Guild Wars 2

EDIT: I also assume the same things and problems discussed here is also a problem when it comes to Rifle users, and so if that is the case, perhaps, then, the same ideas discussed here should also apply to Rifle users. Generally, this forum thread is about re-thinking long-ranged, because it seems long-ranged classes, notably the Ranger, is out of luck when it comes to buffs unless they utilize a melee playstyle.

When I first made my Ranger, disappointment quickly began to settle in after I started reading forums on why Rangers are often turned away in organized Parties. The answer from some of you may be, “Well, just don’t Party with such players who refuse you…” but that is besides the point.

Other than players who downright do not know how to play a Ranger, concisely and straightforwardly put, the problem with Rangers is they are often criticized for being a ‘selfish’ class that give no more than 2 buffs to Party Members; and if a Ranger goes out of range (because, duh, they are a ranged class), they will not receive nor give buffs to other Party Members.

Here is how buffs in Parties play out for Rangers, and I assume, Rifle users as well:

Warrior: Yo guys, check out mah buffs! Guardian: Psh… mah buffs are better than yours, Warrior! Thief / Necromancer / Mesmer / Elementalist: Aww yea, buffs for us! Engineer and Ranger turn and look at each other, glaring at everyone else, saying in unison: We’re totally fooked if we choose to utilize our long-ranged weapons [most of the time], aren’t we?

How Anet can address the issue with Rangers when it comes to buffs when wielding a Shortbow or Longbow:

The Ranger class needs to be coded in the game in such way where if a Ranger is wielding a Short Bow or a Longbow when in a Party with other players using buffs, only then they will be able to receive and give buffs from and to other players within edit: 900 range or below that (if wielding a Short Bow or a Long Bow).

However, if a Ranger is wielding any other weapon, for example, a Sword or a Greatsword, a Ranger would then have to get closer to other Party Members to receive buffs from and to give buff to other Party Members.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Note: The above stated regarding Short Bows and Longbows would be unique only to Rangers since allowing this on other classes for pulling enemies, etc. would then defeat the purpose because that is what Rangers are for and how they function.

Re-thinking long-ranged underwater weapons for all classes:

Anet should also re-think underwater weapons where all the above stated should apply, yet for every class, because if everyone underwater is using a long-ranged underwater weapon, it makes no sense to make players get almost melee-close just to receive buffs.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Continuing where I left off before, this idea, I strongly believe, is more than fair because if a Ranger chooses to use their long-ranged weapon, they should be able to do so and should not be excluded from Party buffs because of that playstyle/preference.

The point is if a Ranger player wanted to be a melee class that utilizes a Greatsword or a Sword, they would have been a Warrior, not a Ranger! The fact that Rangers have to abandon their main weapon(s) in most organized groups (otherwise, KICK) defeats the purpose of even playing the class itself.

Let me put it to you guys another way who are reading this… You don’t see Warriors giving up their Swords and Greatswords for Bows, do you? No. Therefore, why is this a thing that is happening when it comes to the Ranger’s main weapon(s)? In other words, if a Ranger wants to use another weapon type, it should be a thing of choice, not a thing that is seemingly forced, or else no Party for you…

There is simply no other way to go about addressing this issue, yet if not this, then what do you guys think should happen vs. the idea I am proposing to Anet?

Sorry but I don’t agree. Ranger is just your profession name, nobody forces you to play ranged and you have other weapon sets that allow you to do even more damage when in melee. If you chose to play ranged, then you suffer the drawbacks of being at range, which are less damage, no buffs, no quick rez if downed.

oh, and you can still use your bow in melee range.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

This idea, I strongly believe, is more than fair because if a Ranger chooses to use their long-ranged weapon, they should be able to do so and should not be excluded from Party buffs because of that playstyle/preference.

However, if a Ranger is wielding any other weapon, for example, a Sword or a Greatsword, a Ranger would then have to get closer to other Party Members to receive buffs from and to give buff to other Party Members.

The point is if a Ranger player wanted to be a melee class that utilizes a Greatsword or a Sword, they would have been a Warrior, not a Ranger! The fact that Rangers have to abandon their main weapon(s) in most organized groups (otherwise, KICK) defeats the purpose of even playing the class itself.

Let me put it to you guys another way who are reading this… You don’t see Warriors giving up their Swords and Greatswords for Bows, do you? No. Therefore, why is this a thing that is happening when it comes to the Ranger’s main weapon(s)?

You’re confused. I think you’re trying to express multiple ideas without properly defining each one.

Many a warrior uses a longbow.

A good warrior uses it in concert with their melee weapon and does well. Can you guess what a good ranger does based on the aforementioned?

Hint: This isn’t abandoning your weapon of preference. Adapting to changing circumstances in fluid combat is necessary.

Yea I agree Aenesthesia.
And if I by some miracle agreed with Op, why should this only benifit 1 class when all 8 classes can use range weapons?

Aenesthesia.1697:

Sorry but I don’t agree. Ranger is just your profession name, nobody forces you to play ranged and you have other weapon sets that allow you to do even more damage when in melee. If you chose to play ranged, then you suffer the drawbacks of being at range, which are less damage, no buffs, no quick rez if downed.

oh, and you can still use your bow in melee range.

I know (not believe) you missed the point in everything I said. This thread is not about organized parties forcing Rangers to play ranged (very illogical); this thread is about organized parties forcing Rangers to play melee, which makes no sense because they are a ranged class. Whether or not melee-based weapons provide more DPS or not is beside the topic of this thread. We are talking about how Ranger are excluded from Party buffs when they choose to utilize their long-ranged weapons, that which they are mainly designed around (technically).

Linken.6345:

Yea I agree Aenesthesia.
And if I by some miracle agreed with Op, why should this only benifit 1 class when all 8 classes can use range weapons?

Sure. All classes can use ranged weapons of whatever type. However, that does not mean every class —-- different from the very classes that use long-ranged weapons —-- is absolutely fantastic at utilizing those ranged weapons for reason being they do not have the Traits like other classes that actually do utilize long-ranged weapons… (except for Rangers, of course, which are forced to use a weapon not their main weapon [most of the time]).

And you make it sound like other classes are missing out when they’re really not. The other classes are more near-ranged anyway so as to receive buffs within the range of Warriors and Guardians notably, so what’s the problem? Furthermore, let’s put it in reverse… Let’s say hypothetically the Guardian class was a long-ranged class who buffs everyone… Would it make sense to expect melee players to huddle around the Guardian for buffs? No, because at that point only long-ranged players would receive buff benefits, and then all Hell would break lose.

Just like it doesn’t make sense to expect Rangers to be good in a Party when they do not perform well being ranged with no buffs, meanwhile, everyone else is reaping the benefits.

Therefore, the only way a Ranger can even be somewhat effective is to abandon the way of the Bow and use a Greatsword or Axe. That is my point… If a Ranger has to use a melee weapon just to get buffs so as to be more effective, what makes a Ranger a Ranger? Players need to either accept Rangers for what they were originally designed for (they do not), or Anet needs to fix Rangers where they will receive buffs like everyone else. Plain and simple.

My point is the range at which Rangers receive and/or give buffs should be increased, perhaps not at a range of 900-1000 (to be fair), but some.

Conclusively, I don’t see anyone else here in the forums thinking up a better idea to address the issues when it comes to Rangers in Party play, so until then, my argument still stands.

CETheLucid.3964:

You’re confused. I think you’re trying to express multiple ideas without properly defining each one.

Many a warrior uses a longbow.

A good warrior uses it in concert with their melee weapon and does well. Can you guess what a good ranger does based on the aforementioned?

Hint: This isn’t abandoning your weapon of preference. Adapting to changing circumstances in fluid combat is necessary.

No. I am not confused. That still does not change the fact that, yes, while Warriors utilize Longbows for certain scenarios like pulling enemies and whatnot, a Warrior still uses his main weapon type, that which is a melee-based weapon, more so than a long-ranged weapon they only use some of the time.

