Guild Wars 2

Longbow auto attack defies physics.

The only way it should do more damage at longer ranges is if you were to shoot it an upward angle and use gravity to increase its velocity on the downward arc, however that is not the case in game since you are easily obstructed on your shots.

Firing an arrow in a straight line will cause it to do less damage the further it goes.

I am not claiming to be the smartest person in the world, but this is not really complicated logic either.

Aye, Fritz. You are correct. With zero wind, there are two forces fighting against an arrow in flight.

• Gravity is pulling the arrow towards the planet (the largest source of gravity in the vicinity)
• The friction of the air is slowing the arrow down (pushing against the way the arrow is trying to go).

Obviously, if there is wind, that is pushing the arrow in a direction as well.

I think the Longbow mechanic is a result of the copy-and-paste of a mechanic (hello Mesmer greatsword), though maybe the Longbow came first, lol.

longbow should do more damage from higher plains of elevation. I dont know how much it would help honestly as theres no way to test it, but it would def create some interesting scenarios in both pvp and wvw

You already get increased range and a superior position when you’re higher than your opponent.

Fritz.5026:

Longbow auto attack defies physics.

The only way it should do more damage at longer ranges is if you were to shoot it an upward angle and use gravity to increase its velocity on the downward arc, however that is not the case in game since you are easily obstructed on your shots.

Firing an arrow in a straight line will cause it to do less damage the further it goes.

I am not claiming to be the smartest person in the world, but this is not really complicated logic either.

I’m not necessarily arguing they shouldn’t change it for the sake of balance, but it’s more thematically appropriate than you think.

You are not supposed to interpret the damage mechanics so literally. Like combat in turn-base games, the mechanics are an abstraction. In other words, the implication is not that your arrow will gain momentum and therefore do more damage the further it flies. The implication is rather that a Longbow is designed to be used as a long range sniping weapon and not as a short range skirmishing weapon. At short range, the Longbow would in fact be clumsy, slow, and inaccurate- because of that, it is more effective at long range. That’s what the ranged-dependent damage values represent.

Part of the problem currently is that Long Range Shot is too weak for how slow its refire is. This makes it seem like its base damage is at long range and it gets a damage handicap at shorter range, when it should be the opposite- its base damage is at short range and it gets a damage bonus at long range.

Writetyper.1985:

Jabronee.9465:

Due to the word —--> Ranger?
Masters of Long Range Combat?

Its a typo dude. It should be called Beastmaster!

Except that’s not what it means in the slighest. Common misconception.

Ranger=/= ranged combat, even though it shares the letters. Ranger means ranging the land, etc.

Example: Aragorn is a ranger of numenor. He does not specialize in ranged combat because he is a ranger, he is a ranger because he ranges.

Legolas on the other hand, may or may not be a ranger, but it is not because he specializes in ranged combat.

Ah the old Aragorn-argument…Aragorn didn’t use a pet either, does that mean GW2 Ranger shouldn’t use a pet?

Einlanzer.1627:

Kiran.2705:

Einlanzer.1627:

No they don’t, because that’s not what the name means.

Yes they do.

How is it that so many people cannot seem to grasp that the name “Ranger” does not in any way, shape, or form derive from someone who fights at range? It derives from someone who ranges land, i.e. a wilderness scout, i.e. a warden.

Hence, the name is fine.

From the GW2 website:

“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.”

I personally like that the class has a such focus on the pet as well as multiple viable melee weapon sets. I personally feel like the best bow skill set in the game is the ranger’s short bow (I prefer it to thief short bow) and while I don’t really love the ranger long bow, I don’t like the slow pace of the warrior one either.

I agree that ranger does not mean ranged damage, but I can also appreciate the people who want the class to be more like some kind of archer or sniper (especially the players who came from GW1 where the ranger was a very potent bow user without being hindered by the pet mechanic).

