Guild Wars 2

Warning: Big post inbound. That being said, if you actually care about rangers being balanced, please take a look.

I’m pretty sure we’re all certain that the LB ranger just doesn’t work. The amount of damage any LB build deals just simply isn’t enough to compete with SB (even class cannon power/precision), yet alone other classes. I’d like to take the time to propose a suggestion that would likely bring the LB ranger some viability as a ranged DPS.

Okay, so first off, we know ANet is already planning on nerfing the bunker pet/trap ranger. That in itself is logical as not only does it make gameplay much more stale (for everyone), but it’s also not how the class was designed to work.

This leads us to the inherent problem with rangers, though: the ONLY viable build IS the bunker/trap ranger. Let’s look over why this is:

1.) The ranger itself deals no damage! ANet’s “fix” to the OP beta ranger was to change the damage ratio of ranger : pet from 80:20 to 60:40 (or so), due to the fact that the LB ranger was simply just shelling out too much damage.

2.) As an extension to the above, Pet AI is terrible, the control scheme is bad, and pets die too easily. Pets do not evade, have low health/defense overall, and are overall a hindrance in PvP/WvWvW just because they give away your position due to the fact they make up another entity and perform their own idle animations.

3a.) Longbow damage is bad. Seriously. Every aspect of the longbow is just simply weak. It’s overly-reliant on your target either being immobile or locked onto your pet so you can attack at max range in order to deal damage still less than that of the shortbow, and as just stated, with pets dying so easily and targets in PvP/WvWvW actually moving around, keeping a target away is kind of… borderline impossible.

3b.) Longbow skills are bad. It’s been mathematically proven and tested over and over that none of the skills are worthwhile to use with the longbow. If you are attacking at max range, targets actually take significantly longer to kill using a ranger’s skills instead of just auto-attacking. Yes, the 2 skill provides some damage at close range, but fact of the matter is that if your target gets into close range, you should be switching to the shortbow because there’s no point in keeping the longbow.

4.) The longbow 1 attack doesn’t make sense! Why does damage increase the longer the projectile moves? Basic physics says the exact opposite would be true.

5.) Pets shouldn’t be a mandatory aspect of play. ANet is huge into build diversity/accommodating for different playstyles (which is why they scrapped splitting skill trees before beta and went with traits, fun fact). What if I want to play ranged DPS very much like a surprise snipe build? Sad truth is that currently, there is no option to do so in the game.

So, how then does the LB build get fixed based off of the current problems mentioned above?

Let’s examine what AREN’T solutions:

The answer is not in just buffing LB damage or skills. That just fuels bunker builds, something established earlier as being counter-productive to ANet’s ideology.

Pets can’t be buffed, either, for the same reasons, and because putting more reliance on the pet is countering argument 5. Returning the ratio to what it was before is also not an option, as that proved OP.

Asking for “better pet AI” or “better pet controls” is pointless. AI is incredibly difficult to develop/balance in different environments, and again, we’re still then overly-focused on managing a pet. Ranged DPS then becomes an impossible build since it would also just turn the ranger into effectively a support class designed to support a terribly stupid NPC.

Changing the LB damage to be maxed at all ranges would be a start, but still, the damage and skills are inferior to just auto-attacking.

Telling people to “play a different class” or “get better at managing pets” are not a valid arguments. It’s a valid argument if there’s another ranged DPS class out there, or if the class was designed around the pet (which as mentioned above would be a bad thing to do since then there is no ranged DPS class). Yes, LB warrior exist, but frankly, a medium armor class focused around ranged combat should be dealing more damage than the heavy armor warrior with a longbow (and again, realistically this makes ZERO sense).

So there are a ton of ideas for ranger buffs which presumably just go in circles which ultimately contradict each other. That being said, I believe I’ve developed a fix.

Allow pets to be disabled by the ranger in exchange for a significant damage bonus,
completely flip the 1 effect around such that it deals more damage the closer you are and increase the damage output and attack rate on the 2 skill, but also give it the 1’s current passive effect so that it’s not a bunker skill, nerf the bunker pet/trap build, and call it a day. This also works for SB as the damage a pet WOULD be dealing would just be applied to damage dealt per hit by you.

Let’s re-examine this fix based on the requirements/problems we’re dealing with from above:

Argument #1:
Simply put this just cancels out the damage problem. However, one would assume that since 80:20 was OP, why wouldn’t 100% be OP? Fact of the matter is that with 80:20, pets were still able to use their own skills and attack targets, and the whole 80:20 thing was geared more towards nerfing rangers’ damage than buffing pets.

Argument #2 and #5:
Now a ranger doesn’t need to deal with bad pet AI, ANet doesn’t need to re-write AI, and a ranger can play as he chooses to play. His position won’t be revealed by a pet bird taking to the skies while trying to sneak around, and the damage can be dealt appropriately at range.

Argument #3a:
This fixes the problem of the LB damage output being overly-low as well as being overly-reliant on a ranger’s pet’s damage and keeping the target at max range for optimal damage.

Argument #3b:
Now a ranger can actually combo its skill effectively. LB 5 + LB 2 at max range might actually deal some decent damage, and using 2 + QZ would be an initiation/snipe combo more than “OMGSWITCHWEAPONONCOOLDOWNSONOSHORTBOW”.

Argument #4:
Problem solved. Enough said.

Argument #5:
Build diversity, and many options available, yay!

Thoughts, comments, and ideas are welcomed. I’d really like ANet to see this as the ranger class needs a lot of help, and there are very few possible fixes that I can see.

I don’t have any problem with my longbow and I never have. A couple things, though, only the 1 skill does more damage at greater distance, the rest are the same regardless. Pets are the ranger mechanic, they’re the whole point of being a Ranger.

If you just wanted to run around with a bow you should have been a theif or a warrior. As such, any aspect of the class that removes the pet goes against the entire design of the class.

Simply put this entire issue seems to be that some people don’t know how to handle their pets, nor play the class. Here’s one for you, you don’t want your pet giving away your position in WvW? Stow it, then it can’t be seen until you’re attacked.

One thing that I liked about GW1 that I wish to happen in GW2 is to completely separate skills in PvE and PvP. Builds that become popular in PvP inevitably lead to a nerf that is unnecessary in PvE. Hence, the popular PvP builds that are mentioned by the OP that will be nerfed. Annoying.

Other than that, I have to agree with Kal Spiro. I’d rather they work on how the pets function and make them more viable. In some situations they work well. In others I simply put them on “stand by me and stay out of trouble” mode and they are useless. As it is, since we have to have pets, we have to be what was called in gw1 “beastmaster”.

I’d really like them to rework the traits so that we don’t have to put trait points into beastmastery. We aren’t choosing if we will or won’t use a pet, so that trait line is just annoying to me. If, as the OP asked, you could choose to not use your pet and up your own damage, then that traitline would make sense. As it is, the pet is always there, so that line should be inherent in the pet and not require points. I don’t know how it should be reworked and what should be in its place but I do think it should be reworked.