Whispers with meat.
The Past is Painful to Watch
1 2
Oh yeah, these videos. Apart from the inaccessible camera angles and the highly orchestrated scenarios, I’m seeing certain skills being used back to back to make the combat seem like something it isn’t. This game taught me one thing, don’t pre-order.
I was happy with the early access and that new game feeling of leveling your chars in an MMO environment with the naive notion that it was beta only for a few weeks then everything from class balance to bug fixes will be largely polished and stabilized in a few months, like what happens in most AAA published games.
I was wrong.
Apologies to those who may find my posts on GW2 forums offensive and hateful.
I like Rangers. I’ve played them since the beginning of GW1. I really like the playstyle, but the damage is just incredibly bad. It takes me 2 minutes to kill one monster that’s my level. I can two-hit the same monster with my warrior. I agree though, all professions are viable in open world.
If you’re bearbow perhaps.
If you’re playing the ranger as an inside/out combat class, it doesn’t take much longer than a warrior to kill the same mob at all. Part of it is that the mobs in PvE are all pretty easy; part of it is that when maximized, rangers don’t lag THAT far behind.
Ranger lags damage wise, but it’s not THAT bad to be completely broken and unplayable… unless you’re trying to be an archer with your pet as tank.
That video is still hilarious
Rangir Dangir – Ranger | Mr. Ragr- Guardian| Sneak Stab – Thief | Mr. Ragir- Warrior
[url=https://] [/url]
[url=https://] [/url]
I like Rangers. I’ve played them since the beginning of GW1. I really like the playstyle, but the damage is just incredibly bad. It takes me 2 minutes to kill one monster that’s my level. I can two-hit the same monster with my warrior. I agree though, all professions are viable in open world.
If you’re bearbow perhaps.
If you’re playing the ranger as an inside/out combat class, it doesn’t take much longer than a warrior to kill the same mob at all. Part of it is that the mobs in PvE are all pretty easy; part of it is that when maximized, rangers don’t lag THAT far behind.
Ranger lags damage wise, but it’s not THAT bad to be completely broken and unplayable… unless you’re trying to be an archer with your pet as tank.
It teeters on the edge of being broken. It’s not game-breaking, but it does encourage people to reroll. I built my Ranger as a pure glass cannon and compared the damage on one of the heavy golems in the SPvP zone to my Elementalist that has been nerfed more times than I can count. I can safely say that I would pick my nerfed Elementalist over my ranger any day. Rangers lag waaayy behind in damage and its very noticeable if you compare it with another class. I will admit that I can survive a lot more often on my ranger when my Elementalist would’ve died instantly.
[~Galtrix~] [~Level 80 Elementalist~] [~GoM~]
I’ve had a level 80 of every class except warrior at some point. That you think an elementalist is FAR ahead of a Ranger is laughable. If anything, it’s the other way around.
Necros, Engineers, and Eles all have trouble sustaining the same sort of damage a Ranger can. Mesmers are better in bursts (and boy can they have some burst when everything comes together right). Thieves, Guardians, and Warriors all are better by and large (though I haven’t leveled a Thief up to 80 since the latest supposed nerfs, so that might have changed).
Are there issues? Oh absolutely. To match up damage wise, you’re rather restricted to a very specific weapon set (1 hand sword/offhand, usually warhorn), with a 1-skill that can be cumbersome to handle. Pet AI remains a problem, especially if you’re trying to run a pet that uses an F2 enemy target. But those are issues that aren’t specific to Ranger, honestly… they’re symptoms of a larger mechanics issue; the AI as a whole is pretty stupid, and the problem with conditions in group situations cuts out a lot of what COULD be effective in terms of potential builds (as a lot of ranger weapons hinge on some sort of condition application).
The things that you HAVE noticed (for example survivability) are more handy in the open world than in group instanced content, and yes that hurts viability… but what hurts the Ranger’s presence in groups even more are the masses who continue to insist that they are a ranged class even as the mechanics of the game itself scream otherwise.
Rangers aren’t in what I call a “good” place… but they aren’t exactly in a “terrible” place, either… at least, no more terrible than other classes not named Warrior and Guardian.
I’ve had a level 80 of every class except warrior at some point. That you think an elementalist is FAR ahead of a Ranger is laughable. If anything, it’s the other way around.
