Guild Wars 2

• Melee builds do more damage for every profession with no exception I can think of
• Stacking in melee allows for convenient boon stacking in a small area to put AoEs
• Melee just seems to do more damage, in general.
• Ranged weapon sets tend to have lower mobility and thus can’t effectively kite in PvP against superior mobility melee sets

I get that staff AoEs and so on have certain roles they’re effective in for support in WvW, and there’s some place for using a ranged weapon for backup/versatility, but otherwise I feel like there aren’t many competitive ranged playstyles in the game using them as primary weapons.

Melee builds have done more damage than ranged since Day 1. That is working entirely as intended.

Don’t know what else to tell ya, buddy.

Putting yourself in melee range increases your risk, so you get more effective in exchange.

it’s actually funny though.. when this just started a year ago … ppl complaint about wvw = range classes only lool

now you don’t really face any long range anymore except some mid range.

its true, its true. it is how it is for a reason… but i agree that range sucks in this game

Melee doing more damage than ranged is rooted primarily in PvP. In any game’s PvP, melee has to close and keep close to its target while ranged can plink away. This is even more of an issue in GW2 where a PvP target is not rooted when using most skills, and can thus move constantly except when CC’d. Melee has to do more damage because it has less up-time than ranged.

This is much less of an issue in PvE because a lot of mobs don’t move much. While melee still needs to close, melee up-time is much higher in PvE than in PvP. However, having separate damage formulae for Pve and PvP would doubtless be a pain in the neck, starting with deciding which formula would apply in WvW.

I think this is only a temporary thing. ANET is will aware of it, and I think in future enemy mobs will have more things to prevent stacking and and punish people who get too close. As for PVP and WVW, range works how it should. Good as an opener and closer, and in large numbers, while melee does more damage. Personally I see no problem with it

If ranged combat is buffed then the average skill level will drop even further. The last thing this game needs is giving bearbows an excuse to be useless. The higher the risk (melee) the higher the reward should be. I’m speaking purely from a PvE perspective of course.

In most situations you’re in far greater risk if try meleeing. Lupi anyone?

Gap closers are OP in this game. It only takes 1 gap closer to negate the range advantage. They need to nerf gap closer distance across the board.

The idea that melee is in more danger is a popular perception, but I have rarely found it to be true, both because fight mechanics in most MMO boss fights try to even out danger and because melee also inevitably get additional defenses to mitigate damage. Sure, there are particular fights here and there which favor ranged, but there are also fights which favor or even require melee.

There is even less of an excuse to favor melee in this game because of weapon swapping allowing every profession (except elementalist) to switch between melee and ranged fighting mid-battle.

Anoddhermit.4602:

• Melee builds do more damage for every profession with no exception I can think of

Well, there is the curious case of ranger GS.

Astralporing.1957:

Anoddhermit.4602:

• Melee builds do more damage for every profession with no exception I can think of

Well, there is the curious case of ranger GS.

Interesting GW2 FACT, a Ranger picking up a warriors banner, does more damage with the 1 skill than they do with the greatsword 1 skill.

Perhaps Rangers have blunt greatswords…

Not surprised on the developer guides on Ranger, the dev TOTALLY avoided greatsword, not mentioning it once…

The “less danger at range” argument may have held up in PVE, if the game had a functional way to manipulate aggro (aka tank). Without it, a ranged attacker may well find himself in melee with a enemy pretty quickly. That is, unless he wants to do the whole Benny Hill routine around the room…

Ranged weapon are amazing if well played, there some actions as choose well your target, reason, check is boons and conditions, also ranger bows at close range can be nasty against most classes.

Astralporing.1957:

Anoddhermit.4602:

• Melee builds do more damage for every profession with no exception I can think of

Well, there is the curious case of ranger GS.

They want that to be a defensive weapon. Considering there’s an evade on GS #1’s 3rd strike, #3 allows Ranger’s to run away from danger fast, #4 is a block that lasts for 3-4 seconds and will block everything not close to you (knocking back when close), and #5 interrupts an opponent, I’d have to say they’re doing a fine job of it.

Yes, they seem to be stuck in the notion that ranged weapons should do less damage than melee weapons due to risk, but in many fights being at range is actually more dangerous than being in melee due to the healing and boon stacking taking place in melee range. There’s actually no good reason for it at all and due that design schema most ranged builds are considered inferior to melee builds on most classes. They need to backpedal on this and fixed ranged weapons across the board.

