Guild Wars 2

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/3682537

Ehhh…. time to copy the thread I just made 1 minute ago

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

A lot of them do seem really, really bad. Hopefully Durzlla/jcbroe/Chrispy/whoever else will pitch in.

The Spiral King.2483:

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

A lot of them do seem really, really bad. Hopefully Durzlla/jcbroe/Chrispy/whoever else will pitch in.

People are making suggestions on what they think is a cool class instead of how to improve a lovable already created class. Like “I think GW2 should have a wicked awesome ninja sniper so lets turn SB 1 in to a 5 second stealth channel insta-kill shot.” When what we need are intelligent tweaks, like the fact that warbanners are patently better than spirits.

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

Agree. It’s a gong show even trying to pick out one realistic suggestion.

As someone earlier mentioned. We need realistic representation. I’m pretty sure if we had a vote we would likely come up with 2-4 guys that I would trust to give realistic and credible improvement ideas….without the spam and wall of text

I put in a immob/chill/cripple cure suggestion on lightning reflexes, think that ones pretty universally wanted (and warranted!).

Kilger.5490:

I put in a immob/chill/cripple cure suggestion on lightning reflexes, think that ones pretty universally wanted (and warranted!).

Yup, I forgot it in my post and edited it in. I figure the more they see that suggestion the more likely it is to happen.

Let the flood gates open!

Forzani.2584:

As someone earlier mentioned. We need realistic representation. I’m pretty sure if we had a vote we would likely come up with 2-4 guys that I would trust to give realistic and credible improvement ideas….without the spam and wall of text

It could be argued that a realistic representation was made when the majority of players voted to have Ranger get the CDI because they felt it was broken enough to warrant it.

Of course, it also could be argued that the forums and the opinions therein represent such a fractionally small percentage of the playerbase that any suggestions forum users have should never be considered.

Fact is, the opines of your “2-4” are no more or less valid or representative than the opines of any other forum user.

On a related note, I look forward to reading your opinions in the CDI because all ideas for Rangers are GOOD ideas at this point!

2 hours in and we are only on page 3, chop chop guys get to it.

i’ve almost stoped reading them already, poor devs reading through all that.

I must be one of the very few people that like the ranger as it is, though i would love to see lighting reflexes remove immob, cripple, chill

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/3#post3683219
QoL improvements for pets in PvE.

mtpelion.4562:

Forzani.2584:

As someone earlier mentioned. We need realistic representation. I’m pretty sure if we had a vote we would likely come up with 2-4 guys that I would trust to give realistic and credible improvement ideas….without the spam and wall of text

It could be argued that a realistic representation was made when the majority of players voted to have Ranger get the CDI because they felt it was broken enough to warrant it.

Of course, it also could be argued that the forums and the opinions therein represent such a fractionally small percentage of the playerbase that any suggestions forum users have should never be considered.

Fact is, the opines of your “2-4” are no more or less valid or representative than the opines of any other forum user.

On a related note, I look forward to reading your opinions in the CDI because all ideas for Rangers are GOOD ideas at this point!

Fact is, the opines of your “2-4” are no more or less valid or representative than the opines of any other forum user.

Maybe, maybe not. I do know many of the ’suggestions’I have been reading are outrageous and don’t have a hope in hell of being implemented. Total fantasy. The problem is the good ideas are being hidden by all the nonsense spam. Some people picture themselves as game developers and they are doing Anet a favor by redesigning the class.

…so no, all ideas for Rangers are not good ideas.

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

have read all 4 pages listed to date and like Fluffball I fear where this may go. I am one of the few who obviously doesn’t mind the Ranger the way it is. I agree it does need a bit of a polish here and there but a complete redesign as some are suggesting, maybe not

Fluffball.8307:

The Spiral King.2483:

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

A lot of them do seem really, really bad. Hopefully Durzlla/jcbroe/Chrispy/whoever else will pitch in.

People are making suggestions on what they think is a cool class instead of how to improve a lovable already created class. Like “I think GW2 should have a wicked awesome ninja sniper so lets turn SB 1 in to a 5 second stealth channel insta-kill shot.” When what we need are intelligent tweaks, like the fact that warbanners are patently better than spirits.

