Guild Wars 2

I’m just trying to grasp the purpose of why these exist.

ArenaNet creates a poll for which class they want to perform a major rework on, Rangers win by a landslide.

The thread gets created and is totally dominated by pet reworks/stow pet options, beastmastery buffs with the pet removal option available, and AI update requests – everything which has been asked for for a very long time which was nicely compiled and discussed as intended, with plenty of proper reasoning provided.

And the developers formally dismiss all requests as not aligning with their vision of what the class should be like.

If there is overwhelming support for certain changes, why are these ignored when feedback was asked for to begin with? Why waste everyone’s time if the community’s opinions do not matter regardless of their magnitude and merit?

Anyone feel like possibly explaining this absurd behavior?

33% Anet not just straight telling us to our face what they wanted the class to be at the start. This would have prevented a lot of confusion for the first 20 pages or so.

33% people not accepting things that won’t change (Pet’s not going away, stop asking for it.)

And 34% is just due to Anet’s asinine idea that “Sustained Damage” works on the ranger or in the game at all and that we should actually believe that they will nerf everyone else rather than buff us.

These three things basically killed the CDI before it even began. Though, the fact that they had to have us force them to do this by winning the poll in a landslide should have been a big sign of how this was going to go all along. If anet thought we honestly needed help, we would have been getting it. They wouldn’t keep nerfing us and wait for the whole community to tell them otherwise.

well most of all my concern is the non-existing overview. ~1800 posts right now only in the ranger cdi, noone can tell me that ANYONE is gonna read and completely understand every single post.

so what they should have done is create a temporary subforum with different topics on how to improve ranger. maybe each topic with a button which people could use to express importance.

this way people who wanted to discuss a special topic would have an overview over already made discussions. otherwise we would see the same dscussions (e.g. pet stowing) over and over again because you can’t expect the users to read 1800 posts.

you know, quality starts with organizing stuff. the less work for each of us, the better it gets done.

i guess this CDI is either leading to many hours of useless work for the devs, aswell as a non-optimal result due to bad organization.
Or they just don’t care about results and want our need for attention to get satisfied. read: CDI is just make up.

Its called throwing you a bone, lol

DeceiverX.8361:

If there is overwhelming support for certain changes, why are these ignored when feedback was asked for to begin with? Why waste everyone’s time if the community’s opinions do not matter regardless of their magnitude and merit?

Anyone feel like possibly explaining this absurd behavior?

If the owners of a restaurant wanted to figure out how to work over a portion of their menu, and then figured out the one which needed the most work. An employee is sent with a small bit of data and told “go poll people”. People go “we want X” and the owners go “we can’t afford to do X the way they want” “tough, we want X anyway or we’ll stop coming”.

That’s pretty much what a large chunk of that CDI discussion was, along with the coordinator disappearing for a period (due to illness, but then who’s going to believe that when everyone thinks they’re already being fed a line) so it ran a bit wild . . .

It’s a mess and probably not salvageable at all at this point.

To be fair, the other CDIs receive quite a bit more love than the Ranger one.

Regardless of what they can or can not do, one glaring issue is that it seems that no one in Anet is really excited about the Ranger CDI (not how Whiteside seem for the fractal one) and it give the appearance that Allie has to pull teeth to get anyone else involved.

Seems to me that she drew the short straw and got stuck with dealing with that CDI.

Dont worry, great things are coming for the Ranger in the near future…… LOL (this was sarcasm btw)

Bran.7425:

Regardless of what they can or can not do, one glaring issue is that it seems that no one in Anet is really excited about the Ranger CDI (not how Whiteside seem for the fractal one) and it give the appearance that Allie has to pull teeth to get anyone else involved.

Seems to me that she drew the short straw and got stuck with dealing with that CDI.

I think I know why they’re not appearing as excited . . .

They knew the whole pet thing was coming up and they know that fix would take an incredible amount of manpower to actually work on. And it’s a good chance trying to reinvent the behavior engine (stop calling it AI, it’s not) would screw it up in some other way to make things worse unintentionally.

Could you imagine three months from now “yeah the enemy AI is kicking your teeth in because now it can dodge, but we had to put that in so pets could too”. People would be flipping tables over mobs being able to behave like people want pets to.

Enemy AI and Pet AI are intertwined, but I’m pretty it’s not quite to that extent.

