Guild Wars 2

I’m a bit perplexed when reading this thread. Regardless of how the CDI thread is supervised and how much you dis/agree with suggestions people make I do not understand the attitude of sitting it out and judging other peoples suggestions while some of you don’t even participate in the CDI yourself.

Don’t get me wrong, the Ranger thread is awesome. But why does that justify not participating in the CDI thread? If you actually care you should be willing to make the effort and make proposals. What is the point of expressing your opinion here and not in the CDI thread?

I do not main Ranger and I therefore might not be the most qualified person to make proposals for this class. I’m sure quite a few people disagree with ideas I have. Still, I do care enough about my Ranger to contribute proposals and discuss ideas from my point of view. How do you guys expect a satisfying result if you don’t even try to make a difference?

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.

It sounds more like they want to rework the mechanic so you dance in and out of having the aspect AND having the pet out to have max effectiveness, which I approve of, however you should be able to trait into specializing into either one so you could play primarily one way or the other instead of following in the footsteps of the ele where it’s “use them all equally or suck”.

Xaylin.1860:

I’m a bit perplexed when reading this thread. Regardless of how the CDI thread is supervised and how much you dis/agree with suggestions people make I do not understand the attitude of sitting it out and judging other peoples suggestions while some of you don’t even participate in the CDI yourself.

Don’t get me wrong, the Ranger thread is awesome. But why does that justify not participating in the CDI thread? If you actually care you should be willing to make the effort and make proposals. What is the point of expressing your opinion here and not in the CDI thread?

I do not main Ranger and I therefore might not be the most qualified person to make proposals for this class. I’m sure quite a view people disagree with ideas I have. Still, I do care enough about my Ranger to contribute proposals and discuss ideas from my point of view. How do you guys expect a satisfying result if you don’t even try to make a difference?

+1 to you.

Rangers are fine as they are right now TBH. Sure we need some polish, but EVERY class needs polish…well maybe not warriors

That being said Rangers are great in PvP, WvW, and ok in PvE. The ONLY place they need help in is GvG scene, and let’s face it. Anet don’t recognize that scene so let’s not hold our breath.

As for that CDI discussion…..ppl are just lobbying to get their class OP as possible.

No Azukas, we want a reliable pet that doesn’t wipe from a single AoE, we want a helper who isn’t rendered useless in half of the dungeons, we want to be able to do some damage without being so reliant on the AI.

Look at any other MMO with a pet, such as FFXIV’s Summoner and Scholar classes, and you’ll see how good a pet can be. While the pet is around 20% of each class’s DPS/HPS, the pets can take a hit from AoE, are responsive to commands, are able to succeed with 90% of their attempted attacks and heals, yet still can fold easily if pressured. The SMN/SCH even has a buff and heal exclusive for their pet, known as Rouse (50% damage/healing increase for I believe 20 seconds) and Sustain (8% HP regen a second for 10s). That’s what we want here, a pet we can rely on who watching over can be easy if they’re not being pressured.

RyuDragnier.9476:

<_snip_>

Our views differ than.

Because I’m not willing to give up what will be required to be lost to get what you want. I’m fine playing my ranger in all aspects of the game. I have zero problem killing any class in any game mode, and it generally comes down to who is the better player.
This is with your “broken” pet mechanics

In fact I wish my ranger was harder to play b/c quite frankly some days I feel like I bang my head on my keyboard to win fights.

Rangers are what they are…..fine and in need of MINOR polish

Xaylin.1860:

I’m a bit perplexed when reading this thread. Regardless of how the CDI thread is supervised and how much you dis/agree with suggestions people make I do not understand the attitude of sitting it out and judging other peoples suggestions while some of you don’t even participate in the CDI yourself.

Don’t get me wrong, the Ranger thread is awesome. But why does that justify not participating in the CDI thread? If you actually care you should be willing to make the effort and make proposals. What is the point of expressing your opinion here and not in the CDI thread?

I do not main Ranger and I therefore might not be the most qualified person to make proposals for this class. I’m sure quite a few people disagree with ideas I have. Still, I do care enough about my Ranger to contribute proposals and discuss ideas from my point of view. How do you guys expect a satisfying result if you don’t even try to make a difference?

People are only expressing their jaded attitudes, and while it does add an element of negativity, we’re all only human, so I don’t think it’s fair to expect 100% perfect attitudes out of everybody for every waking moment.

