Guild Wars 2

Ramiel, we’ve been yelling. The lead game designer has admitted that pets don’t work. He’s also stated that they will make no improvements to the pet AI. Couple that with the fact that they insist a ranger MUST have a pet.

It’s a bleak future for the class.

Realistically profession/clkittene on a large scale can be productive in bettering the profession/class.

Take “Rogues” from WoW for example. Remember the stigma behind them in vanilla? Then take a look at how they evolved from Vanilla to Wrath. How much of not only pve, but pvp power houses they became.

Although baiting rogue tears when diremaul was released was pretty entertaining while it lasted. If I had to guess, rogues and shamans would’ve been easily the two whiniest classes out of the 9.

If they just merged everything that the pet is with the ranger, god the class would be fantastic. Probably overpowered too. If I had to guess everything would probably start hitting as hard as Greatsword used to hit.

stale.9785:

Ramiel, we’ve been yelling. The lead game designer has admitted that pets don’t work. He’s also stated that they will make no improvements to the pet AI. Couple that with the fact that they insist a ranger MUST have a pet.

It’s a bleak future for the class.

Yet another decision to leave fail mechanics in the game unchanged.

IndigoSundown.5419:

stale.9785:

Ramiel, we’ve been yelling. The lead game designer has admitted that pets don’t work. He’s also stated that they will make no improvements to the pet AI. Couple that with the fact that they insist a ranger MUST have a pet.

It’s a bleak future for the class.

Yet another decision to leave fail mechanics in the game unchanged.

I wouldn’t put it like that. If the pet AI were better, other classes would complain that the ranger, essentially, always has another player with him (usually a tank). So they’d cry for boosts to make up for that.
I think the ranger’s fine as it is, apart from the really weird sword skills. Those are just… I mean, the GS is more flexible than the sword, while logic dictates it should be the other way round.

People will always prefer any other class over a ranger in general. This trend has not changed for over 1 year. This is because of the ranger’s design and pet dependency. I am not trying to start a fight considering my first character was a ranger till i was forced to change to a character that was actually useful. There is no thing a ranger can do that all other classes can’t do as good or even better.

Sry but that’s just how things are. Think of it this way….1-2 ppl that rage about rangers can be considered noobs…but when the overall playerbase trend is to rage about them that means there’s really something wrong with that class.

My tip to u is to ADAPT! Try out other classes…see if they suit u the same way the ranger is or better. Maybe till GW3 comes out anet will actually figure out what the community already figured out long ago (that being pets and spirits = useless regardless of how many buffs they give them. They have a terrible AI and they die to fast in almost all situations when it involves more numbers of ppl)

That’s how things are for you. There are times when I keep my pet on passive, and I don’t find it any harder to play than with it, or with an entirely different class. So it’s not a pet dependency, really.

Now, before anyone cries “personal experience”, please remember that you comment based on personal experience as well

That said, if you don’t mindlessly buy zerker gear and put your points solely in offensive traits, you’ll discover the ranger is a great class to have, very flexible and with decent survivability, with or without a pet.
(That goes for every class, really. No, berserker is NOT the be-all and end-all of gear and traits. A lot of zerker fanboys would be surprised how well, say, an elementalist with mixed berserker/soldier gear fares in a lot of situations. The highest possible DPS doesn’t help you if you kiss the dirt after five seconds. Just saying.)

If this happened to me, I would try to completely ruin the fight for them.

As i said..there is nothing the ranger can do that others can’t do at the same level or even better. You base your whole comment on the “theory” that most ppl are dumb and go only for full dps gear.

No.i am sorry (ignoring your zerker comment), rangers are NOT as efficient as other classes. That’s just sad fact.

Let’s put it another way…tel me in what way are they more efficient/better then OR as good as any of the other classes.

There are good and bad rangers out there. Just like there are good and bad players of each class.

A ranger who fails to lure a mob with its pet just stands out more than other players on the plattform though. Especially because people expect rangers to do just that after all the trashtalk about rangers.

I’ve seen mindless Warriors hitting 0 on the first mob for 1,5 minutes, too. That doesn’t prove that Warrior-players are braindead though.

Tbh when discussions like that start I just turn my chat off. You’ll always stumble across people who like to blame others or to be annoying for the sake of it.

Rangers are the Buff – kittenes that provide Precision, a ‘Moar Demetch’ Proc, and a Water Field that they usually have to blast themselves, too, so that the Fullzerks get some healing, allowing them to marvel in more of their own greatness.

(Edit: This was Sarcasm)

Rebound.3409:

As i said..there is nothing the ranger can do that others can’t do at the same level or even better. You base your whole comment on the “theory” that most ppl are dumb and go only for full dps gear.

No.i am sorry (ignoring your zerker comment), rangers are NOT as efficient as other classes. That’s just sad fact.

Let’s put it another way…tel me in what way are they more efficient/better then OR as good as any of the other classes.

I never talked in terms of “efficiency” or being better than any other class. All I’m saying is that you seem to think that, playing a ranger, I could only possibly play her horribly and inevitably die a lot and ruin stuff for my groups because of the class mechanics. And I pointed out that it’s not a crappy class, period, it’s a class that needs the player to know more about its mechanics to work properly. Spirits actually saved our bacon more than once, and I’m talking specifically about the Marionette event in this case.

