Change skill type to ‘Survival’, lower duration of stability gained.
Potential: lower skill CD

2. Entangle: Potential: change skill type, e. g. To ‘Trap’.

3. Frost trap: add damage values to pulse. Reduce chill duration per pulse.

4. Muddy terrain: add damage values to pulses.
Potential: add combo field.

5. Guard!: Change functionality. Make it so that when cast to guard the area, the skill needs to be cast again for the pet to stop guarding that area. (no change to cool down, cool down starts on first activation) While guard is active, F1 will make the pet attack as normal but attempt to go back to target area after. F3 will make the pet sit in target area center and do nothing. Take away cast time.

6. Signet of the wild: take away cast time. Change skill to be a stunbreaker.
Potential: Affect both ranger and pet.

7. Signet of renewal: Change functionality to remove all conditions on you and your pet.
Potential: reduce cool down. Change the skill to not be a stunbreaker.

Associated Risks: 
May need to reevaluate damage, boon duration and skill duration values.
Potentially too strong in big group skirmishes.
Aside from that I see not much risk. But who knows, all the things I may not have taken into consideration.

Just my sloppy 2 cents

urdriel.8496:

misterdevious.6482:

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

Thieves and mesmer will laugh hard at your pet , all other classes will kite it until the end of the fight

phys.7689:

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Oh yes, without traits, max LB range 1200 SB 900, gap closers have 600-1200 range, you hit 1 time and in 1 second your enemy is at melee distance, it is really stupid, on the other side a warrior can hit like a truck and run like the roadrunner ( WITH HEAVY ARMOR…)

LB/SB are boring because the best dps is always the AutoAttack, this is a DESIGN FLAW.

SB is supposed to be a condition weapon.

And LB is supposed to be a Power weapon, but DOESNT HAVE a real burst skill.

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

Jocksy.3415:

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

That’s true but I would like to see the secondary skills beeing as good as the AA.
For example: If Sword #3 is a damageloss compared to the AA, you would want to not use it, even if it would be necessary. That would only promote the “stacking and #1 mashing” tactic.

Flytrap.8075:

Jocksy.3415:

urdriel.8496:

misterdevious.6482:

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

Thieves and mesmer will laugh hard at your pet , all other classes will kite it until the end of the fight

phys.7689:

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Oh yes, without traits, max LB range 1200 SB 900, gap closers have 600-1200 range, you hit 1 time and in 1 second your enemy is at melee distance, it is really stupid, on the other side a warrior can hit like a truck and run like the roadrunner ( WITH HEAVY ARMOR…)

LB/SB are boring because the best dps is always the AutoAttack, this is a DESIGN FLAW.

SB is supposed to be a condition weapon.

And LB is supposed to be a Power weapon, but DOESNT HAVE a real burst skill.

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

I have to disagree on this one.

Compared to the other professions’ weapon sets, the ones available to Ranger feel incredibly more spammy. In my opinion, this is because a lot of the Ranger’s weapons are incredibly clunky/awkward; Sword, Greatsword, and Longbow stand out to me.

The “clunkyness” of the weapons have to be/have been also addressed in this thread.

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

Yeah, but how do you make that interesting?

MOBAs and FPSs can work out that way just fine. But damage is never just damage in those games. It’s given purpose by playing into a larger psychological ‘scare tactic’ to threaten people. Human opponents and location-based objectives give the gunplay between situational abilities context and meaning.

The only thing I sort of see trying to make autoattacks more interesting is the ‘requirement’ basis of weapons and even certain traits.

But it’s just not enough. Having a ‘distance requirement’ or a ‘flanking requirement’ or a ‘health requirement’ is either so difficult to execute versus a live opponent it may as well be random, or so easy to execute versus sluggish mobs there’s no actual game-play involved in keeping it up.

Jocksy.3415:

urdriel.8496:

misterdevious.6482:

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

Thieves and mesmer will laugh hard at your pet , all other classes will kite it until the end of the fight

phys.7689:

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Oh yes, without traits, max LB range 1200 SB 900, gap closers have 600-1200 range, you hit 1 time and in 1 second your enemy is at melee distance, it is really stupid, on the other side a warrior can hit like a truck and run like the roadrunner ( WITH HEAVY ARMOR…)

LB/SB are boring because the best dps is always the AutoAttack, this is a DESIGN FLAW.