With that just said in mind, the only time a Ranger can get away with using a Shortbow or a Longbow is if they’re outside high-end content. You can say whatever you want, but that is just not right. Sorry.

Rangers, on the other hand —-- because of what majority opinion tells players to use, and do so —-- utilize their main long-ranged weapon only some of the time, and in doing so they instead utilize a melee-ranged weapon most of the time.

Do you see the difference here between a Warrior and a Ranger? Last I checked, the definition of a Ranger does not use close quarters combat weapons (most of the time) to deal with what they’re hunting; they instead use long-ranged weapons (most of the time) to deal with what they’re hunting.

Conclusively (since this is rocket science to everybody), my point is Rangers should not have to be or feel forced to use melee-based weapon in parties. They should be able to and allowed to utilize their primary weapon type just like every other class minus all the hate and scrutiny when doing so. That is what separates the Ranger from every other class and is exactly why they are not equal to all other classes because of their current game state.

Obviously I am not wrong about this being an issue or else it would not be talked about. And of course melee-based players are not going to understand (nor do they want to understand) because they are not the ones affected by this kind of stigma.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

CETheLucid.3964:

You’re confused. I think you’re trying to express multiple ideas without properly defining each one.

Many a warrior uses a longbow.

A good warrior uses it in concert with their melee weapon and does well. Can you guess what a good ranger does based on the aforementioned?

Hint: This isn’t abandoning your weapon of preference. Adapting to changing circumstances in fluid combat is necessary.

No. I am not confused. That still does not change the fact that, yes, while Warriors utilize Longbows for certain scenarios like pulling enemies and whatnot, a Warrior still uses his main weapon type, that which is a melee-based weapon, more so than a long-ranged weapon they only use some of the time, notably in parties. Why do I say ‘notably’ in parties? Because the only time a Ranger can get away with using a Shortbow or a Longbow is if they’re outside high-end content. You can say whatever you want, but that is just not right. Sorry.

Rangers, on the other hand —-- because of what majority opinion tells players to use, and do so —-- utilize their main long-ranged weapon only some of the time, and in doing so they instead utilize a melee-ranged weapon most of the time.

Do you see the difference here between a Warrior and a Ranger? Last I checked, the definition of a Ranger does not use close quarters combat weapons (most of the time) to deal with what they’re hunting; they instead use long-ranged weapons (most of the time) to deal with what they’re hunting.

Conclusively (since this is rocket science to everybody), my point is Rangers should not have to be or feel forced to use melee-based weapon in parties. They should be able to and allowed to utilize their primary weapon type just like every other class minus all the hate and scrutiny when doing so. That is what separates the Ranger from every other class and is exactly why they are not equal to all other classes because of their current game state.

Obviously I am not wrong about this being an issue or else it would not be talked about. And of course melee-based players are not going to understand (nor do they want to understand) because they are not the ones affected by this kind of stigma.

/sigh

A lot of mediocre and downright awful rangers give the ranger class a bad rep.

Truth is rangers have a great deal of utility between their traits, utility skills, spirits, and pets, excellent melee options to support the party with, and fantastic range combat.

Rangers have a corner market on bows, we can use both types and we’re the best with them. We have superb skillsets for the weapon.

HoT’s ranger specialization in the druid is going to bring even more support options to the party.

The problem is that most rangers utilize almost none of their great and diverse skill set… and stick to shooting mobs at max range… or move into melee range…

With their longbow.

That’s why a lot of parties (dungeon groups in particular) are wary of rangers. And for good reason, I don’t blame them. As a ranger I’ve seen a lot of bad rangers.

What your suggesting wouldn’t fix the problem. If anything, your ‘fix’ would encourage bad play habits, let alone the fact that it would fundamentally change the entire class.

You’re essentially asking for a stereotypical archer trope from any dozen MMO’s out there. GW2 offers the ranger. A real ranger. And I’m thankful for it.

I don’t agree with your idea. I prefer the class that we have.

If you want to be useful to your teammates, even as a ranger, you will have to utilize your melee options. That’s intended, and a good thing.

That doesn’t mean you have to be melee all the time and give up your longbow, but you must switch it up and support your front line.

Ranger is a guerrilla warfare tactics, hit and run, back and forth fighter. If you want to be an exclusive back line player, you picked the wrong class to do that with.

You want a scholar class for that, and even they have to move into the front lines now and then.

The only reason the buff system is they way can be summed up as: Conquest Spvp. The entire game is forced to try to work within a framework of the pvp mode everything else suffers due to lack of consideration when compared to their dream of esport mode.

If guardian was a ranged buffer he would have to kit his kitten of since all the melee would stick to him like glue making the mob come melee to him or use his ranged weapon in melee range…. or as you should do he switch to a melee weapon since no buffs are based on what weapon you wield.

Aragorn (lord of the rings) is a ranger and what weapon do he use most of the time?

What you want is the same benefit of boons (and i assume healing from water fields aswell) as your friends in melee taking a considirable % bigger risk to get hit by monsters they are fighting, then you plinking away at 900-1200 range.

No if you want to stand in a corner you dont honestly deserve to get those boons they are spreading mate, there is 5 trait lines maybe you should specialise in traps and wield a great sword or 1hs/x or even dual axes if you want to be melee ranged

CETheLucid.3964:

/sigh

A lot of mediocre and downright awful rangers give the ranger class a bad rep.

Truth is rangers have a great deal of utility between their traits, utility skills, spirits, and pets, excellent melee options to support the party with, and fantastic range combat.

Rangers have a corner market on bows, we can use both types and we’re the best with them. We have superb skillsets for the weapon.

HoT’s ranger specialization in the druid is going to bring even more support options to the party.

The problem is that most rangers utilize almost none of their great and diverse skill set… and stick to shooting mobs at max range… or move into melee range…

With their longbow.

That’s why a lot of parties (dungeon groups in particular) are wary of rangers. And for good reason, I don’t blame them. As a ranger I’ve seen a lot of bad rangers.

What your suggesting wouldn’t fix the problem. If anything, your ‘fix’ would encourage bad play habits, let alone the fact that it would fundamentally change the entire class.

You’re essentially asking for a stereotypical archer trope from any dozen MMO’s out there. GW2 offers the ranger. A real ranger. And I’m thankful for it.

I don’t agree with your idea. I prefer the class that we have.

If you want to be useful to your teammates, even as a ranger, you will have to utilize your melee options. That’s intended, and a good thing.

That doesn’t mean you have to be melee all the time and give up your longbow, but you must switch it up and support your front line.

Ranger is a guerrilla warfare tactics, hit and run, back and forth fighter. If you want to be an exclusive back line player, you picked the wrong class to do that with.

You want a scholar class for that, and even they have to move into the front lines now and then.

Pardon my late reply.

First off, never did I say or insinuate that I am a Ranger that wants to and/or does dedicate my time in battle entirely to the Bow. That is a misplaced assumption on your part you seemed to convince yourself of.

All I am saying is that when a Ranger DOES use a Shortbow or Longbow, make it so Ranger players can still contribute to a Party whether long-ranged or not by increasing the Range a Ranger has to be within (900 to 1,000) to receive buffs for equal survivability. And like I said in my idea, when a Ranger switches to a melee-based weapon, they would then have to move in and get much closer to receive buffs.

How hard is my thread to understand? Never did I say the idea(s) I have in mind would make the Bow 100% viable 100% of the time. It is like you are reading between the white lines of everything I am saying and then filling it all in with what you believe I said instead of what I am actually saying.

P.S. Legend has it I actually know how to play a Ranger, so thank you for telling me everything I already knew Rangers are used for and are capable of. That is all besides the point.

Linken.6345:

If guardian was a ranged buffer he would have to kit his kitten of since all the melee would stick to him like glue making the mob come melee to him or use his ranged weapon in melee range…. or as you should do he switch to a melee weapon since no buffs are based on what weapon you wield.