You say “adapt”, but then go on telling ranger players to switch classes. How about trying to adapt to the ranger first? It works, even if you don’t believe me.
I refuse to support this notion that, in order to have fun AND win events, that everyone has to roll a different class. Besides, I’ll take fun over winning any time, and I’m not alone with this.

This is why we’re, uh, mildly annoyed? Because, y’know, us nature-loving rangers could never be truly furious
It’s the attitude that WE need to change OUR playstyle to satisfy YOUR desire to win everything that can be won, every single time. I’m pretty sure every player who’s not actively trolling is doing their best to help out the group; raging at them to roll another toon that’s not a ranger kind of ruins it for us, just like you seem to think rangers “ruin everything” four you.

Seriously, does nobody see the irony in this?

shootist.3607:

Rangers are the Buff – kittenes that provide Precision, a ‘Moar Demetch’ Proc, and a Water Field that they usually have to blast themselves, too, so that the Fullzerks get some healing, allowing them to marvel in more of their own greatness.

(Edit: This was Sarcasm)

You do notice that this kind of attitude in this thread comes solely from those who keep calling rangers crap, don’t you?
I don’t recall any of us declaring that rangers are superior or even the “best” class. I wonder where you read that :O

Never said “u” play like crap in any of my comments. All i said is all other classes are more efficient then ranger. Dunno how u understood i was referring to player skill.

Rebound.3409:

Never said “u” play like crap in any of my comments. All i said is all other classes are more efficient then ranger. Dunno how u understood i was referring to player skill.

But that ties into this. In order to play the ranger effectively (note I didn’t say “efficiently”), the player has to get to know the class and its mechanics (the ones that you think are completely messed up). Taking the player out of the equation completely means to let a bot take over.
And I didn’t think you said I, specifically, play like crap. I used this phrasing to get my point across. Always writing “one should know” and “one just has to” is as annoying as always reading it.

I am saying if u take a player that completely understands the ranger and any other class….that “any other class” will prove to be as useful and in most cases more useful/versatile then the ranger. That’s why ppl prefer “any other class” over ranger in general….because “any other class” is as good or better then ranger as a class and in no way worst then ranger which means they will either perform at the same level or better, overall. My whole point starts from the ideea that the player himself has equal and very good experience with all classes so that i can compare only the classes themselves and not the player factor.

Also that’s why i put commas for “u”…because i understood u didn’t refer to your particular skill level.

Red Queen.7915:

You do notice that this kind of attitude in this thread comes solely from those who keep calling rangers crap, don’t you?
I don’t recall any of us declaring that rangers are superior or even the “best” class. I wonder where you read that :O

That’s why I edited to include the ‘Sarcasm’ line. I have a Ranger myself, and it is ridiculous what people demand from Rangers so that they get accepted in a group, while the very people making those demands run ‘egoistic’ builds that only focus on personal DPS.

I cannot believe the thread is still going …

Was in Lane 4 again last evening, and sure enough, lanes 2 and 3 failed so we got the Lane 2 champ again. I think this champ has a thing for my female ranger and knows when she around …

Again, 3 of us (my ranger, a warrior, and some other player who was down most of the time) did the Lane 2 champ and regulator. Then all lanes after us failed …

There is so much crap about rangers in this thread, it is appalling. Sure I don’t know everything about some classes I leveled to only 22 or 23, but I know enough to not to spread misinformation about them.

Rebound.3409:

I am saying if u take a player that completely understands the ranger and any other class….that “any other class” will prove to be as useful and in most cases more useful/versatile then the ranger. My whole point starts from the ideea that the player himself has equal and very good experience with all classes so that i can compare only the classes themselves and not the player factor.

In that case, in order to maximise efficiency, it might be advisable to change classes. If you take other factors into account, though, like a personal fondness of that class, or liking the looks, or just thinking pets are cooler than being able to bash your foe’s head with a hammer, then this changes.
Point is, the people who play rangers because they want to play a ranger will continue playing them. It’s no use telling them their class is bad and they are bad and whatnot, like it happens in the mapchats. And for those who are looking for max DPS or something like that, it would be way more beneficial (for everyone involved) to point them to classes and builds that do the thing they are looking for better.

Generally bashing a class for something that doesn’t even matter to the player behind the avatar is just… yeah. Not a mature thing to do.

shootist.3607:

Red Queen.7915:

You do notice that this kind of attitude in this thread comes solely from those who keep calling rangers crap, don’t you?
I don’t recall any of us declaring that rangers are superior or even the “best” class. I wonder where you read that :O

That’s why I edited to include the ‘Sarcasm’ line. I have a Ranger myself, and it is ridiculous what people demand from Rangers so that they get accepted in a group, while the very people making those demands run ‘egoistic’ builds that only focus on personal DPS.

Sorry. Wasn’t sure who the sarcasm was directed at. Kinda hard to tell over the internet.

Well if it goes down to “personal preference” like looks, class etc. then rangers shouldn’t QQ about what other players think about the class. In a way they accepted the fact they might have a sub-standard class but love the fact it looks cool or whatever.