That being said, I don’t think the existence of the one thread justifies the other, but I do think it would have been handled better by taking all of the prior work and effort done by the ranger community that devs have taken notes on, from any of the threads in the past, and put them together to at least state to us where the current stance is on the class and some things that have been noted along the way up until this point.

Now, that isn’t to say that they haven’t been listening, as I’m personally 100% certain they have, but I do believe that other people as human beings have a right to feel like their efforts have been ignored or invalidated when the developers don’t appear to “visibly” acknowledge peoples prior efforts.

That being said, you are absolutely right that it is not a good excuse at all to not participate, and that there is truthfully no excuse to not participate. because as community members I think we should be doing everything we can to make the game better, so that at the end of the day, if the devs drop the ball, it isn’t because we didn’t try to give them input or help them figure out solutions to existing problems, or provide perceptions to things that may not have existed internally within the development team.

Those of us that are making generic comments about the quality of the suggestions aren’t doing it to be spiteful, but because it worries us that in a sea of suggestions, the wrong one could be picked by the developers and it would end up being negative progress, which is of course opinion based reasoning, but is just a way of expressing concern. However, at the end of the day, all we can do is trust the development team, and based on their responses so far, I feel I can have faith that they are picking the right suggestions and will move forward with things that I personally believe will help the class.

Again, it’s just a result of people being human. I doubt that anybody is trying to truthfully be hurtful. These are just mechanisms we use to express concerns, opinions, and emotions.

I do hope that people will take the time to put their best efforts into the CDI, and I think that the devs will ultimately go with the right decisions that will benefit the class, but that we do need to at least try to take the CDI as seriously as possible so that the devs will give us the same in return.

jcbroe.4329:

Those of us that are making generic comments about the quality of the suggestions aren’t doing it to be spiteful, but because it worries us that in a sea of suggestions, the wrong one could be picked by the developers and it would end up being negative progress, which is of course opinion based reasoning, but is just a way of expressing concern. However, at the end of the day, all we can do is trust the development team, and based on their responses so far, I feel I can have faith that they are picking the right suggestions and will move forward with things that I personally believe will help the class.

Again, it’s just a result of people being human. I doubt that anybody is trying to truthfully be hurtful. These are just mechanisms we use to express concerns, opinions, and emotions.

I’m not bothered by people making negative remarks about some suggestions. Some suggestions are indeed inappropriate for different reasons and I’m sure nobody wants to be disrepectful when rejecting them. I also get that people are demotivated because of questionable changes from the past. However, I do not get how the CDI itself is rejected. Why not even make the effort to post a proposal? Why not participate and discuss the things the devs answer to. Why not talk about your concerns?

The CDI will probably not bring the class overhaul everyone is looking for as an invididual. Maybe not even for a larger part of the community. But disregarding the CDI thread and the made proposals and forecasting a bad outcome while not even trying to have an impact oneself is pretty sheepish. Either you care for a class and get your butt moving or you don’t.

Xaylin.1860:

I’m not bothered by people making negative remarks about some suggestions. Some suggestions are indeed inappropriate for different reasons and I’m sure nobody wants to be disrepectful when rejecting them. I also get that people are demotivated because of questionable changes from the past. However, I do not get how the CDI itself is rejected. Why not even make the effort to post a proposal? Why not participate and discuss the things the devs answer to. Why not talk about your concerns?

The CDI will probably not bring the class overhaul everyone is looking for as an invididual. Maybe not even for a larger part of the community. But disregarding the CDI thread and the made proposals and forecasting a bad outcome while not even trying to have an impact oneself is pretty sheepish. Either you care for a class and get your butt moving or you don’t.

Another +1 to you.

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 in Rangers forum 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.

.

Wannabe game developers that have an “expert opinion” on how every class should be balanced spamming the Ranger CDI

Perfect

So is anybody else perplexed by how we’re supposed to present proposals, yet the devs insist on having conversations about different ideas they could possible implement and asking the community their opinion on them, which comes off as contradicting to the CDI and how it was made to seem to be a “present your suggestions in this format” thread?