SB is supposed to be a condition weapon.

And LB is supposed to be a Power weapon, but DOESNT HAVE a real burst skill.

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

I have to disagree on this one.

Compared to the other professions’ weapon sets, the ones available to Ranger feel way more spammy. In my opinion, this is because a lot of the Ranger’s weapons are incredibly clunky/awkward; Sword, Greatsword, and Longbow stand out to me.

I also think that some weapons don’t have a clearly established niche available to them (Shortbow vs. MH-Axe, Sword vs. Greatsword, etc.). When you look at other classes and their weapon sets, it is obvious that each weapon was designed with a specific role in mind, whereas a lot of Ranger weapons are suffering from an identity crisis.

Flytrap.8075:

I feel that other professions pull this way better than Ranger currently does.

A lot of the weapon sets available to Ranger are either awkward/clunky or don’t have a clearly established niche.

I don’t even think that weapons have to fill a niche, they just have to serve a clear purpose. If the LB was designed to deal high, long-range damage, I would say yes, the LB is capable of doing so but he is highly unreliable since his damage falls of if the target comes closer. At the same time the LB has no real countermeasures to prevent an enemy to come closer. Furthermore the arrows are a hit-n-miss gamble at long range.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Flytrap.8075:

I feel that other professions pull this way better than Ranger currently does.

A lot of the weapon sets available to Ranger are either awkward/clunky or don’t have a clearly established niche.

I don’t even think that weapons have to fill a niche, they just have to serve a clear purpose. If the LB was designed to deal high, long-range damage, I would say yes, the LB is capable of doing so but he is highly unreliable since his damage falls of if the target comes closer. At the same time the LB has no real countermeasures to prevent an enemy to come closer. Furthermore the arrows are a hit-n-miss gamble at long range.

“Fitting a niche” and “serving a clear purpose” are the same thing in my eyes.

EX: Guardian staff is the quintessential Support weapon; it was clearly designed with that in mind.

Flytrap.8075:

I also think that some weapons don’t have a clearly established niche available to them (Shortbow vs. MH-Axe, Sword vs. Greatsword, etc.). When you look at other classes and their weapon sets, it is obvious that each weapon was designed with a specific role in mind. I believe that this is a result of Ranger being designed as a jack-of-all-trades class; we’re essentially suffering from an identity crisis right now.

The ones are onehanded, the others are twohanded.

Flytrap.8075:

Jocksy.3415:

urdriel.8496:

misterdevious.6482:

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

Thieves and mesmer will laugh hard at your pet , all other classes will kite it until the end of the fight

phys.7689:

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Oh yes, without traits, max LB range 1200 SB 900, gap closers have 600-1200 range, you hit 1 time and in 1 second your enemy is at melee distance, it is really stupid, on the other side a warrior can hit like a truck and run like the roadrunner ( WITH HEAVY ARMOR…)

LB/SB are boring because the best dps is always the AutoAttack, this is a DESIGN FLAW.

SB is supposed to be a condition weapon.

And LB is supposed to be a Power weapon, but DOESNT HAVE a real burst skill.

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

I have to disagree on this one.

Compared to the other professions’ weapon sets, the ones available to Ranger feel way more spammy. In my opinion, this is because a lot of the Ranger’s weapons are incredibly clunky/awkward; Sword, Greatsword, and Longbow stand out to me.

I also think that some weapons don’t have a clearly established niche available to them (Shortbow vs. MH-Axe, Sword vs. Greatsword, etc.).

I agree. A lot of the effects just lack the stopping power or ‘wow factor’ of other weapons. This makes them feel more like something you’d use every time it’s off cooldown as opposed to trying to save it for some unique situation.

Flytrap.8075:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Flytrap.8075:

I feel that other professions pull this way better than Ranger currently does.

A lot of the weapon sets available to Ranger are either awkward/clunky or don’t have a clearly established niche.

I don’t even think that weapons have to fill a niche, they just have to serve a clear purpose. If the LB was designed to deal high, long-range damage, I would say yes, the LB is capable of doing so but he is highly unreliable since his damage falls of if the target comes closer. At the same time the LB has no real countermeasures to prevent an enemy to come closer. Furthermore the arrows are a hit-n-miss gamble at long range.

“Fitting a niche” and “serving a clear purpose” are the same thing in my eyes.