Rebound.3409:

Well if it goes down to “personal preference” like looks, class etc. then rangers shouldn’t QQ about what other players think about the class. In a way they accepted the fact they might have a sub-standard class but love the fact it looks cool or whatever.

It’s not whining about opinions, it’s trying to keep derogatory and downright horrible comments out of the mapchats. Telling a player his class is badly balanced or even the “worst” is one thing and okay (it’s a valid personal opinion, after all). Telling them they suck and their class is horrible and they should just leave and let “real” players take over, spiked with obscenities, is not.
It’s basic decency and common sense that should tell the “haters” not to use that kind of language. If nothing else, they might find themselves at the receiving end of it one day, experiencing first-hand why exactly they’ve been behaving like grade A kittens. But that would mean we all succumbed to this low standard of “acceptable” player behaviour, and I’m pretty sure very few people would actually like that.

That i can agree with. Well..it’s a game and an mmo…u have to expect child-mentality players. Just ignore/report them Anet gave u both options :P That’s what i do to players who annoy me. U will never change that mentality regardless of the mmo u play. We live in a world where ppl think it;s “cool” and “hip” to curse and bash everything….in a major attempt to cover their own stupidity.

It’s everyone else’s fault but theirs. Just ignore.

I have to ask one question to all the folks that bashed the ranger as a class (whether the class mechanics, pet issues, spamming #4 with LB or any other weakness “you perceive” to be in place), how many have actually leveled a ranger? I see a couple people state that they leveled them and those people tend to be a little less harsh. The others seem to have a mob mentality because a failing ranger robbed you of your cookie at recess.

I see a LOT of rangers in PvE and WvW (don’t play PvP just yet as arena is not my cup of tea, not on that scale so I cannot speak to that) and obviously my main is a ranger so I admit to my bias. All of those people have to be continuing on the course of ranger for a reason and if you proclaim it’s because it’s an easy class you are way out of touch with the reality. Just the opposite, it’s very hard. So when you say it is easy, you are proclaiming yourself as ignorant and blatantly not in the camp of people who have leveled and fought with the class.

In the start of this game, most classes are easy except Engineer. Move my mouse and use cursor buttons to move around the map, mash 1 to kill something and 6 to heal myself. I pick things up with the f key. There may be something truth to the appeal of a ranger as a class due to the lore but beyond that, only one class is tougher to learn and I already mentioned it.

It’s really sad indeed that all this vitriol was and is spawned from talking out of one’s kitten.

It seems that ranger hate is down to mob mentality. Its like propaganda, if you are bombarded with it on a daily basis, you believe it with no real grounding. Sure you may have seen a bad ranger every now and then, but you’ve also most likely seen every class have a few bad apples.

Ive heard commanders in WvW state that “Rangers are crap, they should just go off and die”, and of course the zerg following takes that on board without question since their commander said it was so. People who play rangers and play them well don’t want to have to continually put up with scrutiny and a “guilty of being bad until proven otherwise” way of thinking.

As for saying every class can do things better than a ranger, you obviously haven’t explored the class to its potential, and nothing I could say, or anyone else, would ever change your mind until you open it to the possibility that that statement could be wrong.

The class can put down a fire field, a water field and blast it with one of the better party buff skills (warhorn #5), it can give a continuous partywide buff to precision that doesn’t have to be reapplied and doesn’t take up a utility, it can add a fair amount of partywide might with blasting fire fields and using jungle stalker mighty roar, good ability to evade with shortbow and sword….there are many things a ranger can bring to the table if you would “allow” them to actually show what they can do without bias.

That being said I would LOVE a buff, Anet.

Hey, after 2500hrs on my ranger, I will be the first to admit the class has some serious problems. I stopped running dungeons on my ranger a year ago after I leveled a guardian, but it is still the best class for open world PvE.

For a class that is hated so much, this sure doesn’t say much for all the so-called ‘better’ classes. Oh, and I have 2 of those ‘better’ classes, a guard and mesmer., but I still play my ranger more than those 2 other classes combined.

The flaws are well documented and known and I do not dispute this. A good ranger player can only do so much to compensate for very bad design and worse implementation. It is blatant myths and non-truths about the class ,and the players who play the class, that get constantly circulated that really bothers me.

Cassocaster.4576:

I have to ask one question to all the folks that bashed the ranger as a class (whether the class mechanics, pet issues, spamming #4 with LB or any other weakness “you perceive” to be in place), how many have actually leveled a ranger? I see a couple people state that they leveled them and those people tend to be a little less harsh. The others seem to have a mob mentality because a failing ranger robbed you of your cookie at recess.

I see a LOT of rangers in PvE and WvW (don’t play PvP just yet as arena is not my cup of tea, not on that scale so I cannot speak to that) and obviously my main is a ranger so I admit to my bias. All of those people have to be continuing on the course of ranger for a reason and if you proclaim it’s because it’s an easy class you are way out of touch with the reality. Just the opposite, it’s very hard. So when you say it is easy, you are proclaiming yourself as ignorant and blatantly not in the camp of people who have leveled and fought with the class.

