Guild Wars 2

Let me start with i suck at eng and grammar.
Now that we have that out of the way.

I was wondering if we should still play core ranger what is good for?
Actually why would we still play vanilla ranger? Sustain ain’t that great compared too druid and probably soul beast.

core Ranger lacks on some points i won’t summaries all of them, because some are opinion related .

So i was wondering will we ever see a core specialization, a trait line that only ranger could use. One that we have already in the game perhaps.

wouldn’t that help in build variety and balancing?
That way we would see more core professions use their core classes bring more balance through out all the specialization. ( i was not only thinking of ranger alone fyi)

the current specialization just feel like an upgrade from ranger(or profession x) to something else. well, this is my way of thinking atm.

why not see them as profession’s that chosen a different path?
And keep core profession’s alive.

My point being, wouldn’t it help with what i summed up before such as.

-balance
-build variety
-different rolls within the class (healing, dps, control)

i was wondering how you guys feel about this. that we have a specialization called core ranger.

p.s any grammar tips are welcome ^^ i suck at it :p
also don’t worry i am not offend if you correct it down below.

Core specialisations will eventually die out once there are enough Elite specialisations available for each build type.

Currently we have:

• Druid – A tanky and/or healing support spec.
• Soulbeast – A pet focused spec based on absorbing/removing your pet.

We still need:

• A long range dps spec, probably with a rifle.
• A pet focused spec based on powering up your pets rather than removing them.

The idea of the Elites is you have a plus to whatever build you like to run. You can play as core Ranger but eventually you’ll want to go Ranger+ to make your build stronger and more specialised.

The problem is that the fewer Elite specs we have, the more limited the build options we have since the Elite specs are so much better. It’s a great system but Anet releasing only one Elite spec at the start severely limited build diversity, though that will start to become less of an issue once PoF releases.

Tl;dr: Core Ranger will eventually become completely unused out of pre-80 content once enough Elite specs are released and that’s not totally a bad thing.

I don’t think we need a long range DPS spec, we have LB for that and with the core trait changes it is very good too. I very much doubt Ranger will ever get any form of firearm.

Druid is heal/sustain which can be combined with core for decent damage as well and lots more support options.

Soulbeast is a brawler type I’m thinking with lots of options for damage mitigation and DPS with some support in the form of stance sharing and some burst healing.

Control is (will be, hopefully) straight out of GW1, the bunny thumper. A ranger with a hammer that interacts with pets, check out the skill bar from GW1, with a few tweeks we could have almost the same bar for GW2 on hammer and it would be magnificent.

TLDR; Core is the long range DPS spec so it will remain in play.

Nah I can envision mainhand pistol as a foil to mainhand axe just like mainhand dagger and sword.

As for rifle, someone’s gotta come up with a good skillset because I can’t see any roles it can fulfill that both bows can’t.

Sarision.6347:

…As for rifle…I can’t see any roles it can fulfill that both bows can’t.

That’s because there isn’t one. Bows already cover everything necessary from range.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Sarision.6347:

…As for rifle…I can’t see any roles it can fulfill that both bows can’t.

That’s because there isn’t one. Bows already cover everything necessary from range.

They could always add with different conditions as damage or stealth options, or add a different weapons altogether. The weapon didn’t really matter, what would be important is having an Elite spec focusing on boosting the potential of the base classes ranged dps.

psizone.8437:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Sarision.6347:

…As for rifle…I can’t see any roles it can fulfill that both bows can’t.

That’s because there isn’t one. Bows already cover everything necessary from range.

They could always add with different conditions as damage or stealth options, or add a different weapons altogether. The weapon didn’t really matter, what would be important is having an Elite spec focusing on boosting the potential of the base classes ranged dps.

But you do not need an eSpec to do that, we already have it, if they wanted to give us more ranged DPS, they can adjust the LB skills and power scaling.

We already have Melee condi and power, ranged condi and power with control on both, Healing and sustain and good support options to go with any of these. Soulbeast is going to be more melee hybrid with both good control and support options rolled into one.

What we are lacking is AoE damage and control.

I could see a mountain man/frontiersman rifle elite specs that focused on burns and or chills with rifle and maybe have ( preporations, venoms, snares (more cc oriented)) that would keep it unique from sb and long bow

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

I also think Longbow Ranger will remain with core ranger. Some specs can improve on it however, like we’ve seen with Ancient Seeds.

We can also expect other classes to compete, like Dragonhunter and now also Deadeye. I’m not convinced Ranger will get rifle down the line. If Deadeye isn’t the end of Longbow Ranger, then Longbow Ranger will probably never go away.

Pets (beastmastery builds) will probably also stay with core Ranger. We have enough headaches with pet AI as is (both us and Anet). I’m glad to see a petless Ranger will be possible.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

But you do not need an eSpec to do that, we already have it, if they wanted to give us more ranged DPS, they can adjust the LB skills and power scaling.

The problem with just upping damage on the base spec is that there would be nothing to stop people from running it with a defensive Elite spec and having the best of both worlds. Having a separate Elite spec for ranged dps makes balancing things easier.

psizone.8437:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

But you do not need an eSpec to do that, we already have it, if they wanted to give us more ranged DPS, they can adjust the LB skills and power scaling.

The problem with just upping damage on the base spec is that there would be nothing to stop people from running it with a defensive Elite spec and having the best of both worlds. Having a separate Elite spec for ranged dps makes balancing things easier.