The problem with “Fitting a niche” vs. “serving a clear purpose” is that the niche implies that the gameplay feels totally different from other weapons, beeing unique. I don’t have a problem with the MH axe serving the same purpose as the SB does, just both weapons have to excel at one point. SB as example should be the always kiting, persistent damage dealing weapon while the MH axe could be somewhat more bursty but less kiting.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Jocksy.3415:

Not a design flaw…
This is what I like about ranger, that secondary attacks are situational (except for gs#2)
It’s not a “I spam all my attacks in a certain order, then wait for CD”, it’s a “I AA until the situation calls for another attack”.
I do agree power weapons should have burst skills, but I think they should also keep the situational attacks of our weapons…

That’s true but I would like to see the secondary skills beeing as good as the AA.
For example: If Sword #3 is a damageloss compared to the AA, you would want to not use it, even if it would be necessary. That would only promote the “stacking and #1 mashing” tactic.

Still less of a damage loss to use #3 than to do a complete dodge…
(I’m not much a theorycrafter, though, so maybe damage loss from a full dodge and coming back on target with sword is less of a loss of DPS than using#3?)

Seeing the CD of some of those situational / loss of DPS, I agree some have something missing – would it be damage / evade abilities / control abilities or else.
But if getting higher DPS on situational attacks means losing DPS on AA (looking at GS), DPS that is already lackluster on ranger (given its survivability, that is not great either) really gets down the drain…

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Flytrap.8075:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Flytrap.8075:

I feel that other professions pull this way better than Ranger currently does.

A lot of the weapon sets available to Ranger are either awkward/clunky or don’t have a clearly established niche.

I don’t even think that weapons have to fill a niche, they just have to serve a clear purpose. If the LB was designed to deal high, long-range damage, I would say yes, the LB is capable of doing so but he is highly unreliable since his damage falls of if the target comes closer. At the same time the LB has no real countermeasures to prevent an enemy to come closer. Furthermore the arrows are a hit-n-miss gamble at long range.

“Fitting a niche” and “serving a clear purpose” are the same thing in my eyes.

The problem with “Fitting a niche” vs. “serving a clear purpose” is that the niche implies that the gameplay feels totally different from other weapons, beeing unique. I don’t have a problem with the MH axe serving the same purpose as the SB does, just both weapons have to excel at one point. SB as example should be the always kiting, persistent damage dealing weapon while the MH axe could be somewhat more bursty but less kiting.

I think you’re just arguing semantics, but your last tidbit did get more to the heart of my point.

urdriel.8496:

misterdevious.6482:

When people simply say “the pet,” I wonder how much was invested in that pet.

The default pets have 0 traits, 0 bonus stats, 0 condition damage, 0 movement speed buff, 0 regen, 0 pet utility skills, and 0 support from the ranger or the ranger’s gear.

The most powerful pets benefit from most of the ranger’s traits, up to 4100 bonus stats (Beastmastery 300×4, Master’s Bond 200×4, Might 875×2, Trait 350×1), up to 1225 condition damage, +50% condition duration, 25-40% movement speed buff, massive regen, 3 pet-related utility skills, and full support from the ranger, and the ranger’s healing, precision, and boon duration gear. (Giving the pet 25 stacks of might can be done with a single key using the right build.)

I can keep pets alive in 30v30 zerg fights (map-blob vs map-blob is another story), but it requires building specifically for that purpose (a bit different from the most lethal pet) and making a compromise with my own safety. With the upcoming change to F2 activation, I may play this way more often.

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

Thieves and mesmer will laugh hard at your pet , all other classes will kite it until the end of the fight

phys.7689:

urdriel.8496:

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

they also gave you daggers swords greatswords and axes.

this game isnt designed where one of a professions weaponsets is supposed to better than others, each set is supposed to serve different needs.
ranger is meant to be able to go in and out of range, and have good options from any range. They actually did that fairly decently, my main beef is LB/SB is boring. I wouldnt mind aimed shots and charged attacks, but i dont know if thats what yall want

Oh yes, without traits, max LB range 1200 SB 900, gap closers have 600-1200 range, you hit 1 time and in 1 second your enemy is at melee distance, it is really stupid, on the other side a warrior can hit like a truck and run like the roadrunner ( WITH HEAVY ARMOR…)

LB/SB are boring because the best dps is always the AutoAttack, this is a DESIGN FLAW.