In the start of this game, most classes are easy except Engineer. Move my mouse and use cursor buttons to move around the map, mash 1 to kill something and 6 to heal myself. I pick things up with the f key. There may be something truth to the appeal of a ranger as a class due to the lore but beyond that, only one class is tougher to learn and I already mentioned it.

It’s really sad indeed that all this vitriol was and is spawned from talking out of one’s kitten.

Besides loving the idea behind the ranger as a concept, i played it because i first thought i had a 2 in 1 character…as in a pet who tanks and me who just sits behind pressing 1. I bet most think the same way when choosing any kind of PET class. “Why party with a guardian when i have a pet to do it for me”. Others think of themselves as nerd legolas. It’s mostly down to convenience combined with misjudgement mentality. Why? because some actually think it might be easier because of that 2 in 1 “feeling” when in reality it isn’t. It’s as hard as others when it comes down to open world.

Ranger was fine till they nerfed skill.1 shortbow fiering speed + took out bleed from any direction + made condition damage redundant on shortbow. These things literally destroyed that weapon. Longbow is good for beginners. Great Sword is ok for advanced players but even then players learned to counter that easy.

If they would bring back the ranger as it was on beta/release day……i think a lot of the QQ would go away but the sad thing is they changed the game so much..it’s almost impossible to implement the old ranger without breaking other parts of the game severely.

I love my ranger, she was my first level 80 and the first character I made at launch. I do the whole sword/warhorn with feline thing, to be as useful as possible. She’s still not that useful. I’m not going to go on about how I’m a good player and that makes a difference, it does, but I can totally respect why ranger’s aren’t in demand. It doesn’t feel good when people get insulting about it so I see where the dedicated ranger players get frustrated, but I play her occasionally because I enjoy it not because I think she’s a better choice than my other characters. The fact is, as long as the pets “potential” usefulness is factored in to balancing the rangers skills, their actual usefulness is going to be less than any other class. Nothing like watching your pet stand 4 feet away from someone your attacking and completely ignore them because you are on an incline that it can’t path correctly.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Laurelinde.4395:

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. Getting reeeeally tired of it.

I’m confused, what does this have to do with this thread? Pardon my ignorance in advance.

As applied to the subject of the thread, confirmation bias would mean that people perceive rangers as causing the problem because they are predisposed to blame issues on rangers. If one expects something to be the cause, it’s pretty easy to find “evidence” that that is so, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

I know what confirmation bias is, I just don’t see how it applies to this thread. Regardless of what people think, Ranger is a broken class right now. Plain and simple. Every measurable metric in game reflects this. I would love for Ranger to be viable again, as indicated in my signature, nothing would make me happier class wise honestly. That being said, all you do is cripple yourself by playing one right now when nearly every other class does the same job except better.

Red Queen.7915:

IndigoSundown.5419:

stale.9785:

Ramiel, we’ve been yelling. The lead game designer has admitted that pets don’t work. He’s also stated that they will make no improvements to the pet AI. Couple that with the fact that they insist a ranger MUST have a pet.

It’s a bleak future for the class.

Yet another decision to leave fail mechanics in the game unchanged.

I wouldn’t put it like that. If the pet AI were better, other classes would complain that the ranger, essentially, always has another player with him (usually a tank). So they’d cry for boosts to make up for that.

I think the ranger’s fine as it is, apart from the really weird sword skills. Those are just… I mean, the GS is more flexible than the sword, while logic dictates it should be the other way round.

If a lead designer has admitted that a mechanic does not work, that’s pretty much an admission of failure. Sure, there are variations in skill, players can micro-manage the pet, one can stack as much damage as possible into the ranger rather than the pet, and rangers are being welcomed into some dungeon parties because of their buffs.
So, there are work-arounds for the problems with the pet mechanic. That doesn’t mean the pet mechanic is a success.

Aeonblade.8709:

I know what confirmation bias is, I just don’t see how it applies to this thread. Regardless of what people think, Ranger is a broken class right now. Plain and simple. Every measurable metric in game reflects this. I would love for Ranger to be viable again, as indicated in my signature, nothing would make me happier class wise honestly. That being said, all you do is cripple yourself by playing one right now when nearly every other class does the same job except better.

Regardless of whether ranger is a good class or not, there is still confirmation bias in the thread. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the issue is bad play rather than the bad class.

IndigoSundown.5419:

If a lead designer has admitted that a mechanic does not work, that’s pretty much an admission of failure.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing in itself. Nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. It becomes a problem when you say “Okay, that’s a crappy thing I did there, but hey, waddaya gonna do?”, shrug and turn around never to even look at the issue in question again.
Actually, if people would be more comfortable with admittance of “failure”, we’d be better off overall. Because if you refuse to acknowledge that something’s wrong, how on earth is anyone supposed to fix it?

Of course, if the reaction to an honest “Hey, here’s the thing, we made a mistake there…” is a sneering “Gnahahah, knew it, you’re useless and don’t know how to do your job! ROFL”, from the louder part of the community, I’d be among the first to say “Screw it, this sucks, but having to face those immature nitwits sucks even harder!”, too.

Aeonblade.8709:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Laurelinde.4395:

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. Getting reeeeally tired of it.