Aragorn (lord of the rings) is a ranger and what weapon do he use most of the time?

What you want is the same benefit of boons (and i assume healing from water fields aswell) as your friends in melee taking a considirable % bigger risk to get hit by monsters they are fighting, then you plinking away at 900-1200 range.

No if you want to stand in a corner you dont honestly deserve to get those boons they are spreading mate, there is 5 trait lines maybe you should specialise in traps and wield a great sword or 1hs/x or even dual axes if you want to be melee ranged

Except not all Rangers stand in a corner as you exaggerate, because those who do are kicked from parties. I also do not consider 900-1,200 Range standing in a cornet, either, since that is still within hitting distance with most foes and other long-ranged weaponry utilized by foes throughout the game.

Furthermore, the 900-1,000 Range distance my idea talks about can easily be adjusted to something lower, yet higher (as said in my idea) vs. other classes for said reason only when wielding a Shortbow or Longbow.

I understand my idea is equally difficult to physics for anyone to understand, yet I am trying my best.

Still if this were to be implimented i dont see the reason to focus on 1 class since almost all classes got ranged and melee options engineer dont if they happen to have wrong utilitys.

Its not a ranger exclusive thing to go bow sometime.
warrior got rifle/bow
guardian got scepter
thief got shortbow
mesmer greatsword scepter
engineer rifle pistol
elementalist to staff scepter
Necro axe staff scepter

With your idea to give 1 class this huge benefit that be disabled if they wield a melee weapon why wouldent it transfer over to all the others to answer me that?

Others have already told you why most classes dont use it more then pulling if then since most melee weapon got a throw skill anyway.

Its becouse melee do more damage and it burns down mobs faster + if all are close together you get the boons the rez aid and other goodies aswell.

Learn to play melee or find people who are ok with you hiding away at 900-1200 range thats your only two options Im afraid.

Linken.6345:

Still if this were to be implimented i dont see the reason to focus on 1 class since almost all classes got ranged and melee options engineer dont if they happen to have wrong utilitys.

Its not a ranger exclusive thing to go bow sometime.
warrior got rifle/bow
guardian got scepter
thief got shortbow
mesmer greatsword scepter
engineer rifle pistol
elementalist to staff scepter
Necro axe staff scepter

With your idea to give 1 class this huge benefit that be disabled if they wield a melee weapon why wouldent it transfer over to all the others to answer me that?

Others have already told you why most classes dont use it more then pulling if then since most melee weapon got a throw skill anyway.

Its becouse melee do more damage and it burns down mobs faster + if all are close together you get the boons the rez aid and other goodies aswell.

Learn to play melee or find people who are ok with you hiding away at 900-1200 range thats your only two options Im afraid.

I based this thread mostly around Ranger because they seem to be the most hated class in almost every Party.

I also know how to play a Ranger, thank you (read my other comment(s)).

In addition to that, 900-1,200 range is not ‘standing in a corner.’ For lack of a better example, standing in a corner would be more like running away from Tequatl and standing just within the inner edges of the circle surrounding the area until the battle is done, whereupon you get the big chest reward.

Anyway, with that point being made in mind…

My idea didn’t even mention the number 1,200. My idea mentioned 900-1,000 max, while still acknowledging, “Okay, perhaps 900-1,000 Range might be a bit much, yet that doesn’t mean it can’t be adjusted to something a little lower, perhaps 500-600, or 600-700.” Again, the idea I have in mind is flexible, but you only read a half and not a whole of what I said (typical) so as to believe I am so one-sided.

And as for the rest of your argument, okay, well then Anet should re-think long-ranged entirely to apply to all classes equally if my idea is going to be a problem concerning ‘equality’ between classes. And, again, the range at which buffs are given to any class wielding long-ranged weapons doesn’t have to be 900-1,000 as exampled in my OP. Numbers can easily be adjusted/balanced.

Yea so then they can be like they are 300 or what they happen to be and you have to run there get buffs run away and pew pew?
Making this whole thread kinda pointless.

Linken.6345:

Yea so then they can be like they are 300 or what they happen to be and you have to run there get buffs run away and pew pew?
Making this whole thread kinda pointless.

I only did not get some of what you said, but uh, technically, players can already do that (Rangers included if you want to get technical) where they can run in close, receive some buffs, fall back, and pew pew (as you put it). It’s just more of hassle when playing long-range to pull that off when it shouldn’t be.

Opinions, opinions. I didn’t expect coming into this idea for anyone to understand my idea or agree with it. I made this thread simply to get people talking about the stigma Rangers face (and to be fair, Engineers and Necromancers also face, yet I don’t play those classes, so I’ll leave that battle up to other players who do).

I think the reason is it is much easier to survive at range. And people taking more risk are rewarded more.

And quite honestly ranger rapid fire dps are boost a few patch ago. So it is at least quite decent. I’m not sure about the exact dps, but many people are still under the misconception it is really bad, while it is at least somehow decent.

Many people mock bow ranger in fractal. But quite honestly majority of the people is ranging in high level fractal. And many of the people meleeing are even doing less damage because they spend too much time running and dodging.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

long-ranged weapons, that which they are mainly designed around (technically).

They are designed around all of their weapons. Its arguable that they are designed more around melee than ranged since the game emphasizes DPS and melee is where Ranger does the most DPS.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Last I checked, the definition of a Ranger does not use close quarters combat weapons (most of the time)

The term ranger in fantasy RPG’s originated for a melee focused class. The origin of the term ranger in fantasy fiction originated with a melee focused character.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Conclusively (since this is rocket science to everybody), my point is Rangers should not have to be or feel forced to use melee-based weapon in parties. They should be able to and allowed to utilize their primary weapon type

There is no, “primary,” weapon.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Pardon my late reply.

First off, never did I say or insinuate that I am a Ranger that wants to and/or does dedicate my time in battle entirely to the Bow. That is a misplaced assumption on your part you seemed to convince yourself of.

All I am saying is that when a Ranger DOES use a Shortbow or Longbow, make it so Ranger players can still contribute to a Party whether long-ranged or not by increasing the Range a Ranger has to be within (900 to 1,000) to receive buffs for equal survivability. And like I said in my idea, when a Ranger switches to a melee-based weapon, they would then have to move in and get much closer to receive buffs.

How hard is my thread to understand? Never did I say the idea(s) I have in mind would make the Bow 100% viable 100% of the time. It is like you are reading between the white lines of everything I am saying and then filling it all in with what you believe I said instead of what I am actually saying.

P.S. Legend has it I actually know how to play a Ranger, so thank you for telling me everything I already knew Rangers are used for and are capable of. That is all besides the point.

1) There really isn’t a time you should be out of buff range on ranger shortbow. None of the skills care how far way you are other than being within the range, and posion volley is best up close. So this is a thread about longbow as far as ranger is concerned.

2) What other class would have to be out of buff range to use their range? Engineer is the only other class with comparable extreme range using grenades, but they can use those at any range. Best I can think of is Mesmer greatsword, but that is just one of many ranged weapons they have.

3) A ranger with a longbow still can easily contribute to party. Rapid Fire, Barrage, Hunter’s shot, and even the dreaded Point Blank Shot are all pretty much range neutral. Last I checked, most meta builds anticipate that you will open with a rapidfire+barrage, and Fractals are filled with situations where your party wants to see that range. So it isn’t even a situation where people don’t want to see you with a longbow equipped ever. No, the only thing about longbow that would give you a reason to not be in buff range is the auto attack, and we only care about auto attacks when we are camping a weapon as opposed to swapping for cooldowns. So this is totally a thread about making Longbow 100% effective 100% of the time whether you want to admit it or not.

4) If you are camping longbow, you already have added survivability because you have a whole party tanking for you. At best, you could argue that they should increase the range on Spotter and spirits so that newb rangers don’t screw over their party even more by denying them a buff.

5) If you really knew how to play ranger, would this thread exist?