Necros, Engineers, and Eles all have trouble sustaining the same sort of damage a Ranger can. Mesmers are better in bursts (and boy can they have some burst when everything comes together right). Thieves, Guardians, and Warriors all are better by and large (though I haven’t leveled a Thief up to 80 since the latest supposed nerfs, so that might have changed).
Are there issues? Oh absolutely. To match up damage wise, you’re rather restricted to a very specific weapon set (1 hand sword/offhand, usually warhorn), with a 1-skill that can be cumbersome to handle. Pet AI remains a problem, especially if you’re trying to run a pet that uses an F2 enemy target. But those are issues that aren’t specific to Ranger, honestly… they’re symptoms of a larger mechanics issue; the AI as a whole is pretty stupid, and the problem with conditions in group situations cuts out a lot of what COULD be effective in terms of potential builds (as a lot of ranger weapons hinge on some sort of condition application).
The things that you HAVE noticed (for example survivability) are more handy in the open world than in group instanced content, and yes that hurts viability… but what hurts the Ranger’s presence in groups even more are the masses who continue to insist that they are a ranged class even as the mechanics of the game itself scream otherwise.
Rangers aren’t in what I call a “good” place… but they aren’t exactly in a “terrible” place, either… at least, no more terrible than other classes not named Warrior and Guardian.
I don’t “think” rangers have lower damage than Elementalists. I know for sure that they do. The dps difference was extremely wide. Granted, I was using a staff on my Elementalist, but that shouldn’t matter too much. I don’t understand how you think that a ranger can do more damage than an Elementalist. I mean, I’ve made both classes a glass cannon with the best builds I could think of… And I tested them.
[~Galtrix~] [~Level 80 Elementalist~] [~GoM~]
I don’t “think” rangers have lower damage than Elementalists. I know for sure that they do. The dps difference was extremely wide. Granted, I was using a staff on my Elementalist, but that shouldn’t matter too much. I don’t understand how you think that a ranger can do more damage than an Elementalist. I mean, I’ve made both classes a glass cannon with the best builds I could think of… And I tested them.
And so have I. Unless you go Dagger/Dagger (effectively the Ele’s “melee” option), Ele’s ranged damage simply does not measure up to what a Ranger can do (while admittedly the very narrow build I mentioned earlier), and even D/D is hurting over the last couple patches.
I’m beginning to wonder the last time you rolled ele, because what you’re saying is not matching up with what ANYONE else is observing. Simply put, I think your “tests” are actually an example of “confirmation bias.” You WANT Ranger to come up lagging, and so they do.
(edited by chemiclord.3978)
I think the point of this thread (and correct me if I’m wrong), is that the game has take a huge turn from what it was originally intended to be since beta.
It’s not a matter of just those skill videos, it is a matter of the game as a whole. People are disheartened because the game they were sold, is not the game we have today. And for some, that is a bad thing. They wanted what was advertised to them, what they were sold on, what they saw in the betas and release. Not what we have now.
And it makes them sad to see what has become of what they once enjoyed.
If that’s the point of this thread, linking those specific videos hasn’t served to make the point at all, and in fact, I believe most reasonable people would look at those videos and see nothing wrong with them, even as compared to how they’re in the game now.
Sure the videos are fun to watch. They bring back memories of waiting for ‘when it’s ready’. But would people really want to play like that? I see ele’s in the video killing things with ease, not even having to kite. People already complain about PvE being too easy. The videos make it look too easy, even for a confirmed PvE person like me.
Honestly, my main concern after seeing those videos as they were coming out was that enemies would be too easy to instagib. After all, I’m a Guild Wars vet—that’s a game where soloing a monster could only happen if it was half your level gutter trash, running one of the myriad 55 type builds, or so on.
The Crystal Desert beckons us. Ascension awaits us.
Keirlann Aurion – Ranger – Chieftain of the Ace Guard [AceG]
Keirlann Aurion – Ranger – Chieftain of the Ace Guard [AceG]
I think the point of this thread (and correct me if I’m wrong), is that the game has take a huge turn from what it was originally intended to be since beta.
It’s not a matter of just those skill videos, it is a matter of the game as a whole. People are disheartened because the game they were sold, is not the game we have today. And for some, that is a bad thing. They wanted what was advertised to them, what they were sold on, what they saw in the betas and release. Not what we have now.