ANet has failed to deliver a cohesive, fun and viable profession. see this for what it is: at worst, a PR stunt; at best, we’re doing their job for them.

the ranger is only played by players who are new to the game, or those who stubbornly cling to the “idea” of the ranger. a recent poll taken on reddit revealed that the ranger had the lowest satisfaction rate among players compared to all other profs. and the vote initiated by Allie revealed that most people wanted more DEV TIME for the ranger, in comparison to all other profs. more dev time, not more bug fixes or balancing!

we are beyond “intelligent tweaks”. we have received those for a year and a half, which has amounted to nothing but breaking BM builds and reviving the brainless petting zoo in spvp only.

some of the prof needs to be overhauled because it is so far behind other professions in every aspect of the game. for example, the pet mechanic needs to be completely overhauled or taken out. other profs’ mechanics (DS, adrenaline, attunement swapping, etc.) make them viable. the pet, in addition to a number of useless utilities and a few bad weapons, make the ranger non-viable. think on that.

those who dont mind the ranger as it currently is have not played other professions at a high enough level (if at all). these individuals play the game with a veil over their eyes and write nonsense on the forums. ranger lacks utility, damage, survivability in comparison. everything the ranger does other profs can do much, much better and easier.

you need to send a message to the devs that we can no longer just dance around the big issues, like pet AI, a dozen useless utilities, bad weapons, no viable power builds and the such. little tweaks here and there have gotten us absolutely nowhere since the game’s release. the ranger remains in a rough shape. the devs need to take larger strides to fix what’s broken.

mistsim.2748:

Fluffball.8307:

The Spiral King.2483:

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

A lot of them do seem really, really bad. Hopefully Durzlla/jcbroe/Chrispy/whoever else will pitch in.

People are making suggestions on what they think is a cool class instead of how to improve a lovable already created class. Like “I think GW2 should have a wicked awesome ninja sniper so lets turn SB 1 in to a 5 second stealth channel insta-kill shot.” When what we need are intelligent tweaks, like the fact that warbanners are patently better than spirits.

ANet has failed to deliver a cohesive, fun and viable profession. see this for what it is: at worst, a PR stunt; at best, we’re doing their job for them.

the ranger is only played by players who are new to the game, or those who stubbornly cling to the “idea” of the ranger. a recent poll taken on reddit revealed that the ranger had the lowest satisfaction rate among players compared to all other profs. and the vote initiated by Allie revealed that most people wanted more DEV TIME for the ranger, in comparison to all other profs. more dev time, not more bug fixes or balancing!

we are beyond “intelligent tweaks”. we have received those for a year and a half, which has amounted to nothing but breaking BM builds and reviving the brainless petting zoo in spvp only.

some of the prof needs to be overhauled because it is so far behind other professions in every aspect of the game. for example, the pet mechanic needs to be completely overhauled or taken out. other profs’ mechanics (DS, adrenaline, attunement swapping, etc.) make them viable. the pet, in addition to a number of useless utilities and a few bad weapons, make the ranger non-viable. think on that.

those who dont mind the ranger as it currently is have not played other professions at a high enough level (if at all). these individuals play the game with a veil over their eyes and write nonsense on the forums. ranger lacks utility, damage, survivability in comparison. everything the ranger does other profs can do much, much better and easier.

you need to send a message to the devs that we can no longer just dance around the big issues, like pet AI, a dozen useless utilities, bad weapons, no viable power builds and the such. little tweaks here and there have gotten us absolutely nowhere since the game’s release. the ranger remains in a rough shape. the devs need to take larger strides to fix what’s broken.

If rangers are that badly broken why do I kill people in wvw or carry the bulk of the party in dungeon PUGs? CLEARLY rangers are not that far off the meta when we are so competitive. Can we stand a buff so that bad rangers can compete with all the horrible warrriors? Yes, I think so. In fact I voted for us. Do I think even ele is THAT broken? Nope. Anyone can kill anyone else 1v1 pvp. Can a well played ele make the game in a tPvP game? Yes. Can a well played ranger make the difference in an Arah run? Yes. So there is SOME sort of playing field.

The Spiral King.2483:

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

A lot of them do seem really, really bad. Hopefully Durzlla/jcbroe/Chrispy/whoever else will pitch in.

lol i’m flattered that i was referred to by name xD, I’ve been busy with schoolwork atm, but i will absolutely put a post or 5 over how kittenty the utilities are (and the traits) and how they could help them out. I’ll probably put a link to the post(s) in this thread when i do, just for the convenience of access through the mountain of kitten that is currently the CDI (I haven’t face palmed so much in one day of skimming before in my life…).

The Spiral King.2483:

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

A lot of them do seem really, really bad. Hopefully Durzlla/jcbroe/Chrispy/whoever else will pitch in.

Personally I was hoping for a response from the devs saying what they’ve already taken away from the Ranger Balance thread in the Profession Balance subforum. I’ll eventually make a post in the thread with actual ideas, as I have some that I have discussed in private with another player I respect that has proposed his changes to the devs in private communication before.

But I might make it interesting and post my own thoughts too at some point. If they don’t ever respond directly to me about what they have already taken way from previous efforts of the community to collaborate and present ideas, then I’m going to at least wait until there are a few more dev responses so I can see just exactly how they are going to treat the CDI.