It seems like the constant flooding of ideas is diluting the conversations that people are trying to have is all. Not to say that they should have more conversations about all of the suggestions, but maybe it should be split into segments where we submit suggestions, they review them and then summarize the general idea of the things we are asking for and then tell us how they see it and how their ideas compare with ours, and then further discussion about how we can bridge any potential gaps between our views and theirs.

Just a thought, because I’m uncertain what exactly they are looking for at this point. More suggestions, or more discussion about topics they have tried to bring up? I like what the devs are discussing and saying, I guess I would just prefer to see some more organization of the thread.

I doubt there will be too much real discussion until the shock of “no burst” for ranger and “no substantial buffs as everyone is is over-tuned” power creep so scary.

That and most of the consistent conversations were just round and round about ‘why isn’t ranger an archer’ like the flavor text said.

jcbroe.4329:

So is anybody else perplexed by how we’re supposed to present proposals, yet the devs insist on having conversations about different ideas they could possible implement and asking the community their opinion on them, which comes off as contradicting to the CDI and how it was made to seem to be a “present your suggestions in this format” thread?

Nah I am not… they have no clue what to do with the ranger…
The balance team plays whack a mole without knowing what the kitten the traits do at all…
Allie seems to be a nice one but the “Ranger Collective Development” thingy will be as all the other Ranger things… lots of talking and we will get a small buff here and a small nerf there and thats it.

The pittyful pet AI will never be fixed at all …
Ranger was the last class to be implemented and it shows…
the whole pet switch idea is borderline kitten (you actually get punished for switching pets with some of the traits in the supposed Beastmaster traitline)

I gave up on the rangersome time ago…. I just come to the forums with a small glimpse of hope…. but as always… it gets shot down really fast…

No, it’s not perplexing at all. This quote sums it up pretty much. It’s more-or-less a brainstorming thread but with devs involved.

Allie Murdock.8152:

To those asking how far we would redesign – I can’t really comment on this specifically, but I can say that you should share your ideas because sometimes they inspire things to happen. Does that make sense?

There is the almost a perverse joy in the fact that everyone else may be on the receiving end of the nerf focus balance as they tone down the other professions. Though it is kind of sad that they always take the moderate path with ranger as they take longer and longer between major balance patches the over-tuned get to enjoy it for quite a while.

Wondrouswall.7169:

No, it’s not perplexing at all. This quote sums it up pretty much. It’s more-or-less a brainstorming thread, but with devs involved.

Allie Murdock.8152:

To those asking how far we would redesign – I can’t really comment on this specifically, but I can say that you should share your ideas because sometimes they inspire things to happen. Does that make sense?

That’s not what I mean, I mean that the way the OP makes the CDI seem like it should be organized versus the way random (but important) conversations are happening in the middle of a sea of suggestions is very disorganized, and makes it harder to hold a conversation about something that may be important to continue discussing, but because of the separation due to the sea of ideas, the conversation ends up ending prematurely.

Just saying that the organization of the thread doesn’t currently promote a very productive environment for thoroughly discussion specific ideas.

I understand what you’re saying JC. I’m starting to wish they had multiple CDI threads about different aspects of the ranger then did what you’re suggesting.

Wondrouswall.7169:

No, it’s not perplexing at all. This quote sums it up pretty much. It’s more-or-less a brainstorming thread but with devs involved.

Allie Murdock.8152:

To those asking how far we would redesign – I can’t really comment on this specifically, but I can say that you should share your ideas because sometimes they inspire things to happen. Does that make sense?

Wondrous gets it. Thats why I keep pointing out that the “big projects” won’t be taken on by Anet. That’s two devs now that have posted as much.

Wondrouswall.7169:

No, it’s not perplexing at all. This quote sums it up pretty much. It’s more-or-less a brainstorming thread but with devs involved.

Allie Murdock.8152:

To those asking how far we would redesign – I can’t really comment on this specifically, but I can say that you should share your ideas because sometimes they inspire things to happen. Does that make sense?

And who knows, some of our ideas like adjusting where the stat points in traits may end up being moved (such as condition damage into skirmishing). That alone would certainly breathe more life into this class. Hell, instead of doing 10/30/30/0/0 like usual for traps, I could go 0/30/20/20/0 if I wanted with no negative effects to my traps (unlike now).

It’s been many many months since the first round of CDI. I doubt we’ll see anything in the next 6-12 months that actually makes it to reality… except.. maybe… AQUAMAN v2!!!

