Guild Wars 2

Flytrap.8075:

I’m of the mind that Ranger needs a design overhaul, but I’m not sure how realistic that is at this point.

It does. As do many of the Necro traitlines, and the Engi’s turrets, et cetera.

But like the above, ANet has historically refused to engage in any real dialogue on the issue beyond, “We know it’s a problem. We’re looking into it.”

So why I ever believed a collaborative development initiative for the Ranger would turn out well, I don’t know.

This CDI has failed in every way the Devs originally sold it.

There has been next to no collaboration. Red Posts saying, “Good idea. We’ll look into it.” Or, “We’re aware of this problem. We’ll look into it.” don’t count. Collaboration by definition (and as it was billed in the original iteration of the initiative) necessitates a continuous stream of dialogue that massages a crazy vision into a practical reality. It takes both parties to accomplish a collaborative task.

So far, one party has been conspicuously absent.

There has been next to no development. Many of the ideas presented here and throughout the Ranger subform have been well-thought-out. They’d work. They’re practical. Yet because the Devs (or the Devs’ management) refuses to be flexible on their “vision” for the class, no real development can take place.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Devs cannot balance a class around a vision that cannot exist in the present iteration of the game, and neither can they balance a class in the present game around a possible future.

Finally, there has been no real initiative. Well, that’s not entirely true. The Ranger community has demonstrated an immense amount of initiative in this project, and for that they should be commended. But the initiative as it was primarily sold to us was a two-way street. So long as those who can make things happen remain absent from the conversation, it communicates a distinct lack of initiative.

Let me be clear. I appreciate the spirit of the CDI project. I greatly appreciate the input that Allie has provided thus far. But it’s not enough.

GW2 has so much potential. Let’s actualize it.

Please.

Phenn.5167:

Flytrap.8075:

I’m of the mind that Ranger needs a design overhaul, but I’m not sure how realistic that is at this point.

It does. As do many of the Necro traitlines, and the Engi’s turrets, et cetera.

But like the above, ANet has historically refused to engage in any real dialogue on the issue beyond, “We know it’s a problem. We’re looking into it.”

So why I ever believed a collaborative development initiative for the Ranger would turn out well, I don’t know.

This CDI has failed in every way the Devs originally sold it.

There has been next to no collaboration. Red Posts saying, “Good idea. We’ll look into it.” Or, “We’re aware of this problem. We’ll look into it.” don’t count. Collaboration by definition (and as it was billed in the original iteration of the initiative) necessitates a continuous stream of dialogue that massages a crazy vision into a practical reality. It takes both parties to accomplish a collaborative task.

So far, one party has been conspicuously absent.

There has been next to no development. Many of the ideas presented here and throughout the Ranger subform have been well-thought-out. They’d work. They’re practical. Yet because the Devs (or the Devs’ management) refuses to be flexible on their “vision” for the class, no real development can take place.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Devs cannot balance a class around a vision that cannot exist in the present iteration of the game, and neither can they balance a class in the present game around a possible future.

Finally, there has been no real initiative. Well, that’s not entirely true. The Ranger community has demonstrated an immense amount of initiative in this project, and for that they should be commended. But the initiative as it was primarily sold to us was a two-way street. So long as those who can make things happen remain absent from the conversation, it communicates a distinct lack of initiative.

Let me be clear. I appreciate the spirit of the CDI project. I greatly appreciate the input that Allie has provided thus far. But it’s not enough.

GW2 has so much potential. Let’s actualize it.

Please.

Slow clap.

Arghore.8340:

Why is it that when you try ‘not’ to think about a certain topic (pets in my case)

because outside of pets, ranger isnt really that off, the biggest problem with ranger is the lack of coolness people get out of their pets.
slow, unresponsive, super long cast times, lackluster controls.

I mean the other stuff is all in the frame of regular balance. The pets is the issue that makes it hard to balance the rest. you cant get much reliable anything from your pet currently, they sometimes are cool, and sometimes completely fail, which makes it hard to figure rng sustain/support or what they should/could be capable of. For example getting your pet too immobilize or fear a target could be very useful for longbow, but the cast times too long and even if you time it right some times the skill doesnt go off, or the pet interupts cast to chase.

got to fix pets, and i do acknowledge they said some of that stuff is coming, but it would be more useful for the devs to say.

Ok heres the problems we are trying to fix with pets, is there any more problems?
or
Ok if we could solve issue X and issue Y, would that make pets work that well?
or
How much AI is good for a pet, do you think they should have more active controls, or less so. If less how do you balance the perception that the pet AI is playing, and not the player?

etc.

In the Beast Mastery Trait Line “Commanding Voice” and “Speed Training” should be combined. Rampage As One is listed as a “Pet” skill and does not benefit from getting its cool down reduced from traiting “Speed Training” which is really baffling. That should be fixed as well.

All of the pet stuff in Skirmishing should be in Beast Mastery as well. People have touched on signets enough to show there is a real problem there so I won’t go into that. Axe main hands need a recharge rate reduction in their trait. Racial benefits for pets should all be moved down and the GM Beast Mastery Traits should receive an increase to their effectiveness.

Alright, idk if this will be noticed or anything, but due to my true love for the class, I guess it’s just fair to give my 2 cents about what I think is and isn’t wrong with them in general.

First of all, please ANet, I know a lot of people are suggesting it, but do not make the ‘permastow’ available. Even with the current form, I love pets and I love that they make us what we are. The pet AI could use some work in the point where it should avoid already active AOE circles instead of walking through/into them, or to get out of them if one is placed apon them with the press of a button from the player, but the general idea of these pets following you, listening to you, opening so much diverse ideas for you is what made me play this class and really stick to it in all parts of the game.