If it’s something they’re still worried about, there are better solutions, such as a.) designing encounters better and/or b.) give melee weapons an armor/def bonus.

Vayne.8563:

The isn’t isn’t ranged weapons. The issue is survivability.

In most games, melee weapons do more damage, because in most games, melee is more dangerous. In this game with dodges and invulnerability and blocks, people are in less danger meleeing, particularly with the other advantages you’ve listed. I mean if you go down and four people are rezzing you, you’re up in a second.

So the logic that works in other games, melee doing more damage, doesn’t really work in this game.

Sometimes I think the solution is to make ranged and melee do the same kinds of damage, but I still don’t think that would stop people from stacking.

What Anet really needs is some kind of anti-stacking solution.

Unless the risk of melee is sufficiently greater ranged weapons should be brought up to melee damage, or melee damage should be reduced to ranged damage.

Another opinion of mine that I assume won’t be universally popular. lol

It’s not about not being universally popular. It is about making no sense and being completely useless as a suggestion.
Why even have melee/ range if you have the same damage for both of them?
WHY would anyone melee ever again ?

You need to differentiate between constructive ideas and just weird things that pop into your head and you feel might be worth putting on the forum.

ATMAvatar.5749:

The idea that melee is in more danger is a popular perception, but I have rarely found it to be true, both because fight mechanics in most MMO boss fights try to even out danger and because melee also inevitably get additional defenses to mitigate damage. Sure, there are particular fights here and there which favor ranged, but there are also fights which favor or even require melee.

There is even less of an excuse to favor melee in this game because of weapon swapping allowing every profession (except elementalist) to switch between melee and ranged fighting mid-battle.

Melee is always more dangerous since the vast majority of bosses are melee in nature. The vast majority of one-hit-KO attacks are melee.
Being in melee range means you have less time to dodge. These are not preconceptions – they are facts.

You’re thinking melee has no risk because any good player has figured out hot to dodge things properly in this game. That isn’t a surprise – it’s been out for a year now. Good players will be good – bad players will be bad.

Xae Isareth.1364:

In most situations you’re in far greater risk if try meleeing. Lupi anyone?

How about Subject Alpha? You’re at less risk meleeing him than you are ranging him.

The game is balanced to PvP.

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

Corpus Christi.2057:

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.

The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.

Not using a ranged weapon.

Vayne.8563:

The isn’t isn’t ranged weapons. The issue is survivability.

In most games, melee weapons do more damage, because in most games, melee is more dangerous. In this game with dodges and invulnerability and blocks, people are in less danger meleeing, particularly with the other advantages you’ve listed. I mean if you go down and four people are rezzing you, you’re up in a second.

So the logic that works in other games, melee doing more damage, doesn’t really work in this game.

Sometimes I think the solution is to make ranged and melee do the same kinds of damage, but I still don’t think that would stop people from stacking.

What Anet really needs is some kind of anti-stacking solution.

Unless the risk of melee is sufficiently greater ranged weapons should be brought up to melee damage, or melee damage should be reduced to ranged damage.

Another opinion of mine that I assume won’t be universally popular. lol

There is nothing wrong with stacking and it does not need to be fixed. You stack to allow your party to cleave adds and to be in boon range of each other, how does getting boons off people need fixing? How does melting bosses in melee need fixing either, it’s a reward for taking the time to learn an encounter and it’s a lot more exciting watching for lethal attacks in melee than kiting at range doing almost zero damage.

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.

The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.

Not using a ranged weapon.

But the ranger in this game IS mostly ranged.

Longbow – Ranged
Shortbow – Ranged
Greatsword – Melee
MH Axe – Ranged
MH Sword – Melee
OH Axe – Ranged (#5 is a defensive skill, doesn’t really count for melee)
OH Dagger – Hybrid
OH Torch – Ranged
OH Warhorn – Ranged

The Ranger is not a ranged class in GW2.

Full stop.

Players insistence that it is or should be is the major reason why groups go “LOLRangerNo.” The bulk of their damage is designed to be melee, with a robust ranged option as secondary. The Off-Hands are meant to supplement builds, and can be used in melee OR ranged (just like every other class).

As such, you have Sword/Greatsword for Melee damage, Axe/Longbow/Shortbow for ranged damage. Hardly a huge discrepancy.

