Guild Wars 2

Stormleaf.1769:

Exocet.7306:

What would you expect from a Ranger? A balance between strong ranged skills and low survive at melee right? Why can´t you keep it as simple as that? Have you ever seen, in the hole history of humanity (or fantasy), an archer with a greatsword at his back and no range? I know its a fantasy game but there are limits to be respected for consistency. At the moment we have rangers with greatswords, low dps, and no range. We relly half of our dps in a pet that can´t hit moving targets, can´t dodge, and dies in seconds.
It should be a hard class to master rather than a warrior. I don´t expect to resist a hammer blow. If i am in that situation i am dead and its ok, blame me! but make me deadly from afar.

I´ve been a dev for about a decade now and i know how frustrating can be to get this kind of feedback from the ppl you want to satisfy. But honestly, what is a ranger in GW2? A warrior in medium armor shooting unicorns and rainbows? Come on, just tell us you don´t like them so we can pick another class or choose another game.

The class is called ‘Ranger’, not ‘Archer’. What you’re describing is an archer (which you admit to in your own post), making your entire ‘point’ moot. One of the accepted definitions of a ranger (as in, what’s in an actual dictionary): “A person who ranges or roves”. Going by that, a highly mobile, melee build—which is accessible to us—is more in the spirit of a ‘Ranger’ than a stationary bow-wielding build.

I am getting really tired of this ridiculous “It’s ’range’r not ’melee’r!” argument. It is laughable.

Tired of what if you don´t understand what you read…

Try again, here it is from the official website.

Ranger
Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

Exocet.7306:

Tired of what if you don´t understand what you read…

Try again, here it is from the official website.

Ranger
Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself.”
Nothing about this statement means ‘bow only!’. All of these things benefit a melee weapon just as much as a ranged weapon.

“Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.”
Being ‘capable’ of killing people with a bow does not mean that’s the only thing they’re capable of. And by the way: they are unparalleled archers compared to other classes in the game, because they can use both long bows and short bows. That’s twice as many bow options as any other class. Tada! Unparalleled.

“With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”
Applying your logic with the previous sentence to this one: any bow ranger that doesn’t use traps or nature spirits isn’t a true ranger either, so shame on them, am I right? Oh, and I’m pretty sure ‘adapting to any situation’ means they can handle using a melee weapon well.

If we can´t agree that the Ranger is the archer class of the game this whole argument is pointless.

Khayoss.2019:

meaningful discussion this way. Tell me I’m right, tell me I’m wrong, don’t care, just read and respond with feedback of your own and not general complaints. Give alternate suggestions,if mine suck. Maybe with some momentum we can get something done…

Wasting your time. Nothing short of going to WA. and marching on their front lawn would get them to raise an eyebrow right now. That probably wouldn’t even change much but it would result in some questions followed by non-canned answers. And good luck cornering them at a convention until they’ve got a new expansion to hawk…

Stormleaf.1769:

Exocet.7306:

Tired of what if you don´t understand what you read…

Try again, here it is from the official website.

Ranger
Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself.”
Nothing about this statement means ‘bow only!’. All of these things benefit a melee weapon just as much as a ranged weapon.

“Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.”
Being ‘capable’ of killing people with a bow does not mean that’s the only thing they’re capable of. And by the way: they are unparalleled archers compared to other classes in the game, because they can use both long bows and short bows. That’s twice as many bow options as any other class. Tada! Unparalleled.

“With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”
Applying your logic with the previous sentence to this one: any bow ranger that doesn’t use traps or nature spirits isn’t a true ranger either, so shame on them, am I right? Oh, and I’m pretty sure ‘adapting to any situation’ means they can handle using a melee weapon well.

1. “Nothing about this statement means ‘bow only!’. All of these things benefit a melee weapon just as much as a ranged weapon.”

Why are people trying to attribute class descriptions into a PvP/WvW fighting scenario, especially this one?

2. “Being ‘capable’ of killing people with a bow does not mean that’s the only thing they’re capable of. And by the way: they are unparalleled archers compared to other classes in the game, because they can use both long bows and short bows. That’s twice as many bow options as any other class. Tada! Unparalleled.”

Good job trying to spin your way out of that. Again, class descriptions should be pointless to the profession anyway. But I appreciate your very poor politician-like response on a pointless matter. You should be a politician though.

3. “Applying your logic with the previous sentence to this one: any bow ranger that doesn’t use traps or nature spirits isn’t a true ranger either, so shame on them, am I right? Oh, and I’m pretty sure ‘adapting to any situation’ means they can handle using a melee weapon well.”

Those are all utilities: Traps, Nature Spirits , etc – They’re utilities to adapt to the “unparalleled archers” that’s being described in this class description. Again, people take this class description bullkitten way too seriously. If by your very logic that we can adapt to any situation, we’d then have access to every weapon in the game since we’d be able to adapt to any situation, right? Wrong, we have what’s programmed for us by real programmers that don’t give a kitten about a class description in a wiki, neither should you or the person you’re responding to.

Jesus christ…. This is why most rangers are just bad =(

jubskie.3152:

Keep it up guys! The best way to motivate the ANet balance team is to insult them into buffing rangers! Forget about meaningful discussion, who needs that crap, amirite?

/rolleyes

Sadly, we have that other thread with a TON of helpful suggestions and meaningful discussion to improve the class. We even had manager or developer interaction. Please point out where any of those suggestion saw use in the game.

We’ll wait.

At this point, the community isn’t in the mood to be nice. While I’ll freely admit I’m loving certain changes, which shall not be mentioned because I want them to stay, I completely understand why some of our peers are a bit . . . peeved.

So, we have spirit ranger made useless, bleed rangers made useless, and now this newest nerf.

Honestly, you’re asking the the community, the people who pay for the product, to motivate the people selling the product into making a better business?