You mean like how we take ranged DPS with LB already and combine it with Druid for lots of sustain? Or how we will take core defensive traits to go with Soulbeast offense and additional sustain so we can be very tanky and still dish out damage?

You can add more dps to core as long as it is spread out over 3 lines so that you can’t take all the DPS traits and an eSpec.

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

Core zerker longbow is pretty kitten good after the recent buffs. Probably the strongest long range single target damage in the game. The rest of the core builds are quite poor due to lack of good stability and sustained damage. SB will fix a lot of issues with the class in wvw. But as someone else said, the core ranger we have known for years will simply disappear as more specs are released.

psizone.8437:

We still need:

• A long range dps spec, probably with a rifle.

Just.. No, thank you. LB fills that roll, with just about any elite spec focused on damage. It’s allready pretty good as is with the last patch, and it was even pretty good with druid (although it got slightly hit with the nerf to ancient seeds’ cooldown). Chances are soulbeast will give us another viable variation of it.

Core specialisations will eventually die out once there are enough Elite specialisations available for each build type.

Your wording is pretty misleading. Core specializations will never die. Full core builds might die eventually. Probably what you meant, but still.

Druid is not the best spec for dps. Core ranger still have much better dps than druid.
I have no idea about Soulbeast, but it seems like it will give Ranger that thief/warrior melee dps.

Ghertu.7096:

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

The way Anet is setting it up, Ranger is far less focused on mechanical types of weapons, as opposed to thief and engineer. Not that hammer fits that well, but it was a fun build to play in gw1 that revolved around ranger and hammer skills. More important, the rifle brings very little to the table. Hammer does.

I’d assume off-hand sword and focus (some kind of warden type) are on the table. At some point I guess they will introduce new weapon types.

Zoid.2568:

Druid is not the best spec for dps. Core ranger still have much better dps than druid.
I have no idea about Soulbeast, but it seems like it will give Ranger that thief/warrior melee dps.

In PvE, obviously. But druid gave LB/GS builds some much needed versatility (including offensive) and surviveability tools in PvP enviroments. Pre recent patch, I’d argue it was your best choice for a LB build.

Ghertu.7096:

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

Rangers are not hunters roaming the woods. The entire thematic behind the design of the Ranger at the outset was to create a class that rejected the use of mechanical weapons and technology and went further into the forest to develop their Nature Magic skills. Hammer fits as it is a martial weapon.

Lazze.9870:

Ghertu.7096:

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

The way Anet is setting it up, Ranger is far less focused on mechanical types of weapons, as opposed to thief and engineer. Not that hammer fits that well, but it was a fun build to play in gw1 that revolved around ranger and hammer skills. More important, the rifle brings very little to the table. Hammer does.

I’d assume off-hand sword and focus (some kind of warden type) are on the table. At some point I guess they will introduce new weapon types.

Agree. 2H Spear, Hammer, OH Sword, OH Shield, MH Mace, even MH Torch will happen before Ranger gets a rifle.

All depends on what you are doing…for roaming in WvW I vastly prefer core ranger over Druid.

Literally all the Druid line gets me is a big condi clear and an ‘oh crap’ stealth button….that’s it. Ancient Seeds is ok also, but most people walk right out of that.

There’s just so much more flexibility when I’m not worried about how to build up AF. Of course Druid is literally the healing spec so not really meant for roaming anyway…just the fact people were able to use it like that for the past 2 years is amazing.

^offensive druid builds are 100% better for dueling/skirmishing, because of all the stealth and staff in general.

I have to disagree, but I don’t know the full capability of Soulbeast yet.

For Druid, I’d only use it in pvp / fractal and other serious group contents since the boom / dps they provide is invaluable.

However, in any open world contents, I really dislike using Druid at all. The dps and aoe is just not good enough for the most part, and the trait doesn’t help with your damage too much.

If you give up Nature Magic, you give up auto protection/ lots of weakness, which would actually make your life harder in open world.

If you give up Skirmishing, you lose quite abit of dps. (You literally lose around 16% crit rate and 250 ferocity)

Same can be said about BM, that you lose alot of dps if you don’t take the trait, especially if you use axe as your range option.
(Honestly I prefer Axe/WH + Sword/Axe for my roaming build. The tracking and utility is just overall way better, plus you can maintain constant freeze and weakness on targets)

Marksmanship is still vital for LB to be viable too.

Wilderness Survival is the key line for survival build, and new buff grant new tank play-style through protection regen.

Core ranger is not weak, it just not as good as Druid when it comes to group contents.

Idk how well Soulbeast will do through, it’d probably be best for wvw since pets are so useless in WvW zerg fight.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Ghertu.7096:

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

Rangers are not hunters roaming the woods. The entire thematic behind the design of the Ranger at the outset was to create a class that rejected the use of mechanical weapons and technology and went further into the forest to develop their Nature Magic skills. Hammer fits as it is a martial weapon.

Lazze.9870:

Ghertu.7096:

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

The way Anet is setting it up, Ranger is far less focused on mechanical types of weapons, as opposed to thief and engineer. Not that hammer fits that well, but it was a fun build to play in gw1 that revolved around ranger and hammer skills. More important, the rifle brings very little to the table. Hammer does.

I’d assume off-hand sword and focus (some kind of warden type) are on the table. At some point I guess they will introduce new weapon types.