I find it funny that there is “reflect projectile”, but there is no “reflect hit” (not counting Retaliation, because it works for ranged too).

Trixie.7614:

I find it funny that there is “reflect projectile”, but there is no “reflect hit” (not counting Retaliation, because it works for ranged too).

There’s plenty of counter abilities that only work in melee (Ranger Greatsword #4 for example, though the block portion of the skill works at range).

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.

The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.

Not using a ranged weapon.

As far as I remember correctly, the book that I got with the collector’s edition clearly states that they were designed at the time primarily as a ranged-weapon class users.

The genesis of the word you are referring to is commonly known to anyone here. But still, thanks for explaining it to us. And no – it does not confuse me since I am addressing the ideology mentioned in the concept book.

Cheers

Love it when people claim that rangers are not a ranged class when anet clearly says they are. The fact that people are still repeating that tired nonsense is nothing short of amazing.

kitten nic Touch.7960:

Love it when people claim that rangers are not a ranged class when anet clearly says they are. The fact that people are still repeating that tired nonsense is nothing short of amazing.

I tried to be polite to Vayne… but I do get your anger. It couldn’t be put more bluntly by Anet. But well, some people like to “bend reality”.;)

Best regards

Lets think the matter with a game designer prospective.

IF ranged damage is as effective as melee, what will happen? Will you favor a melee class over a ranged class? By human nature, NO, every player will pick a ranged class. See every FPS game, if all guns on average take 3 shots to kill, melee will usually able to 1 hit kill. Therefore, if ranged attack is as effective as current melee attack 3-4 shot killing a player; melee attack should be able to 1-2 shot another player.

What about sniper rifle? There are sniper in FPS game. Yes, but we forgot how restrictive to mobility a sniper in those game. Scoped you are totally uable to watch your back, you are almost rooted, rof is extremely low.

If sniper is what you are looking for in GW2, unfortunately, we don’t have one yet. When one day there are new weapon, new skill introduced that increase ranged damage effeciency but highly restrict mobility, there we can have sniper class.

Moreover, think about wvw, combat are focus group fight, if range damage is able to take down a foe effectively, image 3 rangers will be able to kill a melee class within 2-3 sec, who will want to play a melee class anyway?

Corpus Christi.2057:

kitten nic Touch.7960:

Love it when people claim that rangers are not a ranged class when anet clearly says they are. The fact that people are still repeating that tired nonsense is nothing short of amazing.

I tried to be polite to Vayne… but I do get your anger. It couldn’t be put more bluntly by Anet. But well, some people like to “bend reality”.;)

Best regards

Anet also stated there wouldn’t be vertical progression. I’m not sure what your point is. You mean the book that came out before the game launched had some stuff written in it that’s been clearly disproved by actual game play? Because that’s the case.

Rangers who want to be competitive with damage use melee weapons. Bear/bow rangers aren’t usually the first guys welcome in speed runs. And because most rangers don’t realize how badly they’re actually gimping themselves, most rangers won’t be welcome. Rangers can output some pretty good damage if they abandon their preconceptions.

It doesn’t MATTER what Anet says on the matter, and never did. It matters what the meta says on the matter. The meta says that rangers are not best served using ranged weapons.

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.

The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.

Not using a ranged weapon.

I’m bored, so I’m going to attack this misconception about Rangers in LotR.

Aragorn was A ranger, not the mold for all rangers in the LotR universe. He was a ranger by luck of birth. Rangers of the North, which Aragorn was a member of and led for time before becoming part of the Fellowship, were made up of the remnants of the Dunedain. Rangers of the North used bows as their primary weapon as a general rule, and were generally trained by the elves in combat tactics used to fight foes more numerous than themselves using stealth, traps, and misdirection.

Rangers of Ithilien, of which Faramir was a part and leader. This set of Rangers also used bows as their primary weapon, and used stealth and guerrilla tactics against foes who were much more numerous. These Rangers could also trace their heritage back to the Dunedain.

So….

1. Rangers in LotR did in fact use ranged weapons as their primary weapon set.
2. This isn’t LotR regardless.
3. Anet has described and reinforces the idea of the GW2 Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon user.
4. The GW2 Ranger class, as is, is not performing as it should as set out by the developers.
5. People should complain till this is rectified, OR, Anet should change the description of the class and stop reinforcing the idea of the Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon set class.