The reason ranged weapons are typically weaker is because there’s a tradeoff in terms of safety. Ranging is safer so it should yield less returns. Meleeing is more dangerous so it should be more profitable in terms of damage dealt. The way it works now is fine, there is absolutely no reason to change it.

Aenesthesia.1697:

Sorry but I don’t agree. Ranger is just your profession name, nobody forces you to play ranged and you have other weapon sets that allow you to do even more damage when in melee. If you chose to play ranged, then you suffer the drawbacks of being at range, which are less damage, no buffs, no quick rez if downed.

oh, and you can still use your bow in melee range.

Oh, give me a break.

You can use your bow in melee range if you want to do far less damage than you would with a melee weapon, while taking the same damage.

Yeah, thanks a lot for that.

I can also wear just a pair of socks while I run a marathon, if I like, but not many people would.

No class should, effectively, be rendered obsolete, because its specialist weapons have been rendered obsolete, in group play, except in certain very specific situations.

…and that is exactly what happens if Ranger has to use the same weapons and stand in melee range, with other classes (which are better in that situation, as they were designed for it), to try to fit in with the group dynamic and share buffs.

I’m constantly hearing that rangers should “go home”, or “uninstall (haha)”, in favour of other classes, in both PVE and WvW.

That, obviously, isn’t right.

You shouldn’t end up being viewed as an inferior version of a Thief, or something.

That is obviously not what you signed up for, when you rolled Ranger.

All classes should be created equal (or as equal as is possible), otherwise, what is the point?

…and if there is going to be raiding in this game (and good luck with that, with all the lag!), all profs need to do the same damage, offer equally valuable buffs (at any range) and be allowed to excel at their chosen role.

Not be nerfed for daring to play ranged and shoehorned into a permanent stacking position, as they are now.

Honestly, it’s almost laughable.

Lorgus.6148:

The reason ranged weapons are typically weaker is because there’s a tradeoff in terms of safety. Ranging is safer so it should yield less returns. Meleeing is more dangerous so it should be more profitable in terms of damage dealt. The way it works now is fine, there is absolutely no reason to change it.

No, it’s not fine.

It’s not fine at all and that is borne out by the fact that people often don’t want to take a Ranger, if they can take virtually any other class.

If there has to be a trade-off for playing ranged, because ANet can’t be a little more inventive with the damage ranged typically receives, then that trade off is, or should be, defensive (as it pretty much also is, already!); not offensive.

In other words, that trade off should be in slightly lighter armour and/or fewer defensive moves than an exclusively melee type class would typically have.

As soon as you try to deal with it by simplistically lowering DPS at range/with ranged weapons, chaos ensues, as the class and/or playstyle involved becomes redundant in the eyes of other players.

It’s a terrible design choice.

Tigaseye.2047:

Aenesthesia.1697:

Sorry but I don’t agree. Ranger is just your profession name, nobody forces you to play ranged and you have other weapon sets that allow you to do even more damage when in melee. If you chose to play ranged, then you suffer the drawbacks of being at range, which are less damage, no buffs, no quick rez if downed.

oh, and you can still use your bow in melee range.

Oh, give me a break.

You can use your bow in melee range if you want to do far less damage than you would with a melee weapon, while taking the same damage.

Yeah, thanks a lot for that.

I can also wear just a pair of socks while I run a marathon, if I like, but not many people would.

No class should, effectively, be rendered obsolete, because its specialist weapons have been rendered obsolete, in group play, except in certain very specific situations.

…and that is exactly what happens if Ranger has to use the same weapons and stand in melee range, with other classes (which are better in that situation, as they were designed for it), to try to fit in with the group dynamic and share buffs.

I’m constantly hearing that rangers should “go home”, or “uninstall (haha)”, in favour of other classes, in both PVE and WvW.

That, obviously, isn’t right.

You shouldn’t end up being viewed as an inferior version of a Thief, or something.

That is obviously not what you signed up for, when you rolled Ranger.

All classes should be created equal (or as equal as is possible), otherwise, what is the point?

…and if there is going to be raiding in this game (and good luck with that, with all the lag!), all profs need to do the same damage, offer equally valuable buffs (at any range) and be allowed to excel at their chosen role.

Not be nerfed for daring to play ranged and shoehorned into a permanent stacking position, as they are now.

Honestly, it’s almost laughable.

Every class has its meta weapons that it is supposed to use for super awesome damage. This wouldn’t even be a big deal if so many rangers didn’t think they are Legolas, when clearly Aragorn was the only ranger in Lord of the Rings (wielding a sword all the time).

Even so, in Buff range, you can easily use axe and Shortbow and still take far fewer hits. Just stand just a little behind your allies and you are good. Even longbow can be used reasonably effective if you get in a more mobile fight. Sure you won’t do max DPS, but you won’t get complaints either since Rapid fire and Barrage don’t care what range you are at.

Then again, I am a Ranger that has never been told to go home/roll another class/quit the game/ect, so what do I know?

Eidolonemesis.5640:

CETheLucid.3964:

You’re confused. I think you’re trying to express multiple ideas without properly defining each one.

Many a warrior uses a longbow.

A good warrior uses it in concert with their melee weapon and does well. Can you guess what a good ranger does based on the aforementioned?

Hint: This isn’t abandoning your weapon of preference. Adapting to changing circumstances in fluid combat is necessary.

No. I am not confused. That still does not change the fact that, yes, while Warriors utilize Longbows for certain scenarios like pulling enemies and whatnot, a Warrior still uses his main weapon type, that which is a melee-based weapon, more so than a long-ranged weapon they only use some of the time.

With that just said in mind, the only time a Ranger can get away with using a Shortbow or a Longbow is if they’re outside high-end content. You can say whatever you want, but that is just not right. Sorry.

Rangers, on the other hand —-- because of what majority opinion tells players to use, and do so —-- utilize their main long-ranged weapon only some of the time, and in doing so they instead utilize a melee-ranged weapon most of the time.

Do you see the difference here between a Warrior and a Ranger? Last I checked, the definition of a Ranger does not use close quarters combat weapons (most of the time) to deal with what they’re hunting; they instead use long-ranged weapons (most of the time) to deal with what they’re hunting.

Conclusively (since this is rocket science to everybody), my point is Rangers should not have to be or feel forced to use melee-based weapon in parties. They should be able to and allowed to utilize their primary weapon type just like every other class minus all the hate and scrutiny when doing so. That is what separates the Ranger from every other class and is exactly why they are not equal to all other classes because of their current game state.

Obviously I am not wrong about this being an issue or else it would not be talked about. And of course melee-based players are not going to understand (nor do they want to understand) because they are not the ones affected by this kind of stigma.

I’m curious, who exactly decides the “main weapon type” for each class?

When RP’ing or in DnD, when ranger is mentioned I always think about Drizzt Do’Urden with his double scimitars which are consequently melee weapons. Maybe we’re checking different sources, what makes your per-determined view of a ranger more correct than mine?

Seems to me that you’re just proposing lazy gameplay to be encouraged(Yes ranging from 1500+ is lazy gameplay compared to being in melee range where you can be hit by cleaving and PBAoE damage).

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Other than players who downright do not know how to play a Ranger, concisely and straightforwardly put, the problem with Rangers is they are often criticized for being a ‘selfish’ class that give no more than 2 buffs to Party Members; and if a Ranger goes out of range (because, duh, they are a ranged class), they will not receive nor give buffs to other Party Members.

And here is your problem, Ranger is NOT a ranged class. They have excellent melee (and close range) abilities. Just like Guardians take a scepter in many fights, Warriors take Longbow and Thieves use Shortbows, Rangers can take a Longbow to utilize in fights (the LB does have great Burst damage), then switch to a different weapon to fight in close range. Why not use your weapon swapping?

I think ranger is a ranged class actually. They do exceptional damage at range. Some class have the potential to do it too but it’s much harder to control say grenade or sceptor smite for guardian.