SB is supposed to be a condition weapon.

And LB is supposed to be a Power weapon, but DOESNT HAVE a real burst skill.

i think it would be bad if rangers could fight people who cant ever hit them. that said, if the 1 skill was a charge skill(increase dmg on release) that alone could make rng more entertaining, and make LB more interesting

Specific Game Mode
PvE

Proposal Overview

• Change the ranger main-hand axe’s “Ricochet” so that it can bounce off of allies including the pet.
• Give the ally it bounces off of Might or Fury (or both).

Goal of Proposal

• To boost the viability of axe main-hand in situations where there is only one enemy (this is a big issue with bosses).
• To add another support element to the ranger class.
• To take advantage of the ranger’s unique mechanic – a pet always being present means there is always an ally to bounce the axe off of.

Proposal Functionality
If Ricochet is changed (or a trait is added/altered) to allow it to bounce off of allies, this would solve one of the biggest downfalls of this weapon. When fighting single targets the DPS is pretty low, but when there are two targets it’s a nice attack because it can bounce onto a second target then back to the first target. Many PvE counters (particularly long boss fights) only have a single enemy making this bounce mechanic almost useless forcing you to switch the weapon or perform sub optimally.

If Ricochet bounced off of allies, it would always hit twice. Rangers always have an ally present (the pet) and altering the axe to perform this way would be another way to make the pet feel like it works as a team with the ranger. It might also go a long way to giving rangers an additional DPS option to ease the pressure to “choose” sword. Currently the axe isn’t good enough for this meta. This would also give this weapon a unique flavour to how it is used.

Associated Risks

• Removes the drawback of this weapon. Some people might not want all weapons to be good in all situations.
• Always hitting the target twice could be quite powerful. Currently it only happens with two enemy’s in the same place, but this would ensure it’s always the case.
• Adding boons onto this weapon would increase the access rangers have to said boons. Class access to specific boons is a careful balance.

SkiTz.4590:

Flytrap.8075:

Atherakhia.4086:

xallever.1874:

Arghore.8340:

Power-Creep Nerf and Balancing

I’m guessing another difficulty they’re facing is the power-creep nerf direction. Seems like that one has a higher priority. So, let’s nerf the damage of all classes first, and let’s see how far behind the Ranger still is and then pick up from there.

If that’s the case, what can they expect from a CDI placed in such an awkward timeframe?

This is my biggest concern with this whole CDI thread.

We now know why all the changes the class has received up until this point have been such a failure… apparently the vision for this class that ANet’s using for the Ranger simply doesn’t work in the game they’ve created.

So instead of trying to reallign their vision to one that would actually fit into the game they’ve made, they’re going to try and bring the other classes down and wait and see how the class fairs then? Effectively resolving nothing? Which will take another year at best?

And where will that leave us? A sustained DPS model will never work in a PvP setting so the power builds for this class are still a non-factor. We still haven’t even begun to discuss why this class is such a failure in WvW that no one in their right mind wants anything to do with us… so that will still likely be an issue. Pet responsiveness seems to be a big deal with some improvements coming, but we still haven’t discussed why the pet simply doesn’t work in WvW at all, so we’ll still be faced with that.

It’s not fair to expect Rangers to sit, sidelined for another 1.5 years waiting for 7 other classes to be toned down only to be faced with the same problems regardless.

I’d rather have Ranger brought up to their level instead of bringing the other seven professions down.

I can only hope that ANet has realized that this isn’t going to be an easy fix, but it’s hard to tell where we stand at this point since we haven’t gotten any directional updates.

we get red post once every 2 days… I’m almost positive the Fractals CDI gets more red post in one day than this CDI has total…

Not blaming Allie at all, but anet for not giving proper support for this CDI

This is about an entire class and to only assign 1 person to it was obviously bad
And the fact devs only jump in maybe once every 5 days is even worse.

The lack of feedback from anet side shows one thing – they don’t have any concrete plans on what to do.
They know they can’t pour in the full support our class re-work requires so they have very limited options.

All we can do right now is wait and see what the summary is….
40 pages of suggestions is enough IMO… the balls in anet’s court now…

Actually, I am blaming her, at least in part.
I don’t blame her for getting sick or being busy, that’s life.
But the fact remains she nor anyone else from Anet are really participating in this CDI, which is one of the central points of the CDI.