Please think about what you’re asking.

jubskie.3152:

Keep it up guys! The best way to motivate the ANet balance team is to insult them into buffing rangers! Forget about meaningful discussion, who needs that crap, amirite?

/rolleyes

As much as I value constructive feedback and meaningful discussion, I can see why people ignore such options at this point. Especially when a dev comes to a thread and posts something that from perspective of the general atmosphere on these forums may simply be hard to be perceived as anything else than cheap trolling.

And to be completely honest, what has the constructive feedback achieved us so far during the course of the last 9 months? To be fair, even if such an assumption is false. Anet has given the ranger players plenty of reason to believe that mindless rant and constructive feedback have more or less the same chance to improve anything.

Ardenwolfe.8590:

jubskie.3152:

Keep it up guys! The best way to motivate the ANet balance team is to insult them into buffing rangers! Forget about meaningful discussion, who needs that crap, amirite?

/rolleyes

Sadly, we have that other thread with a TON of helpful suggestions and meaningful discussion to improve the class. We even had manager or developer interaction. Please point out where any of those suggestion saw use in the game.

We’ll wait.

At this point, the community isn’t in the mood to be nice. While I’ll freely admit I’m loving certain changes, which shall not be mentioned because I want them to stay, I completely understand why some of our peers are a bit . . . peeved.

So, we have spirit ranger made useless, bleed rangers made useless, and now this newest nerf.

Honestly, you’re asking the the community, the people who pay for the product, to motivate the people selling the product into making a better business?

Please think about what you’re asking.

So not getting what you want gives you the right to verbally abuse them?

Seriously, if all that hate was directed at you, would you be motivated to work at all?

Ryan.8367:

1. “Nothing about this statement means ‘bow only!’. All of these things benefit a melee weapon just as much as a ranged weapon.”

Why are people trying to attribute class descriptions into a PvP/WvW fighting scenario, especially this one?

2. “Being ‘capable’ of killing people with a bow does not mean that’s the only thing they’re capable of. And by the way: they are unparalleled archers compared to other classes in the game, because they can use both long bows and short bows. That’s twice as many bow options as any other class. Tada! Unparalleled.”

Good job trying to spin your way out of that. Again, class descriptions should be pointless to the profession anyway. But I appreciate your very poor politician-like response on a pointless matter. You should be a politician though.

3. “Applying your logic with the previous sentence to this one: any bow ranger that doesn’t use traps or nature spirits isn’t a true ranger either, so shame on them, am I right? Oh, and I’m pretty sure ‘adapting to any situation’ means they can handle using a melee weapon well.”

Those are all utilities: Traps, Nature Spirits , etc – They’re utilities to adapt to the “unparalleled archers” that’s being described in this class description. Again, people take this class description bullkitten way too seriously. If by your very logic that we can adapt to any situation, we’d then have access to every weapon in the game since we’d be able to adapt to any situation, right? Wrong, we have what’s programmed for us by real programmers that don’t give a kitten about a class description in a wiki, neither should you or the person you’re responding to.

Jesus christ…. This is why most rangers are just bad =(

You seem to have completely missed the tone and point of my post =P

jubskie.3152:

Seriously, if all that hate was directed at you, would you be motivated to work at all?

The answer is yes. Do you know why? I would want those unhappy players to be happy again and continue to play my game. Again, why?

Because I want them to continue to pay me and make my company money. Especially if I want to keep my job.

If you doubt this, I can point out more than a few MMO companies that went belly-up over the last few years because of this exact scenario. This includes a certain MMO president who lost his job over it and his sloppy handling of the given situation.

Next question.

jubskie.3152:

Ardenwolfe.8590:

jubskie.3152:

Keep it up guys! The best way to motivate the ANet balance team is to insult them into buffing rangers! Forget about meaningful discussion, who needs that crap, amirite?

/rolleyes

Sadly, we have that other thread with a TON of helpful suggestions and meaningful discussion to improve the class. We even had manager or developer interaction. Please point out where any of those suggestion saw use in the game.

We’ll wait.

At this point, the community isn’t in the mood to be nice. While I’ll freely admit I’m loving certain changes, which shall not be mentioned because I want them to stay, I completely understand why some of our peers are a bit . . . peeved.

So, we have spirit ranger made useless, bleed rangers made useless, and now this newest nerf.

Honestly, you’re asking the the community, the people who pay for the product, to motivate the people selling the product into making a better business?

Please think about what you’re asking.

So not getting what you want gives you the right to verbally abuse them?

Seriously, if all that hate was directed at you, would you be motivated to work at all?

Poor management of a product, which in turn affects the way you use that product, the product for which you’ve paid, gives you the right to voice discontent. And when you know that voicing discontent through feedback and through rant will get you similar result, you are going to choose the easier option. And when the the poor management continues despite discontent being voiced for months, then yes, verbal abuse will happen, regardless of the fact that it should not have place here.

Stormleaf.1769:

any bow ranger that doesn’t use traps or nature spirits isn’t a true ranger either, so shame on them, am I right?

Walker was(is) a Ranger, and he uses a wide range of… weaponz.
IMO there is no use bashing AN for the state of the Ranger.

If Walker is ok with it, so should you.

I already told you. The difference being is this: you don’t pay me squat nor do you have any say on my career. You’re not my customer. You don’t ensure the checks keep coming.

We did civil. It had no effect. I’m not saying uncivil will work either. Obviously. But there’s no need to go off the deep end either.

Please notice I again did answer your question in a civil manner. Your attempt to get a rise out of me failed. But you hung yourself doing so. There’s a difference between your question and my response.

I suggest you look into it.

Raging Forum Rangers: Dev’s you hates us!
Jon: No we don’t! We loves you!
Raging Forum Rangers (Lemongrab voice): QUIT TROLLING QQ

And you wonder why devs don’t post here too much? lol

We got more then we lost. It’s a good deal overall. One might even say fairly balanced.