Now aside from that, rangers are a class and should stay a class that is efficent through reflexes. The effectivness with long range with the combination of ‘aerobic’ melee really makes the general gameplay of the very ranger very interesting. When it comes to traits, considering the very ranger, we’re missing a little bit of sustain, but I just can’t see us in that bad of a place. Again, I like the number of evasions available to us in melee, which makes us very agile and reflex-dependent.

Now, to the pets. The F2 should get fixed in the sense that it sometimes delays a little bit (probably because those skills have to reach the server first?). I’m not sure about the ‘pet racial’ spells, I’m not negative about us, I just don’t want them to be anything too strong. I, persionally, also like challenge, so giving us something too strong would obviously make me loose interest in the class. Again, I’m not negative about it, but if you’re considering it, just try not to make them too powerful.
On the other hand, the AI should be tweaked quite a bit. That’s the only thing that can irritate me about rangers as a class sometimes. Having the pet near you and pressing F3 to move position because it’s in an AOE, but it doesn’t because it registeres their ‘master’ near them can get frustrating.
I won’t go into what should specificly be done, I’m in no means an expert in game designing, but just throwing my 2 cents out at how it should be twaeaked in general.
If pets could register AOE while walking towards the enemy while not standing in it and either walk around the ‘red circle’, until the AOE is over instead of going through it would probably help. Ofc that’s a double edged sword, since some AOE’s aren’t that strong, but at least it may stop our pets from dying in WvW zergs so fast.
If the pet however is standing on an AOE, could we get a button that would make the pet aware of the AOE thrown at them?
I would also like the idea of pets giving our rangers some ‘message’ about being ‘almost dead’. I don’t mean like speak or anything, but maybe when, for instance, the wolf is at about 25% HP it could leave a sound or some other indicator that aknowledges the player that he should retrieve/swap the pet. It’s not something that just HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED, but it’s those little ‘helping’ things that would make the players experience a lot smoother in my opinion.
I agree that sometimes 1 skill per pet seams a little weak, but, again, I’m very neutral about adding another one.

Again, I love your guys/galls work. I love the rangers. I think it would just be fair of me to throw my 2 cents out there. Whatever you do is fine by me in general. The only thing that I think would be ‘classbreaking’ for me is if you made the pets permastow-able.

Good luck!

Forzani.2584:

Why do people get so uptight because Allie isn’t posting here lately? She is a freaking PR person. She won’t be deciding anything when it comes to any class. It’s like phoning your cable or wireless company with complaints. The person on the other end of the line will let you rant….give you a few “I understands” and promise to look into it. Their entire job is to diffuse the situation and let you blow off a little steam.

Placate – make (someone) less angry or hostile. pacify, calm, appease, mollify, soothe, win over, conciliate, propitiate, make peace with, humor

“Their entire job is to diffuse the situation and let you blow off a little steam.”
Then let her do it here?
What you wrote is just like what people would expect to happen in this thread, with the little addition of “giving directions”, would it only be in the way of “I feel this is something that would help the class” or “I feel this idea has some merits, but needs elaborations”.
The PR cable guy in your example would also make you do some things at your end, not just listen, stating, “i am listening”…
Even if some people want Anet’s direction, all I ask is for someone to give a direction to the thread… not "Anet’s view is’, but “my view is”.

last post that’s been flamed was the one about sustained skirmisher… PR would have come saying “As a person, I agree that it’s awkward given the current direction of the game, maybe we can move on and try to give a new definition of the ranger? how would you like to see it’s definition evolve from this point, while keeping it unique?”

This does not engage Anet, yet it gives players the impression someone is caring… Which is exactly what I expect from a PR person…

I understand she’s been sick pretty much at that point, but either Anet should have temporarily appointed an other PR while she’s away, or she might have dropped a little note stating “I will be away for a few days for personal reasons – will catch up as soon as I get back – devs will keep reading the posts, though they might not answer, so keep it constructive!”.

When I was moderator in a forum, though not as big/complex, as this one, any time I saw a “noone cares” post, I’d step in with a little “I do, I read though I don’t comment, now get back on topic” kind of comment, which works wonder to diffuse situations.

TL;DR
I don’t expect Allie to tell us where rangers would go, but I expect her to animate the discussion…

MasterKitty.8205:

First of all, please ANet, I know a lot of people are suggesting it, but do not make the ‘permastow’ available.

They need to make them optional. Just because you like being handicapped doesn’t mean we all do…

MasterKitty.8205:

The only thing that I think would be ‘classbreaking’ for me is if you made the pets permastow-able.

They need to make them optional, meaning perma-stow-able. Just because you like being handicapped doesn’t mean we all do…

@phys, that might well be the case, though I also think it has to do with ‘not thinking about pink elephants’, try it … first thing you think about is a pink elephant

Further I do not agree that the pet is the sole problem for the ranger, it may be the most obvious one as pets are this tagged on not to be avoided AI entity. As Flytrap rightfully put it:
We’ve talked the pet to death. We’ve talked about clunky weapon sets and how a lot of our skills (both weapon and utility) lack impact or “uumph”. We’ve talked about how Ranger is typically a selfish class and doesn’t really provide that much to his or her team. We’ve talked about awkward/terrible (both really) trait lines. We’ve talked about ANet’s vision of the Ranger and the whole sustained damage debacle. We’ve talked about how Ranger suffers in all aspects of WvW aside from roaming.
And to that he didn’t add, the Dungeon reputation for rangers. How a lot of skills are only ever useful if fully traited, and some traits to be ‘obligatory’ to deal with certain problems. One of which is the trouble the Ranger has dealing with the Condition Meta, which then brings me to the not yet mentioned ‘there is no power build’ for the ranger.