And if she wasn’t up for the task, it should have been handed over to someone who could participate at little more, or split the duty.
I don’t much care for the reasons, I care about results.

Clearly this can be done well, as Chris has demonstrated.
But this is bloody terrible. Started off well, then silence for days. It’s not on.
If your going to do a job, do it properly.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Flytrap.8075:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Flytrap.8075:

I feel that other professions pull this way better than Ranger currently does.

A lot of the weapon sets available to Ranger are either awkward/clunky or don’t have a clearly established niche.

I don’t even think that weapons have to fill a niche, they just have to serve a clear purpose. If the LB was designed to deal high, long-range damage, I would say yes, the LB is capable of doing so but he is highly unreliable since his damage falls of if the target comes closer. At the same time the LB has no real countermeasures to prevent an enemy to come closer. Furthermore the arrows are a hit-n-miss gamble at long range.

“Fitting a niche” and “serving a clear purpose” are the same thing in my eyes.

The problem with “Fitting a niche” vs. “serving a clear purpose” is that the niche implies that the gameplay feels totally different from other weapons, beeing unique. I don’t have a problem with the MH axe serving the same purpose as the SB does, just both weapons have to excel at one point. SB as example should be the always kiting, persistent damage dealing weapon while the MH axe could be somewhat more bursty but less kiting.

SB is mostly a single target weapon that focuses on kiting/flanking, MH axe is multitarget weapon with decent non kiting defensive options. MHA is more bursty dps in aoe with a shorter recast on splitblade and a bouncing AA, its more customizable because you can choose your 4 and 5 abilities as well.

phys.7689:

i think it would be bad if rangers could fight people who cant ever hit them. that said, if the 1 skill was a charge skill(increase dmg on release) that alone could make rng more entertaining, and make LB more interesting

But it’s also bad if we can’t maintain our distance, which we can’t right now. LB is only effective if we hit the target at 1000+ range. And as said 100 times before, we can’t maintain 1000+ range, not for a second. Furthermore the arrowspeed is a hit-n-miss gamble at long ranges.

misterdevious.6482:

• Should there be less difference between the min and max pets?
• Should it be easier to spec for a good pet?
• Should pets have more utility by default that isn’t heavily dependent on their stats?

I like that pets are different but I think the DPS and stat differences aren’t the best ways to do it. Pets are most interesting not when they are doing generic DPS but when they bring something unique to the fight. I would like smaller stat differences between min and max pets and greater emphasis on support, control and utility differences between pets (a pet for every situation).

I don’t think it should be easier to spec for a good pet, I think specializing for a good pet should be mutually beneficial to the ranger and it’s party. Currently pets and the Beast Mastery line are a bit selfish. I’d like to see more changes to that line that make specializing as a Beast Mastery is something that really helps you and your party. One of my problems with ranger builds in general is that most of them don’t offer much to your party. I’d love to see a move to make the Beast Mastery line a bit more supportive. Think bout it, it’s trait line where a ranger invests personal resources into their ally – that’s team work. That spirit should be emphasized.

I absolutely think that pets should have more default utility independent of their stats. If I wanted a passive DPS ally I would choose a necromancer (arguably their minion skills are more interesting than the ranger’s). I think the pet is underutilized as a mechanic and it has a lot of room to grow. Look at how happy players are that Braham, Rox and Healer-Tron are reviving them when downed? Players were also happy when those NPCs gave us a passive buff during the marionette fight. Players love to see when an NPC ally is doing something for them and the current design of ranger pets sees that they often don’t do much for the ranger let alone other party members. Pets are more interesting when they have desirable effects and utility rather than straight up DPS (which isn’t that effective considering strafing and the inability to attack moving targets.

I’ve made a 5-signet Rifle Warrior and I just press 2-4 randomly with an F1 thrown in and do more ‘sustained’ dps than my Ranger could ever do.

i still think that ranger need more aoe like the longbow only 1 skill is aoe.

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Rangers need more party support options that are unique to them. This includes party buffs, enemy debuffs, combo fields, and blast finishers.