Ardenwolfe.8590:

I already told you. The difference being is this: you don’t pay me squat nor do you have any say on my career. You’re not my customer. You don’t ensure the checks keep coming.

We did civil. It had no effect. I’m not saying uncivil will work either. Obviously. But there’s no need to go off the deep end either.

Please notice I again did answer your question in a civil manner. Your attempt to get a rise out of me failed. But you hung yourself doing so. There’s a difference between your question and my response.

I suggest you look into it.

No, this post is civil, the one before it is not.

Paychecks have nothing to do it, its basic human decency to respect other people. Complaints in this thread are far from respectful.

And yes, I agree we don’t have to go the deep end, but judging from the posts here, I can already say we’re long past the deep end.

Meh infraction. If the community doesn’t lighten up I’m not gonna stick around here anyway. I come to this forum to talk about ranger builds, combos and strategies. Not to talk about respect and baby sit QQers.

jubskie.3152:

Ardenwolfe.8590:

I already told you. The difference being is this: you don’t pay me squat nor do you have any say on my career. You’re not my customer. You don’t ensure the checks keep coming.

We did civil. It had no effect. I’m not saying uncivil will work either. Obviously. But there’s no need to go off the deep end either.

Please notice I again did answer your question in a civil manner. Your attempt to get a rise out of me failed. But you hung yourself doing so. There’s a difference between your question and my response.

I suggest you look into it.

No, this post is civil, the one before it is not.

Paychecks have nothing to do it, its basic human decency to respect other people. Complaints in this thread are far from respectful.

And yes, I agree we don’t have to go the deep end, but judging from the posts here, I can already say we’re long past the deep end.

Meh infraction. If the community doesn’t lighten up I’m not gonna stick around here anyway. I come to this forum to talk about ranger builds, combos and strategies. Not to talk about respect and baby sit QQers.

All things aside, you must have quite an interesting way of defining what is, and what isn’t civil. So far, the way you write your posts suggests that in fact you have problem not with people being uncivil, but that they complain at all.

I decided to browse the whole thread again for that, and most of the posters is not “verbally abusive” towards the devs, nor are their posts “vicious attacks”. They are sarcastic at worst, and honestly, considering the history of relations between the devs and the community so far, sarcasm is not exactly surprising.

What most of the people do however is voicing doubts regarding competences of the balancing team. Questioning ones competences can be perceived as abusive only if there is absolutely no ground for such accusations. Otherwise its no more than challenging people to provide a proof that they are, in fact, competent.

For example can believe that fixing issues ranger’s pets are plagued with is harder than it seems and therefore takes so much time. But if I’m accept such explanation, I would really appreciate some explanation as to what exactly is going on and why. That would be enough to be a proof of competence for me.

By all the gods available, I honestly hope I’ll never have to live in the world where doubting ones competences will be considered a personal attack.

Searban.5984:

All things aside, you must have quite an interesting way of defining what is, and what isn’t civil. So far, the way you write your posts suggests that in fact you have problem not with people being uncivil, but that they complain at all.

I decided to browse the whole thread again for that, and most of the posters is not “verbally abusive” towards the devs, nor are their posts “vicious attacks”. They are sarcastic at worst, and honestly, considering the history of relations between the devs and the community so far, sarcasm is not exactly surprising.

What most of the people do however is voicing doubts regarding competences of the balancing team. Questioning ones competences can be perceived as abusive only if there is absolutely no ground for such accusations. Otherwise its no more than challenging people to provide a proof that they are, in fact, competent.

For example can believe that fixing issues ranger’s pets are plagued with is harder than it seems and therefore takes so much time. But if I’m accept such explanation, I would really appreciate some explanation as to what exactly is going on and why. That would be enough to be a proof of competence for me.

By all the gods available, I honestly hope I’ll never have to live in the world where doubting ones competences will be considered a personal attack.

Your assessment is incorrect, sir. I have a problem with the posters here because they are infact, uncivil and immature. And it’s not limited to just this thread. If you browse the threads from the past week you will see just what I mean.

I have no issues with voicing complaints per se, as I have raised a few myself, but these posters add a malicious tone with theirs and that is what troubles me. Not only are they demoralizing the entire subforum by posting outrages opinions which they claim as fact, they also give out a negative vibe that echoes throughout the entire player base. That kind of stigma sticks and rangers getting kicked in groups becomes the norm. When going to this subforum, you’re more likely to see QQ threads instead of discussion threads.

So forgive me for being too emotional and escalating sarcasm into “verbal abuse.” I hate the state of this subforum is in and I’m doing what I can to make people see what non-constructive complaints and sarcasm is doing to the class and its players.

Stormleaf.1769:

Exocet.7306:

What would you expect from a Ranger? A balance between strong ranged skills and low survive at melee right? Why can´t you keep it as simple as that? Have you ever seen, in the hole history of humanity (or fantasy), an archer with a greatsword at his back and no range? I know its a fantasy game but there are limits to be respected for consistency. At the moment we have rangers with greatswords, low dps, and no range. We relly half of our dps in a pet that can´t hit moving targets, can´t dodge, and dies in seconds.
It should be a hard class to master rather than a warrior. I don´t expect to resist a hammer blow. If i am in that situation i am dead and its ok, blame me! but make me deadly from afar.

I´ve been a dev for about a decade now and i know how frustrating can be to get this kind of feedback from the ppl you want to satisfy. But honestly, what is a ranger in GW2? A warrior in medium armor shooting unicorns and rainbows? Come on, just tell us you don´t like them so we can pick another class or choose another game.

The class is called ‘Ranger’, not ‘Archer’. What you’re describing is an archer (which you admit to in your own post), making your entire ‘point’ moot. One of the accepted definitions of a ranger (as in, what’s in an actual dictionary): “A person who ranges or roves”. Going by that, a highly mobile, melee build—which is accessible to us—is more in the spirit of a ‘Ranger’ than a stationary bow-wielding build.