Because at this point it just looks like the devs saying “yeah, we don’t want to read through all of the threads of suggestions, so repost them here please.” While I understand time constraints and having to take the time to read through every suggestion and hunt down threads, that is the exact reason why I made the thread that I made in the Profession Balance subforum to begin with, so that the ranger community would have a place to discuss the class as a whole and as specifically as possible.

It definitely isn’t a pride thing or any sort of nonsense like that, I just don’t appreciate the idea at this point that as a community we took the time to have in depth discussions and come to a general agreement about things that need to be balanced, and then have to spend our time and effort copying and pasting from one thread to another when the thread with all the information they could ever need for a CDI already exists in one thread.

All they have to do is respond and tell us what they took away from that thread so we can actually make some progress and not just be saying the same things over and over again.

But I will get around to it eventually guys, I promise

jcbroe.4329:

The Spiral King.2483:

Fluffball.8307:

Oh god, I fear for our class just glancing over these “complete overhauls” people are suggesting without having a thorough understand of a ranger. Must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs, must have faith in devs.

A lot of them do seem really, really bad. Hopefully Durzlla/jcbroe/Chrispy/whoever else will pitch in.

Personally I was hoping for a response from the devs saying what they’ve already taken away from the Ranger Balance thread in the Profession Balance subforum. I’ll eventually make a post in the thread with actual ideas, as I have some that I have discussed in private with another player I respect that has proposed his changes to the devs in private communication before.

But I might make it interesting and post my own thoughts too at some point. If they don’t ever respond directly to me about what they have already taken way from previous efforts of the community to collaborate and present ideas, then I’m going to at least wait until there are a few more dev responses so I can see just exactly how they are going to treat the CDI.

Because at this point it just looks like the devs saying “yeah, we don’t want to read through all of the threads of suggestions, so repost them here please.” While I understand time constraints and having to take the time to read through every suggestion and hunt down threads, that is the exact reason why I made the thread that I made in the Profession Balance subforum to begin with, so that the ranger community would have a place to discuss the class as a whole and as specifically as possible.

It definitely isn’t a pride thing or any sort of nonsense like that, I just don’t appreciate the idea at this point that as a community we took the time to have in depth discussions and come to a general agreement about things that need to be balanced, and then have to spend our time and effort copying and pasting from one thread to another when the thread with all the information they could ever need for a CDI already exists in one thread.

All they have to do is respond and tell us what they took away from that thread so we can actually make some progress and not just be saying the same things over and over again.

But I will get around to it eventually guys, I promise

I think that is a smart move jc.
I read all the things written in the post and I am more then worried (not for me, I stopped playing this game after the last Ranger changes).
Really not sure if they get it at all (not most of the players and definitly not the devs)
I dont see a bright future for the class in this game.
They even changed the Rangers description from “unparalleled Archers” to “hard hitting, one target skirmishers” or somesuch kitten

I hope your post will make a difference

This could turn into an object lesson of how they can please everyone so they are going to continue on the path that they have chosen and at the same time state we’ve worked with the player base.

Mardermann.7468:

They even changed the Rangers description from “unparalleled Archers” to “hard hitting, one target skirmishers” or somesuch kitten

I hope your post will make a difference

Not hard hitting sustained damage, I think they are making it clear that they really have no desire to see any sort of burst from the ranger.

The stated Ranger Design Philosophy scares me to death.

Ranger Design Philosophy: Please keep this in mind when posting feedback.
The Ranger is a resilient profession that excels at skirmishing by drawing from nature to support themselves as well as their allies. Alongside their pet, they have some of the best single target and sustained damage that will whittle their opponents down.

I noticed they worded it very carefully to avoid mentioning bows and ranged.

Also, they seem to still be trying to find quick fixes to ranger problems, and not too fond of making core changes.

I have a bad feeling we won’t come out of this any better than before.

Aioros.4862:

The stated Ranger Design Philosophy scares me to death.

Ranger Design Philosophy: Please keep this in mind when posting feedback.
The Ranger is a resilient profession that excels at skirmishing by drawing from nature to support themselves as well as their allies. Alongside their pet, they have some of the best single target and sustained damage that will whittle their opponents down.

I noticed they worded it very carefully to avoid mentioning bows and ranged.

Also, they seem to still be trying to find quick fixes to ranger problems, and not too fond of making core changes.

I have a bad feeling we won’t come out of this any better than before.

There’s nothing wrong with the ranger at it’s core, and they’re already fixing our pets responsiveness, what we need are utilities that don’t absolutely suck without 30pts in them, and more build diversity instead of forcing us 30 into WS, if we’re supposed to be resilient give us some kittening utilities that make us resilient instead of having to rely on 30 in WS.

Also, they didn’t change their view on ranger, ranger has never been about burst (sure we have some builds that CAN be) but the ranger in GW2, just like in GW1, was all about constantly plucking away at your health and that’s A LOT harder to deal with than burst, especially in a game like this one where you can dodge and mitigate an entire burst combo to nothing.