Goal of Proposal
Rangers need some way of bringing something to a party. A class can not survive on its own by being good at “whittling” down targets. Rangers need to have a function to bring to a group environment such as a raid, or organized team. (other than tPvP spirit ranger!) When you form parties these days certain classes fill roles (i.e. Guardian for shouts, Ele for fields and boons, Warrior for condi clear with shouts etc…) Ranger currently doesn’t have a role or, something that it uniquely brings to a group. Pet Buffs are unreliable in WvW, Shouts only hit your pet, Traps are underwhelming in RvR, Signets only hit your pet, Spirits will die in WvW, and Survival skills are self survival. Ranger needs to have the ability to function as a team player. Yes, our warhorn 5 is amazing. Why is it alone?

Proposal Functionality
The idea behind the change is to help Rangers find groups and be easier to manage as a class. If I can bring things to a team that no one else can, I won’t be looked down upon for playing a profession I love. By giving Rangers access to party support they will be able to fit into the niches that have been made in all game modes. If X content needs Y function, it would be nice if Rangers could fulfill that role. It’s not a game breaker, it’s not about making Ranger OP by itself. It’s about giving Ranger a place in content.

Associated Risks
I can see the problems of: “Oh we gave Rangers (x boon) and now a group of them are able to perma (x boon).” Honestly, this is already the case with many boons, but I could see it being a complaint. I see the potential feeling of Ranger becoming all support. I think the key here is moderation. Give Rangers a couple of ways to support a party and a blast finisher. I am not suggestion the Ranger needs to become a Monk, but rather the Ranger be able to function with an active party role.

will de grijze jager.6594:

i still think that ranger need more aoe like the longbow only 1 skill is aoe.

I believe most people would agree with you.

It’s a glaring flaw, especially when running in a zerg in WvW. Other people have also previously mentioned how Ranger tends to be a selfish class and doesn’t really offer much to the groups they play with, which is also something that needs to be remedied.

Maybe we should all just stop posting for a bit until Allie gets done being all hands-on with the Thief issues she’s taken an interest in.

I’m sure she’ll be back soon.

Rangers do not need an overhaul, but rather little adjustment to some weapons and traps.

Before people start disagreeing, please give me a chance to explain.

In all cases, it’s how you play the profession that makes you efficient, in other words, the player makes the class great by understanding its purpose on the battlefield.

A ranger that rushes into battle like a warrior is missing the point. A ranger with a shortbow shooting from afar has it half right. A ranger that dedicates all its stats into his pet is also missing the point.

By the description of ranger given by ArenaNet,

“Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation”

a ranger is both a distance fighter, and melee fighter. Your pet helps you maintain that distance and damage upkeep. If the situation turns close quarter, then you have a variety of melee weapons to choose from.

The ranger is balanced between both range, melee, and pet. To tip the balance by boosting either of the 3 aspects morphs the profession into a warrior, a thief, a “physical” caster, or a useless beastmaster —-these are clearly not a ranger.

Tip: To become a successful ranger, you must cover all 3 aspects in your build.

The current build of the Ranger Profession has clearly defined its purpose in its traits and Utility Skills given. To name a few attributes, it clearly reveals highlights of longbow range and spirit use. It tells you that off handed weapons are good to use in close quarter by decreasing recharge, it makes traps larger for a better trigger chance, it makes the greatsword stronger, it makes your pet more useful, etc. The traits define ranger perfectly.

The weapons is where most people struggle and where I struggled to create something good out of ranger. Speaking truth, ranger’s weapons have been quite neutral for almost a year.

1. SHORTBOW: No matter how much power or condition damage you apply by runes and attribute points, the short bow does not cut it. The highest the short bow can deliver by base damage is 393 physical within an all out power setup. For condition build, the short bow’s bleed duration is terrible comparing a warriors single handed sword. The shortbow’s bleed duration is minuscule to even consider keeping a 25 stack for one full second. A warrior can deliver 25 stacks of bleed easily, but this is not the point. A single strike of bleed from a warrior lasts longer than a shortbow bleed even without a warrior’s 50% bleed duration trait.

2. Main hand Throwing Axe: The throwing axe by far excels the short bow; however, Its rate of fire makes it equal to the shortbow in a power build. The throwing axe’s bleed is excellent for a condition setup, but you will never stack bleed higher than 5 — making it useless.