I’m confused, what does this have to do with this thread? Pardon my ignorance in advance.

As applied to the subject of the thread, confirmation bias would mean that people perceive rangers as causing the problem because they are predisposed to blame issues on rangers. If one expects something to be the cause, it’s pretty easy to find “evidence” that that is so, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

I know what confirmation bias is, I just don’t see how it applies to this thread. Regardless of what people think, Ranger is a broken class right now. Plain and simple. Every measurable metric in game reflects this. I would love for Ranger to be viable again, as indicated in my signature, nothing would make me happier class wise honestly. That being said, all you do is cripple yourself by playing one right now when nearly every other class does the same job except better.

vi·a·ble

/?v??b?l/

adjective

adjective: viable

1.

capable of working successfully; feasible.
“the proposed investment was economically viable”

synonyms: feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable; More

Rangers are viable in every aspect of this game.

Are they the top class or the most efficient class in some situations? No.
But they are viable. There is not one part of this game that a ranger that knows how to play the class will fail at.

And even when rangers are underperforming where time matters, (and this is only about how much time something in game may take), it is a very small amount of time and really makes no difference unless you are doing speed runs for the most possible gain per hour.

If there is truly some other issue that I have missed here please point it out because I have certainly not seen it in game.

I was doing this event as a ranger, we won and I didn’t have any problems with my pet and beating champions. Just don’t forget you have a pet and control him.

Cassocaster – I leveled a ranger, through to 80, and so far he’s my only character with world completion. That said, rangers suck when compared to any of the other classes.

The problem is manifold, but can be summed up by:

- The pet doesn’t work. This has been acknowledged by the lead game designer. Since a ranger’s weapon damage is 30-40% lower than any of the other classes because the pet is supposed to bring the average up, it means our DPS just isn’t there compared to the other classes

- The utilities are either tied to the pet (signets and shouts) or require heavier than average investment to be useful (signets/traps). The only truly desirable utility from a group play perspective, is one spirit – and even then, spirits are simply the poor man’s banner.

- Our traitlines are a mess. There are multiple traits that ought to be base functionality of the class (boon sharing with pets and pet movement, for example) and there are even more that are in traitlines that flat out don’t make sense (the trap traits being under the precision line, and pet traits scattered through all the traitlines.)

- Our weapons. Ranged weapons just suck in GW2 – the entire game is designed that way. This means our iconic weapons (the bows) are always going to be subpar to our melee options. Our melee options are 1H sword, which possesses an auto-attack that makes it impossible to dodge, and the greatsword, which is a heavily defensive weapon.

The totality of this means that we’re hindered by the pet mechanic, our utilitiy skills aren’t as useful as what the other classes can provide, our traits actively hinder making effective builds, and our one pure DPS weapon is useless outside of 1v1.

Until they address these (make the pet optional, and add a damage boost while it’s stowed, rearrange/merge our traits, redesign the signets to not put our pet first over ourselves, and fix the 1H sword or boost the damage on greatsword) ranger’s will continue to be sub-optimal to an outright hindrance.

It’s a pity, because 1) I mained a ranger all through GW1, and they were amazingly versatile 2) I love the flavour of the class.

Ranger players as a whole are no more or less skilled than any other class.

Rangers as a class have some significant hurdles that must be leaped for the class to be effective, primarily due to the REALLY BAD pet design by ArenaNet.

Therefore, mediocre players who would have already mastered the other classes (with a few exceptions) will still be learning how to effectively leap the Ranger hurdles.

Adding to the problem, since the hurdles are related to something that every other player can see (the pet), it makes it easier to spot a low skilled Ranger (honestly, in a blob of action there is no way to tell if that Warrior is bad or not outside of noticing slightly different “SWING EVERYTHING” animations).

This means that Rangers are no different from other players, the skill level difference is just easier to see. Since it is easy for anyone to spot a bad Ranger and almost impossible to spot a bad [insert other class] without extensive knowledge of [insert other class], people form the incorrect opinion that Rangers are bad. Then confirmation bias sets in and the opinion gets cemented in their mind.

TL:DR – Most bad Rangers would be good at any other class (or at least not be noticed as being bad) because any other class is easier to not be bad with and harder to tell when they are bad.

mtpelion – it likely doesn’t help much that veterans on the ranger (like myself) are quick to speak the truth about the class – which comes off as bashing. I’m not bashing them (not all rangers are noobs) but the base truths about our class design, when put into the greater game design, means rangers are set up to fail from the start.

Rebound.3409:

Let’s put it another way…tel me in what way are they more efficient/better then OR as good as any of the other classes.

In a condition spec rangers are the highest condition damage dealers in the game on a single target, like dungeon bosses. They possess a bleed-on-crit trait equalled only by necros but proc it more often due to a faster firing speed, and bleed from backshots on shortbow far more than any other class can match. With enough experience in the ranger this particular niche becomes quite obvious. Note however that necros become better the moment the need is to condition ‘multiple’ targets. The viability of this, however, is sadly affected by the condition cap problem. While in PvP, WvW roaming and dungeon applications the ranger can be quite strong, condition caps make this type of build suboptimal against super zergy content like world bosses.