They took the “unparalleled archers” thing out of there because people kept grasping at straws for why their bow should deal more damage than a warriors great sword, and why no one should be able to beat us in 1v1 ranged duels ever. Rangers aren’t purely ranged, and it’s about time they kill that stupid though process. Either way the way this, and almost every other balanced game, works is Melee does more damage than ranged, but ranged is safer and has 100% (or nearly 100%) uptime.

Durzlla.6295:

Aioros.4862:

The stated Ranger Design Philosophy scares me to death.

Ranger Design Philosophy: Please keep this in mind when posting feedback.
The Ranger is a resilient profession that excels at skirmishing by drawing from nature to support themselves as well as their allies. Alongside their pet, they have some of the best single target and sustained damage that will whittle their opponents down.

I noticed they worded it very carefully to avoid mentioning bows and ranged.

Also, they seem to still be trying to find quick fixes to ranger problems, and not too fond of making core changes.

I have a bad feeling we won’t come out of this any better than before.

There’s nothing wrong with the ranger at it’s core, and they’re already fixing our pets responsiveness, what we need are utilities that don’t absolutely suck without 30pts in them, and more build diversity instead of forcing us 30 into WS, if we’re supposed to be resilient give us some kittening utilities that make us resilient instead of having to rely on 30 in WS.

Also, they didn’t change their view on ranger, ranger has never been about burst (sure we have some builds that CAN be) but the ranger in GW2, just like in GW1, was all about constantly plucking away at your health and that’s A LOT harder to deal with than burst, especially in a game like this one where you can dodge and mitigate an entire burst combo to nothing.

They took the “unparalleled archers” thing out of there because people kept grasping at straws for why their bow should deal more damage than a warriors great sword, and why no one should be able to beat us in 1v1 ranged duels ever. Rangers aren’t purely ranged, and it’s about time they kill that stupid though process. Either way the way this, and almost every other balanced game, works is Melee does more damage than ranged, but ranged is safer and has 100% (or nearly 100%) uptime.

By no means should rangers be purely ranged… but right now, its not viable in ANY aspect of the game other than WvW zerg where you just go out and snipe targets and use peircing arrow and throw down barrages when off cool down… thats it…

No good ranger uses LB in roaming wvw or Spvp, in PvE they are pathetic as well

We are asking anet to actually make them useful at least…

the rangers ranged weapons are by far the worst weapons we have in our inventory… thats messed up

If you guys don’t mind, I’m going to post some core ideas I want to make sure I can touch on here and then work on “formatting” them into ANets suggested format. It won’t be that extensive right here, and I won’t post them immediately, seeing as how right now the CDI is getting zero dev responses and no visible attention.

So, here it goes:

Design ideas:

• Make rangers less dependent on 30 trait points to make utilities useful.
• Allow players to build for additional effects on pet swap.
• Allow players to disable pet skills that would otherwise enter the skills queue, like heroes from Guild Wars 1.

Specific:

• Move Nature’s Voice to the Master Slot
• Move Evasive Purity to the Grandmaster Slot, change functionality to: “Dodge rolling removes 1 condition from you and your allies in range. 10 second ICD.”
• Allow pets to regain Opening Strike on pet swap
• Opening Strike now removes 1 boon from enemies (so pet + player application = 2 boons)
• Merge Quick Draw with Eagle Eye (remains in Marksmanship)
• Merge Pet’s Prowess and Agility Training. Adjust numbers if necessary, it remains where it is.
• New Skirmishing Trait, Adept Level: Gain Fury, Might, and Swiftness when interrupting a foe
• New Skirmishing Trait, Master level: Transfer up to 3 conditions from yourself to target foe on interrupt. Gain a small amount of health for each condition transferred.
• Increase Zephyrs Speed to 5 seconds
• Stability Training now grants AoE stability for 2 seconds to all allies in range for any pet, on pet swap
• Rending Attacks now works with all pets. Now applies a stack of 3 bleeds for 5 seconds on every 5th attack
• Intimidation Training keeps it’s current effect, works on all pets, and also provides a short duration AoE fury (like 4 seconds max) to allies within range on pet swap

I think this is my entire list right now, and note that I will also be posting a different list of suggestions given to me by Battosai, once I reformat them.

Some thinking behind my list, I think that these changes coupled with an actual responsive pet would put the ranger in a perfectly balanced spot within itself. What I mean by that is that opposed to balancing versus the other classes in the game, it is balanced to have everything that it needs for it’s builds with these type of changes so that rangers will be a viable (best in slot at something other than just spirit support) option as the game approaches a better balance equilibrium with less outliers, or “over-performing” builds.