Lastly…stop using Aragorn to say Rangers are not a ranged weapon class…it’s ridiculous.

Edit: If LotR Rangers were modeled using GW2 game classes, they would most closely resemble the Thief. Add some woodslore/ tracking/ and knowledge of animals and they would be a close fit.

killcannon.2576:

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.

The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.

Not using a ranged weapon.

I’m bored, so I’m going to attack this misconception about Rangers in LotR.

Aragorn was A ranger, not the mold for all rangers in the LotR universe. He was a ranger by luck of birth. Rangers of the North, which Aragorn was a member of and led for time before becoming part of the Fellowship, were made up of the remnants of the Dunedain. Rangers of the North used bows as their primary weapon as a general rule, and were generally trained by the elves in combat tactics used to fight foes more numerous than themselves using stealth, traps, and misdirection.

Rangers of Ithilien, of which Faramir was a part and leader. This set of Rangers also used bows as their primary weapon, and used stealth and guerrilla tactics against foes who were much more numerous. These Rangers could also trace their heritage back to the Dunedain.

So….

1. Rangers in LotR did in fact use ranged weapons as their primary weapon set.
2. This isn’t LotR regardless.
3. Anet has described and reinforces the idea of the GW2 Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon user.
4. The GW2 Ranger class, as is, is not performing as it should as set out by the developers.
5. People should complain till this is rectified, OR, Anet should change the description of the class and stop reinforcing the idea of the Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon set class.

Lastly…stop using Aragorn to say Rangers are not a ranged weapon class…it’s ridiculous.

Edit: If LotR Rangers were modeled using GW2 game classes, they would most closely resemble the Thief. Add some woodslore/ tracking/ and knowledge of animals and they would be a close fit.

Okay…let’s do it this way then. I can’t disagree with your interpretation because it’s been ages since I read Lord of the Rings. However, I can say this.

Anet, despite what everyone here is saying, created a game that is supposed to turn the genre a bit on its ear. What’s the first weapon a ranger gets? Not a bow, but an axe. Much closer range than a bow.

What does a ranger in Guild Wars 2 do the most damage with? Not a bow.

So you’re right. This isn’t Lord of the Rings. This isn’t D&D. This is Guild Wars 2.

And in Guild Wars 2, rangers are most effective damage wise with sword, not bow.

Again, you can argue with me all you want, but what you really need to do is take it up with the meta.

people still use range in this game?

Regardless Aragorn, the “archer” archetype is one of many Rangers could be. On GW2, they are actually “unparalled archers” since they have the widest range of ranged weaponry available-HOWEVER, this doesn’t mean they were meant to be played solely ranged (though that’s fine by me if that’s what you like to do-have nothing against so-called bearbows, even though I rarely use that setup myself.) In this game, melee does hit harder, which is fine by me with my Ranger, as melee Ranger is also another valid archetype-too many modern games make it look as if Rangers MUST specialize with bows, yet the Martial melee weapon Ranger has been a fun choice of mine in other RPG games (mostly D&D based.)

In this regards, the GW2 let’s you play your Ranger as you wish, as long as you are OK with each weapon’s strengths and weaknesses-it let’s you play whichever Ranger archetype YOU want (rather than your old MMO’s, D&D’s, Aragorn’s, or any other’s.)
It is actually more “tr00 Ranger” in this game than on GW1, IMHO.)

(And yes, Ranger pets are also another valid, “Beastmaster Ranger” archetype.)

If you are criticized for employing bows with your Ranger play with another more tolerant group. I prefer sword-melee, but ALWAYS have equipped either the short or long bow as a secondary, as I don’t care for metas either. I understand ranged weapons are always weaker, but that doesn’t mean using bows is always the wrong choice.

I play my ranger with a long bow and Sword/Horn.
He is Zerker geared since he won’t go in too melee and if he is in melee I try to get him back to ranged asap, this work very good in open PvE, WvW and PvP but worse in dungeons but it’s not impossible just in some cases.

The damage I do in max range, arrow rains, rapid fire and opening strike is alot more than I do with any other of my classes and I maxed out all classes.
For open PvE testing i try to take out a champion in Orr, most of my classes has to be hit once or twice by the boss but my ranger wins the battle flawless.

I would say that it all depends on the situation and skills of the player, a ranged ranger can do massive damage without putting him/herself in danger but a ranged enemy can be the end for the ranger if not supported, that’s when you figure out a new approach.