The thing is ranger have decent melee capability, if Anet want to buff ranger range more, they need to nerf ranger melee to compensate. Anet already buff rapid fire a few patch ago.

Ranger has much to bring, but just saying ranger is a ranger class is very short sighted..

Rangers are also (military) footmen, with stamina, scouts…. park rangers and so on. People who roam the lands… It’s not a pew pew, in need of a long range weapon kinda noamer.

The fact people cannot see beyond the ranged in ranger is pure short sightedness.

Most buffs are for close ranged combat. And there is also the use of your pet… melee pets can buff the stack. If you are in the stack you’ll also benefit, and others will do so as well from your persoanl aoe buffs…

The fact people choose to stay at 600/900/1200/1500 range makes their ability to function well.. not usefull…

To compensate ( as decent long range support isn’t all bad):
Maybe it would be a good thing if buffs could go out of the pet as well as they are supposed to be an extension to rangers (with a bit smaller circle maybe) just as a n additional buff…. , non stacking or half from ranger half from pet…

Oh and sword/axe ranger does quite ok dmg…

Jermoe Morrow.9501:

Then again, I am a Ranger that has never been told to go home/roll another class/quit the game/ect, so what do I know?

Really?

Well, I don’t know which game you’re playing, because I hear it, all the time.

…and I don’t just mean aimed at me, personally – I mainly mean I hear it in map chat, and over TS3, aimed at Rangers, in general, in WvW.

I also hear Rangers being laughed at and ridiculed in guild chat, constantly, in a way other classes never are and that they have been kicked from dungeon groups at the last boss.

As things stand, I’m not going to waste much more of my life on this game (especially as I have the lag from hell during the US and Asia’s peak times, even though it’s very much the UK’s low traffic time and I have ReduceTheLag installed), but ANet would still be wise to make some changes for the good of the game, in general.

As things stand, I can’t take this game seriously.

So let’s assume for a moment Rangers could apply and receive all the buffs over a range of 1500, rez and be rezed over that distance, etc so that there is no downside at all to being at max range. Would Rangers still be kicked from dungeon-parties for not stacking? Yes they would.

The reason for kicking someone who doesn’t stack is neither the damage, nor the buffs. It’s because a single person destroys the result you’re trying to achieve by stacking. And that is getting all mobs into a small predefined killzone where you can focus your damage. If any mob happens to aggro the person that’s not in the corner the mob will run right past the killzone and, if it’s a ranged mob, come to a halt somewhere in the room where he can attack the whole group without getting much damage.

Drawing the mobs together is the reason why we stack and it’s also the reason why we can’t allow anyone to not stack. Changing the range of buffs is not going to change anything about this.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Aenesthesia.1697:

Sorry but I don’t agree. Ranger is just your profession name, nobody forces you to play ranged and you have other weapon sets that allow you to do even more damage when in melee. If you chose to play ranged, then you suffer the drawbacks of being at range, which are less damage, no buffs, no quick rez if downed.

oh, and you can still use your bow in melee range.

I know (not believe) you missed the point in everything I said. This thread is not about organized parties forcing Rangers to play ranged (very illogical); this thread is about organized parties forcing Rangers to play melee, which makes no sense because they are a ranged class. Whether or not melee-based weapons provide more DPS or not is beside the topic of this thread. We are talking about how Ranger are excluded from Party buffs when they choose to utilize their long-ranged weapons, that which they are mainly designed around (technically).

You know nothing jon snow.

If your problem is what other players tell you to do, then the only way to solve that is making ranger longbow as damaging as ranger sword. Otherwise, there will always be people telling you you are underperforming because you chose the easymode. No matter the buffs’ range, you will always doing subpar damage if you dont use you most damaging weapons, and those force you to play melee.

Ranger is a word that is 100’s of years old and usually refers to a highly trained light infantry specialized in raid, ambush, hit and run and asymmetric warfare. The “range” in ranger comes from the ability to fight at a variety of dynamic ranges, or to control the range of the fight, it does not refer to the exclusive use of fighting at range.

The OP’s suggestion though could be implemented to the Ranger without breaking the buff mechanic already in place for each class though.

I have thought before how much more useful Fortifying Bond would be if it worked both ways. That is, Boons your pet receives are transferred to you as well. That way, while your back in the corners slinging arrows, your bear/wolf/hawk slugging it out with everyone else is receiving your Boons while you are out of range, then remotely transferring them to you via traits. Your DPS is also balanced to include your pet so if only 1 of you is receiving boons you are not optimized for your party anyway.

However, that does not fix the fact that the Ranger would be providing limited buffs to the party. I am not so frustrated that the Ranger can’t do PVE content with a bow as much as I am frustrated that I do not like either melee option.

There are only really 2 since the Axe was refitted as a medium ranged tool for the ranger. The GS would be decent but does not allow the Fury you get off warhorn to be shared or the decent burst from Hunter’s Call. The sword as we all know is unwieldy, which is tolerable except that for the amount of hassle you have to go through to use it I don’t think you get the payoff in DPS.

That said, there is no PVE content in this game so challenging that any single class can not complete it without an average ability of skill. So any changes to skills, traits, balance, etc… is merely optimizing. There are a few videos on YouTube of a party of all Rangers conquering Arah paths.

I don’t understand the complaint here. Long bow is part of the ranger frost/spotter meta build. Is the complaint that people don’t want you standing at max range pew pewing while you use it? If that’s the complaint find some friends or start a casual group to do your runs with.

I’ve never had anyone complain or kick me from a group for running ranger, but I also don’t choose to run a wonky build, hop into speed runs and expect them to adjust to me.

I also don’t understand the issue here. Every other class has the exact same 600 range issue if they choose to use a ranged weapon instead of being grouped together. If there’s anything Rangers need help with, it isn’t party buffs cause they are already good at buffing the party’s dmg output.

Yeah, I went back and looked at the build editor a few minutes and Turtle has a good point. FS and Spotter alone make a Ranger valuable. But the big one I think is Fury. Even PUGs have no problem stacking might but very few pre made groups maintain 100% Fury up time. This is something the Ranger can come very close to if Spec’d right.

Also, Spotter and FS are Boons no other class has so they are valuable in the sense they cannot be out stacked or redundant with another party member. (Unless you have multiple Rangers.)

Eidolonemesis.5640:

First off, never did I say or insinuate that I am a Ranger that wants to and/or does dedicate my time in battle entirely to the Bow. That is a misplaced assumption on your part you seemed to convince yourself of.

I didn’t insinuate that about you in particular either. I said most rangers. I did not say you in particular suck. Where does that come from? A guilty conscience maybe?

Eidolonemesis.5640:

All I am saying is that when a Ranger DOES use a Shortbow or Longbow, make it so Ranger players can still contribute to a Party whether long-ranged or not by increasing the Range a Ranger has to be within (900 to 1,000) to receive buffs for equal survivability.

So a ranger should be able to go to near max range with their longbow and recieve all the benefits of the party buffs that the rest of the party is risking their necks for on the frontlines, with no drawback or any real contribution beyond single target DPS.

Maybe a few lucky cleaves with piercing arrows.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

And like I said in my idea, when a Ranger switches to a melee-based weapon, they would then have to move in and get much closer to receive buffs.

BUT NO, WAIT: Rangers should switch to a melee-based weapon and move in to recieve buffs. Exactly how it works now.

Which is it? You’re confused. Your first idea is OP, selfish, and encourages bad players to continue being bad.

You’re still going to kitten everyone off by not stacking, and your idea is to reward people for it. The second thought is already a reality which good players practice.

… Unless you mean you’re going to stack with your shortbow and longbow? If you want to stack with a range weapon that badly, give axe a try.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

How hard is my thread to understand?

It’s pretty hard to understand when you state two contradictory ideas like that in the same thought.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

P.S. Legend has it I actually know how to play a Ranger, so thank you for telling me everything I already knew Rangers are used for and are capable of. That is all besides the point.