Note that these are also my “low hanging fruit” options, as in, I chose the things I thought would be some of the easiest changes to make that would have the greatest impact. I don’t want to suggest retooling any weapons because I think that the trait changes and design changes I’m making would be enough at this point, and that even if I personally don’t like some of the weapon skills (like Rapid Fire), those are much harder to balance because unless you are number tweaking, it would take a graphics team, skill team, and balance team a lot of effort to internally test, balance and develop a new skill, and I want the changes to be as immediate as possible.

Also note that I didn’t address everything with my trait changes that I want out of my design changes. I only put forth my ideas I thought were good, and I don’t have any real specific way that I think would be a good way to handle some of the design issues, or at least ideas that would be easy enough fixes to not take them months on end (I think I addressed everything but signet builds and trap builds anyhow, and the way I would address signet builds is through the other leaked patch notes that turned signet of the beastmaster into an elite signet whose passive makes all other signet actives effect the ranger as well as the pet).

Durz will probably come up with some amazing utility changes anyhow, so I think that what I have hear will at least be a good start

jcbroe.4329:

Note that these are also my “low hanging fruit” options, as in, I chose the things I thought would be some of the easiest changes to make that would have the greatest impact. I don’t want to suggest retooling any weapons because I think that the trait changes and design changes I’m making would be enough at this point, and that even if I personally don’t like some of the weapon skills (like Rapid Fire), those are much harder to balance because unless you are number tweaking, it would take a graphics team, skill team, and balance team a lot of effort to internally test, balance and develop a new skill, and I want the changes to be as immediate as possible.

Rule Number One of Negotiating: Ask for the improbable, settle for what you actually want.

mtpelion.4562:

jcbroe.4329:

Note that these are also my “low hanging fruit” options, as in, I chose the things I thought would be some of the easiest changes to make that would have the greatest impact. I don’t want to suggest retooling any weapons because I think that the trait changes and design changes I’m making would be enough at this point, and that even if I personally don’t like some of the weapon skills (like Rapid Fire), those are much harder to balance because unless you are number tweaking, it would take a graphics team, skill team, and balance team a lot of effort to internally test, balance and develop a new skill, and I want the changes to be as immediate as possible.

Rule Number One of Negotiating: Ask for the improbable, settle for what you actually want.

I’ve already asked for the improbable numerous times, and most of the things I have wanted that were improbable ended up receiving official answers in one way or another.

My goal isn’t to give them a list of dreams that I want to happen, it’s to give realistic ideas that actually physically help the dev team both in creating ideas that provide reasonable improvements to the class while those same changes also serve as a representation of where I and many of the community members whose suggestions I’ve based my list on have been asking for.

I’m not just going to throw an unreasonable list at them and tell them to make it happen lol. It isn’t negotiation, it’s a learning process in which the developers and the community try to come together to reach a common understanding.

Well, it’s up. I’ll work on Battosai’s list after class. I think that between my suggestions, his suggestions, and whatever Durz comes up with, we are going to have a very comprehensive and large spanning list of ideas that should cover all of our bases.

SkiTz.4590:

No good ranger uses LB in roaming wvw or Spvp, in PvE they are pathetic as well

There have been tons of threads on how to properly use a LB against other players. Just because you’re pathetic with it, don’t lump all of the rest of us in.

This is what I’m scared of, people who have no idea how to use the skills we’ve already been given yelling for changes to skills that are really well balanced. If they want to buff anything on the LB, I’m fine with that, but I hope they don’t listen to people who play ele and think that 3 and 4 are bad skills.

Fluffball.8307:

SkiTz.4590:

No good ranger uses LB in roaming wvw or Spvp, in PvE they are pathetic as well

There have been tons of threads on how to properly use a LB against other players. Just because you’re pathetic with it, don’t lump all of the rest of us in.

This is what I’m scared of, people who have no idea how to use the skills we’ve already been given yelling for changes to skills that are really well balanced. If they want to buff anything on the LB, I’m fine with that, but I hope they don’t listen to people who play ele and think that 3 and 4 are bad skills.

This, I’ve used longbow in sPvP, PvE, WvW you name it for a LONG time because it has been, and still is, my favorite weapon rangers have access to, it has so much utility it’s ridiculous.

The 3 gives you the ability to juke, open up distance, set up burst etc, 5 gets you a nice area to kite the enemy through while uping your damage.

I’d go on with it but this is not the time, nor place for Longbow 101.

Kittens be kittened. That CDI filled up fast and the 200 word limit was breached so many times I’ve lost count. I broke it myself by 79 words. Keep on posting guys, at this point, beat the devs with walls of text!

Durzlla.6295:

They took the “unparalleled archers” thing out of there because people kept grasping at straws for why their bow should deal more damage than a warriors great sword, and why no one should be able to beat us in 1v1 ranged duels ever. Rangers aren’t purely ranged, and it’s about time they kill that stupid though process. Either way the way this, and almost every other balanced game, works is Melee does more damage than ranged, but ranged is safer and has 100% (or nearly 100%) uptime.