I am getting really tired of this ridiculous “It’s ’range’r not ’melee’r!” argument. It is laughable.

if you really want to argue about “ranger” or “archer” is more correct, please check this out:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

Lemme copy and paste the description for those lazy to click to the page:

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.

Thanks for the debate!

rchu.8945:

Stormleaf.1769:

Exocet.7306:

What would you expect from a Ranger? A balance between strong ranged skills and low survive at melee right? Why can´t you keep it as simple as that? Have you ever seen, in the hole history of humanity (or fantasy), an archer with a greatsword at his back and no range? I know its a fantasy game but there are limits to be respected for consistency. At the moment we have rangers with greatswords, low dps, and no range. We relly half of our dps in a pet that can´t hit moving targets, can´t dodge, and dies in seconds.
It should be a hard class to master rather than a warrior. I don´t expect to resist a hammer blow. If i am in that situation i am dead and its ok, blame me! but make me deadly from afar.

I´ve been a dev for about a decade now and i know how frustrating can be to get this kind of feedback from the ppl you want to satisfy. But honestly, what is a ranger in GW2? A warrior in medium armor shooting unicorns and rainbows? Come on, just tell us you don´t like them so we can pick another class or choose another game.

The class is called ‘Ranger’, not ‘Archer’. What you’re describing is an archer (which you admit to in your own post), making your entire ‘point’ moot. One of the accepted definitions of a ranger (as in, what’s in an actual dictionary): “A person who ranges or roves”. Going by that, a highly mobile, melee build—which is accessible to us—is more in the spirit of a ‘Ranger’ than a stationary bow-wielding build.

I am getting really tired of this ridiculous “It’s ’range’r not ’melee’r!” argument. It is laughable.

if you really want to argue about “ranger” or “archer” is more correct, please check this out:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

Lemme copy and paste the description for those lazy to click to the page:

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.

Thanks for the debate!

Yes, being able to use both Shortbows and Longbows (unique to Rangers) makes them unparalleled archers. However, that’s not all they can do. They can also skirmish, command pets, fight with a sword, lay traps, etc. Ranger means ‘versatility’ more than it means ‘archer’.

You’re wrong. The word ranger has nothing to do with using ranged weapons. The only reason they are “unparalleled archers” is because they are often scouts and huntsmen. Being good at archery carries no implication whatsoever that you are bad at everything else. The “it’s a ranged class” argument is dumb on multiple levels, period.

Exocet.7306:

What would you expect from a Ranger? A balance between strong ranged skills and low survive at melee right? Why can´t you keep it as simple as that? Have you ever seen, in the whole history of humanity (or fantasy), an archer with a greatsword at his back and no range? I know its a fantasy game but there are limits to be respected for consistency. At the moment we have rangers with greatswords, low dps, and no range. We relly half of our dps in a pet that can´t hit moving targets, can´t dodge, and dies in seconds.
It should be a hard class to master rather than a warrior. I don´t expect to resist a hammer blow. If i am in that situation i am dead and its ok, blame me! but make me deadly from afar.

I´ve been a dev for about a decade now and i know how frustrating can be to get this kind of feedback from the ppl you want to satisfy. But honestly, what is a ranger in GW2? A warrior in medium armor shooting unicorns and rainbows? Come on, just tell us you don´t like them so we can pick another class or choose another game.

Actually, this post is extremely wrong on several levels.

a.) Rangers are "unparalleled archers’ simply because they use both shortbows and longbows (as well as axes) and consequently have greater versatility at range than other classes.

b.) Being good at ranged is almost never balanced by being bad at melee, it’s balanced by having weaker defense and requiring more mobility. Being a “ranged class” typically means being proficient at range as well as in melee, not being proficient at range at the expense of melee. WoW is virtually the only game to feature the ‘archer’ class that can’t melee their way out of a paper bag AND they have poor attrition; this is why they were always terrible in pvp. I despise the way the hunter is designed in that game.

c.) In actual use, ranged weapons have a different role than melee weapons. Throughout history, most people with skill in one have some skill in the other because they have different tactical applications. It’s actually far less common for soldiers, warriors, scouts, etc. to be highly specialized in one over the other rather than being competent with both. The ranger in GW2, as well as the Warrior, represent this perfectly.

jubskie.3152:

So forgive me for being too emotional and escalating sarcasm into “verbal abuse.” I hate the state of this subforum is in and I’m doing what I can to make people see what non-constructive complaints and sarcasm is doing to the class and its players.

I don’t know where you have been for the last 9 months, but if you look back you will see that constructive criticism only get us nerfed. No one on here has gone off the deep end ‘threatening’ the dev’s, after all, it’s just a game. The majority of ‘Customers’ here are just very upset that after spending so much time leveling and gearing their character, which they have become attached to, has been nerfed so severly that it makes it harder for them to compete against other classes that can do the same as them with 1/3 the effort or time that ranger’s have to put in to achieve the same results. And this nerf came in right after the dev’s themselves said that ranger’s are in a bad state and need improvements. In reality, this patch we got no real improvements. Longbow got buffed you say? sorry, but by nerfing the shortbow to make the longbow a better weapon, is not a buff. The damage increase is on three skills only, not on the auto attack, so no dps increase there. They nerfed the pets dps without fixing the problem of them not being able to hit a moving target. In WvW I was lucky to have the pet hit my target twice, normally my pet only gets one hit in and it’s normally for less then 1500 points before it died. And because of this they get nerfed? meanwhile thiefs can still kill someone spamming the same attack 4 times in a row, killing that person in less then 4 seconds. Warriors can still use their rifle and do 25k crits, effectively killing another toon in one shot. To you, this is not overpowered and shouldn’t be nerfed… but our shortbow doing 1200 range is overpowered? Our pets that can’t hit a moving target is overpowered?