In all other areas it is inferior to something else. For pet-tanking, the necro and mesmer are both better. For healing and survivability, the engi and guardian are both better. For direct melee damage, the mesmer and warrior are both better. For extreme long range damage, the grenade engineer is better. For mobility, the thief and warrior are both better.

If a razor is judged by its ability to saw through a tree it’ll forever be regarded as useless.

The #1 reason I hate rangers: 99% of them will not stack with the rest of group in one spot and not move. The #2 reason: their pets run around and do annoying things, like pull mobs that should not be pulled.

There you have it. For the record I am not filled with ‘ranger hate’ as the thread suggests. I understand most of them have excellent dps and can pull their weight when expected to, I have run with one or two in the cof p1 farm days. Which is why I do not accept kicks on rangers for a zerk run when a noob warrior calls for it immediately.

Meh. Some folks just can’t accept their own inadequacies. Let’s be honest here, performance failure with a class is never 100% the class design. The split of responsibility is debatable, but the player is always part of it. Maybe instead of blaming the class design, devs, etc. things which we have no direct control of, ask yourself “What can I do to overcome this?” Try new builds, pets, traits, sigils, runes and weapons. Find what you’re good at and strengthen it, find your weaknesses and minimize them, or better yet, turn them into strengths.

I’m not saying there are not issues with the Ranger. There are, and they do need some love. However, there are a lot of people that are successful with the Ranger. Look through the Ranger sub-forum, and you will find videos, builds, tips, and tricks from some excellent players. Rangers are nowhere near perfect, but they are far from completely broken and useless.

Red Queen.7915:

IndigoSundown.5419:

If a lead designer has admitted that a mechanic does not work, that’s pretty much an admission of failure.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing in itself. Nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake. It becomes a problem when you say “Okay, that’s a crappy thing I did there, but hey, waddaya gonna do?”, shrug and turn around never to even look at the issue in question again.

Maybe that’s what some people do. Others fix their mistakes. Now, maybe your boss is saying, “Don’t fix it, we have too many other things that are more important…” or “We’d have to change engines to fix it, and that isn’t going to happen.” At that point, the failure is higher up the chain. I don’t know the particulars, so saying the mechanic has failed is on the company, not a particular dev. (fyi, my criticisms are always going to be directed at the company as a whole, rather than individuals)

Red Queen.7915:

Actually, if people would be more comfortable with admittance of “failure”, we’d be better off overall. Because if you refuse to acknowledge that something’s wrong, how on earth is anyone supposed to fix it?

Assuming their is will, intent, and resources to fix it, agreed. If it is not going to be fixed, it is a failure that is not going to be fixed.

Red Queen.7915:

Of course, if the reaction to an honest “Hey, here’s the thing, we made a mistake there…” is a sneering “Gnahahah, knew it, you’re useless and don’t know how to do your job! ROFL”, from the louder part of the community, I’d be among the first to say “Screw it, this sucks, but having to face those immature nitwits sucks even harder!”, too.

I don’t recall saying that. Saying a mechanic is a failure is a criticism of the mechanic, not an indictment of an individual.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I don’t recall saying that. Saying a mechanic is a failure is a criticism of the mechanic, not an indictment of an individual.

That wasn’t directed at you specifically. It’s more of an overall reaction I notice when there’s an official post about broken mechanics, bugs, stuff like that, or the “discussions” in mapchats about this kind of thing.

My point is that, if we want something fixed, it’d be more beneficial to be civil and logical about it. Part of the community knows that, part of it doesn’t and starts whining every single time they spot a mistake (real or not). That’s a vocal minority, but makes it look like these (valid) complaints can be shrugged off simply because of the tone in which they are made in. A number of coherent posts pointing out issues and suggesting solutions might actually raise a flag for devs or anyone higher up the food chain that yes, this is a real problem, not an imaginary one, and it should be higher on the list than, say, “we want nu legendaries nao!”.

Gbok.1039:

Aeonblade.8709:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Laurelinde.4395:

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. Getting reeeeally tired of it.

I’m confused, what does this have to do with this thread? Pardon my ignorance in advance.

As applied to the subject of the thread, confirmation bias would mean that people perceive rangers as causing the problem because they are predisposed to blame issues on rangers. If one expects something to be the cause, it’s pretty easy to find “evidence” that that is so, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

I know what confirmation bias is, I just don’t see how it applies to this thread. Regardless of what people think, Ranger is a broken class right now. Plain and simple. Every measurable metric in game reflects this. I would love for Ranger to be viable again, as indicated in my signature, nothing would make me happier class wise honestly. That being said, all you do is cripple yourself by playing one right now when nearly every other class does the same job except better.

vi·a·ble

/?v??b?l/

adjective

adjective: viable

1.

capable of working successfully; feasible.
“the proposed investment was economically viable”

synonyms: feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable; More

Rangers are viable in every aspect of this game.

Are they the top class or the most efficient class in some situations? No.
But they are viable. There is not one part of this game that a ranger that knows how to play the class will fail at.

And even when rangers are underperforming where time matters, (and this is only about how much time something in game may take), it is a very small amount of time and really makes no difference unless you are doing speed runs for the most possible gain per hour.