Maby ranged does less damage but since my ranger is my only zerker gear char he does most damage, and my ranger with sword/horn as melee does much less damage per second in melee.

Vayne.8563:

killcannon.2576:

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.

The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.

Not using a ranged weapon.

I’m bored, so I’m going to attack this misconception about Rangers in LotR.

Aragorn was A ranger, not the mold for all rangers in the LotR universe. He was a ranger by luck of birth. Rangers of the North, which Aragorn was a member of and led for time before becoming part of the Fellowship, were made up of the remnants of the Dunedain. Rangers of the North used bows as their primary weapon as a general rule, and were generally trained by the elves in combat tactics used to fight foes more numerous than themselves using stealth, traps, and misdirection.

Rangers of Ithilien, of which Faramir was a part and leader. This set of Rangers also used bows as their primary weapon, and used stealth and guerrilla tactics against foes who were much more numerous. These Rangers could also trace their heritage back to the Dunedain.

So….

1. Rangers in LotR did in fact use ranged weapons as their primary weapon set.
2. This isn’t LotR regardless.
3. Anet has described and reinforces the idea of the GW2 Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon user.
4. The GW2 Ranger class, as is, is not performing as it should as set out by the developers.
5. People should complain till this is rectified, OR, Anet should change the description of the class and stop reinforcing the idea of the Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon set class.

Lastly…stop using Aragorn to say Rangers are not a ranged weapon class…it’s ridiculous.

Edit: If LotR Rangers were modeled using GW2 game classes, they would most closely resemble the Thief. Add some woodslore/ tracking/ and knowledge of animals and they would be a close fit.

Okay…let’s do it this way then. I can’t disagree with your interpretation because it’s been ages since I read Lord of the Rings. However, I can say this.

Anet, despite what everyone here is saying, created a game that is supposed to turn the genre a bit on its ear. What’s the first weapon a ranger gets? Not a bow, but an axe. Much closer range than a bow.

What does a ranger in Guild Wars 2 do the most damage with? Not a bow.

So you’re right. This isn’t Lord of the Rings. This isn’t D&D. This is Guild Wars 2.

And in Guild Wars 2, rangers are most effective damage wise with sword, not bow.

Again, you can argue with me all you want, but what you really need to do is take it up with the meta.

Not arguing. They are better at melee. The question is…should they be?

Currently the “ranged” class sucks more at range than they do at melee. The players are not the ones who described the class as a heavy ranged class, Development team did that. The meta is based of how the quirks of development land in game.

They just need to adjust the class so A (description of the class) equals out to B (how the class plays). I don’t care which they do.

Working as intended.

kiwituatara.6053:

Gap closers are OP in this game. It only takes 1 gap closer to negate the range advantage. They need to nerf gap closer distance across the board.

I disagree, gap closers are only op when abused for escaping (see Warrior), what needs to happen is weapons/traits/etc need to give access to faster weapon swapping, which would help access better kiting options. For example say the Ranger’s GS’s #4 reset the weapon swap timer when you counterattack – in situations when you get gap closed on your SB you could switch to GS, block, counterattack, swoop away and immediately switch to SB again.

I’d actually prefer them to work on the ranger GS. It was the first game I’ve played where rangers actually getting use one, but it sucked so hard that it’s really just pointless.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Melee doing more damage than ranged is rooted primarily in PvP. In any game’s PvP, melee has to close and keep close to its target while ranged can plink away. This is even more of an issue in GW2 where a PvP target is not rooted when using most skills, and can thus move constantly except when CC’d. Melee has to do more damage because it has less up-time than ranged.

This is much less of an issue in PvE because a lot of mobs don’t move much. While melee still needs to close, melee up-time is much higher in PvE than in PvP. However, having separate damage formulae for Pve and PvP would doubtless be a pain in the neck, starting with deciding which formula would apply in WvW.

However, in sPvP, most nodes are so small that kiting on a point (except of graveyard) is almost impossible.
So if you’re fighting on a point with a ranged weapon, you probably wont recieve less damage that if you would use melee weapons.

But I think, ANet gave us (or at least 6 of 8 ) 2 weapon sets for some reason.
I use 1 melee and 1 ranged weapon set (probably like a lot of players).

killcannon.2576:

Vayne.8563:

killcannon.2576:

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.

People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.

The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.

Not using a ranged weapon.