So yes, the pet is a large part of it, but the pet trouble is part of a bigger issues, which is ‘reliability’. As that is the trouble with pets, and with spirits as well. It also applies somewhat to traps, for as far as doing ‘reliable damage’ in various builds. And obviously ‘reliability’ also applies to Misses with the bows at range… This I think is one of the bigger ‘frustrations’ for Rangers, and I said it before in my posts, but no-one seems to have picked up on it specifically. Yet if you see a lot of the proposals and also the issues they try to solve. A large part of them DO concern ‘reliability’ while not directly being mentioned … and ‘viable’ (as in ‘builds’) is by all means, just another word for saying ‘reliable’ …

But I digress… I was merely pointing out that I wanted to come up with suggestions to cover Multiplayer (Dungeons, WvW, LS) solutions for ranger troubles, and try to do it so that it has the least impact on sPvP balance (and divert focus away from the pet). The first reasonable suggestion that comes to mind, is a pet suggestion :P

Jocksy.3415:

Forzani.2584:

Why do people get so uptight because Allie isn’t posting here lately? She is a freaking PR person. She won’t be deciding anything when it comes to any class. It’s like phoning your cable or wireless company with complaints. The person on the other end of the line will let you rant….give you a few “I understands” and promise to look into it. Their entire job is to diffuse the situation and let you blow off a little steam.

Placate – make (someone) less angry or hostile. pacify, calm, appease, mollify, soothe, win over, conciliate, propitiate, make peace with, humor

“Their entire job is to diffuse the situation and let you blow off a little steam.”
Then let her do it here?
What you wrote is just like what people would expect to happen in this thread, with the little addition of “giving directions”, would it only be in the way of “I feel this is something that would help the class” or “I feel this idea has some merits, but needs elaborations”.
The PR cable guy in your example would also make you do some things at your end, not just listen, stating, “i am listening”…
Even if some people want Anet’s direction, all I ask is for someone to give a direction to the thread… not "Anet’s view is’, but “my view is”.

last post that’s been flamed was the one about sustained skirmisher… PR would have come saying “As a person, I agree that it’s awkward given the current direction of the game, maybe we can move on and try to give a new definition of the ranger? how would you like to see it’s definition evolve from this point, while keeping it unique?”

This does not engage Anet, yet it gives players the impression someone is caring… Which is exactly what I expect from a PR person…

I understand she’s been sick pretty much at that point, but either Anet should have temporarily appointed an other PR while she’s away, or she might have dropped a little note stating “I will be away for a few days for personal reasons – will catch up as soon as I get back – devs will keep reading the posts, though they might not answer, so keep it constructive!”.

When I was moderator in a forum, though not as big/complex, as this one, any time I saw a “noone cares” post, I’d step in with a little “I do, I read though I don’t comment, now get back on topic” kind of comment, which works wonder to diffuse situations.

TL;DR
I don’t expect Allie to tell us where rangers would go, but I expect her to animate the discussion…

That’s my entire point. If she did post more yes, it would placate some people ..but it is meaningless….since she is just a PR person. She will agree that some suggestions make sense …..even though she doesn’t really know the issues …then people will latch on to what she says and run with it …see the pet issue where she said people have a good point about maybe stowing the pet. That caused a kittenstorm until retracted.

You think that was helpful?

Edit: and the cable guy call was after paying a bill or changing the account and you vent about the recent price increase for cable. He can’t do a thing about it but he agrees with what you said….pretty much the same way Allie does

Forzani.2584:

Jocksy.3415:

Forzani.2584:

Why do people get so uptight because Allie isn’t posting here lately? She is a freaking PR person. She won’t be deciding anything when it comes to any class. It’s like phoning your cable or wireless company with complaints. The person on the other end of the line will let you rant….give you a few “I understands” and promise to look into it. Their entire job is to diffuse the situation and let you blow off a little steam.

Placate – make (someone) less angry or hostile. pacify, calm, appease, mollify, soothe, win over, conciliate, propitiate, make peace with, humor

“Their entire job is to diffuse the situation and let you blow off a little steam.”
Then let her do it here?
What you wrote is just like what people would expect to happen in this thread, with the little addition of “giving directions”, would it only be in the way of “I feel this is something that would help the class” or “I feel this idea has some merits, but needs elaborations”.
The PR cable guy in your example would also make you do some things at your end, not just listen, stating, “i am listening”…
Even if some people want Anet’s direction, all I ask is for someone to give a direction to the thread… not "Anet’s view is’, but “my view is”.

last post that’s been flamed was the one about sustained skirmisher… PR would have come saying “As a person, I agree that it’s awkward given the current direction of the game, maybe we can move on and try to give a new definition of the ranger? how would you like to see it’s definition evolve from this point, while keeping it unique?”

This does not engage Anet, yet it gives players the impression someone is caring… Which is exactly what I expect from a PR person…

I understand she’s been sick pretty much at that point, but either Anet should have temporarily appointed an other PR while she’s away, or she might have dropped a little note stating “I will be away for a few days for personal reasons – will catch up as soon as I get back – devs will keep reading the posts, though they might not answer, so keep it constructive!”.