Agree. 2H Spear, Hammer, OH Sword, OH Shield, MH Mace, even MH Torch will happen before Ranger gets a rifle.

An Iron Legion ranger has dropped his compound bow when heard that. Well, it’s not necessary compound bow beacause even primitive bow made of a stick and a lace is pretty mechanical. Also, a sword or an axe, while being really simple weapon in a case of operation way, is usually made with some complex metal casting technology. Well, technology is about exploiting nature. A bow string and a powder both based on physics. Technology may be primitive but it is still technology, lower or higher level. What level of technology is appropriate for a ranger? Can you draw the border?

And I think there is more in ranger than just druid.

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Ghertu.7096:

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

Rangers are not hunters roaming the woods. The entire thematic behind the design of the Ranger at the outset was to create a class that rejected the use of mechanical weapons and technology and went further into the forest to develop their Nature Magic skills. Hammer fits as it is a martial weapon.

Lazze.9870:

Ghertu.7096:

Miellyn.6847:

Before we get a rifle or pistol we will get off-hand sword or hammer. Rifle and pistol don’t fit the theme.

Firearms don’t fit “a hunter roaming the woods” theme? And hammer does fit? You kidding me.

The way Anet is setting it up, Ranger is far less focused on mechanical types of weapons, as opposed to thief and engineer. Not that hammer fits that well, but it was a fun build to play in gw1 that revolved around ranger and hammer skills. More important, the rifle brings very little to the table. Hammer does.

I’d assume off-hand sword and focus (some kind of warden type) are on the table. At some point I guess they will introduce new weapon types.

Agree. 2H Spear, Hammer, OH Sword, OH Shield, MH Mace, even MH Torch will happen before Ranger gets a rifle.

An Iron Legion ranger has dropped his compound bow when heard that. Well, it’s not necessary compound bow beacause even primitive bow made of a stick and a lace is pretty mechanical. Also, a sword or an axe, while being really simple weapon in a case of operation way, is usually made with some complex metal casting technology. Well, technology is about exploiting nature. A bow string and a powder both based on physics. Technology may be primitive but it is still technology, lower or higher level. What level of technology is appropriate for a ranger? Can you draw the border?

And I think there is more in ranger than just druid.

A bow provides mechanical advantage, sure, but it is not mechanical. When referring to mechanical, I mean wheels, gears, bearings, complex moving parts etc, not a simple spring like a bow. Metal casting is not complex, humans were doing it for thousands of years before the invention of gun powder. If technology is about exploiting nature, then that is more of a reason for Rangers to reject its use. You draw the border at a firing mechanism and gunpowder or complex moving parts.

Look, I didn’t make this stuff up, it’s not my opinion, it’s ANet’s stated design for Ranger.

Ghertu.7096:

An Iron Legion ranger has dropped his compound bow when heard that. Well, it’s not necessary compound bow beacause even primitive bow made of a stick and a lace is pretty mechanical. Also, a sword or an axe, while being really simple weapon in a case of operation way, is usually made with some complex metal casting technology. Well, technology is about exploiting nature. A bow string and a powder both based on physics. Technology may be primitive but it is still technology, lower or higher level. What level of technology is appropriate for a ranger? Can you draw the border?

And I think there is more in ranger than just druid.

There is a difference between how a weapon is made and how it functions. Swords, axes and daggers are by no means mechanical weapons just because they were forged by a smith with some awesomesauce gear.

OF COURSE you can RP about an Iron Legion ranger being a tad bit more.. mechanical. It’s irrelevant to how Anet views ranger.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

I mean wheels, gears, bearings, complex moving parts etc.

Like a harpoon gun, eh?

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

I mean wheels, gears, bearings, complex moving parts etc.

Like a harpoon gun, eh?

No, if you’d ever seen one irl you would realise they don’t have those things, in their basic form. They are essentially a stick with a rubber band attached to the end which is held by a simple lock when stretched. When you release the lock, the rubber propells the spear.

I suggested almost 2 years ago that the “mechanic buffer” trait line should be considered as an “elite” trait line. Saying that, now days core ranger build is the ultimate pet damage dealing build, MM/WS/BM is compatible with druids for offensive builds.

From my experience after the 8th august patch, Core ranger is pretty solid with MM, WS and BM and has a lot of damage and sustain.

I feel like rangers will get shields and pet interaction next on their elite specs list. Heck I am even working on a draft of what I would like to see in the next elite spec and, if anyone is curious, I will post it and I will drop a link in this forum post.

I was messing about with a core ranger build yesterday since SB will be closer to core builds than druid builds, sorta a warm up, and found it to be surprisingly strong. Granted, I’ve pvped a lot most of it on ranger so I know what I’m doing (easily better than 90% of rangers out there), and now I’m even considering making that my main build because of how much fun it was. Got top damage on all three matches, mostly on account of my being able to stay alive longer than most. Having tried soulbeast, I must say it’s underwhelming considering how close it is to core ranger builds and how clunky it feels.

Also, next specialization should be something along the lines of Barbarian, with either hammer or dual maces. What ranger is missing (LB power ranger at least), is a solid melee alternative. So druid gives it support so it’s desirable in pve pugs, soulbeast removes the pet so it’s better in wvw situations and Barbarian would give it a high sustain/cc melee option to complement ranger in every other way.

Well, if intended, Soulbeast with auto buffing Mauls and Sick ’em shout is a PvP melee spike machine. It also comes with innate sustain via built in extra heal or invulnerability.