I mean, it’s not like wild Pigs have Forage, or pet Reef drakes have that AOE pull, or pet Moas turn around and run away when their health starts getting low.

Vox Hollow.2736:

Enemy AI and Pet AI are intertwined, but I’m pretty it’s not quite to that extent.

I mean, it’s not like wild Pigs have Forage, or pet Reef drakes have that AOE pull, or pet Moas turn around and run away when their health starts getting low.

Maybe the pigs do have it and that is why maps with no pig have less environmental weapons….joking.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I think I know why they’re not appearing as excited . . .

They knew the whole pet thing was coming up and they know that fix would take an incredible amount of manpower to actually work on. And it’s a good chance trying to reinvent the behavior engine (stop calling it AI, it’s not) would screw it up in some other way to make things worse unintentionally.

Could you imagine three months from now “yeah the enemy AI is kicking your teeth in because now it can dodge, but we had to put that in so pets could too”. People would be flipping tables over mobs being able to behave like people want pets to.

I doubt that was the only reason. It took a lot of effort just to get clarity of terminology. If they would just be more transparent with ranger community they would not have to play ‘not it’ when dealing with it.

Vox Hollow.2736:

Enemy AI and Pet AI are intertwined, but I’m pretty it’s not quite to that extent.

I mean, it’s not like wild Pigs have Forage, or pet Reef drakes have that AOE pull, or pet Moas turn around and run away when their health starts getting low.

Skill sets =/= AI.

All mobs have the same pathing and movement AI instructions. The only difference our pet has is that it doesn’t follow automated aggro rules and instead uses “first aggressor/F1 targeted” rules to tell it who to attack. 1 set of AI rules/directives that govern the overall behavior of all mobs that also includes our pets. Making our pets “smarter” isn’t really possible without writing them their own, advanced set of AI rules.

Then again, I’ve watched Anet call certain things impossible in the engines limitations of GW1 only to roll out said changes a couple years later when the game needed to look good to stir up hype for GW2, so who’s to say…

cough 7HeroSlots cough

Chokolata.1870:

Dont worry, great things are coming for the Ranger in the near future…… LOL (this was sarcasm btw)

Sounds like someone needs more water combat buffs and spirits…

Substance E.4852:

Chokolata.1870:

Dont worry, great things are coming for the Ranger in the near future…… LOL (this was sarcasm btw)

Sounds like someone needs more water combat buffs and spirits…

No, a lot of people in sPvP are complaining about spirits. This of course means we’ll have to nerf them across the board in every single game mode. But don’t worry, those water combat buffs are on their way.

The Spiral King.2483:

Substance E.4852:

Chokolata.1870:

Dont worry, great things are coming for the Ranger in the near future…… LOL (this was sarcasm btw)

Sounds like someone needs more water combat buffs and spirits…

No, a lot of people in sPvP are complaining about spirits. This of course means we’ll have to nerf them across the board in every single game mode. But don’t worry, those water combat buffs are on their way.

I meant more like that AMAZING water spirit that no one ever uses, because it’s just soooo amazing you see…

Could we get the Anet definition of ‘amazing’ here? Is this code for something else?

Bran.7425:

Could we get the Anet definition of ‘amazing’ here? Is this code for something else?

It’s code for “animation bug fix.” You’ll understand it when you see it.

Its not Anet fault people didn’t take the hint..

I mean bloody hell, They’ve been telling you for over a year now the Ranger is the pet Class and its not going to change..But some people just can’t understand that.

Just make Maul deal 80,000 damage in clerics gear, that’ll fix ranger

Terravos.4059:

Its not Anet fault people didn’t take the hint..

I mean bloody hell, They’ve been telling you for over a year now the Ranger is the pet Class and its not going to change..But some people just can’t understand that.

Do you blame them?

Early on in the CDI, Allie specifically wrote this:

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

The second big problem is that people always expect some kind of “blizzard patch” which basically reworks all classes, changes the meta drastically and basically buffs 95% of all skills to be double as good. This way people get appeased, new builds get available and freshen the game up. Only consequence is the higher damage/hp numbers and the amount of work. But blizz has amuch bigger more experienced staff.

Only when every class and every build thinks of itself “i am so overpowered!” and content difficult enough people will be satisfied. But thats quite difficult to reach.

DeceiverX.8361:

If there is overwhelming support for certain changes

This is your logical fallacy here.
In games such as GW2, only a minority (generally 10%-15%) takes to the forums. These aren’t a viable representation of your playerbase, either. They are largely the angry players, which often means a majority of PvP players.