Hostility is the calling card of a weak intellect.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

this thread is about organized parties forcing Rangers to play melee, which makes no sense because they are a ranged class.

Ranger isn’t a ranged class. /thread.

BunjiKugashira.9754:

So let’s assume for a moment Rangers could apply and receive all the buffs over a range of 1500, rez and be rezed over that distance, etc so that there is no downside at all to being at max range. Would Rangers still be kicked from dungeon-parties for not stacking? Yes they would.

The reason for kicking someone who doesn’t stack is neither the damage, nor the buffs. It’s because a single person destroys the result you’re trying to achieve by stacking. And that is getting all mobs into a small predefined killzone where you can focus your damage. If any mob happens to aggro the person that’s not in the corner the mob will run right past the killzone and, if it’s a ranged mob, come to a halt somewhere in the room where he can attack the whole group without getting much damage.

Drawing the mobs together is the reason why we stack and it’s also the reason why we can’t allow anyone to not stack. Changing the range of buffs is not going to change anything about this.

Yeah, that’s why the game also needs a general redesign, as well.

This stacking in corners thing has to go.

I understand where you’re coming from,but I think its important to understand that buffs from other players aren’t meant to be had on a constant basis . Yes by being far out with a bow you are away from most buffs other then what you provide but that is the cost of being able to be effective from a fairly safe area of the battle field.

Just my opinion

hyjaxxx.1584:

I understand where you’re coming from,but I think its important to understand that buffs from other players aren’t meant to be had on a constant basis . Yes by being far out with a bow you are away from most buffs other then what you provide but that is the cost of being able to be effective from a fairly safe area of the battle field.

Just my opinion

But that is the problem! According to what majority opinion says about Rangers, Rangers are not very effective when using their ‘main’ long-ranged weapons, meanwhile, nearly every other class who actually DO utilize their main weapons (most of the time) ARE effective with their main weapons in that the only time other classes convert to using other weapons they don’t ‘mainly’ use is if they absolutely need to. That, again, is not the case when it comes to the Ranger class.

Do you want to know why melee-ranged weapons are more effective than long-ranged? Because those who wield melee-ranged weapons in combat alongside Warriors and Guardians —- the Ranger being forced and/or recommended to do so as well in Parties (most of the time) —- receive buffs at that point since buffs require a much closer range, and that then negatively affects the effectiveness of long-ranged weapons used by Rangers and other long-ranged classes, meanwhile, melee-ranged weapons get all the glory and better damage output in parties.

That being said, though, for the sake of argument, for lack of better example when it comes to damage output, it is said an all-out Berserker Ranger (solo using a Bow) deals more damage to foes than an all-out Berserker Warrior (solo using a Sword/Greatsword). However, again, because we are talking about Party play here, and because melee-ranged weapons are greatly buffed vs. long-ranged weapons in Parties, melee-ranged weapons come out on top and are the general weapon of choice.

So what can we gather from this? Well, the Bow then becomes no more useful than to pull enemies and to shoot off a little burst damage occasionally. Therefore, to me IT IS a problem when the very weapon a Ranger should technically be using (most of the time) is used ever so sparingly.

Some of you in this thread (definitely not all of you) say you understand where I am coming from, yet you always seem to counteract the things I am pointing out with something else leading me to believe none of you really do understand where me and other Ranger players are coming from.

Some of you believe so (wrong you are), but by no means do I encourage use of any weapon 100% of the time in combat, including but not limited to, the Bow when playing a Ranger.

All I am saying is use of the Bow by Rangers in some way, shape or form needs to be improved (anyone got a better idea?) to where when a Ranger pulls out their main weapon, Party Members aren’t going to scoff at you or hate you for it.

P.S. If all fails that the Bow used by Rangers does not get an improvement in such way as explained in my OP, then perhaps there should be buffs that are only exchangeable between ranged classes in parties in the same way buffs are exchanged between melee-classes in parties.

However (for balance reasons), make it so ranged buffs differ from melee buffs so there is equality between all classes in such way where melee classes can only receive melee-based buffs, and ranged classes can receive ranged-based buffs.

With that being said in mind, don’t be so quick to flame me for some of these ideas because they are only ideas, per se, food for thought for players and the Anet developers (if they are reading this), so that something can be done to address Ranger Party play.

Odyssey.6523:

Ranger is a word that is 100’s of years old and usually refers to a highly trained light infantry specialized in raid, ambush, hit and run and asymmetric warfare. The “range” in ranger comes from the ability to fight at a variety of dynamic ranges, or to control the range of the fight, it does not refer to the exclusive use of fighting at range.

Who said the definition of ‘Ranger’ refers to the exclusive use of fighting at range? Not me! Here is what I did say: I said by proper definition Rangers use, and should use, their main long-ranged weapons most of the time (as has been shown throughout history since you want to get technical), and so they only use close quarters combat sparingly be it they use their fists, a knife or a sword.

Therefore, to correct your argument, the ‘range’ in ranger comes mostly from the ability to fight at a variety of dynamic ranges through the use of different long-ranged weapon types, that which is why there is an obvious difference between Short Bows, Recurve Bows, and Longbows. And so if a Ranger does use close quarters combat, it is used sparingly.

Let me put it to you this way: in the old days Rangers were known as bowman. Today, a Ranger would be known as a Sniper that uses a Sniper Rifle or a Handgun for backup, yet rarely a knife should something happen to the Sniper Rifle or Handgun.

Therefore, Rangers in GW 2 having to or being forced to in parties to utilize a Greatsword (most of the time) makes about as much sense as if the Ranger in GW 2 were a Sniper and to recommend the Sniper to use a Greatsword or a knife (most of the time) over their Sniper Rifle or Handgun.

That is my argument. It should be the other way around for Rangers in GW 2: Rangers should be able to use their main weapon type most of the time (effectively like other classes do their main weapons) and only use a melee-based weapon sparingly.

Don’t agree with me? Then read my Sniper argument again and what they would use most of the time. Snipers do not use a knife most of the time in the real world (neither would you if you were a Sniper unless you absolutely needed to) no more than a Ranger would use a Greatsword most of the time in GW 2. (Did you see what I did there? Contradicting how that is not the case in GW 2, hmm?) Right.

P.S. To really get you guys’ blood boiling, though, who are in opposition to my argument, technically, long-ranged combat (a bow or gun) is better than close range combat (a sword or knife) for very obvious reasons. Therefore, why, exactly, melee-range combat is superior to long-range combat in GW 2 is beyond me because it is illogical and inconsistent with how both weapon types truly perform. Take the buffs away, and yea, the Bow at that point may be a little better than the Sword, yet even then, it would be such a small difference so as to not be very noticeable.

You know, despite what Hollywood would have most of you believe, there is a reason why there are fewer and/or no people in the world who can dodge an arrow or bullet vs. a knife or sword.

So it’s like I said… To be fair for balance sake, the Bow (even though technically better and quicker than a Sword) should be of equal power to the Sword so that neither weapon type is dominant over the other so as to render the other weapon (in this case, the bow, in Parties) close to obsolete.

I think you are confusing rangers with archers…

ranger
[reyn-jer]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun

1. forest ranger.

2. one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.

3. (initial capital letter) a U.S. soldier in World War II specially trained for making surprise raids and attacks in small groups.
Compare commando (def 1).

4. a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain.

5. a person who ranges or roves.

6. (especially in Texas) a member of the state police.

7. British. a keeper of a royal forest or park.

I especially like this one from merriam-webster – a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics

This is also worth a read http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-word-Ranger

As for longbow being the rangers “main weapon”, I’m curious what you consider the “main” weapon for other classes. How about guardian? Would you consider their loot stick or hammer their main weapon? How would you feel if you ran a dungeon with a guardian that spammed staff 1 the entire fight to make sure he tagged as many mobs as possible?

That’s pretty much what you are asking for in this thread. Instead of adjusting your play style and working with your party (which in no way prevents you from using the longbow, once again, the longbow is still in the meta for dungeon runs) your want the game mechanics to change so you can sit back at max range and pew pew.