When I was moderator in a forum, though not as big/complex, as this one, any time I saw a “noone cares” post, I’d step in with a little “I do, I read though I don’t comment, now get back on topic” kind of comment, which works wonder to diffuse situations.

TL;DR
I don’t expect Allie to tell us where rangers would go, but I expect her to animate the discussion…

That’s my entire point. If she did post more yes, it would placate some people ..but it is meaningless….since she is just a PR person. She will agree that some suggestions make sense …..even though she doesn’t really know the issues …then people will latch on to what she says and run with it …see the pet issue where she said people have a good point about maybe stowing the pet. That caused a kittenstorm until retracted.

You think that was helpful?

She’s not jut a PR person. She’s the point of contact between the players and the developers. Her lack of input and direction in this thread is indicative of the developers lack of interest and care for the class as a whole.

While we wait for response, we could give a short summary about our suggestions, so we can pick the ones we like the most.

Something like this:

So my first suggestions deals with the weapons. Link
I tried to keep the current playstyle of each weapon but also increasing their effectiveness. All suggestions I’ve made should outline the direction I want the weapons to be changed*.
* Exept the sword suggestions, I really like those. Detailed Suggestion

My next suggestion deals with the shouts. Link
The current shouts are pretty weak compared to the shouts of other classes.
I’ve suggested reworks to Guard and Protect, Buffs to Sic ’Em and Search and Rescue and turning HaO and RaO into shouts.

Furthermore I’ve shared some opinions about the spirits. Link
The current spirits are weaker warrior banners and I would want to evolve them to a more ranger-centric utility.

Later on, I’ve suggested a maverick change to the pet AI. Link
I don’t know if this suggestion would turn out healthy but it would indeed be a cool addition to the game.

Last but not least, I’ve depicted the general direction I want the ranger to be involved.
Link
Therein I claim that the pet has to be additional and not mandatory.

I would be happy to see your summary of suggestions you’ve made or liked the most.

Proposal Overview
Change the pet system and interface to better adapt to the action oriented game while mantaining the current framework.

Goal of the Proposal
Redesign the functionality of the F-keys and add some effect to basic mechanics.

Proposal Functionality
1) The first thing will still be a better pet responsiveness and autoattack capability, no amount of changes can offset this.

2) Change Active/passive to Automatic/Manual control of the pet

3) On manual F1 will toggle attack/return, the pet will not attack a target if not commanded to.
F2 will activate pet’s unique skill
F3 the pet gain Evade and Super Speed for 1 second. Skill’s cd is 10 second and is shared between pets.
F4 Switch pet, both pets activate a family skill (different for caming in and out), we already doing it for the canine’s knockdown, just make it more reliable.
the exiting effect is triggered only if the pet is alive. (ex. Bear buff 1 sec of stability to the ranger on exiting and 3 sec of protection on entering).
Entering pet also gets 1 second of Evade.

4) On Automatic pet will attack the ranger’s target and use F3 75% of the times if it would be hit by a big attack (still 10 sec internal CD)

This will add a lot on pet’s utility and survial.

Associated Risks
A lot of new skills will be added (F4 in and out) and on manual some more micro will be needed for the pet.

A bit of a summary…

I suggested the idea of allowing a player to switch “into” their pet, directly controlling its movement and abilities using the 1-5 keys (like other transformations) and leaving the ranger character as a “turret” for the duration.

I loved the “aspect” idea…allowing the ranger to semi-permanently or permanently stow their pet, and gain a family-specific bonus or effects.

I also really liked the “swarm” suggestion…a new family of pets that stuck around the ranger (avoiding all the pathing issues of other pets) that offered passive effects as well as an active ability to go attack a target.

I think there have been many fantastic suggestions for reworking / improving ranger weapons, traits, and skills. ArenaNet could pick almost any of them and run with it.

kokiman.2364:

Why not add a small aoe explosion to the auto attack?
Also: I really like your Rapid Fire suggestion.

Because that is something I don’t think the engine can do, though it does remind me of a Preparation from GW1 . . . one which was really annoying to use due to enemy behavior forcing them to scatter on AOE damage.

Xukavi.4320:

I honestly haven’t posted here yet but I wanted to point some things out:

1- What you’re asking for is basically exactly how the LB works right now but with increased damage unless I’m understanding something wrong.

Yup, because I like how the longbow actually works. I think it needs tweaks but not a complete change.

2- All RF really needs is to have a shorter channel time so that it actually does more damage. I’d honestly rather have it do more damage with the same channel time as I see the Longbow as a long range pressuring and control weapon and not the long range snipe the kitten out of you weapon (though I wish it was).

The Ranger has the longest range when traited for it, so it really kind of should be the “snipe the crap out of you” weapon. It’s what Keiran did with it too when we had a “taste” of it back in Guild Wars Beyond.

3- I’d say increase the stealth duration a bit and make it on cast and not on hit.

Eh, that feels like ‘toh-mato, tah-mahto’ in getting to the same result I was looking for. It needs to have a bit more usefulness if it’s supposed to be our way of getting Stealth.

4- No. Just. No. That suggestion just goes completely against the concept of Stability which in other case would mean you’re breaking the game by giving a skill that would render stability useless

Point. But worth discussing something to do with the skill, because I don’t think it interrupts if it hits a Stability-carrying target.

5- The main problem with Barrage is how long it takes to channel it. Lower the channel time and increase the cripple time and it should be good imo.

I don’t have trouble with the Barrage channel since you can break it by dodging and it will still go off for a little longer. It’s actually something of a tactic I’ve had to use in WvW when Retaliation was a killer – if I see Retaliation damage, roll to interrupt. If I see enemies turn my way? Roll to run.