The long bow isn’t bad. In a glass cannon build Barrage can do some respectable AoE damage. The auto attack is pretty boring but the vulnerability from Hunter’s Shot can be nice (try not to compare it to warrior or engineer vulnerability on crit) and Rapid Fire doesn’t lose DPS at close range, so you can get your rotation off, cripple a few targets and swap out to another weapon without losing too much time to the auto-attack. It’s not the best weapon in the game but it has its uses.

Einlanzer.1627:

Fritz.5026:

Longbow auto attack defies physics.

The only way it should do more damage at longer ranges is if you were to shoot it an upward angle and use gravity to increase its velocity on the downward arc, however that is not the case in game since you are easily obstructed on your shots.

Firing an arrow in a straight line will cause it to do less damage the further it goes.

I am not claiming to be the smartest person in the world, but this is not really complicated logic either.

I’m not necessarily arguing they shouldn’t change it for the sake of balance, but it’s more thematically appropriate than you think.

You are not supposed to interpret the damage mechanics so literally. Like combat in turn-base games, the mechanics are an abstraction. In other words, the implication is not that your arrow will gain momentum and therefore do more damage the further it flies. The implication is rather that a Longbow is designed to be used as a long range sniping weapon and not as a short range skirmishing weapon. At short range, the Longbow would in fact be clumsy, slow, and inaccurate- because of that, it is more effective at long range. That’s what the ranged-dependent damage values represent.

Part of the problem currently is that Long Range Shot is too weak for how slow its refire is. This makes it seem like its base damage is at long range and it gets a damage handicap at shorter range, when it should be the opposite- its base damage is at short range and it gets a damage bonus at long range.

Actually they said back in beta Long Range Shot is supposed to be weak damage close range, normal damage mid range (let’s just saw short bow dmg from front) and improved damage from long range.

That being said I always thought of it as 1) a longbow is kinda big and makes it harder to pull back and shoot when things are trying to cut your limbs off. 2) you can focus better and thus aim better, an this hit a more vital location at long range.

What’s so wrong with using your per to supplement your bow attacks? The ranger is capable of bursting a target down in a flash at 1500 range (at least it works on golem dummies). I’ve yet to play a ranged class that can do the same consistently every few seconds.

ThiBash.5634:

What’s so wrong with using your per to supplement your bow attacks? The ranger is capable of bursting a target down in a flash at 1500 range (at least it works on golem dummies). I’ve yet to play a ranged class that can do the same consistently every few seconds.

Oh we can, especially if you run a berserker build + a cat, -I- do not like being a full glass canon so if -I- go glass my pet goes tanky/supporty (even in PvP) to kinda balance it out… It’s fun, really squishy and requires range (oh look… it’s like the “OP” HGH engi build…) but it’s certainly good.

I used an owl but still, I was impressed with the burst. Of course, I play staff ele most of the time so a single target burst is bound to impress me.

But consider this: seeing how everything gets watered down if it gets a bigger range, and the ranger’s damage is also weakened a bit because they have pets…can you honestly say the longbow is that bad? I mean, it’s got 1500 range and you can still burst stuff down in mere seconds. Sure, it takes a glass cannon build but don’t you agree that with that range, having more defense and the same damage would be overpowered?

Okay I have a question for the pros. I love the longbow but in WvW I want to provide support too. I have tried to trait points for both LB and spirits.
The way our traits are set up a full 30pts needs to be in Marksmanship to get both piercing arrows and Eagle eye. No way around it.
To maximize spirits or even just make them viable, they need 30pts too. If I was to spec simply for manning arrowcarts or ballista then I wouldn’t need the spirits to move with me but I do like buffing the group with moving spirits if I can swing it.
I am locked into those 60pts.
My question is that if I wanted to put 20pts in skirmishing to reduce the cool down on bow skills, would it be worth it to drop the Eagle eye. Now the reason I was thinking this is because I have failed to get LB #1 to hit reliably, it is easy to dodge, it’s easily obstructed, and if the target moves closer it’s not going to be used. That would be something I would keep if I was going to remain in the keep to defend and just remove the points from spirits moving to put them in skirmishing.
If I am going to do a little of both defending and running with LB/GS combo then I wonder if it’s better to drop eagle eye to be able to allocate 20pts in skirmishing.