As such, your forum population is heavily skewed from what the actual playerbase thinks, at large.

Your forums might tell you that conditions are completely out of whack and need a nerf. Actually, they are only very strong in 1v1 in bunker setups, and your playerbase at large – who probably mostly plays PvE, extrapolating from other games – thinks that if at all, conditions need to be stronger.
If you were to just nerf across the board, you’d further ruin the game for the majority of players.

As such, this player feedback we’re giving here, it only tells the devs where to look.
Not what to do.

We all agreed that pets should be stowable (actually we didn’t, from reading the thread – not at all). But this merely tells ANet that maybe 8%-10% of their playerbase thinks pets should be stowable. So they take a look, and determine that no, too late to change the entire class mechanic and it’s fixable. Hence they state that it’s not going to happen, probably pleasing a lion share of Rangers who would feel massively alienated if all of a sudden (they don’t read the forums) their favourite class changes functionality entirely.

It took them 8 months to come up with a 8% nerf on Healing Signet, and it will take another 3 or so months before it’s implemented.

Do you honestly believe that at this rate of implementation, anybody is going be playing this game by the time the Ranger and other CDI elements get implemented which will require significantly more coding than adjusting the value of an existing skill?

Many people realized on the first day of the CDI this wouldn’t turn out good. Far to many pointless posts that don’t add anything to the discussion. The ranger CDI right now is mostly a pointless waste of time for everyone. Try to find some good suggestions in their. Good luck.

If I would manage that thread I would use the searchfunction and only check posts that have at least the suggested format.

Carighan.6758:

DeceiverX.8361:

If there is overwhelming support for certain changes

This is your logical fallacy here.
In games such as GW2, only a minority (generally 10%-15%) takes to the forums. These aren’t a viable representation of your playerbase, either. They are largely the angry players, which often means a majority of PvP players.

As such, your forum population is heavily skewed from what the actual playerbase thinks, at large.

Your forums might tell you that conditions are completely out of whack and need a nerf. Actually, they are only very strong in 1v1 in bunker setups, and your playerbase at large – who probably mostly plays PvE, extrapolating from other games – thinks that if at all, conditions need to be stronger.
If you were to just nerf across the board, you’d further ruin the game for the majority of players.

As such, this player feedback we’re giving here, it only tells the devs where to look.
Not what to do.

We all agreed that pets should be stowable (actually we didn’t, from reading the thread – not at all). But this merely tells ANet that maybe 8%-10% of their playerbase thinks pets should be stowable. So they take a look, and determine that no, too late to change the entire class mechanic and it’s fixable. Hence they state that it’s not going to happen, probably pleasing a lion share of Rangers who would feel massively alienated if all of a sudden (they don’t read the forums) their favourite class changes functionality entirely.

You began by stating that his/her assertion was logically falacios and then stated as fact that 10-15% of players even post on these forums, a number you’re guessing at (not a good start for a logic based argument). You went on further to claim that by NOT changing the ranger stow mechanic to permanent would “probably” please the lion’s share of players. There is no fact in your manifesto.

I never claimed to state a fact, though. It is easy to validate that only a minority post on the forums (though it is a wee bit of work, but I could probably write a program which checks forum activity per-account by parsing the pages).

And while it cannot easily be proven that the majority tends towards PvE, or that the majority would be displeased with the change in general, it’s IMO a fair enough conclusion looking at other MMO games and their general player population and resistance to change.

Back when CDI was posted, the issue for me was what it wants to accomplish. If they only ask the forums, “Why bother” (but meaning the devs, not the players).

For actual input, put it ingame. You fight a boss, afterwards you get a popup “Hey, we’re doing a Ranger survey, your account has >70% time logged as a ranger and you just fought a boss, care to fill out a short survey?”. That way, at least you reach everyone.
You’re still going to have a significant bias, but much much less so than if you do it on the forums.

Op, you made some good points. But to be fair, you have to look and see how many folks posted over and over.