Come on now, get off of your high horse and stop being a fan boy. This nerf was not necessary and everyone is kitten ed about it. patch after patch its nothing but nerfs on us and constructive criticism has gotten us no where. Now we are kitten ed and we are going to show it, plain and simple.

jubskie.3152:

Keep it up guys! The best way to motivate the ANet balance team is to insult them into buffing rangers! Forget about meaningful discussion, who needs that crap, amirite?

/rolleyes

He responded to about half a dozen legitimate concerns with the recent update, the ranger’s issues so far, and its potential future by saying, essentially, ‘Hi! You’ll be glad to know that I read at least some of what you wrote!’ How the hell are we supposed to respond to that? He couldn’t even bother to tell us whether or not the team considers our concerns important or reasonable, much less address them! We ask for an open discussion and he gives us half a line of text with no substance in it at all. When they want to give me meaningful discussion and openness (and perhaps earn back some of my trust in the process), I’ll be waiting. I haven’t yet seen them engage in such regarding the ranger class, so you’ll excuse me if I’m somewhat piqued.

Einlanzer.1627:

rchu.8945:

Stormleaf.1769:

Exocet.7306:

What would you expect from a Ranger? A balance between strong ranged skills and low survive at melee right? Why can´t you keep it as simple as that? Have you ever seen, in the hole history of humanity (or fantasy), an archer with a greatsword at his back and no range? I know its a fantasy game but there are limits to be respected for consistency. At the moment we have rangers with greatswords, low dps, and no range. We relly half of our dps in a pet that can´t hit moving targets, can´t dodge, and dies in seconds.
It should be a hard class to master rather than a warrior. I don´t expect to resist a hammer blow. If i am in that situation i am dead and its ok, blame me! but make me deadly from afar.

I´ve been a dev for about a decade now and i know how frustrating can be to get this kind of feedback from the ppl you want to satisfy. But honestly, what is a ranger in GW2? A warrior in medium armor shooting unicorns and rainbows? Come on, just tell us you don´t like them so we can pick another class or choose another game.

The class is called ‘Ranger’, not ‘Archer’. What you’re describing is an archer (which you admit to in your own post), making your entire ‘point’ moot. One of the accepted definitions of a ranger (as in, what’s in an actual dictionary): “A person who ranges or roves”. Going by that, a highly mobile, melee build—which is accessible to us—is more in the spirit of a ‘Ranger’ than a stationary bow-wielding build.

I am getting really tired of this ridiculous “It’s ’range’r not ’melee’r!” argument. It is laughable.

if you really want to argue about “ranger” or “archer” is more correct, please check this out:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

Lemme copy and paste the description for those lazy to click to the page:

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.

Thanks for the debate!

Yes, being able to use both Shortbows and Longbows (unique to Rangers) makes them unparalleled archers. However, that’s not all they can do. They can also skirmish, command pets, fight with a sword, lay traps, etc. Ranger means ‘versatility’ more than it means ‘archer’.

You’re wrong. The word ranger has nothing to do with using ranged weapons. The only reason they are “unparalleled archers” is because they are often scouts and huntsmen. Being good at archery carries no implication whatsoever that you are bad at everything else. The “it’s a ranged class” argument is dumb on multiple levels, period.

I wouldn’t say it’s dumb on multiple levels. True it does say unparalleled archers. But it also says bringing down foes from a ‘distance’ with their ‘bows’. And it doesn’t matter how many times I read it, the only ‘weapon’ I see in the class description is….wait for it…BOWS! No where do I read that he is an unparalleled swordman, or axe thrower. The description states the bow and archery, which means that according to Anet, they wanted this class to be an archery class and that bows should be it’s primary weapon. I am not saying that ranger’s should not use swords. I’m just trying to get you to understand that according to ANet’s description, the intention of this class was for it to be a ranged archery class. Why didn’t they call it an archer then? Probably because they wanted pets to be in the mechanic for us so they used the name ranger.

Honestly, don’t try to belittle someone because of their interpretation of Anet’s idea of a ranger. To be honest, that’s like belittling the dev’s themselves because they can’t even interpret their own definition for ranger. Lets just end it here and say…you say tomato, and I say tomato…that doesn’t quite come out right when you type it as when you say it does it, but you get the gist of it.

Ryan.8367:

Actually, this post is extremely wrong on several levels.

a.) Rangers are "unparalleled archers’ simply because they use both shortbows and longbows (as well as axes) and consequently have greater versatility at range than other classes.

b.) Being good at ranged is almost never balanced by being bad at melee, it’s balanced by having weaker defense and requiring more mobility. Being a “ranged class” typically means being proficient at range as well as in melee, not being proficient at range at the expense of melee. WoW is virtually the only game to feature the ‘archer’ class that can’t melee their way out of a paper bag AND they have poor attrition; this is why they were always terrible in pvp. I despise the way the hunter is designed in that game.

c.) In actual use, ranged weapons have a different role than melee weapons. Throughout history, most people with skill in one have some skill in the other because they have different tactical applications. It’s actually far less common for soldiers, warriors, scouts, etc. to be highly specialized in one over the other rather than being competent with both. The ranger in GW2, as well as the Warrior, represent this perfectly.

a) Warriors have pretty good versatility at long range: rifle for single target damage, longbow for AoE skills. The one thing that they lack is a medium-range weapon with high mobility. Sort of like the rangers lack a true long range AoE weapon.

b) Actually, many games seem to be like this. Runescape, Guild Wars 1, Diablo 2, etc.

c) They tended to be capable of using either, but they usually specialized strongly in one or the other. Mongol light horsemen carried 2 bows with which they did most of their fighting, resorting to melee weapons only when forced to. English longbowmen almost never engaged in hand to hand fighting unless forced to (as at Agincourt) by running short of arrows and being significantly outnumbered (and even then, their foes were disoriented and bogged down by mud, so it wasn’t heavy fighting so much as finishing off the enemy). Knights shunned ranged weapons in general, except during sieges when melee weapons weren’t at all useful. Roman legionaries used their pila as a shock weapon just before meeting the enemy in melee combat, after which they used their swords; they relied on specialized auxiliaries and siege weapons to provide long range support. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. One of the very few types of historical soldiers I know of that used both extensively was actually the samurai, who originated as mounted archers before becoming more well-rounded warriors, favoring the yumi (composite longbow), yari (spear), and naginata (pole-sword; more or less a glaive).