If there’s anything that can be taken from the CDI thread, it’s that at the very least, the devs are being more involved with the Ranger community since Robert Hrouda.

Xaylin.1860:

I’m a bit perplexed when reading this thread. Regardless of how the CDI thread is supervised and how much you dis/agree with suggestions people make I do not understand the attitude of sitting it out and judging other peoples suggestions while some of you don’t even participate in the CDI yourself.

Don’t get me wrong, the Ranger thread is awesome. But why does that justify not participating in the CDI thread? If you actually care you should be willing to make the effort and make proposals. What is the point of expressing your opinion here and not in the CDI thread?

I do not main Ranger and I therefore might not be the most qualified person to make proposals for this class. I’m sure quite a few people disagree with ideas I have. Still, I do care enough about my Ranger to contribute proposals and discuss ideas from my point of view. How do you guys expect a satisfying result if you don’t even try to make a difference?

There is a phenomena called the Dunning–Kruger effect, where people who don’t know anything about something don’t know that they don’t know anything. For example if you have no idea what human anatomy is like, you may feel fully qualified to perform surgery on someone because you have no idea that you might kill the person (which is hysterically what the first surgeons did, it’s pretty gruesome history that I totally recommend reading about!) A modern surgeon is going to realize he can’t possibly know everything about surgery and will enlist the aid of specialists.

If others here feel the same way I do, we’re not posting because we’re not qualified. It’s not so much that I refuse to post in the thread, I just wish the devs would refuse to listen to the people in that thread. The community can suggest problems with rangers, but most of us just don’t understand the behind the scenes balancing enough to suggest solutions. That’s why the CDI thread is a big pile of garbage suggestions. The devs are getting paid a lot of money to balance video game classes for a living because enough people think they’re good at it enough to manage hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fan money. I get paid to do something else entirely.

One of the only good posts in the CDI thread is a guy who simply lists what is BAD about rangers and doesn’t offer solutions.

I have a hell of a lot of faith in how the devs balance professions. They have an actual system and don’t just do things based on whims or community perceptions. They understand that not everything is directly comparable, that there need to be risks vs rewards, etc. The community patently does NOT understand this. You get people comparing things directly rather than the professions as a whole. You can’t compare one utility to another because each profession is far more complicated than a single skill.

Fluff
I would respectfully disagree with you there on the ‘comparing’ on professions as the professional developers over the year and half have made numerous parallel design change regardless of the difference of those profession. And on the same line they make mechanic changes (quickness for one) across many profession seemingly without examining their differences.

I think a lot of those can almost mathematically affect everyone the same. For example upping the damage bonus from 5% to 7% for certain traits across all professions. Even if that is a little off (a backstab thief will get more out of that than a power necro), the difference is going to be small enough it doesn’t break anything.

But the devs are certainly not infallible. Dhuumfire comes to mind. :-O

That also brings up the tenancy to over-tune for the sake of ‘we need to see X in the upcoming event/at all’
Would have been nice to be on that over-tune for once those as oppose those nerf’s for nerf’s sake that seems to be the norm.

Fluffball.8307:

Xaylin.1860:

I’m a bit perplexed when reading this thread. Regardless of how the CDI thread is supervised and how much you dis/agree with suggestions people make I do not understand the attitude of sitting it out and judging other peoples suggestions while some of you don’t even participate in the CDI yourself.

Don’t get me wrong, the Ranger thread is awesome. But why does that justify not participating in the CDI thread? If you actually care you should be willing to make the effort and make proposals. What is the point of expressing your opinion here and not in the CDI thread?

I do not main Ranger and I therefore might not be the most qualified person to make proposals for this class. I’m sure quite a few people disagree with ideas I have. Still, I do care enough about my Ranger to contribute proposals and discuss ideas from my point of view. How do you guys expect a satisfying result if you don’t even try to make a difference?

There is a phenomena called the Dunning–Kruger effect, where people who don’t know anything about something don’t know that they don’t know anything. For example if you have no idea what human anatomy is like, you may feel fully qualified to perform surgery on someone because you have no idea that you might kill the person (which is hysterically what the first surgeons did, it’s pretty gruesome history that I totally recommend reading about!) A modern surgeon is going to realize he can’t possibly know everything about surgery and will enlist the aid of specialists.