I don’t think i ever saw anyone saying that bows should out damage a warriors GS. Warrior/ranger bows on the other hand, yes, ranger’s bows should be better than warrior or rogue bows/rifles.

I posted my original idea of trait changes in the first thread…though I don’t think i’ll bother with the actual CDI.

Anet is probably going to do what Anet wants to do….You might be able to sway them on some things..But they usually don’t pay much attention to advice by people who play the classes.

In fact very few Developers actually do pay attention.

It’s a good thing I’m not drinking when I read through the CDI thread so far, because most of the ideas are so depressingly bad that I don’t know if I’d be able to maintain myself lol.

Seriously though, I’m irritated for putting my suggestions up so early. I mean, I had to do them at some point, but at this point, I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that this CDI is going to produce anywhere near the result that the community hoped it would produce, due to a combination of the the thread being handled in a way where it’s just “throw out your ideas at us” and people who don’t understand balance or are trying to project how they want the class to play onto the class and make it something it isn’t flooding the CDI with suggestions.

The CDI should have been much more philosophically centered, so that it became an open dialogue between the community and devs about where they think that class is versus where we think it is, and what direction they want the class to go versus what direction we see the class going, and how we could meet in the middle somewhere philosophically while ironing out any physical balance issues that are brought up along the way.

Sadly, entering the CDI thread right now just looks like a spam email folder…

Aioros.4862:

The stated Ranger Design Philosophy scares me to death.

Ranger Design Philosophy: Please keep this in mind when posting feedback.
The Ranger is a resilient profession that excels at skirmishing by drawing from nature to support themselves as well as their allies. Alongside their pet, they have some of the best single target and sustained damage that will whittle their opponents down.

I noticed they worded it very carefully to avoid mentioning bows and ranged.

Also, they seem to still be trying to find quick fixes to ranger problems, and not too fond of making core changes.

I have a bad feeling we won’t come out of this any better than before.

For the exact same reasons I’m keeping expectations extremely low… Like Aquaman v2 low. As I have said a thousand times until they put the resources into fixing the pet properly then the Ranger will never the best option for any situation. Ever. Live in your delusional world where the pet works perfectly and acts as they envisioned, but that is not the game I play in GW2. In the game I play the pet makes extremely bad moves and doesn’t think about working around red circles to get to where it needs to go.

Given the real lack of any comms in that CDI thread from Devs it really isn’t any more than just a Suggestions to Anet thread. Allie doesn’t main a Ranger… Her responses have said drip of that. 10 pages and four devs posts… It’s not a collaborative post at all. It’s just a suggestions thread. Two of the posts were actually going back and forth. The others were just “Hey. We’re busy, but we’re reading….. but that is it.” Man… if it was a sPVP or tPVP warrior thread they’d be up on that like flies on poo.

jcbroe.4329:

It’s a good thing I’m not drinking when I read through the CDI thread so far, because most of the ideas are so depressingly bad that I don’t know if I’d be able to maintain myself lol.

Seriously though, I’m irritated for putting my suggestions up so early. I mean, I had to do them at some point, but at this point, I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that this CDI is going to produce anywhere near the result that the community hoped it would produce, due to a combination of the the thread being handled in a way where it’s just “throw out your ideas at us” and people who don’t understand balance or are trying to project how they want the class to play onto the class and make it something it isn’t flooding the CDI with suggestions.

The CDI should have been much more philosophically centered, so that it became an open dialogue between the community and devs about where they think that class is versus where we think it is, and what direction they want the class to go versus what direction we see the class going, and how we could meet in the middle somewhere philosophically while ironing out any physical balance issues that are brought up along the way.

Sadly, entering the CDI thread right now just looks like a spam email folder…

It is horrible over there. I am seeing suggestions from people that I have never seen post before or if they have posted, it’s about every other class except Ranger. Some of the suggestions are so horribly bad it’s laughable.

This is not dissimilar to asking your 4 year old what he would like for dinner. You have pretty much finished cooking a dinner of spaghetti and meatballs.

So you ask him to tell you everything he would like. You let him ramble on about all the different foods he would like for dinner. When he finally says Spaghetti and meatballs you clap your hands and say …"that’s a great idea. Go play for a bit and when you come back down for down I will have made exactly what you wanted …spaghetti and meatballs.

We are being punkd.

Some of those ideas ARE brilliant though, from what I’ve read (5 pages worth). Looking at one of the newer posts, apparently somebody from Anet likes the idea of us getting a buff for a pet being stowed temporarily.

Forzani.2584:

jcbroe.4329:

It’s a good thing I’m not drinking when I read through the CDI thread so far, because most of the ideas are so depressingly bad that I don’t know if I’d be able to maintain myself lol.