Iason Evan.3806:

No offense against you. I have seen it implemented in several games and it is an inferior method. I am not saying that this thread is working, but the other CDI’s will yield results.

No, I’m not the one advocating player councils or whatever. I’m the one going “please don’t let people who play at a higher level than most casual folk be the ones to tell the casual folk how they have to play the class”.

Because despite the amount of time I invest in this game . . . which is actually more some infrequent serious bursts of time . . . I am a casual player in that I don’t go deconstructing the damage curve or measuring other classes’ efficiency. All I really know is how the ranger has worked thus far and what I don’t really like about how to play one, and what I do like about the class.

And a lot of options want to transform rangers into something I wouldn’t have fun playing anymore. Like a “Warrior-lite”. If I wanted a warrior, I’d be playing my warrior more.

Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Increase utility/reliability of certain pet families by tweaking Forage and Harmonic Cry skills.

Goal of Proposal
1. Foraged objects need to be more reliable. They can fail to appear, someone else can grab, enemy can use, and you may not be able to find it in a zerg.

2. The Moa’s Harmonic Cry skill is a decent heal, but the aoe range is rather limited especially when our fighting style is so movement based. Increasing it would make the skill much more useful in large fights.

Proposal Functionality
Foraging would…

• Work more consistently when the pet is moving.
• Create an object that enemies could not pick up and use.
• Not summon eggs that grant initiative we can’t use.

Foraging might summon an object…

• In our hand (but we might auto-attack with it before we realize we have it).
• At our feet (but due to delay with f2 we might run past it).
• On the pet’s F2 skill, so that we could use it whenever we wanted (but no one could see it wielded and wielding a bone or skull is cool.)
• Any of these could be preferable to summoning an item far away that we can’t find.

If only one object appears, it would be nice if we could retain the ability to give it to allies.

Harmonic Cry: Area of Effect Circle increased to 480 or 600.

Associated Risks
When a pig forages an item now, it is obvious what happened. If a distant pet forages and an object magically appears at the ranger, it could be confusing. Moas become reliable group support, you might be asked to use a moa.

With PvX (General) changes. I like them all. Might actually use spirits more in PVE/Dungeons. I really like the idea of having condi removal on TU because pretty much the only way I get it right now is through a signet or HS.

With Beastmastery & Pets… 1, 2, and 3 are moving in the right direction, IMO. Especially the damage reduction to pets from AOE. 4… 4… Four… Make that happen so I can perma-stow for buff and… I don’t know… Words would be unable to describe the joys I would be feeling… #5… I don’t use the BM line so do whatever you want there.

In Weapons I like the direction it is moving but #2 on the sword is perfect as is. As long as I still have my leap and all that good stuff on sword main hand AA… then, fine. Rest of them look good.

Yes to Skirmishing and Wilderness.

PVE
Beastmastery & Pets… Yeah. They do die easily. I’ll not use #2 or #3 traits. 3s stability isn’t enough in PVE. I’ll still be using RoA for stability if that makes it in.

Shouts… They should be instacast just like on my Guard and Warrior. Insane that they are not already.

I’d give Keen Edge a try, but I doubt I’ll take it much… Spotter as a straight damage increase is much more valuable than what you have posted up there. Putting RNG into it… No. I’d try out Hunters Tactics but won’t use Beastmaster’s Might. EE should include shortbow for range increase as well… Still won’t use Remorseless.

Still not going to spec into NM… Seems like those would be really handy for WvW though.

I like a 85% of what you got up there, Allie. I like it from a PVE/Dungeon prespective.

Question: if we are going to keep the same F1-F4 controls, is there any possible way to get an F5 keybind for active/passive? Thinking on it further, why not a keybind for stow/unstow?

I guess with that being said which direction do we need to head with this CDI, Allie?

Just some ideas, PvX

Pets should be part of the ranger, and the ranger apart of the pet. Perhaps shared damage, as well as shared buffs?

Something along the lines of "Ranger take 25%-30% of all pet damage, Pet’s take 25-30% of the ranger damage with shared tankiness from the ranger’s stats. However both recicves the same condition stacks from the other, and any boon on the ranger or pet is also shared in kind. Along with this give activate-able class mechanic skills, and further control of the pet. (tho have ranger pets break aggro on steath.) While having the stats of the ranger determine the abilities/damage/bonus stats of the pet.

This will make the class mechanic more defined and ahve the pet be part of the ranger, and less like a tanky sidekick who’s a mild annoyance in PvE, and a unstopable target tracker in PvP

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

And apparently the forum doesn’t help you recognize when an idea comes from only one person but gets 200 up votes .

There are obvious fixes and there are clever ones. Counting the number of echoes only helps you identify the former…

Nike.2631:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

And apparently the forum doesn’t help you recognize when an idea comes from only one person but gets 200 up votes .

There are obvious fixes and there are clever ones. Counting the number of echoes only helps you identify the former…

Since noone would see my upvote, +1 to this…

Also, Sword #2 shouldn’t be reverted, both jumps should be going forward.
Sword #1: Even if we’re able to dodge while jumping, we still couldn’t move while doing so. This does hurt the flow of attacks. You can’t attack anything without targeting it because you would just launch past your enemy everytime.
Just remove the jumps on AA chain and rework Sword #2 to 2-3 jumps forward.
“Eagle Eye” should also apply to the shortbow giving him 1200 range and +5% damage.
“Piercing Arrows” should also increase the chance of physical projectile combo finisher to 40% (or higher).
Furthermore, I’m not in favor of you changing nothing at the damagespread (Ranger 70%, Pet 30%), but yeah, you could’ve guessed that anyways.