If there is truly some other issue that I have missed here please point it out because I have certainly not seen it in game.

Then you just haven’t played with Rangers much versus other classes that outperform them. Nothing else to say really.

I tend to play WvWvW, I have a tad over 3000 hrs ingame and have joined in many of these “puppet” fights on a variety of my 8 chars/professions.

I find my warrior to be the easiest to play in this fight. That said,

IMHO,

if the “least effective” players ( not professions) were removed from each of the failed platforms, I would very safely bet that a wide range of professions would be represented. Ranger is not given the best range of skills but clueless or uninformed players are more of a threat to success than any one profession.

Phoenixlin.8624:

A waste of wall of text.

Rangers with pets are bad for lane 2’s boss, there is no exception. Elementalists with an elemental also bad for this lane; but still elementalists > rangers ^^

Nah, it’s just that Rangers forget to keep their pets close to them, swap to a ranged pet, put the pet on passive, ETC. I’ve seen plenty of rangers that do well in pretty much everything because of pet control.

Ranger the class is mediocre or worse at everything. I have one, I have a few hundred hours on it and over 10k kills in WvW on this class alone… the class has one of the weakest trait lines and the pet abilities are lack luster compared to every other class abilities. Virtually every class does pretty much every task as good or better than the Ranger. They aren’t even the best pet class.

Hayashi.3416:

In a condition spec rangers are the highest condition damage dealers in the game on a single target, like dungeon bosses. They possess a bleed-on-crit trait equalled only by necros but proc it more often due to a faster firing speed, and bleed from backshots on shortbow far more than any other class can match.

This isn’t correct. My necro can easily out condition my Ranger simply because of the number of conditions that can be stacked so quickly with a Necro.

• Dhuumfire stacks fire on crit
• Necros can transfer a massive amount of conditions to a target
• Condition necros can easily pick up condition damage/duration trait lines while enhancing their conditioning. Ranger condition damage/duration are on Marksmanship and Wilderness Survival… ouch.
• The scepter/dagger weapon set has a condition or heal on every attack and doesn’t need to be positional
• Barbed Precision is a minor Adept trait unlike Sharpened Edges which is a major Adept
• Signet of Spite is a condition bomb
• They easily convert boons into conditions
• Plague Form is a conditioning beast

Having both classes and playing a conditioning Ranger for a long time and a conditioning Necro, no question which one does far more condition damage to single targets.

I have to agree with many people here…its not that Ranger is a bad class, its that there are an aweful lot of BAD rangers out there, and I do think that the class teaches bad behaviours in players, which makes them BAD rangers.

I used to main my ranger, now my guard is my main because of all the hate for rangers that you have to overcome (I hated being instantly kicked from dungeons without them even attempting the dungeon with me). I still main my ranger in WvW. One change I wish ANET would implement with the ranger is a trait that when taken, gets rid of your pet and adds damage to your weapons…a “solo” trait (send your pet home, but gain 20% additional damage in all attacks…you cannot use skills that require a pet).

I do a lot of dungeons and fractals, and I do understand the hate on rangers…a bad ranger can completely ruin any run you do…mostly revolving around their pet doing stupid things causing the group to fail…good rangers however can also make a run go really well! We need a way to tag the good rangers with a heart or something so we can tell the difference!

Ranger class balance is fine. On average Rangers are terrible because they appeal a lot more to skilless noobs who want to solo PvE while hideing behind there pets. They also typically only want to range attack. The damage distance between melee and range attacks is greater than in any game I have played to date. It would be nice if rangers were given better melee weapons. Greatsword is to defense and the swords auto attack is to awkward.

To be fair, the ranger class is not balanced, we have too many useless traits and the good ones need a heck of a lot of investment to work, where as other classes can splash 10 points and get excellent utilities (Looking at you guardian! Wall of reflect with master of consecrations).
If we could have a work over of a lot of counter intuitive skills on weapons, utilities and a consolidation of traits (eagle eye and lb/sb cooldowns etc), we could begin closing the gap. If pet AI was altered to be far more responsive it would help even more.
Rangers make do with what we have, and some of us can do it really well despite the popular misconception that they suck.
We need a lot of work, but the ranger class is worth fighting for.

Sir Morgan Malory.2069:

Ranger class balance is fine. On average Rangers are terrible because they appeal a lot more to skilless noobs who want to solo PvE while hideing behind there pets.

Citation needed. (People wondering why I brought up confirmation bias? Here you go.) Do you have any statistics to back this up, or just anecdata?

They also typically only want to range attack.

I think it’s fair to say that a lot of people were drawn to the ranger because they were touted as a hunter-like class expert in ranged weapons, but that is down to marketing rather than stupidity on the part of players, who couldn’t know that melee would trump all. Should players now be aware of the difference and use melee to be ‘optimal’? Sure, in certain situations, anyway. However, having a ranged weapon equipped is still ok since there are times when they are useful. Personally I would run 3 sets if I could (longbow, greatsword and sword/x), but I tend to swap the gs and sword out with each other because there are times when having reach/ranged is handy (eg defending a keep in WvW.)* It all depends what particular content you are doing, and with whom.