Seriously though, I’m irritated for putting my suggestions up so early. I mean, I had to do them at some point, but at this point, I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that this CDI is going to produce anywhere near the result that the community hoped it would produce, due to a combination of the the thread being handled in a way where it’s just “throw out your ideas at us” and people who don’t understand balance or are trying to project how they want the class to play onto the class and make it something it isn’t flooding the CDI with suggestions.

The CDI should have been much more philosophically centered, so that it became an open dialogue between the community and devs about where they think that class is versus where we think it is, and what direction they want the class to go versus what direction we see the class going, and how we could meet in the middle somewhere philosophically while ironing out any physical balance issues that are brought up along the way.

Sadly, entering the CDI thread right now just looks like a spam email folder…

It is horrible over there. I am seeing suggestions from people that I have never seen post before or if they have posted, it’s about every other class except Ranger. Some of the suggestions are so horribly bad it’s laughable.

This is not dissimilar to asking your 4 year old what he would like for dinner. You have pretty much finished cooking a dinner of spaghetti and meatballs.

So you ask him to tell you everything he would like. You let him ramble on about all the different foods he would like for dinner. When he finally says Spaghetti and meatballs you clap your hands and say …"that’s a great idea. Go play for a bit and when you come back down for down I will have made exactly what you wanted …spaghetti and meatballs.

We are being punkd.

The worst part is that the other thread (Ranger Balance) is fading out of peoples attention because of the CDI, which had lots of great discussions and featured many different ideas and debates that we as a community worked on for months+, and was a very collaborative effort for all of us to get it to where it was.

If the dev team took nothing from it, and focuses all of their attention on the CDI thread, it’s going to be a very bad day for rangers. I’ll keep trying to bring up the thread in my posts so that people will bump it (I can’t be the only one, it breaks forum rules I believe) so that all of the work and ideas in that thread aren’t lost.

But it’s really sad to see that thread only have one official response saying “I passed this on” while the CDI thread has quite a bit of junky ideas, random ideas, or “I think I’m playing a different game” ideas, and it’s the one that’s getting the visible attention while we don’t even know what was taken away from the efforts of the other thread.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Some of those ideas ARE brilliant though, from what I’ve read (5 pages worth). Looking at one of the newer posts, apparently somebody from Anet likes the idea of us getting a buff for a pet being stowed temporarily.

That’s undeniable, there is going to be a few ideas here and there every so often, but I think there are a few of us that just feel like ANet could have eased into the suggestion phase of the CDI instead of opening with it and making it entirely about that, because it makes the thread a lot less collaborative and a lot more “hell on earth” or “pandora’s box has been opened.”

We could have taken the time to establish where the class needs the most improvements and agree, and then start making suggestions specifically for those areas, for instance.

Take a look at the Fractal CDI thread, jc. I’m pretty sure thats what you envisioned for the Ranger CDI thread. Sadly, it didn’t go that way as the people running the prospective threads are just different.

Allie is trying but she just doesn’t play a Ranger… If she does I’d put my left hand on bets that she has less than 100 hours on one.

thefantasticg.3984:

Take a look at the Fractal CDI thread, jc. I’m pretty sure thats what you envisioned for the Ranger CDI thread. Sadly, it didn’t go that way as the people running the prospective threads are just different.

Allie is trying but she just doesn’t play a Ranger… If she does I’d put my left hand on bets that she has less than 100 hours on one.

I know, I’ve been watching the dev tracker wondering why the fractal CDI, and even the leaderboard/PvP CDI have to have so much of the “actual” conversations. I mean, granted, Allie is trying, she really is, but right now, my biggest issues actually come from other community members who try to tell me my ideas are bad because they don’t fall in line with the vision of “bearbow sniper pew pew,” or don’t think about the scope of the things they are suggesting or disagreeing with.

I need to ask Durz something, I hope he get’s on soon lol.

Reevaluate our bow or any other range weapons. How can someone directly below me be out of my range?

Retool Camouflage: I’d like to see it applied differently—instead of reacting to dazed, knocked down, launched, pushed back, or stunned. Ideally camouflage could be proactive, rather than reactive (such as when a ranger stands still for a period of time they blend in with their background).

Currently The Wilderness Survival Trait: Hide in Plain Sight Applies camouflage when you are dazed, knocked down, launched, pushed back, or stunned.

Movement: If we are masters of nature how can almost all other professions outrun us?

I just read a recent post there from a guy that hasn’t posted in the Rangers forum in past 6 months (I didn’t go back any further). All his posts are about PvE encounters and he’s also involved in every post about class balance. I’m not sure what class he plays but is an apparent expert on every class.

He’s not really making suggestions other than arguing about what other people have suggested …basically muddying the waters with spam.

Pretty much what I expected.