If only Opening strike was not so terrible still, perhaps Core ranger would be viable as a high level PvP build.

The problem with core ranger is the vast amount of reflects out there. Remorseless should definitely be a Grand master minor trait so we can complete a Longbow build.

The only thing I miss in core ranger is a staff 3 equivalent that allows me get out of fights. Sword 2 is awkward to use and lightning reflexes has limited range. Together they’re great but staff 3 is still superior to disengage imo.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

A bow provides mechanical advantage, sure, but it is not mechanical. When referring to mechanical, I mean wheels, gears, bearings, complex moving parts etc, not a simple spring like a bow. Metal casting is not complex, humans were doing it for thousands of years before the invention of gun powder. If technology is about exploiting nature, then that is more of a reason for Rangers to reject its use. You draw the border at a firing mechanism and gunpowder or complex moving parts.

Look, I didn’t make this stuff up, it’s not my opinion, it’s ANet’s stated design for Ranger.

Well there are some bow skins in the game that appear to be compound bows, so rangers can use weapons with moving parts, even if they usually don’t.

And both casting and forging (you don’t cast steel weapons, only bronze) are pretty complex, and gunpowder has been around for rather a long time in its own right. The main difficulty with gunpowder is that it requires more precise measurement than any kind of metalworking at the time.

I can see why they went the way they did, but rangers do lack any kind of long ranged AoE damage, and their bows do probably need buffing and updating (especially the shortbow) to remain competitive post-HoT, let alone post-PoF.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

A bow provides mechanical advantage, sure, but it is not mechanical. When referring to mechanical, I mean wheels, gears, bearings, complex moving parts etc, not a simple spring like a bow. Metal casting is not complex, humans were doing it for thousands of years before the invention of gun powder. If technology is about exploiting nature, then that is more of a reason for Rangers to reject its use. You draw the border at a firing mechanism and gunpowder or complex moving parts.

Look, I didn’t make this stuff up, it’s not my opinion, it’s ANet’s stated design for Ranger.

Well there are some bow skins in the game that appear to be compound bows, so rangers can use weapons with moving parts, even if they usually don’t.

And both casting and forging (you don’t cast steel weapons, only bronze) are pretty complex, and gunpowder has been around for rather a long time in its own right. The main difficulty with gunpowder is that it requires more precise measurement than any kind of metalworking at the time.

I can see why they went the way they did, but rangers do lack any kind of long ranged AoE damage, and their bows do probably need buffing and updating (especially the shortbow) to remain competitive post-HoT, let alone post-PoF.

Well, there are also bow skins that are made out of clouds and lightning, or living creatures.

Actually, you can indeed cast steel into anything you want, it’s just not as good as forged steel, although, all steel begins life as a cast when it is cast into an ingot from the forge, then it is forged (wrought) into whatever you desire, or left as a cast part. You can cast steel arrowheads with nothing but a crucible, a charcoal fire and a knife to carve the arrowhead shape into wood, it’s not that complex.

Gunpowder (Black powder that is) measurement does not need to be particularly accurate, have you not seen a powder horn? You just tip in as much or as little as you like into the musket, the only measurement is the loader judging it by time and angle of the pour. The reason it needs to be so much more accurate (to 1/10th of a grain) in modern weapons is because it’s different power (smokeless powder/nitrocellulose) and the pressures developed are far higher. Black Powder was invented in the 11th century by the Chinese (song), at the time metallurgy was advanced enough to make steel.

Like I said before, this is the class design, I’m not making this stuff up, just explaining it and why gunpowder and rifles do not fit into the design as stated by ANet.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Like I said before, this is the class design, I’m not making this stuff up, just explaining it and why gunpowder and rifles do not fit into the design as stated by ANet.

It actually looks like you agree that whole idea makes no sense since, again, you are not able to draw a decently visible line between complex and non-complex technology, it remains blurrish because it based on nothing but someone’s personal feelings and that person feels that weird way because… I actually have no idea.

Note: I’m not a native English speaker so I thought “casting” and “forging” are synonyms. And it doesn’t really matter.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

A bow provides mechanical advantage, sure, but it is not mechanical. When referring to mechanical, I mean wheels, gears, bearings, complex moving parts etc, not a simple spring like a bow. Metal casting is not complex, humans were doing it for thousands of years before the invention of gun powder. If technology is about exploiting nature, then that is more of a reason for Rangers to reject its use. You draw the border at a firing mechanism and gunpowder or complex moving parts.

Look, I didn’t make this stuff up, it’s not my opinion, it’s ANet’s stated design for Ranger.

Well there are some bow skins in the game that appear to be compound bows, so rangers can use weapons with moving parts, even if they usually don’t.

And both casting and forging (you don’t cast steel weapons, only bronze) are pretty complex, and gunpowder has been around for rather a long time in its own right. The main difficulty with gunpowder is that it requires more precise measurement than any kind of metalworking at the time.

I can see why they went the way they did, but rangers do lack any kind of long ranged AoE damage, and their bows do probably need buffing and updating (especially the shortbow) to remain competitive post-HoT, let alone post-PoF.

Well, there are also bow skins that are made out of clouds and lightning, or living creatures.

Actually, you can indeed cast steel into anything you want, it’s just not as good as forged steel, although, all steel begins life as a cast when it is cast into an ingot from the forge, then it is forged (wrought) into whatever you desire, or left as a cast part. You can cast steel arrowheads with nothing but a crucible, a charcoal fire and a knife to carve the arrowhead shape into wood, it’s not that complex.