For example, early on in that CDI one particular poster spam commented over and over again with what amounted to no more than, “pets sux, pets sux, we need more dps, we need more dps”. He would make ridiculous assertions about the pet is 100% useless, it hurts more than it helps, it dies from a breeze ect … (yes pets need work, but obviously exaggerated negative claims repeated endlessly are not constructive suggestions, but are no more than a forum temper-tantrum). Then somewhere inside his endless tantrums he actually made a semi-plausible suggestion, and Allie made the mistake of actually quoting him. Oh God, then he really never shut up … it became impossible to post any pet suggestion that was not “perma-stow, and give me 30% more dps” without his trolling you that your suggestion was garbage, and the ONLY solution to Ranger is a no-pet option with lots and lots of MORE DPS, MORE DPS.

It was obvious by his posts that what this player wanted was an ultra high-damage long ranged sniper style WvW toon, and everyone else be kitten ed. And there were a few others like this as well, jumping in with exaggerated claims of Ranger being “completely useless”, “totally 100% broken” and so forth. As a result, a CDI created to help a class profession that is in fact in need of some Dev attention and mechanics tweaks, ends up flooded with dooms-day melodramatic nonsense.

So don’t let the 39 pages of “suggestions” fool ya, because a good half of that was spam posting by a small group of people with a singular agenda.

xallever.1874:

To be fair, the other CDIs receive quite a bit more love than the Ranger one.

And Chris Whiteside considers that to be ‘bad behaviour’ on his part for setting an unrealistic standard for other Anet posters to try to follow. I still kind of think they need more dedicated community time if they are going to keep doing CDIs, because they are always going to be time-eaters.

But I agree, they had to know this was coming and it doesn’t seem like they were prepared for it. There is way, way too much stuff in there to get much out of and since the pet issue seems pretty dead in the water we need to be looking at other things to try to get some semblance of balance. I fear it is too late now, though; whatever pebbles of suggestion we can throw at it will still fall far short of the mountain of ‘stow pet’ posts.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Bran.7425:

Regardless of what they can or can not do, one glaring issue is that it seems that no one in Anet is really excited about the Ranger CDI (not how Whiteside seem for the fractal one) and it give the appearance that Allie has to pull teeth to get anyone else involved.

Seems to me that she drew the short straw and got stuck with dealing with that CDI.

I think I know why they’re not appearing as excited . . .

They knew the whole pet thing was coming up and they know that fix would take an incredible amount of manpower to actually work on. And it’s a good chance trying to reinvent the behavior engine (stop calling it AI, it’s not) would screw it up in some other way to make things worse unintentionally.

Could you imagine three months from now “yeah the enemy AI is kicking your teeth in because now it can dodge, but we had to put that in so pets could too”. People would be flipping tables over mobs being able to behave like people want pets to.

Honestly, that kind of change to mob AI is exactly what I want to see. Right now it’s just way too easy to manipulate mob behavior to force them to stack up in a corner so you can aoe burst them down.

Ision.3207:

Op, you made some good points. But to be fair, you have to look and see how many folks posted over and over.

For example, early on in that CDI one particular poster spam commented over and over again with what amounted to no more than, “pets sux, pets sux, we need more dps, we need more dps”. He would make ridiculous assertions about the pet is 100% useless, it hurts more than it helps, it dies from a breeze ect … (yes pets need work, but obviously exaggerated negative claims repeated endlessly are not constructive suggestions, but are no more than a forum temper-tantrum). Then somewhere inside his endless tantrums he actually made a semi-plausible suggestion, and Allie made the mistake of actually quoting him. Oh God, then he really never shut up … it became impossible to post any pet suggestion that was not “perma-stow, and give me 30% more dps” without his trolling you that your suggestion was garbage, and the ONLY solution to Ranger is a no-pet option with lots and lots of MORE DPS, MORE DPS.

It was obvious by his posts that what this player wanted was an ultra high-damage long ranged sniper style WvW toon, and everyone else be kitten ed. And there were a few others like this as well, jumping in with exaggerated claims of Ranger being “completely useless”, “totally 100% broken” and so forth. As a result, a CDI created to help a class profession that is in fact in need of some Dev attention and mechanics tweaks, ends up flooded with dooms-day melodramatic nonsense.

So don’t let the 39 pages of “suggestions” fool ya, because a good half of that was spam posting by a small group of people with a singular agenda.

Don’t get me wrong, and being someone who made posts regarding the fact I wished to be able to play heavy ranged DPS, there were many other suggestions, such as even the re-tooled BM options to help improve the pet state in order to appease both crowds. Frankly, the ranger community is really, really divided on the issue, and believe me, there are quite a few players who don’t frequent the forums and feel the same way. Try dropping the conversation in map chat somewhere and see what you find ^^. Either way, simply ignoring a large chunk of players is just poor practice, especially when the whole point is to try and work with said feedback.