And it makes them sad to see what has become of what they once enjoyed.
If that’s the point of this thread, linking those specific videos hasn’t served to make the point at all, and in fact, I believe most reasonable people would look at those videos and see nothing wrong with them, even as compared to how they’re in the game now.
Just looking at the ele video, I notice that the eles in the video have near no cooldown at all and mobs seem to have 1 hp lol
Sword/Pistol + P/P Thief is an absolutely horrible, disgusting and pathetic combination in reality. The video made it look like it’d be awesome.
Those builds do just fine. You just can’t perma stealth like a scrub.
OP’d thief, lol
If you broaden your perspectives a little, and expand the thinking to more than just “those mobs died in 1 hit….it was overpowered and boring”.
What if the players also could die in a similar fashion?
So if the players and the mobs could die that easily, then it turns into a game where maximizing your damage isn’t a concern.
It turns into a game where maximizing your survival is more important.
This then evolves into utilizing control abilities and such to manage situations.
Multi target fights would become risky with long cooldowns between AE abilities, because targets that survive can close the gap on you and then you have to rely on either team mates to pick up the rest or survival and skill.
A good example are the elementalist lightning and water attacks. They stun and pushback to buy time before the gap is closed.
Yes these abilities were buffed to make it look fancy, but the “ideas” shown here were interesting. Unfortunately the reality is a bit more stat based and less action.
Go back to oldschool games, you typically had 1-3 “hearts” till you died. After that it was all skill on knowing distance, positioning, and maneuvering correctly.
I like the videos, I know they were glammed up, but I hope one day we see something similar to it. If not in this game, another one in the future.
The game from the shorts looks more fun than the game we have now because the enemies in the shorts don’t have way too much hp.
Enemies which go down in a hit or two are fun, enemies which are damage sponges are a chore to fight.
Think about it like this, in every movie, book, story, comic book, the heroes can take a lot of punishment, but the normal common enemies or minions go down after only 1 punch. And even the big bosses don’t have any more endurance than the heroes.
So why is it only in video games that bosses have ridiculously overpowered stats in comparison to heroes and heroes have the same stats as common thugs? I mean how enjoyable would a Batman movie or comic be if Batman was knocked out every time he had to face more than one common street thug? How would he have ever beaten the Joker? For that matter just how super would Superman be if he was capable of being knocked out by a normal joe?
There is nothing cool about being so underpowered that you have to kite every single pull. Nothing. It isn’t even vaguely amusing.
(edited by Ellisande.5218)
What you see in these videos was talked about by Anet. They made it so you could see what the skills do. They used custom cameras and setting to demonstrate the skills. It was never meant to say that things would drop dead because you sneezed. If the game was like that, you’d play it for a week and you’d never come back, because ultimately it would be boring.
Actually it is the other way around. It is the games where I get to be a kitten that I tend to spend the most time playing whereas the games where combat takes forever tend to never get completed. That’s probably why I can’t actually get into Guild Wars 2, the combat is so tedious.
What you see in these videos was talked about by Anet. They made it so you could see what the skills do. They used custom cameras and setting to demonstrate the skills. It was never meant to say that things would drop dead because you sneezed. If the game was like that, you’d play it for a week and you’d never come back, because ultimately it would be boring.
Actually it is the other way around. It is the games where I get to be a kitten that I tend to spend the most time playing whereas the games where combat takes forever tend to never get completed. That’s probably why I can’t actually get into Guild Wars 2, the combat is so tedious.
It didn’t used to be but there were a series of nerfs across the board for the game that were PVE and PVP at once that broke PVE and that were never fixed. I think they need to fix that first before they move along with making sweeping changes to items that don’t matter and really don’t make anything better for the most part on the classes the need the most help.
Balance Team: Please Fix Mine Toolbelt Positioning!
I think the point of this thread (and correct me if I’m wrong), is that the game has take a huge turn from what it was originally intended to be since beta.
It’s not a matter of just those skill videos, it is a matter of the game as a whole. People are disheartened because the game they were sold, is not the game we have today. And for some, that is a bad thing. They wanted what was advertised to them, what they were sold on, what they saw in the betas and release. Not what we have now.