Still concerned you’re not taking the feedback of burst/ae shortcomings seriously.

There’s also nothing really mentioned about how the weapons lack both internal synergy (combo skills together) and mechanics to make the gameplay more fun and engaging for the Ranger. There’s just too much emphasis on auto attack.

We really need to go back and talk about the sustained damage model too. You kind of dropped that on us and left for a week. While I understand you don’t want thief levels of burst on this class, we still need some way to actually apply pressure on a target/group to ensure the class has something to offer. Sustained damage just doesn’t work as we’ve seen over the past 1.5 years.

And lastly… WvW… what’s ANet’s opinion on why everyone feels this class is awful and what topics should we discuss to ensure that after this CDI thread perhaps Rangers could be taken more seriously.

Allie Murdock.8152:

1. Winter’s Bite – Throw an axe that removes a two boons. Your pet’s next attack inflicts Chilled. [Chilled] 3.25s (Increase the base damage by a bit)

please: the attack modifier granted to the pet must be consumed on the pets next attack. one of the biggest complaints in pvp currently is that procs have no counterplay because theyre just applied on the next attack that connects. please make sure this modifier works like [Incendiary Ammo] and not Incendiary Powder or Dhuumfire.

Apart from synergy with pet, the bows also need damage badly.
It’s been an issue for a long time that you can’t viably play ranged in any game mode as a ranger (lack of AoE in wvw, lack of ability to keep distance in pvp and lack of damage/utility in pve).

I’d love to see the damage get scaled in a way so you can pick up a bow in any game mode without being scolded or ridiculed for it.
I imagine I can’t be the only one who started a ranger with a hate for melee fighting and wanting to play ranged. I’ll go in melee in dungeons and such, but always wishing I had another viable option.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

Thanks for the summary post Allie.

Do you have any input as to what the devs would like to see discussed more or what direction they plan on taking the Ranger?

Allie, i’m so happy. Even if half the things you listed make it into the next balance patch, I will accept it. I really like the damage reduction on pet and active signet effects apply on ranger by default. These two changes alone would be EPIC WIN.

Thank you for the summary post, however, I did not see anything in there pertaining to WvWvW. We still have the problem of them dieing way to fast in zerg vs zerg. And we also have the large issue of us loosing 30% of our damage when defending or taking a keep/fort because pet’s will not scale up or down the walls. This includes the birds which will not fly up or down the wall to attack the targets. The only way I can see to combat this would be to have pets like all over class mechanics, an addition to our damage, not taking away from our damage. For instance, warriors get to do 100% of their damage and if they have full adrenaline they do an extra 15% damage. Ranger should be set up the same way with pets. Ranger’s should have 100% control of their damage and the pet, while alive, should be able to deal an extra 15% damage. If the pet is dead then it deals no extra damage like warriors with no adrenaline will deal no extra damage. We will still have the problem of the pets not being able to hit a moving target but at least the ranger will no longer have this handicap on them.

I’m surprised great sword isn’t on the weapons list. The auto attack is extremely weak, even for a defensive weapon. The coefficients should be equal to the coefficients on the spear’s attack chain.

gawker.8340:

Allie, i’m so happy. Even if half the things you listed make it into the next balance patch, I will accept it. I really like the damage reduction on pet and active signet effects apply on ranger by default. These two changes alone would be EPIC WIN.

Gawker, Allie was making a summary of the proposals people wrote here, not a promise to implement them.

Hiya Allie,

Tnx for making this summary.I would like to make some additions and give some feedback:

PvX
General
1B. As an alternative i have seen various suggestions to make spirits non targettable
entities instead.

3. Ranger heals could resurrect the pet. (has a whole suggestion behind it, that could also improve pets from NPC beastmasters.)

Beastmastery & Pets
2.2. Pets could get a dodge mechanic, to avoid AoE or one-shots.

4.1 “on the pet family and/OR specific pet” (OR makes it a lot less work)
4.2 There could be pets (insect swarms) that are not so much a liability.

5.1.1 Signets passives should affect Ranger & Pet, Signets actives offer a way to supply
reliable teamsupport, and thus by design offer an interesting choice between activating signets (for allies) or keeping them on passive.

5.2.2 Traits currently focussed on pet families, might be better turned into general
pet effecting traits.

Weapons
Warhorn
4.1 I do not know about others, but i do know that I suggested a skill like that in a scenario where there would be choice skills on the #4 warhorn, and it would be a choice after the current 4 & 5 skills were swapped. Giving a choice between a defensive and an offensive ‘call’. I would NOT appreciate it if my birds were to be removed from the warhorn. And i doubt a lot of Rangers that use the warhorn would either. In my views it would hurt the ‘nature’ theme, and p-off beastmaster enclined players, and reduce instead of increase the likelyness of warhorn use.
Adding stability instead of regen & vigor might skew that back in warhorn favor, but it could still p-off beastmasters and hurt the nature theme…

Axe
6.1 addition, to accomplish this within balance it could be possible to ‘reduce’ the damage on the #5 skill axe skill, it feels as though the Dual Axe setup has been balanced as a ‘two handed weapon’, where a lot of damage moved to the #5 skill, which left the rest fairly bland.

Skirmishing
1. !!! Just as many, if not more, argued quite convincingly against this !
3. Improve traps by having all do some damage.

PvE
Beastmastery & Pets:
1. see PvX 2.2 suggestion above.