I did like the suggestion about changing the trait stat locations, and even made a suggestion on where to move the stat points. Moving Condition Damage to Skirmishing? That fixes the problem right there, and doesn’t negatively effect either traitline. Hell, I even moved Crit damage to Marksmanship, Boon Duration to Wilderness Survival, Healing Power to Nature Magic, and Condition Duration to Beastmastery.

Moving Healing Power could horribly effect the balance of the class, so I moved it to the one line that most people don’t take a lot of without taking Beastmastery as well.

No doubt there are some great ideas there. The problem is they get lost in the nonsensical spam.

I think they are trying to green line removing the pet in lieu of that aspect idea.
Basically test the waters with the stow and a few patches later…pets gone. Though that would be trading time spent on reworking the AI on pet to time redesigning most of the trait lines, the signets, the shouts and so on. Kind of scary that that might just be less work.

Bran.7425:

I think they are trying to green line removing the pet in lieu of that aspect idea.
Basically test the waters with the stow and a few patches later…pets gone. Though that would be trading time spent on reworking the AI on pet to time redesigning most of the trait lines, the signets, the shouts and so on. Kind of scary that that might just be less work.

Perhaps, but I don’t think so.

Because despite the forum outrage, the Ranger is still one of the top most popular and played classes. And trust me, among those thousands and thousands of Ranger players, the overwhelming vast majority rolled a Ranger specifically in order to have a strong aggro-ing pet. I doubt they will risk alienating all those folks just because me and a few hundred WvWers are razing cain in the forums.

Ision.3207:

Bran.7425:

I think they are trying to green line removing the pet in lieu of that aspect idea.
Basically test the waters with the stow and a few patches later…pets gone. Though that would be trading time spent on reworking the AI on pet to time redesigning most of the trait lines, the signets, the shouts and so on. Kind of scary that that might just be less work.

Perhaps, but I don’t think so.

Because despite the forum outrage, the Ranger is still one of the top most popular and played classes. And trust me, among those thousands and thousands of Ranger players, the overwhelming vast majority rolled a Ranger specifically in order to have a strong aggro-ing pet. I doubt they will risk alienating all those folks just because me and a few hundred WvWers are razing cain in the forums.

Won’t be your WvWer’s that get that change through it will be the esport crowd, as they can’t get spirit destroyed they might settle for the pet.
We were not told how they came across those number, (characters created, hours played, dart on a dartboard) so the popularity is debatable, and with so many adverse changes/fixes (balanced or otherwise) there still will be rangers that stick with it. I could counter the ‘aggro-ing pet’ appeal with archer-fanboys, the flavor of sword, animations, the list goes on.

Bran.7425:

Ision.3207:

Bran.7425:

I think they are trying to green line removing the pet in lieu of that aspect idea.
Basically test the waters with the stow and a few patches later…pets gone. Though that would be trading time spent on reworking the AI on pet to time redesigning most of the trait lines, the signets, the shouts and so on. Kind of scary that that might just be less work.

Perhaps, but I don’t think so.

Because despite the forum outrage, the Ranger is still one of the top most popular and played classes. And trust me, among those thousands and thousands of Ranger players, the overwhelming vast majority rolled a Ranger specifically in order to have a strong aggro-ing pet. I doubt they will risk alienating all those folks just because me and a few hundred WvWers are razing cain in the forums.

Won’t be your WvWer’s that get that change through it will be the esport crowd, as they can’t get spirit destroyed they might settle for the pet.
We were not told how they came across those number, (characters created, hours played, dart on a dartboard) so the popularity is debatable, and with so many adverse changes/fixes (balanced or otherwise) there still will be rangers that stick with it. I could counter the ‘aggro-ing pet’ appeal with archer-fanboys, the flavor of sword, animations, the list goes on.

Like I said, perhaps you are right.

But it’s not just the esport guys (although you are correct, they are a factor), as the zerg-ball WvWers also shout loudly about not wanting a pet. As to popularity, well we don’t have the metrics, and I will admit that antidotal evidence is the most specious of any form of evidence; but according to my eyes, there are a whole heaping ton of Rangers, compared to say, Necros, Engi’s or Mesmers. All that said, I would be surprised if they “evolve” the GW2 Ranger class in a totally non-pet centric direction. But hey, ya never know! ;-)

Regardless, we will certainly soon find out.

It’s not just the WvWers. Infact, I have heard in game the most from PVE/Dungeon runners who want to be deshackled from the pet… Probably because that’s what I do 99.99% of the time is why I hear mostly from PVE/Dungeon runners that want an option to be rid of the pet… None of them want the pet BECAUSE of the aggro’ing. Of course, that was fixed with some patches ago IF you keep your pet on passive… but there is NO EFFIN KEYBIND FOR ACTIVE/PASSIVE!!!

And then the standard ranger protocol will be start: Adapt with what is left,