I was sooooo in the dark, not having played some of the other classes in dungeons until recently and WOW…. I now realize there’s nothing a ranger brings to the table!! Meh Chopps your a cool guy but they screwed us pretty bad….

CETheLucid.3964:

Raging Forum Rangers: Dev’s you hates us!
Jon: No we don’t! We loves you!
Raging Forum Rangers (Lemongrab voice): QUIT TROLLING QQ

And you wonder why devs don’t post here too much? lol

We got more then we lost. It’s a good deal overall. One might even say fairly balanced.

‘Fairly balanced’? Look at how many people are refusing to party with rangers. Look at how pets fare in the brand new dungeon. Look at the fact that we asked for a civilized, open discussion about the state of the ranger and their future plans for it, and how he gives us half a kittening line in response. We want openness and honesty. We aren’t getting it.

i play only with my ranger. im a fan of rangers. but i dont like if there is an other ranger in my party. :p

you guys got your once-every-3-months obligatory dev post, you should be happy

jubskie.3152

So not getting what you want gives you the right to verbally abuse them?

Seriously, if all that hate was directed at you, would you be motivated to work at all?

jubskie, this misdirected ire of yours grows old. If the ANet employees were working out of the goodness of their hearts and for our adoration then you would have a point. But since neither of those are true, you don’t.

We are customers (paying customers, I might add) and they treat us like mushrooms. They troll us, they flat out prevaricate, dissimilate, obfuscate, and are quite frequently disingenuous. They have NO meaningful discourse with us.

There have been attempts by a number of people to have intelligent, thougtful discourse with ANet developers and some of those people even put tremendous effort into detailed analysis. And what did it get for us? What good did it do? Did they even acknowledge it?

So, keep crying for the poor ANet developers if you wish but they are undeserving of it.

Pedra.4381:

jubskie.3152

So not getting what you want gives you the right to verbally abuse them?

Seriously, if all that hate was directed at you, would you be motivated to work at all?

jubskie, this misdirected ire of yours grows old. If the ANet employees were working out of the goodness of their hearts and for our adoration then you would have a point. But since neither of those are true, you don’t.

We are customers (paying customers, I might add) and they treat us like mushrooms. They troll us, they flat out prevaricate, dissimilate, obfuscate, and are quite frequently disingenuous. They have NO meaningful discourse with us.

There have been attempts by a number of people to have intelligent, thougtful discourse with ANet developers and some of those people even put tremendous effort into detailed analysis. And what did it get for us? What good did it do? Did they even acknowledge it?

So, keep crying for the poor ANet developers if you wish but they are undeserving of it.

I totally agree. In this day and age, there are far too many corporate apologists, who live in a fantasy world in which as long as they see selfish benefit in the product, the product is good for everyone.

Also, I’m not sure if this has been brought up on the forums before (I really only started posting after the recent Ranger nerf), but has ANet ever justified any of their updates? Have they ever mentioned “this update is due to an imbalance in sPvP, where we have seen evidence that profession A’s trait has been negatively affecting their desired DPS”? And then begs a further question, what are these desired goals for each profession?

I’d really like to see some rationale or justification for what they do to the game in terms of combat. Bug fixes are great because we are told about the problem alongside the solution. Sure it’s the nature of bug fix updates to do this, but why can’t this be the same for profession mechanic updates?

So I can report it has now started to happen. Last night I couldn’t get into some dungeons as a ranger. The one party I did get into was because I was the only player that could enter exp mode and even then they asked if I had another character.

Still waiting for anything to come from the devs in terms of what they plan to do about the mess they made.

And I would suggest they open that dialogue with ‘sorry’

I made my Ranger believing (from the description mind you) believing that a ranger would/should be a strong range class. I made a condi ranger and used a SB and switched to a sword and torch when my target was too close to get the best damage. I mostly relied on the SB. In groups I was great at pulling and kiting and I was always dodging and moving while dropping a healing spring nearly every 30 sec in a fight. When I couldn’t dodge or keep away from a target I often felt like a butterfly trapped in a net, but with the nerf to the SB range and the skill 3 still unreliable at best, I am forced to rely heavily on melee and that was never my intention when making a Ranger.

I have also been turned away from groups for being a ranger, and I can’t say I blame them. I don’t want to be useless to my party. At this point I am playing a guardian, because if I’m going to use melee that is the class I prefer because they are helpful to an entire party. I can’t say I do sPvP that often or WvW, mostly I do PvE, dungeons and FotM.

JonathanSharp.7094:

Yes, we care about the forums. We also care about all the classes equally.

Dear Jon, I believe you still read this thread, so here is a suggestion, how about eagle eye raising the shortbow max range as well. I would also welcome if you could elaborate the reasons behind the range deduction. My best guess would be that you guys were affraid that with companion’s might one could stay at 1200 range and stack might on the pet and bleeds on the target, which I presume might be the case, but I see axe and/or warhorn much better for that. In case of sPvP and tPvP I could understand the range reduction, but for WvW it doesn’t seem needed imho.