3. Off hand Throwing Axe: Off hand Axe is SUPERB for power build by 1 skill " Path of scars’ reaching nearly 930 on base damage in a power setup. Whirling Defense — truth be told — this skill will get you killed every time. Weak damage for 12 strikes, and you become a stationary target for a warrior’s eviserate ( dodge to stop your skill 90% of the time). Offhand axe has no uses in condition setup which is fine.

4. LONGSWORD: a) animation problem, You can’t stop attacking with 2nd kick strike, and 3rd leap strike. You find yourself jamming the dodge key 20 times and going through 5 cycles of attacks before you get a response ( if you get a response). Excellent for power, nothing for condition, no changes needed other than the bug mentioned.

5. Although these are not weapons, TRAPS need attention.

a) Horrible condition damage, horrible base damage — applys to all traps.
b) Unblockable is fine
c) Cripple does not stop your opponenet at all and they cover ground in one leap attack. d)Chill works, but does not last long.
e)Burning does not last long.
f) The same trap cannot be applied twice.

This concludes things that need attention. The following is my opinion.

Spirits: Spirits in GW1 was a huge game changer and gave effects at a global scale ( opponents and allies). Spirits in GW 2 are very avoidable, and barely share their effects to anyone. GW1, the effects are instant and can cover a huge battlefield. GW 2 spirits now follow you to compensate the lack of coverage, and only give 30% chance if not traited to 70%. Should a ranger drop points in their condition side to put in nature magic, making their spirits more affective?

Traited Necessity of Slotted Skills
Skills in which I will or will not take regardless of whether their benefits are traited.

Full list
Shouts (4): (“Guard”), (“Protect Me”), (“Search and rescue”), (“Sic’ Em”)
Signets (4): (Signet of Renewal), (Signet of Stone), (Signet of the Wild), (Signet of the Hunt)
Spirits (6): (Frost Spirit), (Stone Spirit), (Storm Spirit), (Sun Spirit), (Water Spirit), (Spirit of Nature)
Traps (4): (Flame Trap), (Frost Trap), (Spike Trap), (Viper’s Trap)

Skills that I will bring when Traited for Maximum Benefit
Shouts (4/4): (all)
Signets (4/4): (all)
Spirits (5/6): (all but Water Spirit)
Traps (PvE 1/4) (PvP 4/4(?)): (Flame Trap) (Note: I’m not very experienced with traps, so I may or may not take as many to PvP as I’m guessing I would.)

Skills that I will bring, even if they are not traited
Shouts (3/4): (excluding “Guard”) (Though situational, I’ve taken these other shouts)
Signets (1/4): (Signet of the Hunt, passive only) (Signet of Renewal seems useful, but in my 2,000+ hours on my ranger I’ve never taken it. And no, I don’t take Empathetic Bond either.)
Spirits (1/6): (Frost Spirit is the only one. Spirit of Nature might be considered, but with it’s cooldown, far too risky to not give it the health bonus and movement, plus you likely can’t make use of the active.)
Traps (1/4): (Flame Trap, and only for its fire field)

Fully Traited, I would bring (14/18) skills in pve and (17/18) skills to pvp. Untraited, I would consider bringing (6/18) skills, 2 of which highly situational (“protect me” and “search and rescue”), 1 only for it’s passive (Signet of the Hunt), and 1 only as a biproduct (Flame Trap), leaving (2/18) to be “useable” as intended without traiting (“Sic’ Em” and Frost Spirit) – one of which requiring a healthy and DPS-focused pet to make use of. (Both severely handicapped by the Attack of Lion’s Arch or Battle for Lion’s Arch and seemingly most Living Story content and high end PvE.)

I highly recommend designers/profession balancers to take a crack at playing a ranger in the Living World updates if they aren’t already.

Edit: Oops, completely forgot about survival! The only trait we have in regards to them is just to reduce their CD. I’d bring all of them, except Sharpening Stone. I like them.

Proposal Overview – Make pet f2 based AOE skills AOE Targetable
All pet f2 AOE based skills will now allow the ranger to target the cursor location and the pet will run to the targeted location to cast the pet f2 AOE based skill.

Goal of Proposal
Currently, when an AOE based f2 pet skill is used, the pet runs up to the target and then begins casting the AOE pet skill. While these skills work, pet pathing issues, accidental cancels, targeting issues, and inflexibility make the pet skills hard to use and don’t allow fancy tricks. This proposal will alleviate some of the above issues, and allow for more interesting f2 AOE usages.