@Player mentioning statistics/my data being invalid:
While you’re going to have people more likely complaining about a given class in a CDI than those supporting it, it’s important to keep in mind that the whole purpose of the CDI and a given rework is to improve standards of play for those who have reason to complain. You’re not going to really find people who are pleased with the ranger class as it stands in the CDI. Be it either through sheer naivety of late-game standards or just total bliss with how they feel the class should be, Rangers won the rework by a landslide for a reason, so obviously you’re going to have a lot of people upset.

Forum populations are of course lower than the in-game player base, so your forum population is only representative of say, 15% of the population (or whatever figure you make up). That does’t mean the other 85% feels differently, though. Often times you’ll see direct correlations between the views of those on the boards with those in-game. I think you’re getting confused with senseless QQ by inexperienced players regarding game balance and people simply expressing their lack of interest/disapproval of core mechanics which can be adjusted to remain balanced but appeal to more people conceptually. Balance discussion requires professional analysis, a large sample size, and a lot of number crunching and experience, whereas simply discussing an opinion about how a class plays and why or why not that should be changed are totally subjective and don’t require such immense investments. Again, take a look in map chat/guild members/experienced ranger or ex-ranger players and ask for their opinions in-game. They’re likely going to pick a side (my discussions have demonstrated more people in-game still favor the non-pet archer), and will likely have similar reasoning behind some of the good stuff you saw in the CDI.

So if input is given, and then down the road more posts on the same subject are made, albeit more in-depth and more explanatory, does that not verify the previous claims?

The bottom line is that ANet asked for feedback, and it was given to them. It still makes little sense that they wouldn’t even try to work with such feedback for the sole reason of “because we said so.”

Laurelinde.4395:

xallever.1874:

To be fair, the other CDIs receive quite a bit more love than the Ranger one.

And Chris Whiteside considers that to be ‘bad behaviour’ on his part for setting an unrealistic standard for other Anet posters to try to follow. I still kind of think they need more dedicated community time if they are going to keep doing CDIs, because they are always going to be time-eaters.

Indeed. I can understand the bit about the week-ends. Not so much on the absence on the other days.

And it’s fine for devs to just read and lurk, but then there ought to be quite a significant difference during CDIs. And by that, I don’t mean the difference between 0 post and 3-5.

Basically, anything resembling all the other CDIs would be much more acceptable.

Plus, it didn’t help that they postponed it for about a week and a half without notice.

…probably hoping we’d forget and sweep it under the rug. They’ve promised changes for a year and a half now and haven’t made good on them. I’m convinced theres only a small handful of people that work for anet and they probably contract people out to make ‘big changes’ on the programming end….as I’ve never seen such ‘abandoning’ behavior from a dev team on a game before.

Laurelinde.4395:

xallever.1874:

To be fair, the other CDIs receive quite a bit more love than the Ranger one.

And Chris Whiteside considers that to be ‘bad behaviour’ on his part for setting an unrealistic standard for other Anet posters to try to follow. I still kind of think they need more dedicated community time if they are going to keep doing CDIs, because they are always going to be time-eaters.

But I agree, they had to know this was coming and it doesn’t seem like they were prepared for it. There is way, way too much stuff in there to get much out of and since the pet issue seems pretty dead in the water we need to be looking at other things to try to get some semblance of balance. I fear it is too late now, though; whatever pebbles of suggestion we can throw at it will still fall far short of the mountain of ‘stow pet’ posts.

The “Bad Behaviour” part is posting on weekends… absolutely understandable

However, I see no reason as to why you can’t post a few notes at the end of your work day, Mon-Fri….

heck even a few posts to summarize things every couple days would be absolutely ok with the community

Right now there exist no such thing on Ranger – CDI

Touche Amore.2083:

Plus, it didn’t help that they postponed it for about a week and a half without notice.

…probably hoping we’d forget and sweep it under the rug.

Or, just maybe, the person running it got sick and nobody stepped in because they want it to remain consistent? I dunno, that doesn’t have enough tinfoil hat going on, forget I said anything.

CDI’s don’t seem to be very productive… just go take a look at what happened to the WvW ones. It’s seems like they try to make us feel like we’ve been heard… a little bit. I wouldn’t expect any major changes that weren’t already planned before the creation of the thread with any of them.