I’m bored, so I’m going to attack this misconception about Rangers in LotR.

Aragorn was A ranger, not the mold for all rangers in the LotR universe. He was a ranger by luck of birth. Rangers of the North, which Aragorn was a member of and led for time before becoming part of the Fellowship, were made up of the remnants of the Dunedain. Rangers of the North used bows as their primary weapon as a general rule, and were generally trained by the elves in combat tactics used to fight foes more numerous than themselves using stealth, traps, and misdirection.

Rangers of Ithilien, of which Faramir was a part and leader. This set of Rangers also used bows as their primary weapon, and used stealth and guerrilla tactics against foes who were much more numerous. These Rangers could also trace their heritage back to the Dunedain.

So….

1. Rangers in LotR did in fact use ranged weapons as their primary weapon set.
2. This isn’t LotR regardless.
3. Anet has described and reinforces the idea of the GW2 Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon user.
4. The GW2 Ranger class, as is, is not performing as it should as set out by the developers.
5. People should complain till this is rectified, OR, Anet should change the description of the class and stop reinforcing the idea of the Ranger class as a primary ranged weapon set class.

Lastly…stop using Aragorn to say Rangers are not a ranged weapon class…it’s ridiculous.

Edit: If LotR Rangers were modeled using GW2 game classes, they would most closely resemble the Thief. Add some woodslore/ tracking/ and knowledge of animals and they would be a close fit.

Okay…let’s do it this way then. I can’t disagree with your interpretation because it’s been ages since I read Lord of the Rings. However, I can say this.

Anet, despite what everyone here is saying, created a game that is supposed to turn the genre a bit on its ear. What’s the first weapon a ranger gets? Not a bow, but an axe. Much closer range than a bow.

What does a ranger in Guild Wars 2 do the most damage with? Not a bow.

So you’re right. This isn’t Lord of the Rings. This isn’t D&D. This is Guild Wars 2.

And in Guild Wars 2, rangers are most effective damage wise with sword, not bow.

Again, you can argue with me all you want, but what you really need to do is take it up with the meta.

Not arguing. They are better at melee. The question is…should they be?

Currently the “ranged” class sucks more at range than they do at melee. The players are not the ones who described the class as a heavy ranged class, Development team did that. The meta is based of how the quirks of development land in game.

They just need to adjust the class so A (description of the class) equals out to B (how the class plays). I don’t care which they do.

I’m 100% in favor of them adjusting the profession description. And I’m mostly in favor of giving more ranged damage, too. I’m not against that.

But I play a ranger and I know for a fact that seeing the ranger as a ranged only profession is gimping yourself.

For months after release, players made thread upon thread demanding that melee weapons do more damage. They suggested the risk of melee range deserved more damage. Which in itself is a good point.

If your unhappy that melee weapons do more damage then ranged weapons, you need to be unhappy with the posters who flooded the forums demanding this situation.

roamzero.9486:

kiwituatara.6053:

Gap closers are OP in this game. It only takes 1 gap closer to negate the range advantage. They need to nerf gap closer distance across the board.

I disagree, gap closers are only op when abused for escaping (see Warrior), what needs to happen is weapons/traits/etc need to give access to faster weapon swapping, which would help access better kiting options. For example say the Ranger’s GS’s #4 reset the weapon swap timer when you counterattack – in situations when you get gap closed on your SB you could switch to GS, block, counterattack, swoop away and immediately switch to SB again.

Well, everyones abusing gap closers for escaping. Devs need to look into the amount of gap closers each class has and maybe shave the range on some.

Eg. Like you said, warriors gap closers are insane. Shaving some range from bulls charge and GS#5 won’t hurt them. I mean, you can’t make them tanky (heal signet buff) while leaving them with the highest mobility in the game. Theres no point ranging them if they can gap close away or towards you instantly.

I agree. I think the best solution is to make it so gape closers do not work without a target in range.

Give mobs and bosses fast leaps, condition removal so they can remove snares and make them aggroing ranged players more often.

haviz.1340:

Give mobs and bosses fast leaps, condition removal so they can remove snares and make them aggroing ranged players more often.

they already do. they get buffs that halve condition duration, already totally hosing condition builds, which all have a cap or unreasonable limits. Your suggestion would ruin all the condition builds that already have a handy cap.

Snares, you feel that is an issue? Are you not familiar with how defiant works?