Proposal Functionality
While it makes pet f2 AOE based skills slightly harder to use, this would make them far more functional and flexible making for more interesting uses in both PVE and PVP. This proposal makes the use of the skills less static and promotes skill based combat.

One possible instance of this proposal proving useful would be where you are being chased by an enemy(s). You target your wolfs AOE F2 fear ahead of you so that by the time your wolf is done casting the skill, your enemy(s) must dodge or stunbreak the skill to continue the chase. In the current functionality, your wolf will run up to the enemy before attempting to cast the skill and the enemy(s) will simply run past him out of AOE range during his cast making it far too easy to avoid.

Another possible instance would be that you know that an enemy(s) is/are about to run around the corner but you can’t target him/them. With this proposal you can command your pet to use his AOE f2 by the corner and catch them just as they come around.

As you can see, the possibilities are massive, and this would be a great QOL change for ranger pets of this type.

Associated Risks
Low/None. This will mostly increase our options when using these types of pets. Since the pet based f2 AOE based cast times tend to be 2-3 seconds, I feel they would already be fairly balanced considering that in the current iteration they tend to be hard to use which I believe makes them underpowered. This proposal from a coding standpoint should be relatively straightforward and easily implementable within a small timeframe and requires no art or asset changes.

Please let me know if you like my idea. Thank you.

Substance E.4852:

Maugetarr.6823:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Hey all,

Sorry I haven’t had time to comment in here. I went through the past 10 or so pages and tried to grab some of the issues that have come up and address them. The balance team has been keeping up with the thread, but they haven’t had as much time lately to comment on specific ideas.

Re: “Shot down” ideas

• The only thing we are not open to is a real permastow option that would essentially take away the pet completely (ie an option that said always stow).
  • We kicked around the idea of giving the ranger an “aspect of _______” which we moved to a new thread because it is elaborate and should be a single topic in itself. The idea is that it would give the pet more utility with swapping/stowing, but it wouldn’t retire the pet completely.
    • We want to fix issues with the pet AI and general usability before we consider doing something to this extent.
• We acknowledged that Pet AI does need help, but we did not say we would not be doing this. You will see some changes in the coming feature patch that should help with the pet’s usability.

Re: Lack of participation

• I apologize that I had been absent from this thread for a few days. I had to produce Ready Up last week and a number of other things came up that took priority (including getting a virus that meant I left early for the week). Also, I don’t work on the weekends.
• Just because we’re not responding doesn’t mean we’re not reading.
  • Sometimes we just don’t get the time to respond, but we’ll try to get better about this.

Re: Fear that we will only work on pets

• Don’t stress about this. We wanted to look at the class as a whole with you. We didn’t make this thread specifically to get feedback on the pets. It just happens to be one of (if not the biggest) the top issues with Ranger right now.

I didn’t read all the responses after this, so this might have been said by someone else, but why is a permanent stow option out of the question. I understand that the ranger is the pet class option in GW2, but they were also the pet class option in GW1, but didn’t require you to take a pet. It seems self limiting to impose that restriction (or rather force that aspect) on yourself in GW2.

Probably, in no small part, because it turns the Ranger into 2 different classes entirely. That means they have to balance them differently and would probably have to do a big overhaul of traits/weapons to make up for the damage/utility lost when we opt out of the pet.

While I’d opt out if it worked well, I can see this being a major hurdle that they don’t want to tackle.

Precisely why they should just add on longbow to thief (as it already has a below-average number of weapon combinations) and let the working, modular traitlines of the single-target DPS class work its wonders on those looking for conventional archers, seeing as they’re totally unwilling to fix the ranger.

I have no beef in re-rolling another character if they’re willing to actually make single-target DPS archer a valid role.

IMHO, they should just make the pet optional a like in GW1 where we could have a excellent ranger without that useless pet.

but as long as Anet dont want to add skill / add weapons skills / lets class to have different f1 f2 f3 f4 to have real different play style, nothing will change since they look to just want to do skill / traits value tweak.

Another day without responses…. as if the Ranger community didn’t already feel alienated enough.

Lets have a goal tomorrow guys. No more pet posts until ANet comes back asking for more. We’ve gone in circles enough. Lets cover some new ground!