General
1. Rangers need more reliable group utility

Nature Magic
0.Rangers could do with more nature magic skills like ‘muddy terrain’, also see PvX:General 1B above.

PvP
General
Axe
1.2 I personally have no need for swiftness on my splitblade.
1.3 I like the Weapons:6-Axe:2 solution for wintersbite better. But I personally wouldn’t shed a tear if all (but the torch) elementally inclined skills on the ranger would be replaced with more nature themed skills.

Akisame.9508:

Thank you for the summary post, however, I did not see anything in there pertaining to WvWvW. We still have the problem of them dieing way to fast in zerg vs zerg. And we also have the large issue of us loosing 30% of our damage when defending or taking a keep/fort because pet’s will not scale up or down the walls. This includes the birds which will not fly up or down the wall to attack the targets. The only way I can see to combat this would be to have pets like all over class mechanics, an addition to our damage, not taking away from our damage. For instance, warriors get to do 100% of their damage and if they have full adrenaline they do an extra 15% damage. Ranger should be set up the same way with pets. Ranger’s should have 100% control of their damage and the pet, while alive, should be able to deal an extra 15% damage. If the pet is dead then it deals no extra damage like warriors with no adrenaline will deal no extra damage. We will still have the problem of the pets not being able to hit a moving target but at least the ranger will no longer have this handicap on them.

+1 #15characters

Daishi.6027:

Just some ideas, PvX

Pets should be part of the ranger, and the ranger apart of the pet. Perhaps shared damage, as well as shared buffs?

Something along the lines of "Ranger take 25%-30% of all pet damage, Pet’s take 25-30% of the ranger damage with shared tankiness from the ranger’s stats. However both recicves the same condition stacks from the other, and any boon on the ranger or pet is also shared in kind. Along with this give activate-able class mechanic skills, and further control of the pet. (tho have ranger pets break aggro on steath.) While having the stats of the ranger determine the abilities/damage/bonus stats of the pet.

This will make the class mechanic more defined and ahve the pet be part of the ranger, and less like a tanky sidekick who’s a mild annoyance in PvE, and a unstopable target tracker in PvP

Sorry, I don’t want to offend you, but this is the worst suggestion I’ve read so far. Not only we get punished for having a pet (losing damage) but also beeing punished if our pet gets hit? I would immediately uninstall GW2.

@Allie, well it’s not to bad for more ideas put forward in the thread being displayed on this page ⁴² it could be the answer to any ‘what is the ultimate QoL, the Ranger in the Tyrian universe and everything, taken from this this thread?’-questions … having us add the ones you couldn’t fit on there takes some work out of your hands, it’s a collaborative initiative by all means …

What would really help us as a community, is some answers from the Devs. they were posed by someone (else then me) ‘maybe 20 pages back’, but I think they still apply and would help us a lot (from memory so please don’t quote me where I missed something) :
- Where do you see the Ranger in regards to Dungeons?
- Where do you see the Ranger in regards to WvW?
- Where do you see the Ranger in regards to LS? (for as far as it is zerg content)
- Basically, where do you see the Ranger in any content that has a lot of Allies around, what should the Ranger bring in these formats, what should be it’s role…

Answers to these could help us a lot.

Thanks for the update Allie; it’s really nice to be able to see what in this thread has caught your eye specifically and what you guys are talking about behind the scenes. Most of the things in that list seem like really nice ideas, and I’d love to see them in-game sometime in the near future.

pls dont forget the problems
with longsword and longbow…
in my mind this weapons need SKILLCHANGES and a redisign how they work…
i dont see much here what will help a dps ranger build with longsword or longbow

also dont forget to rework the shouts… they are just a joke atm

Longbow
Most important thing here, Arrows fail to hit too many times. It’s really hard to hit a moving target at high range. Solution: Make arrows fly significantly faster.

LB#1
Equate the -500 range with the 500-1000 range damage.
Add a new functionality when ranger is in stealth (like the thief #1 skills): 2s immobilize. Ranger has no benefit to be in stealth in most situations, making LB#3 useless. Also, ranger has only one stealth skill, I think add more stealth skills can be interesting.

LB#3
Increase damage, it’s really weak. Consider increase stealth duration (it’s too short when you use it trying to survive).

LB#5
This skill needs a major buff. It’s the only real AoE ranger has. It’s a really easy skill to evade and make ranger extremely vulnerable when casting due the autoroot.
-Make possible move while casting (if not possible give ranger aegis or protection while casting). Increase damage (it’s very low having in consideration how easy is to evade and the long cast) and decrease cooldown from 30s to 25s.

Traits
Bow traits require a strong point investment. These high point requirements leave very little room for trait in defensive lines, making longbow rangers (and all power based rangers) too fragile with no real compensation in damage or survival strategies. That’s why bunker rangers are the only viable option in sPvP. Also the bow traits are in the same line with signet traits making really difficult to make reliable power based builds.

- Opening strikes line is extremely weak. Only the first hit in the whole battle duration has benefit of these traits, just ridiculous.
Merge Opening Strike with Alpha Training. Move Precise Strike to minor master and move Remorseless to minor grandmaster.

- Merge Piercing Arrows with Quick Draw, on the same place where Quick Draw is. Warriors have exactly this same trait on rifle. We really need this.

- Move Spotter to Skirmishing major adept. It has no sense have this trait in the same line with bow and signet traits, we have no room to equip it. It grants precision, so has a lot more sense to have it on skirmishing (the precision and critical damage line). This is a great trait to help party, where the ranger is too weak, so have an easy access to this trait will make rangers much more reliable in groups.