Gunpowder (Black powder that is) measurement does not need to be particularly accurate, have you not seen a powder horn? You just tip in as much or as little as you like into the musket, the only measurement is the loader judging it by time and angle of the pour. The reason it needs to be so much more accurate (to 1/10th of a grain) in modern weapons is because it’s different power (smokeless powder/nitrocellulose) and the pressures developed are far higher. Black Powder was invented in the 11th century by the Chinese (song), at the time metallurgy was advanced enough to make steel.

Like I said before, this is the class design, I’m not making this stuff up, just explaining it and why gunpowder and rifles do not fit into the design as stated by ANet.

First of all, a wood mould would not work for steel casting, you would need to line it with sand or something. It can work for other metals, but iron’s melting point is simply too high. Which gets into my next point, that while steel can be cast, they didn’t do it in medieval times or before (again, the high melting point made that impractical, bordering on impossible given the technology available).

The measurement with black powder is in mixing it in proper proportions, not putting it into the gun. Powder horns don’t need to be precise because the powder in them is already mixed in the proper proportions.

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Like I said before, this is the class design, I’m not making this stuff up, just explaining it and why gunpowder and rifles do not fit into the design as stated by ANet.

It actually looks like you agree that whole idea makes no sense since, again, you are not able to draw a decently visible line between complex and non-complex technology, it remains blurrish because it based on nothing but someone’s personal feelings and that person feels that weird way because… I actually have no idea.

Note: I’m not a native English speaker so I thought “casting” and “forging” are synonyms. And it doesn’t really matter.

Like I said man, I don’t need to draw the line because it’s not my opinion, I’m just trying to explain ANet’s stance on the subject.

Casting is the pouring of the molten metal into a mould and then allowing it to cool, forging the steel is working it to produce hardness.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

…First of all, a wood mould would not work for steel casting, you would need to line it with sand or something. It can work for other metals, but iron’s melting point is simply too high. Which gets into my next point, that while steel can be cast, they didn’t do it in medieval times or before (again, the high melting point made that impractical, bordering on impossible given the technology available).

The measurement with black powder is in mixing it in proper proportions, not putting it into the gun. Powder horns don’t need to be precise because the powder in them is already mixed in the proper proportions.

Yes, the wood mold needs to be lined with carbon or sand. It doesn’t work super well, since the wood does burn, but you can do it since the wood is a large thermal mass and you are only casting a small arrowhead. We’re not talking about pouring 4lb of 2500 degree farenheit molten steel into a 1 cu/ft balsa-wood mold here.

Casting steel was pretty commonplace by the 11th Century, Middle East and China. Wootz steel was developed in the 6th Century BC.

Black Powder does not need to be precise to mix, it’s very easy to make and a child could do it. It’s just charcoal, Salt Peter and Sulphur. Recipes for it vary wildly! 75% saltpeter, 15% charcoal and 10% sulphur is the most common recipe used now. You can even leave out the sulphur and have 80% saltpeter and 20% charcoal and that will work too. It doesn’t need to be super accurate.

I think we are getting quite far off topic now…

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Like I said man, I don’t need to draw the line because it’s not my opinion, I’m just trying to explain ANet’s stance on the subject.

I got it, but it also seems like you also implying that such stance has right to exist and I should tolerate it. I’m explaining why is it terribly wrong not really to you but to everyone who has accidentally bumped into this thread, including, maybe, some of ANet staff.

Lazze.9870:

There is a difference between how a weapon is made and how it functions. Swords, axes and daggers are by no means mechanical weapons just because they were forged by a smith with some awesomesauce gear.

A sword is a pretty mechanical thing not only because it may be made with usage of some complex technology, but because the whole idea of an artifical sharp edge is based on “less area – bigger pressure” rule. Oh, wait, Mother Nature uses the same trick: claws, talons and pecks are based on “less area – bigger pressure” rule. Well, that’s because… nature is a pretty mechanical thing.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

If technology is about exploiting nature, then that is more of a reason for Rangers to reject its use.

I rather meant “just using what nature provides already”.

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Like I said man, I don’t need to draw the line because it’s not my opinion, I’m just trying to explain ANet’s stance on the subject.

I got it, but it also seems like you also implying that such stance has right to exist and I should tolerate it. I’m explaining why is it terribly wrong not really to you but to everyone who has accidentally bumped into this thread, including, maybe, some of ANet staff…

See here’s the thing. It does have a right to exist, it is their intellectual property and they decide what theme it will have. Do you think they haven’t already thought about it? Just because you have an opinion on the matter, doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with it, or even listen. You’ll just have to tolerate it, you have no choice.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

See here’s the thing. It does have a right to exist, it is their intellectual property and they decide what theme it will have. Do you think they haven’t already thought about it? Just because you have an opinion on the matter, doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with it, or even listen. You’ll just have to tolerate it, you have no choice.

That’s purpose of public forums: I’m stating my opinion, it’s up to them to listen or not. First, I think they better do just because I see no advantage for them in what you are describing here, there is no “pros and cons”, it looks just plain bad. Second, anyway, I can’t really remember ANet directly stating ranger theme in a way you are describing here so I still suspect you are slandering them. I actually started this argument against some fellow user personal opinion about “usage of firearms doesn’t fit ranger theme”, not against ANet opinion, I didn’t event know they may think this way before tou told me that.