If others here feel the same way I do, we’re not posting because we’re not qualified. It’s not so much that I refuse to post in the thread, I just wish the devs would refuse to listen to the people in that thread. The community can suggest problems with rangers, but most of us just don’t understand the behind the scenes balancing enough to suggest solutions. That’s why the CDI thread is a big pile of garbage suggestions. The devs are getting paid a lot of money to balance video game classes for a living because enough people think they’re good at it enough to manage hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fan money. I get paid to do something else entirely.

One of the only good posts in the CDI thread is a guy who simply lists what is BAD about rangers and doesn’t offer solutions.

I have a hell of a lot of faith in how the devs balance professions. They have an actual system and don’t just do things based on whims or community perceptions. They understand that not everything is directly comparable, that there need to be risks vs rewards, etc. The community patently does NOT understand this. You get people comparing things directly rather than the professions as a whole. You can’t compare one utility to another because each profession is far more complicated than a single skill.

Fantastic post. It’s how I feel exactly. To top it off I learned something new.

jcbroe.4329:

So is anybody else perplexed by how we’re supposed to present proposals, yet the devs insist on having conversations about different ideas they could possible implement and asking the community their opinion on them, which comes off as contradicting to the CDI and how it was made to seem to be a “present your suggestions in this format” thread?

It seems like the constant flooding of ideas is diluting the conversations that people are trying to have is all…….. .

That’s exactly what is happening. Disorganized and chaos. That is why any meeting should have an agenda, and someone to enforce it. If that doesn’t happen it’s human nature to ramble and segue onto something else….or argue among each other.

Very poor format that was laughably easy to predict was going to turn into a gong show. We have some incredibly intelligent members of the Ranger community who play the class and know it inside out. Who test things, experiment with builds and help others. Those are the guys that should be receiving all the suggestions and creating a package to deliver to the devs. The best Ranger minds in the game are being caught up in the spam from fools who think they know everything.

thefantasticg.3984:

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!!!

That sounds like an excellent suggestion to make. The way I see it, the simple changes are more likely to be implemented. And allowing pet passive/aggressive to be bound to a key would take like 60 seconds to fix.

The whole CDI is pointless as we do not know what is their official stance on the class in detail. It feels as if shooting in the dark at best. We have the rather ironic citation of the ranger mantra that is very different from the description that made me purchase GW2 and roll a ranger in the first place.
We were brought to hope by the discussion of stowing pets in combat only to be told that its not a change that will be done any time soon if ever, because they want to exhaust all other changes to pet first (which will never happen btw, they had 2 years to do this).
I fear that, as someone else has said in this topic, the CDI is only a PR stunt and that nothing significant will change. The Ranger is not working properly. Most other classes do what they are designed to do, even if their balance is off. Ranger suffers core design problems and we are not seeing any indication of this being corrected any time soon.

Chokolata.1870:

The whole CDI is pointless as we do not know what is their official stance on the class in detail. It feels as if shooting in the dark at best. We have the rather ironic citation of the ranger mantra that is very different from the description that made me purchase GW2 and roll a ranger in the first place.
We were brought to hope by the discussion of stowing pets in combat only to be told that its not a change that will be done any time soon if ever, because they want to exhaust all other changes to pet first (which will never happen btw, they had 2 years to do this).
I fear that, as someone else has said in this topic, the CDI is only a PR stunt and that nothing significant will change. The Ranger is not working properly. Most other classes do what they are designed to do, even if their balance is off. Ranger suffers core design problems and we are not seeing any indication of this being corrected any time soon.

Might be best to just stick about this sub-forum let the CDI bury itself and see what that statement says.

Chokolata.1870:

I fear that, as someone else has said in this topic, the CDI is only a PR stunt and that nothing significant will change.

Which is what I’ve been calling it and saying about it for about 3 months now… and that pretty much has been true to date.

Solandri.9640:

thefantasticg.3984:

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!!!

That sounds like an excellent suggestion to make. The way I see it, the simple changes are more likely to be implemented. And allowing pet passive/aggressive to be bound to a key would take like 60 seconds to fix.

I’ve been wondering for about … 13 months now that I have had my ranger WHY that does not have a keybind… I got my answer from John Sharp during that STOG when he said that having too much control over the pet would scare people away. I also think it was only F1-F4 are used for the class mechanics, and they just didn’t want to use F5 for the pure asethetics of keeping all 8 classes using only F1-F4.