Searban.5984:

All things aside, you must have quite an interesting way of defining what is, and what isn’t civil. So far, the way you write your posts suggests that in fact you have problem not with people being uncivil, but that they complain at all.

This

If all you’re going to do is attack strawmen Jubs, then please do what you say you’re going to do, and leave already. You’re not helping this thread get back on track by extending and escalating the arguments over what tactics are called or uncalled for. You’re the not the sole judge of that, It’s majority rule.

Know what? I’m done. There is no way any of us will ever see eye to eye with these things and further discussion is futile. Go ahead and carry on with your self destructive path to “getting the ranger fixed.”

Lament your nerfs, I’ll celebrate my buffs.

Unholy Pillager.3791:

Exocet.7306:

Actually, this post is extremely wrong on several levels.

a.) Rangers are "unparalleled archers’ simply because they use both shortbows and longbows (as well as axes) and consequently have greater versatility at range than other classes.

b.) Being good at ranged is almost never balanced by being bad at melee, it’s balanced by having weaker defense and requiring more mobility. Being a “ranged class” typically means being proficient at range as well as in melee, not being proficient at range at the expense of melee. WoW is virtually the only game to feature the ‘archer’ class that can’t melee their way out of a paper bag AND they have poor attrition; this is why they were always terrible in pvp. I despise the way the hunter is designed in that game.

c.) In actual use, ranged weapons have a different role than melee weapons. Throughout history, most people with skill in one have some skill in the other because they have different tactical applications. It’s actually far less common for soldiers, warriors, scouts, etc. to be highly specialized in one over the other rather than being competent with both. The ranger in GW2, as well as the Warrior, represent this perfectly.

a) Warriors have pretty good versatility at long range: rifle for single target damage, longbow for AoE skills. The one thing that they lack is a medium-range weapon with high mobility. Sort of like the rangers lack a true long range AoE weapon.

b) Actually, many games seem to be like this. Runescape, Guild Wars 1, Diablo 2, etc.

c) They tended to be capable of using either, but they usually specialized strongly in one or the other. Mongol light horsemen carried 2 bows with which they did most of their fighting, resorting to melee weapons only when forced to. English longbowmen almost never engaged in hand to hand fighting unless forced to (as at Agincourt) by running short of arrows and being significantly outnumbered (and even then, their foes were disoriented and bogged down by mud, so it wasn’t heavy fighting so much as finishing off the enemy). Knights shunned ranged weapons in general, except during sieges when melee weapons weren’t at all useful. Roman legionaries used their pila as a shock weapon just before meeting the enemy in melee combat, after which they used their swords; they relied on specialized auxiliaries and siege weapons to provide long range support. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. One of the very few types of historical soldiers I know of that used both extensively was actually the samurai, who originated as mounted archers before becoming more well-rounded warriors, favoring the yumi (composite longbow), yari (spear), and naginata (pole-sword; more or less a glaive).

I didn´t write that. You should correct your post.

What the hell happened to this thread? O______O

………. this has become a semantics argument.

Can we all please stop trying to shove real world logic into a video game? We can argue about definitions all day long, but it won’t fix the broken aspects of the ranger.

The silence from ANet is deafening…

The silence from ANet is answering the thread question.

JonathanSharp.7094:

Yes, we care about the forums. We also care about all the classes equally.

Wow just Wow
seriously dude if your not gonna be straight with us why post.

JonathanSharp.7094:

Yes, we care about the forums. We also care about all the classes equally.

Really as a ranger it does not seem like it. So when can we get rid of the poorly coded ai shackle we are forced to split our damage with?

jubskie.3152:

Keep it up guys! The best way to motivate the ANet balance team is to insult them into buffing rangers! Forget about meaningful discussion, who needs that crap, amirite?

/rolleyes

Ok first off, if this Dev or any Dev for that matter really wanted to discuss anything about this class there are many people that would be more than willing to have a conversation with them, all he would have had to do was state his post and what he was trying to do but the fact is he came in here being an kitten lying with his one line comment.

Pets should be more utility focused and less damage focused. Almost all of the rangers damage should be from him. Pets should be more focused on their special skills rather than their tankiness or damage. Also try to make it so they don’t die in half a second in wvw.

PwnsFroggles.7561:

Pets should be more utility focused and less damage focused. Almost all of the rangers damage should be from him. Pets should be more focused on their special skills rather than their tankiness or damage. Also try to make it so they don’t die in half a second in wvw.

This would make it much easier to balance the profession since they don’t seem to want a split between game modes when ranger is concerned. Funny though how they can do it to other professions.

jubskie.3152:

Searban.5984:

All things aside, you must have quite an interesting way of defining what is, and what isn’t civil. So far, the way you write your posts suggests that in fact you have problem not with people being uncivil, but that they complain at all.

I decided to browse the whole thread again for that, and most of the posters is not “verbally abusive” towards the devs, nor are their posts “vicious attacks”. They are sarcastic at worst, and honestly, considering the history of relations between the devs and the community so far, sarcasm is not exactly surprising.

What most of the people do however is voicing doubts regarding competences of the balancing team. Questioning ones competences can be perceived as abusive only if there is absolutely no ground for such accusations. Otherwise its no more than challenging people to provide a proof that they are, in fact, competent.

For example can believe that fixing issues ranger’s pets are plagued with is harder than it seems and therefore takes so much time. But if I’m accept such explanation, I would really appreciate some explanation as to what exactly is going on and why. That would be enough to be a proof of competence for me.

By all the gods available, I honestly hope I’ll never have to live in the world where doubting ones competences will be considered a personal attack.

Your assessment is incorrect, sir. I have a problem with the posters here because they are infact, uncivil and immature. And it’s not limited to just this thread. If you browse the threads from the past week you will see just what I mean.