Hah, know what? Even if that is true, they can change their view on ranger theme and no one even notice. Look. it’s obvious why warrior can’t get light armor or focus, no one ever asked ANet to provide foci for warriors and that doesn’t require explanation. But it seems there is plenty of people who don’t understand how usage of firearms doesn’t fit ranger theme and you had to explain that thing to me.

psizone.8437:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

But you do not need an eSpec to do that, we already have it, if they wanted to give us more ranged DPS, they can adjust the LB skills and power scaling.

The problem with just upping damage on the base spec is that there would be nothing to stop people from running it with a defensive Elite spec and having the best of both worlds. Having a separate Elite spec for ranged dps makes balancing things easier.

Yes there is: the fact that we don’t have a defensive elite spec. But, you know, details.

The problem I have is that base ranger (with a longbow) is fairly poor for DPS, and extremely poor for it when the pet doesn’t hit (such as quite a bit of sPvP, and basically all WvW zerging). I honestly don’t think that the stat boost from beast form is enough, and many of the skills suck. Plus, the GM major traits are painfully underwhelming.

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

See here’s the thing. It does have a right to exist, it is their intellectual property and they decide what theme it will have. Do you think they haven’t already thought about it? Just because you have an opinion on the matter, doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with it, or even listen. You’ll just have to tolerate it, you have no choice.

That’s purpose of public forums: I’m stating my opinion, it’s up to them to listen or not. First, I think they better do just because I see no advantage for them in what you are describing here, there is no “pros and cons”, it looks just plain bad. Second, anyway, I can’t really remember ANet directly stating ranger theme in a way you are describing here so I still suspect you are slandering them. I actually started this argument against some fellow user personal opinion about “usage of firearms doesn’t fit ranger theme”, not against ANet opinion, I didn’t event know they may think this way before tou told me that.

Hah, know what? Even if that is true, they can change their view on ranger theme and no one even notice. Look. it’s obvious why warrior can’t get light armor or focus, no one ever asked ANet to provide foci for warriors and that doesn’t require explanation. But it seems there is plenty of people who don’t understand how usage of firearms doesn’t fit ranger theme and you had to explain that thing to me.

There are pros and cons, one of the cons is that there is zero point in making a rifle ranger, since any possible role the rifle could serve is already covered either by Ranger bows, Deadeye, Warrior or Engineer. What purpose could a rifle Ranger serve that isn’t already taken?

ANet did state this theme for the Ranger when designing it, I have read it in several articles and linked one a couple of weeks ago I think. I’m sure you can find that info with a quick google search.

I doubt they will change their mind on the Ranger theme, it serves no purpose to do so. They want specific archetypes, things people connect to, they don’t want to water these down or confuse them. Ranger is the pet and nature magic class that doesn’t use technology. And why is it obvious Warrior can’t get a focus, why does that not need explanation? I guarantee people have asked for it. Warrior will not get a focus because Warrior is a non-magical, martial oriented class, ANet will not change this for the same reason they will not change Ranger to use technology.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

…there is zero point in making a rifle ranger, since any possible role the rifle could serve is already covered either by Ranger bows, Deadeye, Warrior or Engineer. What purpose could a rifle Ranger serve that isn’t already taken?

I actually agree with you on that. I rather was thinking about how properly designed pistol (pistol can be hunting weapon) could make a nice addition to existing one-handed weapons.

…Warrior is a non-magical, martial oriented class, ANet will not change this for the same reason they will not change Ranger to use technology.

This. Warrior doesn’t use magic. Ranger do use technology. Bow is technology. Trap is technology. Troll unguent is some mixture of natural components, I guess… and gunpowder is that too!
Also.

Well, there are also bow skins that are made out of clouds and lightning, or living creatures.

Aaaaaaand… Soooooo… What’s your point?

I get the whole thing about a strong theme, and in most circumstances I’m all for the artist/creator (Anet) having complete control of presenting the theme (ranger=a much more naturalistic combatant, in tune with nature and perhaps the ‘old’ way of doing things).

That being said, For a long time I wanted to see a rifle elite spec for ranger. I main a druid, and as the first toon I ever rolled in the game, I was disappointed that it packed a rather mediocre punch at range. For dps these days I run full ascended viper gear/build, which is great… but I still miss the idea of doing awesome pewpew numbers at ludicrously long range.

But the more I thought about it, the more the ranger rifle turned out to be a weird combination of warrior rifle and DH LB moves in my imagination. Specifically, I thought the ranger should end up with something like warrior rifle #5 (stock swing knockback at melee range) and DH LB #3 (unblockable projectile at longish cooldown, but with no knockback or projectile-destruction). The more I worked out the spec, the less it felt like “ranger” -which I think says a lot about Anet’s success in cementing the naturalist theme for the class.

TLDR; it would be nice to have a really hard-hitting long-range rifle build for ranger, but I agree that it doesn’t really fit how Anet has presented the class “feel.”

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

…there is zero point in making a rifle ranger, since any possible role the rifle could serve is already covered either by Ranger bows, Deadeye, Warrior or Engineer. What purpose could a rifle Ranger serve that isn’t already taken?

I actually agree with you on that. I rather was thinking about how properly designed pistol (pistol can be hunting weapon) could make a nice addition to existing one-handed weapons.

…Warrior is a non-magical, martial oriented class, ANet will not change this for the same reason they will not change Ranger to use technology.