Aberrant.6749:

CDI’s don’t seem to be very productive… just go take a look at what happened to the WvW ones. It’s seems like they try to make us feel like we’ve been heard… a little bit. I wouldn’t expect any major changes that weren’t already planned before the creation of the thread with any of them.

They had said, numerous times, they weren’t going to result in immediate effects

If ArenaNet has to truly crowd source in order to fix their own product, you know something is seriously wrong. Either that, or it’s just lip service to placate the vocal forum minorities until the next shiny in the game draws their attention away form the torches and pitchforks. Also, fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind…

KyreneZA.8617:

If ArenaNet has to truly crowd source in order to fix their own product, you know something is seriously wrong. Either that, or it’s just lip service to placate the vocal forum minorities until the next shiny in the game draws their attention away form the torches and pitchforks. Also, fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind…

. . . well Lion’s Arch is on fire.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Touche Amore.2083:

Plus, it didn’t help that they postponed it for about a week and a half without notice.

…probably hoping we’d forget and sweep it under the rug.

Or, just maybe, the person running it got sick and nobody stepped in because they want it to remain consistent? I dunno, that doesn’t have enough tinfoil hat going on, forget I said anything.

The person running it is actually having a discussion with thieves…
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Re-Pistol-Whip/first#post3721002
:(

Jocksy.3415:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Touche Amore.2083:

Plus, it didn’t help that they postponed it for about a week and a half without notice.

…probably hoping we’d forget and sweep it under the rug.

Or, just maybe, the person running it got sick and nobody stepped in because they want it to remain consistent? I dunno, that doesn’t have enough tinfoil hat going on, forget I said anything.

The person running it is actually having a discussion with thieves…
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Re-Pistol-Whip/first#post3721002
:(

Eh, so you see, she can’t have been sick at all because she’s discussing another topic rather than the one which is toxic for anyone with a red tag.

It wouldn’t be toxic if it would have devs answers like other topics…
Would it only be “as a player I feel that”…
It is normal that Anet’s design would be discussed also, since the stated design does not fits in with whatever the game is about…

The “sustained damage skirmisher” model (the last direction we have) does not even fits in their latest update… Any forum that had no devs interactions gets toxic… the more red post interactions there are, the less toxic it becomes… saw it in the WvW subforum, when devs started to post regularly, the athmosphere grew back to nice, then, when it stopped, it grew back to bad…

(nota: I didn’t say Allie wasn’t sick, but that she is back, and still not caring about the thread she’s supposed to own)

The ranger’s CDI have been badlyy thought of from the start…. It was obvious it would turn as a sea of proposals… Just stating from the beginning “we know about this and that issue, we want to bring ranger this way, what do you think?”, Then “okay, we noted your opinion on that, now, what do you think about this”, then “now, let’s discuss this hot issue. What is your stance on this?” Would have kept the discussion focussed.

Just some post “I know, as I player I agree this is awckard”, “as a player, I’d rather see this coming”, would have made people see they care… it’s not much, but it would have kept discussions focussed, and mostly respectful (we all know hater’s gonna hate).

What we had is : discuss rangers.
Woah! what a broad topic! Anyone is really surprise it went anywhere and nowhere?

The next WvW map will be 100% underwater, we will rule there.

urdriel.8496:

The next WvW map will be 100% underwater, we will rule there.

Along with the necros.

Truthfully, it’s tough for the Ranger CDI to go anywhere, because what the Ranger actually needs isn’t clear. Active condition cleansing is a start, but other than that…what?

The Elementalist CDI will be much more clear: making Water Magic less mandatory and making glyphs more attractive. Necro CDI as well: better sustain and answers (though not necessarily resistance) to heavy CC. Rangers…it’s not clear just what they actually need.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

urdriel.8496:

The next WvW map will be 100% underwater, we will rule there.

Along with the necros.

Truthfully, it’s tough for the Ranger CDI to go anywhere, because what the Ranger actually needs isn’t clear. Active condition cleansing is a start, but other than that…what?

The Elementalist CDI will be much more clear: making Water Magic less mandatory and making glyphs more attractive. Necro CDI as well: better sustain and answers (though not necessarily resistance) to heavy CC. Rangers…it’s not clear just what they actually need.

You doubt the power of the RTL whining, sir.

The CDI, and the ranger forums in general, are toxic because of a vicious cycle of bad customer support, and many months of issues that haven’t been addressed in any way.