I have no issues with voicing complaints per se, as I have raised a few myself, but these posters add a malicious tone with theirs and that is what troubles me. Not only are they demoralizing the entire subforum by posting outrages opinions which they claim as fact, they also give out a negative vibe that echoes throughout the entire player base. That kind of stigma sticks and rangers getting kicked in groups becomes the norm. When going to this subforum, you’re more likely to see QQ threads instead of discussion threads.

So forgive me for being too emotional and escalating sarcasm into “verbal abuse.” I hate the state of this subforum is in and I’m doing what I can to make people see what non-constructive complaints and sarcasm is doing to the class and its players.

I can agree with you. State of this subforum is horrible, and it had been rather “meh” for some time even before the 25.06 patch came. What I’m pointing out though is that such state has not been caused solely by the players themselves.

Community is not the only side at fault here. The atmosphere can only be fixed if devs start communicating with the community to try to tackle the issues we’re facing. But “communicating” is something vastly different from “throwing a witty and ultimately annoying one-liners”.

meep.2601:

you guys got your once-every-3-months obligatory dev post, you should be happy

Shouldn’t you be moa racing right now? ;p

Einlanzer.1627:

Throughout history, most people with skill in one have some skill in the other because they have different tactical applications. It’s actually far less common for soldiers, warriors, scouts, etc. to be highly specialized in one over the other rather than being competent with both.

Actually skill, (real skill, not just the basic ability to nock and draw) with a bow required such a lengthy period of training and experience to acquire that archers generally lacked the time to develop competency with melee weapons to any significant degree.

Skill with both was the exception, not the rule, and was generally restricted to specific castes in specific cultures evolved to support such.

Even in modern combat situations you will find far fewer soldiers that rate as highly effective at melee combat, compared to truly skilled melee combatants, as they are with their respective firearms.

jubskie.3152:

Your assessment is incorrect, sir. I have a problem with the posters here because they are infact, uncivil and immature. And it’s not limited to just this thread. If you browse the threads from the past week you will see just what I mean.

I have no issues with voicing complaints per se, as I have raised a few myself, but these posters add a malicious tone with theirs and that is what troubles me. Not only are they demoralizing the entire subforum by posting outrages opinions which they claim as fact, they also give out a negative vibe that echoes throughout the entire player base. That kind of stigma sticks and rangers getting kicked in groups becomes the norm. When going to this subforum, you’re more likely to see QQ threads instead of discussion threads.

So forgive me for being too emotional and escalating sarcasm into “verbal abuse.” I hate the state of this subforum is in and I’m doing what I can to make people see what non-constructive complaints and sarcasm is doing to the class and its players.

You are derogatory and insulting to everyone here because you feel that some are being uncivil ?

For some reason this has been bugging me all night long…
The picture that comes to my mind when I think of the Ranger in its’ current state basically comes down to a character holding a bow by the string, with the pointy side of the arrow directed to his buddies behind him. I tried looking for that one paticular image for a bit and I found something beautiful… to me; this is the ultimate embodiment of the Ranger profession in its’ current state. It’s my previous description, with an horse’s backside (because of god knows why… I lost track of what direction they were going anyway.) and the pet being remotely useful somewhere in the water. Out of sight. Because I wouldn’t want to see fluffy get hurt, even though I know he’s on his backside most of the time in any serious encounter.

So for all fun and giggles I present to you:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3947699968/h4FBD09D4/

On a more serious note, I think we should put our heads together and come up with a general direction in which we want the profession to find its’ niche, and how to resolve the current problematic class mechanics. Great suggestions are being given all around, and have been for months (some might argue a year, even.) However; if we do wish to put our minds towards that, this simply can not be a one sided discussion. We’ve already seen in this thread and various others that all this frustration gets vented at one point anyway. We can’t argue with the developers for the sake of argueing, but our suggestions fall to deaf ears (or are misinterpreted) if there’s no feedback from the only side that can actually fix things.

Only telling us our voice is being heard doesn’t suffice, I’m afraid. We would like to give you our best suggestions on how to improve the game. But we need you (devs) to tell us what you want to do with our suggestions.

Trolling and showing verbal aggression leads to no improvement whatsoever.
(This goes for almost everyone in this thread. And read the previous posts to see how the dev’s answer has already be interpreted as trolling.)

They don’t want our suggestions I’m afraid to say…
They just want us to be patient while they continue to work on their main priorities.

then eventually….they’ll get back to us. It’s pretty obvious that’s what sharp was implying by the way. You just have to read it for what it is: IE: “sorry but no one’s getting special attention, and the forum that squeeks the loudest doesn’t get the grease in our book”. It’s actually very consistent with their approaches in GW1. Getting any positive Ranger changes (purely PvE split ones) was like pulling teeth then too, and the only reason we got any is b/c a new “head” Dev had just been put in charge while these other guys shuffled off to the new toy (beginning their designs on GW2). Not saying we took advantage of that dev, we just got lucky I guess and actually got our voices heard on making the pets suck less in PvE. We weren’t actually allowed to post suggestions though…. so they still did all the “creative” sides of it themselves… and as expected, the results were mostly mediocre at best and they continued to be shunned in dungeons

+

PS: Meanwhile in Guardian and Elemental Land….

Hey, don’t let this thread die. I’m holding onto the vague hope a few Anet devs have ranger primary. Btw, while the melee ranger does work, you need to face that a dodgy ranger is like a thief wanna be. I am using it now, but I gotta say that I could be using my thief doing the same thing more effectively. Rangers were meant to be an adaptive class, but to take the range from the ranger and then argue that it wasn’t supposed to be it’s primary role seems a little dumb. I don’t want my to keep rolling with the punches I want to hit back and get a class that has more than a very few specific builds that only work in specific circumstances. I want ANet to let the ranger succeed like the other classes can.

Also, I don’t play my main (a ranger) in WvW anymore. I play my warrior and I gank rangers easy kills.