Puck.9612:

I think you are confusing rangers with archers…

ranger
[reyn-jer]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun

1. forest ranger.

2. one of a body of armed guards who patrol a region.

3. (initial capital letter) a U.S. soldier in World War II specially trained for making surprise raids and attacks in small groups.
Compare commando (def 1).

4. a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain.

5. a person who ranges or roves.

6. (especially in Texas) a member of the state police.

7. British. a keeper of a royal forest or park.

I especially like this one from merriam-webster – a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics

This is also worth a read http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-word-Ranger

I am not confusing anything. It is more like you guys are trying to find 30 different ways to counteract my argument for the sake of arguing just because, it seems, even though I have provided 30 (or more) different, more logical ways to dispute other arguments.

I am applying the definition of ‘Ranger’ how they are presented in GW 2, and upon character creation in the game (it’s even in their Traits) Rangers are presented as female and male archers (bowmen, bow women, whatever you want to call them) that wield Bows, not melee-ranged weapons like Greatswords!

Let’s compare the mindset of most (not all) Ranger players vs. a great many Warrior players:

Most Ranger players: Gee, you know, if I wanted to utilize a Greatsword [or any other melee-based weapon] most of the time, I would be a Warrior who uses the way of the Sword most of the time, yet uses the way of the Bow sparingly.

A great many Warrior players: Whoa… Awesome! I am really a Warrior; I look like one, and I am one! I get to use my main weapons [or almost any melee-based weapon] while using the Bow sparingly, or almost whatever other weapon type not my main, sparingly!

The difference is clear, folks, and no, I didn’t get that one-liner from some skincare commercial, it’s just the sad truth.

My two cents,

Since there’s always an debate about the ranger at range I would like to see some hard evidence that a Longbow Ranger does less damage at range and is not useful. For example, imo, the ranger has much more uptime in combat because he’s at range and doesnt have to dodge as much and still damages the mob when it walks away out of melee range or the melee has to move out of range.

Also I have, with my ranger, saved a lot of party’s because I was at range. (For example stealth and ress). Second the ranger can heal himself if so downed. I, for one, hate it when the party is wasting time to ress me while my pet ress comes off cd.

The buffs the ranger gives the party are always on the party (spotter, spirit) it only does not receive all the melee buffs, which it don’t need most of the time.

Also the best party I ever had for fractals had two rangers…

But haters gonna hate.

Puck.9612:

As for longbow being the rangers “main weapon”, I’m curious what you consider the “main” weapon for other classes. How about guardian? Would you consider their loot stick or hammer their main weapon? How would you feel if you ran a dungeon with a guardian that spammed staff 1 the entire fight to make sure he tagged as many mobs as possible?

That’s pretty much what you are asking for in this thread. Instead of adjusting your play style and working with your party (which in no way prevents you from using the longbow, once again, the longbow is still in the meta for dungeon runs) your want the game mechanics to change so you can sit back at max range and pew pew.

You cannot quote me that I specifically said ‘Longbows’ in particular are the Ranger’s main weapon. No. What I said was is that all Bow types: Short Bows, Long Bows and Recurve Bows are the Ranger’s main weapons.

As for the rest of your argument, it comes as common sense (to me, anyway) what the main weapon of any class is and how those weapons are utilized. Your question, though, is quite redundant since the word ‘Guardian’ is extremely broad, meaning that, arguably, a Guardian’s main weapon can be considered almost anything (despite the weapon they come with by default upon character creation), or I should say, whatever weapon the player feels most comfortable using when playing a Guardian.

However, that is not so much the case for Rangers. A Ranger is a hybrid, that is to say, a man or woman that utilizes the Bow (most of the time), and yes, who also uses close quarters combat, yet only some of the time (not all the time).

My point is there are no Asura, Mesmers and Guardians (the kind in GW 2, anyway) in the real-world so as to give me enough leverage in this argument to say, “To answer the question in your argument vs. mine, the Guardian’s main weapon would be…” You see what I’m saying? That would be unwise of me to even try to give you a direct answer.

However, because there actually ARE Rangers in the real world, and according to how they are presented in GW 2 by default as wielders of the Bow, that is why I have been able to argue why I think the Ranger in GW 2 should be a little more effective with the Bow.

And you’re wrong. I am not suggesting this change for Rangers for the sake of standing all the way back to ‘pew pew,’ as you and some others here in the comments exaggerate since, duh, 1,000/1,200 range is still within fatality distance, especially when going up against certain bosses and champions.

Making the ‘stand in corner, pew pew’ argument is quite a poor one because it’s as I said to someone else here… If someone wants to literally stand in a corner and not contribute to a battle, especially the World Bosses, it’s as easy as standing within the big circle surrounding the area and doing absolutely nothing, whereupon you still get rewarded.

So your argument is based on rangers in the real world…. Well in that case I think you should be petitioning anet to give rangers access to pistols and rifles. I know when I think about park rangers, army rangers, or texas rangers, I expect them to use knives, pistols and rifles a lot more often than bows.

Since what we are actually talking about is a game I am going to have to disagree with you. It isn’t ”common sense” that bows are rangers main weapons, that is your opinion. I use all of the ranger weapons. I have several builds that don’t use a bow at all.

And even if you were right and bows are the rangers main weapon you are still ignoring the fact that the meta dungeon build for ranger includes the longbow. In fact there is no aspect of the game that you can’t find a very strong build that utilizes a bow. Nothing you are complaining about makes any sense.

Jermoe Morrow.9501:

1) There really isn’t a time you should be out of buff range on ranger shortbow. None of the skills care how far way you are other than being within the range, and posion volley is best up close. So this is a thread about longbow as far as ranger is concerned.

2) What other class would have to be out of buff range to use their range? Engineer is the only other class with comparable extreme range using grenades, but they can use those at any range. Best I can think of is Mesmer greatsword, but that is just one of many ranged weapons they have.

3) A ranger with a longbow still can easily contribute to party. Rapid Fire, Barrage, Hunter’s shot, and even the dreaded Point Blank Shot are all pretty much range neutral. Last I checked, most meta builds anticipate that you will open with a rapidfire+barrage, and Fractals are filled with situations where your party wants to see that range. So it isn’t even a situation where people don’t want to see you with a longbow equipped ever. No, the only thing about longbow that would give you a reason to not be in buff range is the auto attack, and we only care about auto attacks when we are camping a weapon as opposed to swapping for cooldowns. So this is totally a thread about making Longbow 100% effective 100% of the time whether you want to admit it or not.

4) If you are camping longbow, you already have added survivability because you have a whole party tanking for you. At best, you could argue that they should increase the range on Spotter and spirits so that newb rangers don’t screw over their party even more by denying them a buff.

5) If you really knew how to play ranger, would this thread exist?

I… I cannot seem to explain this feeling, the feeling of seeing the LIGHT! You have made me absolutely realize that, yes, everything you have convinced yourself of the intention behind my thread is correct and irrefutable.

Anyway, all jokes and sarcasm aside…

I mentioned that the numbers in my idea are flexible so as to make even Longbow users have to get closer for the buffs, yet not so low in the numbers where a Ranger has to get too close because they’re not tanks like Warriors and the like are.

Furthermore, if I didn’t know how to play a Ranger or GW 2 in general (I am also a 10-year GW 1 veteran), I wouldn’t already be level 80 on my Ranger with well over 150g worth (at least that) in my gear, closing in on World Completion, among many other things I have accomplished thus far in just over 3 weeks (if that).

In other words, I have only just started 3 weeks ago as of my writing this from the bottom, up, and I have already accomplished more than most. Why? Because I did a lot of research prior to even playing GW 2.

It is amazing how you are so quick to assume things of others you do not know without anything to truly back up your absurd claims.

Puck.9612:

So your argument is based on rangers in the real world…. Well in that case I think you should be petitioning anet to give rangers access to pistols and rifles. I know when I think about park rangers, army rangers, or texas rangers, I expect them to use knives, pistols and rifles a lot more often than bows.