This. Warrior doesn’t use magic. Ranger do use technology. Bow is technology. Trap is technology. Troll unguent is some mixture of natural components, I guess… and gunpowder is that too!
Also.

Well, there are also bow skins that are made out of clouds and lightning, or living creatures.

Aaaaaaand… Soooooo… What’s your point?

You are using the wrong definition of technology. Burning the end of a sharp stick in the fire also can be defined as technology. Ranger doesn’t use technology of the particular type that constitutes firearms and technical gadgets.

Well, if you don’t get what the point is of that statement, then I’m wondering what the point was of yours in the first place. Skins do not center around the class themes, a Warrior can use a magical longbow just the same as a Ranger can use a mechanical one.

voltaicbore.8012:

…TLDR; it would be nice to have a really hard-hitting long-range rifle build for ranger, but I agree that it doesn’t really fit how Anet has presented the class “feel.”

But we already have that in LB if you build around it. It’s got the maximum range that will ever exist and it hits hard if you are setup for it, which is no more than you would have to do with a rifle anyway.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Burning the end of a sharp stick in the fire also can be defined as technology. Ranger doesn’t use technology of the particular type that constitutes firearms and technical gadgets.

Oh, you starting to understand. Look, you dividing technology to some types based on your personal feeling of it. If there is ranger who can use sharp stick in the fire but can’t use firearms there should be a profession that can use firearms but can’t use a plasma cannon because it’s “too much technology” for them. Then there sould be a profession that can use a plasma cannon but can’t use quantum teleporting device because it’s “too much technology” for them. Then there sould be a profession that can use a quantum teleporting device but… And so on and so forth.
So, technology is technology. Theme you describing feels non-existent for me because it doesn’t really supported by something I saw in game. “Doesn’t use technology, huh? But actually they do. Is there theme at all?”

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Skins do not center around the class themes, a Warrior can use a magical longbow just the same as a Ranger can use a mechanical one.

Since magical artifacts and mechanical devices do exist in the world, it’s pretty stupid to not use them if it doesn’t take to be a magic caster or technical specialist. No much difference from using a pistol.

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Burning the end of a sharp stick in the fire also can be defined as technology. Ranger doesn’t use technology of the particular type that constitutes firearms and technical gadgets.

Oh, you starting to understand. Look, you dividing technology to some types based on your personal feeling of it. If there is ranger who can use sharp stick in the fire but can’t use firearms there should be a profession that can use firearms but can’t use a plasma cannon because it’s “too much technology” for them. Then there sould be a profession that can use a plasma cannon but can’t use quantum teleporting device because it’s “too much technology” for them. Then there sould be a profession that can use a quantum teleporting device but… And so on and so forth.
So, technology is technology. Theme you describing feels non-existent for me because it doesn’t really supported by something I saw in game. “Doesn’t use technology, huh? But actually they do. Is there theme at all?”

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Skins do not center around the class themes, a Warrior can use a magical longbow just the same as a Ranger can use a mechanical one.

Since magical artifacts and mechanical devices do exist in the world, it’s pretty stupid to not use them if it doesn’t take to be a magic caster or technical specialist. No much difference from using a pistol.

Oh I always understood, it is you yourself that doesn’t.

I’m going to explain it once more. It’s not my personal feeling on technology, but the term is broad and I did define it as pertains to the Ranger.

No matter how you try and justify it, you’ll always be wrong because you are not accepting that ANet has decided against it when they initially designed the Ranger and they are not going to change that now. They have designed the classes around aesthetics and archetypes that people will associate with. A Nature magic pet class will never use guns because Engineers and Deadeyes exist, they have the aesthetics and archetype that uses firearms and they are also the reason that a firearm wielding Ranger is pointless.

Once more. “Ranger doesn’t use technology of the particular type that constitutes firearms and technical gadgets.” Ranger/Druid/Soulbeast has around 120 skills and none are mechanical in nature or involve any form of modern technology the likes of which I have described above. Ranger’s theme is nature magic and beast affinity.

Here’s a direct quote from the guys who designed Ranger.

OnRPG: I knew there would be bows and things, but as you say the technology has advanced, so will they be more than pointy sticks on a string?

Anet: [Jon]The Ranger, one of the things we did with it in Guild Wars 2 is kind of go with a much more bestial and naturey feel and so because of that he kind of focuses on a lot weapons that are very natural. If he’s in melee combat he uses great swords and swords, and at range he throws axes, uses bows and short bows, long bows, and a lot of his spells, I got to mention the trap that [has] poison snakes, or he summons a nature spirit, and so we kind of embraced that naturey feel with him, kind of took him in that direction because we feel like that’s an archetype that people who play a Ranger really like and it gives us kind of an opportunity, you know in other places, to use the more advanced rifles and pistols with our [more earthly? doesn’t sound right..garbled..Sounded like it was a glitch or edited out intentionally..] professions.

[Eric]Yeah, I think we’d like to look at as the Ranger profession has evolved the same way that the world has evolved, and the Rangers have sort of gone anti-technology, they’ve gone into the wild, they’ve gone and embraced sort of spirit, and things like that. There are other professions in our, you know, five unye, as yet revealed, we mentioned Warriors for example have no problem using rifles. There are plenty of other professions remaining we’re going to use both rifles and pistols, and so for the Ranger it just didn’t feel right for them to be using firearms.