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.

WvWers and dungeoners and PvPers that is, you know, 3/5 of the game.

PvPers have cause for complaint, but rangers are so called “god tier” in tPvP. The only cause for complaint is that we have other builds that are pretty good instead of unstoppable.

Weak dungeon ranger has been put to rest like 9 months ago by Brazil. We do need variety and perhaps some more visible buffs.

WvW, it just depends on what the devs expect. Right now LB rangers are strong “thieves” in zergs if you play spectacularly, and there are TONS of viable roaming builds.

Fluffball.8307:

PvPers have cause for complaint, but rangers are so called “god tier” in tPvP. The only cause for complaint is that we have other builds that are pretty good instead of unstoppable.

Weak dungeon ranger has been put to rest like 9 months ago by Brazil. We do need variety and perhaps some more visible buffs.

WvW, it just depends on what the devs expect. Right now LB rangers are strong “thieves” in zergs if you play spectacularly, and there are TONS of viable roaming builds.

Brazil changed his mind on the class being worthless but we are decent at best due to gimmicky sword dodges that pin bosses or unpin bosses in this stack on boss meta. Spirit ranger is OP in tPvP but that’s about it. I roam condi bunker in WvW and zerg in my zerker build but nothing I can do in either compares to what my alts can with half the effort and twice the effectiveness.

I like the idea of stowing our pet in order to get the one thing we as a class lack, burst. It would open up some interesting build possibilities.

INCOMING WALL OF TEXT. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

That Thread doubled in size already, since about this time yesterday. Its starting to borderline on insanity, because as others have said,….most of those suggestions suck.

I’m not exactly a master at understanding the Ranger profession (I don’t do PvP, at all), but I do have enough of an understanding of it to see that many of those suggestions were made out of a desire to just make the Ranger do ‘!!MOAR DMG!!’ than actually improve the class.

Take for example the suggestion (thats been stated many times) that pets be stowed and the Ranger get a damage boost. The only thing I have to ask about is…Why? Why only a damage boost? Your survival depends on the pet just as must as your damage does. Its not just all about dealing damage. Guild Wars 2 is not that kind of game, even if Thieves and Warriors make it seem like that. It finally went in a different direction where your bonus should depend on which pet you have stowed, but, still a needlessly complex suggestion.

Then there is the problems that come with doing such a thing. Instead of making your strategy around two pets, you are making your strategy around 2 pets, and 2 aspects, making the profession entirely too complicated for most people, which will just make the perception of Rangers even worse, not better. There’s also literally dozens upon dozens of trait changes that need to be made just for this one thing. An Overhaul like this is not something we need to be thinking about right now.

There has been an interesting idea or two so far, such as making Poison a more defining characteristic of the Ranger (because the only things that define us right now is our pets and traps. Spirits don’t really count because warriors have better, untouchable spirits in the form of banners), and a suggestion here and there for passive pets that do party wide buffs and such like spirits and play no role in damage, but, that’s about it.

I have decided to not contribute to the thread, because almost all of my suggestions are just small tweaks and changes here and there, and the vast majority of posters on that thread want to change the Ranger into something its not, instead of making sure their heads are on solid ground still instead of in the clouds. And anyone who’s feet are still planted on earth are making no effort to read the thread to make sure they aren’t double posting ideas that have already been stated and addressed. Its going in circles right now, and has no focus. Anything I post there is going to be passed over and ignored. The whole thing seems more like a corporate focus meeting rapid fire idea thread that’s just as effective as our rapid fire is now.

My Suggestion?
To hell with the CDI thread…atleast until the Devs can get it under control. I’m going to keep posting here until the CDI finds some actual focus :::
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Ranger-Balance-PvP-WvW-PvE-PvX/page/14#post3684163

Fluffball.8307:

If others here feel the same way I do, we’re not posting because we’re not qualified. It’s not so much that I refuse to post in the thread, I just wish the devs would refuse to listen to the people in that thread. The community can suggest problems with rangers, but most of us just don’t understand the behind the scenes balancing enough to suggest solutions. That’s why the CDI thread is a big pile of garbage suggestions. The devs are getting paid a lot of money to balance video game classes for a living because enough people think they’re good at it enough to manage hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fan money. I get paid to do something else entirely.