Since what we are actually talking about is a game I am going to have to disagree with you. It isn’t ”common sense” that bows are rangers main weapons, that is your opinion. I use all of the ranger weapons. I have several builds that don’t use a bow at all.

And even if you were right and bows are the rangers main weapon you are still ignoring the fact that the meta dungeon build for ranger includes the longbow. In fact there is no aspect of the game that you can’t find a very strong build that utilizes a bow. Nothing you are complaining about makes any sense.

After I submit this comment, this is going to be it for me. I will leave the rest of the arguing up to everyone else at this point since I have said everything I am going to say too many times in numerous different ways.

To sum this whole thing up, I am completely aware (even given the Ranger’s current game state I do not agree with) how effective a Ranger is and can be. The problem is most groups I get in are absolutely prejudice towards Rangers to the point where if you even so much have a Longbow (or any Bow) equipped at all, kick. THEY are the ones who underestimate and can never understand the usefulness of a Ranger.

I have also had instances where I have entered a Party with my Greatsword eqipped, and then right after I switched up to my Longbow/Shortbow at certain times, I was kicked. I was doing just fine until I did a weapon swap, and that to me is sad, my group not knowing or WHY I switched to using a Bow to fit the situation.

Because of that, I often have a tough time getting into parties, and it’s not because I use (s)a Bear Pet or use the Bow 100% of the time. That being said, I do get into some groups, yet not very many and there’s a reason for that, reasons already stated in this thread.

My whole intent behind this thread was to get players talking so maybe Anet can get the message as well so that perhaps the stigma surrounding Rangers (and a few other classes, to be fair) will be fixed, somehow, some way, whether or not Anet goes about it doing it their way.

Puck.9612:

” Rangers are meant to use bows, I should be able to play however I want and everyone should adjust to me.”

If you want to change how people view rangers you need to be fluid in your own play style. Bring skills and adapt your fighting style to complement your group. I use the longbow very differently depending on the game mode or situation I am in. I don’t expect to sit at max range in a dungeon any more than I expect my enemies to stack in a corner to be dps’ed down in WvW.

Because Rangers mainly ARE meant to use Bows. Does that mean they should use a Bow 100% of the time? NO. And where did I say Rangers should use a Bow 100% of the time? NOWHERE in this thread. Quote me if you can. On another note, you don’t know how I play, so don’t be so quick to judge where you do not know.

And just to drive my point into your head a little more, it is Rangers who are having to change for melee-based players (for buffs) just to be a bit more viable and effective, NOT the other way around, because if it was the other way around where melee-based players had to change in some annoying way for ranged-based players, they would be saying something, too, just like I am!

P.S. Again… Rangers in GW 2 are presented to players as Bow wielders by default in the ‘Archer’ sense, before the age of guns. If Anet wanted to present the Ranger to players as Rifle users, they would have done so, but they didn’t.

And coming from the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, it states, “Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance. As an adventurer profession, rangers wear medium armor.”

It is amazing how no one except me until now has quoted that. I was waiting for someone else to, yet no one did (yea, I get why…)

So let’s break down the above quoted, because after all, it is how Anet defines the class that matters most. Let’s see… ‘proficient’ with the Bow, yet ‘surgical’ with the Sword. (emphasis on the word yet, guys, because there is a reason for that).

Last I checked, someone ‘proficient’ in something is someone who uses that something more often (in this case, the Bow, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not), whereas someone ‘surgical’ with something uses that something (in this case, the Sword) sparingly or wisely, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not.

End of debate on my end.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

Puck.9612:

So your argument is based on rangers in the real world…. Well in that case I think you should be petitioning anet to give rangers access to pistols and rifles. I know when I think about park rangers, army rangers, or texas rangers, I expect them to use knives, pistols and rifles a lot more often than bows.

Since what we are actually talking about is a game I am going to have to disagree with you. It isn’t ”common sense” that bows are rangers main weapons, that is your opinion. I use all of the ranger weapons. I have several builds that don’t use a bow at all.

And even if you were right and bows are the rangers main weapon you are still ignoring the fact that the meta dungeon build for ranger includes the longbow. In fact there is no aspect of the game that you can’t find a very strong build that utilizes a bow. Nothing you are complaining about makes any sense.

After I submit this comment, this is going to be it for me. I will leave the rest of the arguing up to everyone else at this point since I have said everything I am going to say.

To sum this whole thing up, I am completely aware (even given the Ranger’s current game state I do not agree with) how effective a Ranger is and can be. The problem is most groups I get in are absolutely prejudice towards Rangers, and because of that, I often have a tough time getting into parties, and it’s not because I use a Bear Pet or use the Bow 100% of the time. That being said, I do get into some groups, yet not very many and there’s a reason for that, reasons already stated in this thread.

My whole intent behind this thread was to get players to talking so maybe Anet can get the message as well so that perhaps the stigma surrounding Rangers (and a few other classes, to be fair) will be fixed, somehow, some way, whether or not Anet goes about it doing it their way.

Posts like this is the reason for the stigma surrounding rangers.

” Rangers are meant to use bows, I should be able to play however I want and everyone should adjust to me.”

If you want to change how people view rangers you need to be fluid in your own play style. Bring skills and adapt your fighting style to complement your group. I use the longbow very differently depending on the game mode or situation I am in. I don’t expect to sit at max range in a dungeon any more than I expect my enemies to stack in a corner to be dps’ed down in WvW.

Tigaseye.2047:

Aenesthesia.1697:

Sorry but I don’t agree. Ranger is just your profession name, nobody forces you to play ranged and you have other weapon sets that allow you to do even more damage when in melee. If you chose to play ranged, then you suffer the drawbacks of being at range, which are less damage, no buffs, no quick rez if downed.

oh, and you can still use your bow in melee range.

Oh, give me a break.

You can use your bow in melee range if you want to do far less damage than you would with a melee weapon, while taking the same damage.

Yeah, thanks a lot for that.

I can also wear just a pair of socks while I run a marathon, if I like, but not many people would.

No class should, effectively, be rendered obsolete, because its specialist weapons have been rendered obsolete, in group play, except in certain very specific situations.

…and that is exactly what happens if Ranger has to use the same weapons and stand in melee range, with other classes (which are better in that situation, as they were designed for it), to try to fit in with the group dynamic and share buffs.

I’m constantly hearing that rangers should “go home”, or “uninstall (haha)”, in favour of other classes, in both PVE and WvW.

That, obviously, isn’t right.

You shouldn’t end up being viewed as an inferior version of a Thief, or something.

That is obviously not what you signed up for, when you rolled Ranger.

All classes should be created equal (or as equal as is possible), otherwise, what is the point?

…and if there is going to be raiding in this game (and good luck with that, with all the lag!), all profs need to do the same damage, offer equally valuable buffs (at any range) and be allowed to excel at their chosen role.

Not be nerfed for daring to play ranged and shoehorned into a permanent stacking position, as they are now.

Honestly, it’s almost laughable.

You are quite possibly going to be the next Einstein, because you are the only one here with a brain that actually understands the Ranger’s current game state.

EDIT: The only thing, though, I do not agree with is when you said, “…offer equally valuable buffs (at any range).”

I believe the range at which Rangers are able to receive buffs should be 900 or a little below, even for Longbow users, that way, players like the ones here in the commentaries don’t go, “Wah! Wahburger, wah! That Ranger gets buff from 1,200 range and I don’t!”

P.S. Yea, I lied. My other comment was not my last, but this one is. I am stepping out on my end of the debate because you guys assume way too much, notably concerning my gameplay experience (which differs from yours), and that is very foolish on your part.

None of you know the extensive research I did prior to playing GW 2 or any of that. I just started 3 weeks ago! and have already achieved what takes a great many a much longer time, especially when starting from scratch, going from rags to riches.

Cheers everyone, and happy debating!