The ranger community is highly frustrated and touchy about these topics because of a few simple facts…
1. Rangers have clearly been broken since before the game released
2. The pace of change / improvements is EXTREMELY SLOW. Almost to the point of moving backwards in some cases. Other professions have been reworked, improved, nerfed, buffed, and back again…while ranger just sits because it’s “hard” to fix.
3. There is a complete lack of clear, timely, unambiguous communication from the developers.

So…ArenaNet creates a CDI for rangers. It brings all the long-discussed and long-lamented issues with the profession back to the surface. Players’ frustration rises. ArenaNet’s small amount of communication in the thread comes in the form of ambiguous statements, and a few re-interated hot buttons (it’s going to take a long time to fix, and some fixes are off the table), further inflaming the community… Then they go quiet…pushing the last and most painful button for most rangers. We are getting ignored…AGAIN.

The lack of unambiguous and timely communication from the developers has ruined any chance of a useful or civil discussion. They are poisoning the pot.

Basically, it seems that ArenaNet’s stance on rangers is that they are going to continue to snub the profession until the community stops being angry about getting snubbed. Round and round we go.

There were plenty of great suggestions in that thread, and many more over the last 18 months. ArenaNet just needs to pick some of them, put the resources on the task, and get it done…and most of all, they need to talk to us about it. Wade in and start mending some fences. It’s what customer service is all about.

All I’m seeing in this thread is:

“Boo hoo, the only people who are saying these bad things about Ranger are trolls and a minority!”

In other words, OP is right: CDI isn’t needed, so long as you believe that people posting on the forums can’t be right or make a point.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Truthfully, it’s tough for the Ranger CDI to go anywhere, because what the Ranger actually needs isn’t clear. Active condition cleansing is a start, but other than that…what?

Well for starters…

Better Signets and better Shouts, the current versions are lackluster and provide very little support, Signets needing to be traited to work on the rangers and the party support gained for investing 30 points for your shouts is pretty bad. Admittedly, both are confirmed as “being looked at”.

In terms of weapons, auto-attack on Sword is an obvious one. But the Power based weapons in general need to be looked at due to low multipliers (GS), terrible skills (LB) and ambiguous use (SB, Axe Main). It should be more clear which are Power, Condition and Hybrid weapons.

Traps in general could use a boost (Combo field for Poison/Spike Trap being literally the LEAST they can do…), while Spirits will likely receive a nerf from PvP, while still being too weak in PvE/WvW.

The problem is the issues with Pets outshine all of these. All these points have come up in the CDI, there has only been replies to few of them.

@OP:

At least there is ANET participation in the ranger CDI. Go visit the WvW one and then you’ll really be disappointed.

style.6173:

@OP:

At least there is ANET participation in the ranger CDI. Go visit the WvW one and then you’ll really be disappointed.

I saw more meaningful daily posts from Devon in the WvW CDI (though that one is pretty dead since a few days) than Devs/CM comments in the ranger’s one…

Bran.7425:

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

urdriel.8496:

The next WvW map will be 100% underwater, we will rule there.

Along with the necros.

Truthfully, it’s tough for the Ranger CDI to go anywhere, because what the Ranger actually needs isn’t clear. Active condition cleansing is a start, but other than that…what?

The Elementalist CDI will be much more clear: making Water Magic less mandatory and making glyphs more attractive. Necro CDI as well: better sustain and answers (though not necessarily resistance) to heavy CC. Rangers…it’s not clear just what they actually need.

You doubt the power of the RTL whining, sir.

Yup it’s going to be alot of RTL revert requests and buff base HP(which doesn’t do anything except make the class more forgiving to mistakes) my 16.5k hp and 2.6k elementalist is more attrition then my 22khp and 2.7 armor necromancer because it can mitigate damage much better and good sustained sources.

Anyway Ele is my main class so I’ll see how it goes but I think RTL and HP buff’s and then more posts backing those ideas up to follow.

I have been playing engineer alot lately as I am new to 80 on it and it did open my eyes to possibly how giving the options to ele is better overall and more freedom. Part of the “high skill cap” on Ele is that it is restricted by attunement cooldowns. I think getting to a base 10-12 seconds would do alot of the class.

Carighan.6758:

As such, this player feedback we’re giving here, it only tells the devs where to look.
Not what to do.

.

This ^^ it is where to look not what to do.