And it makes them sad to see what has become of what they once enjoyed.
The problem is, the original idea didn’t quite work out. The game lacked stickiness.
Its a MMO, and the MMO crowd wants stuff to work towards.
you’re right, they do, however thats only because thats what they have been taught
why couldn’t GW2 be different?
Bull. Humans as a species want goals to go towards, it has nothing to do with “being taught by an MMO”.
Anyway the game is better now than in that preview video, GW2 turned out great. It’s less grindy than any other MMO out there, and has the most polish/content of a b2p/f2p game on the market.
I don’t “think” rangers have lower damage than Elementalists. I know for sure that they do. The dps difference was extremely wide. Granted, I was using a staff on my Elementalist, but that shouldn’t matter too much. I don’t understand how you think that a ranger can do more damage than an Elementalist. I mean, I’ve made both classes a glass cannon with the best builds I could think of… And I tested them.
And so have I. Unless you go Dagger/Dagger (effectively the Ele’s “melee” option), Ele’s ranged damage simply does not measure up to what a Ranger can do (while admittedly the very narrow build I mentioned earlier), and even D/D is hurting over the last couple patches.
I’m beginning to wonder the last time you rolled ele, because what you’re saying is not matching up with what ANYONE else is observing. Simply put, I think your “tests” are actually an example of “confirmation bias.” You WANT Ranger to come up lagging, and so they do.
As far as I can tell, you are the only one in the history of ever that says, “Ele’s do less damage than Rangers”. I only have three classes right now…. An Elementalist, a Ranger, and a Warrior. Since I do not play my Warrior often, I focus on my Ranger and my Ele. There is absolutely no possible way that Rangers can even come close to the Elementalist’s damage. I used a build that gave my Elementalist 100% crit chance, in which I hit for 3.5k+ damage every hit. I used a slightly tweaked build on my Ranger and was doing 2k damage each hit. That was using a longbow. Next, I tried the shortbow and was doing 600+ damage each hit.
In fact, I have only been killed by a Ranger in SPvP twice, and that was with help from their allies. Since then, I basically swat Rangers aside in PvP and focus on the classes that will really be a threat to me.
And no, it is not “Confirmation Bias”. How is it bias when I want the Ranger to succeed, but the Elementalist comes out on top? I didn’t want that to happen. I’ve played a Ranger since the beginning of Guild Wars 1, so don’t tell me that I want them to fail. Let me say this…. I am a person that has created and planned builds since the beginning of time. (Slight exaggeration). If I can make two builds and compare them along with damage and overall usefulness, I trust myself enough that I will compare them to the best of my ability and the results will make the best of the class. Therefore, I trust in myself and stand firm on my belief that Elementalists do much more damage than Rangers.
[~Galtrix~] [~Level 80 Elementalist~] [~GoM~]
The only thing I miss from these is the spiffy look, but that’s an engine issue and another discussion altogether.
Other than that everything in these trailers is in the game, albeit just less cinematic because you know.. these are trailers, they do what trailers do.
And no, it is not “Confirmation Bias”. How is it bias when I want the Ranger to succeed, but the Elementalist comes out on top? I didn’t want that to happen. I’ve played a Ranger since the beginning of Guild Wars 1, so don’t tell me that I want them to fail. Let me say this…. I am a person that has created and planned builds since the beginning of time. (Slight exaggeration). If I can make two builds and compare them along with damage and overall usefulness, I trust myself enough that I will compare them to the best of my ability and the results will make the best of the class. Therefore, I trust in myself and stand firm on my belief that Elementalists do much more damage than Rangers.
It’s confirmation bias because you WANT to believe there is some “broken” about Rangers, something that can be “fixed.” I’ve tested the two as well, and I am getting the exact opposite results that you apparently are. The Sword/Warhorn build I’ve worked with kicks the living kitten out of ANYTHING the Ele brings to the table, and in some cases, it’s not even close.
Elementalists have been nerfed HARD over the last two patches, which is why I’m curious when you actually did these tests. If it was two months ago, then you’re basing your opinion on outdated information. If it was recently, I want to see what builds you are comparing, and against what targets. I would LOVE to try and replicate your findings.
I wish my warrior could shield stance every 2 seconds ….
it might make using a shield worth it.
1 2