Healing skills

Heal as one:
Decrease cast time from 1.25s to 1s.
Remove one condition. Having in consideration the poor capacity we have to remove conditions this will be a good improvement.

Heal as one:

Rally a downed pet back to life with xx% health.

Specific Game Mode
All

Proposal Overview
Increase and ease of pet status visibility via a toggle-able pet UI.

Proposal Functionality

• Similar to pets and heroes of GW1, allow for a toggle-able UI to pop up (and preferably allow for it to be moved to where we desire on the screen) if we want.
• This UI would show the pets current health, skill bar, conditions & boons and skill cooldowns. These cooldowns should also be affected by the “show cooldown timer” option that affects player skills. Note: Pet F2 skills are not currently affected by checking this option. Please fix.

Associated Risks
None. This would allow rangers to have complete visibility over their pets without the need to target them. And, even then, would provide a better status update than targeting them does now.

Warhorn
#4: Too long cast. Reduce cast time from 1.5 to 1s. Add a new function: the last (or the first) hit blinds target. Consider add a buff to the party when cast or remove a condition.

#5: The best and nearly only reliable skill rangers has to help party.
Reduce cooldown from 35s to 30s.
Add a new buff: aegis. This will be a great way to make rangers welcome in groups.
Also consider increase the power buff to 3 or 5.

Sword
#1: Remove the autoroot. It makes this weapon unusable in most situations.

Greatsword
#1: Consider a little damage increase.

#2: It’s too slow. Decrease cast time from 3/4 to 1/2.

#5: Increase hit radius. Fails to hit too many times.

Axe
#1: Increase the number of targets to 5. We have very little AoE skills.

#5: Consider increase effect radius, damage or decrease cooldown.

Torch
#5: Too small radius and poor damage. Increase it, at least in PvE and WvW.

Bandido.8719:

Longbow
Most important thing here, Arrows fail to hit too many times. It’s really hard to hit a moving target at high range. Solution: Make arrows fly significantly faster.

LB#1
Equate the -500 range with the 500-1000 range damage.
Add a new functionality when ranger is in stealth (like the thief #1 skills): 2s immobilize. Ranger has no benefit to be in stealth in most situations, making LB#3 useless. Also, ranger has only one stealth skill, I think add more stealth skills can be interesting.

LB#3
Increase damage, it’s really weak. Consider increase stealth duration (it’s too short when you use it trying to survive).

LB#5
This skill needs a major buff. It’s the only real AoE ranger has. It’s a really easy skill to evade and make ranger extremely vulnerable when casting due the autoroot.
-Make possible move while casting (if not possible give ranger aegis or protection while casting). Increase damage (it’s very low having in consideration how easy is to evade and the long cast) and decrease cooldown from 30s to 25s.

LB#5 is just awful and doesn’t fit on the weapon. Due to the way it deals damage, it removes the ability to use hunter’s shot effectively. It’s damage is pathetically low to the point 50-75% of it is reflected back due to retaliation. The 2 second root is counter productive to the entire design of the class and there’s simply not a large enough reward for the risk.

If it’s to stay on the weapon (which I wish it wouldn’t), it should either immobilize for 2 seconds on the first salvo to offset the fact you’re rooted, or you need to change it so you can move while channeling as you mentioned.

But you’re still left with it being too weak and counter productive.

Allie,

Thanks for the summary, everyone can breathe a bit easier now that we kind of get a sense of direction

I have to ask though, and I think the entire ranger armada wants the answer to this as well

What is the devs stance on the current 70:30 DPS split with ranger and pet???

I’m sure you know the communities stance on it lol….but if this DPS split is not up for change…than I don’t think any amount of change (in terms of slot skills/traits) will please the community.

This has got to be one of the most important discussions because right now and even by the looks of it, in the future, rangers DPS is absolutely lagging behind every other profession

Allie Murdock.8152:

1. Remove spirits. They clutter up the map and provide less strategic value with target changes.
   1. Instead, apply an aura to the pet that does the same thing spirits currently do.
      1. Obviously, this would be a huge rework and would require changes to spirit traits.

This point only applies to PvP in my opinion. I personally love to run around with my own little “army”. If they just would be more usefull in PvE…
Alos, the idea of giving the pet the buffs to share them is immature. What if your pet dies, get switched or runs out of your range?

Allie Murdock.8152:

1. General QoL changes.
   1. When the pet is stowed, the Ranger should gain “aspect of the <pet name>” effect which provides unique buffs based on the pet family and specific pet.

Please don’t do this. When I make my build and play the game, I want to select a pet and work alongside it to succeed. I don’t want to select a static buff that’s just going to sit there.

And no, it will not be “optional”. I foresee a future where rangers who use pets instead of the Aspect Of the _ will get auto-kicked from most elitist parties.

Serbaayuu.3051:

Allie Murdock.8152:

1. General QoL changes.
   1. When the pet is stowed, the Ranger should gain “aspect of the <pet name>” effect which provides unique buffs based on the pet family and specific pet.

Please don’t do this. When I make my build and play the game, I want to select a pet and work alongside it to succeed. I don’t want to select a static buff that’s just going to sit there.

And no, it will not be “optional”. I foresee a future where rangers who use pets instead of the Aspect Of the _ will get auto-kicked from most elitist parties.

Despite this isn’t the perfect way to go in my opinion too, there are some things to keep in mind.

1. If this aspect will be better or worse than the pet depends on the balancing
2. We get kicked out of elitist parties anyways