To summarise that quote box;

• The Ranger, one of the things we did with it in Guild Wars 2 is kind of go with a much more bestial and naturey feel and so because of that he kind of focuses on a lot weapons that are very natural…

• …we feel like that’s an archetype that people who play a Ranger really like…

• Rangers have sort of gone anti-technology, they’ve gone into the wild, they’ve gone and embraced sort of spirit, and things like that…

• …for the Ranger it just didn’t feel right for them to be using firearms…

See, it doesn’t matter how you and I feel about whether or not Ranger should use rifles and similar technology, because the archetype is set in stone. You can’t just change the archetype, even with an eSpec. And, there really is no point trying to make it fit because the other two medium armor classes can already use this technology. Ranger will remain separate from this form of technology because they have no need for it. Anything Ranger needs can be provided by martial weapons or nature magic.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Ghertu.7096:

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Burning the end of a sharp stick in the fire also can be defined as technology. Ranger doesn’t use technology of the particular type that constitutes firearms and technical gadgets.

Oh, you starting to understand. Look, you dividing technology to some types based on your personal feeling of it. If there is ranger who can use sharp stick in the fire but can’t use firearms there should be a profession that can use firearms but can’t use a plasma cannon because it’s “too much technology” for them. Then there sould be a profession that can use a plasma cannon but can’t use quantum teleporting device because it’s “too much technology” for them. Then there sould be a profession that can use a quantum teleporting device but… And so on and so forth.
So, technology is technology. Theme you describing feels non-existent for me because it doesn’t really supported by something I saw in game. “Doesn’t use technology, huh? But actually they do. Is there theme at all?”

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Skins do not center around the class themes, a Warrior can use a magical longbow just the same as a Ranger can use a mechanical one.

Since magical artifacts and mechanical devices do exist in the world, it’s pretty stupid to not use them if it doesn’t take to be a magic caster or technical specialist. No much difference from using a pistol.

Oh I always understood, it is you yourself that doesn’t.

I’m going to explain it once more. It’s not my personal feeling on technology, but the term is broad and I did define it as pertains to the Ranger.

No matter how you try and justify it, you’ll always be wrong because you are not accepting that ANet has decided against it when they initially designed the Ranger and they are not going to change that now. They have designed the classes around aesthetics and archetypes that people will associate with. A Nature magic pet class will never use guns because Engineers and Deadeyes exist, they have the aesthetics and archetype that uses firearms and they are also the reason that a firearm wielding Ranger is pointless.

Once more. “Ranger doesn’t use technology of the particular type that constitutes firearms and technical gadgets.” Ranger/Druid/Soulbeast has around 120 skills and none are mechanical in nature or involve any form of modern technology the likes of which I have described above. Ranger’s theme is nature magic and beast affinity.

Here’s a direct quote from the guys who designed Ranger.

OnRPG: I knew there would be bows and things, but as you say the technology has advanced, so will they be more than pointy sticks on a string?

Anet: [Jon]The Ranger, one of the things we did with it in Guild Wars 2 is kind of go with a much more bestial and naturey feel and so because of that he kind of focuses on a lot weapons that are very natural. If he’s in melee combat he uses great swords and swords, and at range he throws axes, uses bows and short bows, long bows, and a lot of his spells, I got to mention the trap that [has] poison snakes, or he summons a nature spirit, and so we kind of embraced that naturey feel with him, kind of took him in that direction because we feel like that’s an archetype that people who play a Ranger really like and it gives us kind of an opportunity, you know in other places, to use the more advanced rifles and pistols with our [more earthly? doesn’t sound right..garbled..Sounded like it was a glitch or edited out intentionally..] professions.

[Eric]Yeah, I think we’d like to look at as the Ranger profession has evolved the same way that the world has evolved, and the Rangers have sort of gone anti-technology, they’ve gone into the wild, they’ve gone and embraced sort of spirit, and things like that. There are other professions in our, you know, five unye, as yet revealed, we mentioned Warriors for example have no problem using rifles. There are plenty of other professions remaining we’re going to use both rifles and pistols, and so for the Ranger it just didn’t feel right for them to be using firearms.

To summarise that quote box;

• The Ranger, one of the things we did with it in Guild Wars 2 is kind of go with a much more bestial and naturey feel and so because of that he kind of focuses on a lot weapons that are very natural…

• …we feel like that’s an archetype that people who play a Ranger really like…

• Rangers have sort of gone anti-technology, they’ve gone into the wild, they’ve gone and embraced sort of spirit, and things like that…

• …for the Ranger it just didn’t feel right for them to be using firearms…

See, it doesn’t matter how you and I feel about whether or not Ranger should use rifles and similar technology, because the archetype is set in stone. You can’t just change the archetype, even with an eSpec. And, there really is no point trying to make it fit because the other two medium armor classes can already use this technology. Ranger will remain separate from this form of technology because they have no need for it. Anything Ranger needs can be provided by martial weapons or nature magic.

I do not demanding ANet to provide certain weapon asap, I’m just arguing against that “firearms do not fit ranger theme” thing.
Well, I can understand the way of thinking that produced such theme, though I find that way of thinking pretty boring.
Finally. Ranger is someone affiliated with nature, I got it. But, in my opinion, firearms do not contradict with that. A pistol is not less naturey than a sword. So rejecting to use firearms do not make rangers look more naturey, it makes them look like some weirdos or hypocrites. If ANet tried to create a certain flavor that way, they failed.