*Also I made Kudzu as it was the most Sylvari-ish weapon and I feel annoyed not having my ‘best’ weapon equipped after it was such a pain in the bum to make. When I get round to making some ascended weapons this may change.

Aeonblade.8709:

Gbok.1039:

Aeonblade.8709:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Laurelinde.4395:

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. Getting reeeeally tired of it.

I’m confused, what does this have to do with this thread? Pardon my ignorance in advance.

As applied to the subject of the thread, confirmation bias would mean that people perceive rangers as causing the problem because they are predisposed to blame issues on rangers. If one expects something to be the cause, it’s pretty easy to find “evidence” that that is so, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

I know what confirmation bias is, I just don’t see how it applies to this thread. Regardless of what people think, Ranger is a broken class right now. Plain and simple. Every measurable metric in game reflects this. I would love for Ranger to be viable again, as indicated in my signature, nothing would make me happier class wise honestly. That being said, all you do is cripple yourself by playing one right now when nearly every other class does the same job except better.

vi·a·ble

/?v??b?l/

adjective

adjective: viable

1.

capable of working successfully; feasible.
“the proposed investment was economically viable”

synonyms: feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable; More

Rangers are viable in every aspect of this game.

Are they the top class or the most efficient class in some situations? No.
But they are viable. There is not one part of this game that a ranger that knows how to play the class will fail at.

And even when rangers are underperforming where time matters, (and this is only about how much time something in game may take), it is a very small amount of time and really makes no difference unless you are doing speed runs for the most possible gain per hour.

If there is truly some other issue that I have missed here please point it out because I have certainly not seen it in game.

Then you just haven’t played with Rangers much versus other classes that outperform them. Nothing else to say really.

So even after I provide you with the meaning of the word you still choose to be ignorant.

Well no surprise I guess. People just really are sad.

I have an 80 necro, 80 guardian, 80 thief, 70 warrior and working on a new Ele.
Again, the ranger class might not be the most efficient class for some areas of the game but they are more than viable.

If you still refuse to see that then you are correct. There is nothing left to discuss.

Give me your figures on dungeon runs with and without a ranger in the group. One that knows how to play. What is the time difference in your runs with them?
Give me more proof than “I say it is bad so it is” and I will agree with you.

Until then I will stand by my statement above.

If you REALLY want to get into speed runs as the metric… bear in mind some of the fastest speed runs actually USE a ranger because of the boons they give that are unavailable with any other class.

Just sayin’…

Gbok.1039:

Aeonblade.8709:

Gbok.1039:

Aeonblade.8709:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Laurelinde.4395:

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. Getting reeeeally tired of it.

I’m confused, what does this have to do with this thread? Pardon my ignorance in advance.

As applied to the subject of the thread, confirmation bias would mean that people perceive rangers as causing the problem because they are predisposed to blame issues on rangers. If one expects something to be the cause, it’s pretty easy to find “evidence” that that is so, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

I know what confirmation bias is, I just don’t see how it applies to this thread. Regardless of what people think, Ranger is a broken class right now. Plain and simple. Every measurable metric in game reflects this. I would love for Ranger to be viable again, as indicated in my signature, nothing would make me happier class wise honestly. That being said, all you do is cripple yourself by playing one right now when nearly every other class does the same job except better.

vi·a·ble

/?v??b?l/

adjective

adjective: viable

1.

capable of working successfully; feasible.
“the proposed investment was economically viable”

synonyms: feasible, workable, practicable, practical, usable, possible, realistic, achievable, attainable, realizable; More

Rangers are viable in every aspect of this game.

Are they the top class or the most efficient class in some situations? No.
But they are viable. There is not one part of this game that a ranger that knows how to play the class will fail at.

And even when rangers are underperforming where time matters, (and this is only about how much time something in game may take), it is a very small amount of time and really makes no difference unless you are doing speed runs for the most possible gain per hour.

If there is truly some other issue that I have missed here please point it out because I have certainly not seen it in game.

Then you just haven’t played with Rangers much versus other classes that outperform them. Nothing else to say really.

So even after I provide you with the meaning of the word you still choose to be ignorant.

Well no surprise I guess. People just really are sad.

I have an 80 necro, 80 guardian, 80 thief, 70 warrior and working on a new Ele.
Again, the ranger class might not be the most efficient class for some areas of the game but they are more than viable.

If you still refuse to see that then you are correct. There is nothing left to discuss.

Give me your figures on dungeon runs with and without a ranger in the group. One that knows how to play. What is the time difference in your runs with them?
Give me more proof than “I say it is bad so it is” and I will agree with you.

Until then I will stand by my statement above.

I don’t care about dungeon runs or PvE, I play for WvW. I don’t care about definitions, I care about the truth, and the truth is Rangers are not best at anything and can be replaced by other classes that do better.

Posting definitions to words everyone already knows doesn’t make you sound smart by the way. It just makes your argument look weak and make it look like you are reaching for any reason whatsoever to back up your argument without facts beyond a definition that has nothing to do with the fact that other classes do what Ranger does only better. Call me ignorant all you want, it won’t change the opinion of the majority of the player base that Ranger is less than useful in nearly every situation.