The fact that certain person has been chosen for a job by some group of people does not make that particular person great at that job by default. It doesn’t even make that person sufficiently competent by default. The history of mankind has proved that plenty of times already.

The only thing that results from such fact is that such person is left to prove her or his capability at the job the said person has been tasked with.

On the subject being discussed here: I was curious about how the CDI will turn out as the tool for brainstorming. However, the very beginning of it was a confirmation of the current Anet’s strategy of avoiding dedication of resources into major projects. Takes away large part of fun that resides in such brainstorming.

But more importantly, it places most of the ideas that people can come up with in the “not going to happen” zone. Take the aspect idea as an example. By itself, it’s not the worst way to provide solution to the problems that ranger’s class mechanic generates, even if Anet’s motivation here is clearly “we don’t want to bother with fixing the mess”, rather than “we do realize that some people are not fond of pets”. However, thing like this has to come with major overhaul of traits, utilities, maybe even some weapon skills to adapt them to the new shape of the class mechanic. Consequently, the whole proposal changes into a complex project. Otherwise it’s going to be another half-baked bandaid more than anything else.

I probably should not put it beyond Anet to try to deliver it that way, but still…

I agree with you Chrispy. Tweaks. That is all that is needed to make the Ranger legit. Look what happened to Warriors. Offhand sword added torment….increased passive healing and a 3 condition wipe on full bar of adrenaline.

Class went from laughing stock under powered to laughing stock over powered.

We all complain at times about GW2 but their balance is fairly close. A couple of small, well thought out changes is all that is needed.

Not a total redesign.

….best line of the week ….. The whole thing seems more like a corporate focus meeting rapid fire idea thread that’s just as effective as our rapid fire is now.

lol

People wade through the garbage and upvote the good ideas they should enable a down vote in that forum as well.

I sometimes wonder how many of us have pulled off a mach 4 open mighted to the gills the way people complain of burst there…

Layered damage rangers. We have skills you can preload the benefits of use them so you can use them instantly again on entering combat.

And please go look at my bladeturn concept for skirmishing. Anyone that played DAOC/Albion should know how powerful a cycling single hit misses shield can be defensively it’s built off an opening strike concept added to skirmishing to put defense in the upper tiers:). And if they want us to be balanced damage long fighters at modest damage ratios. Plus I know they can add aniother opening strike type skill if they did once.

And we do have sustain darn boy scout class advance prepping(SPirits, traps SIg hunt, sig bomb, porcine f2s etc), pre shooting(Barrage, Hunters call, pet f2’s) direct damaging(all our power) and backloading (Pet plus conditions/condition on crits), it needs a unique defense worthy of the eagle scout who plans the coordination of that layering.

here was my thought once it was clear they were leaning defensive sustain. I believe we need more defensives in the upper lines.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/16#post3692039

not saying it’s great (overpowered perhaps depending on timing and build).

Making vitality give us more health since they admit powercreep, seem to say we do need help, and MOAR DPS isn’t the answer.

They might even want to consider adding class specific stat options to balance out rangers, elementalists and engineers as I think they feel we are the sustain crowd.

I’ll take power/condition/toughness as powercreep severely degrades vitality value.

Forzani.2584:

I agree with you Chrispy. Tweaks. That is all that is needed to make the Ranger legit. Look what happened to Warriors. Offhand sword added torment….increased passive healing and a 3 condition wipe on full bar of adrenaline.

Class went from laughing stock under powered to laughing stock over powered.

We all complain at times about GW2 but their balance is fairly close. A couple of small, well thought out changes is all that is needed.

Not a total redesign.

….best line of the week ….. The whole thing seems more like a corporate focus meeting rapid fire idea thread that’s just as effective as our rapid fire is now.

lol

As a sustain class our rapid fire should become like barrage/hunters call delayed damage airborn so I am already hitting with other skills or juking. A single target barrage basically. I need/want 2 layered damages in LB. Perceptual burst from the recipients side anyways.

And if we are pure sustain axe 5 shouldn’t lock down a skirmishers feet.

Arrys.7145:

Forzani.2584:

I agree with you Chrispy. Tweaks. That is all that is needed to make the Ranger legit. Look what happened to Warriors. Offhand sword added torment….increased passive healing and a 3 condition wipe on full bar of adrenaline.

Class went from laughing stock under powered to laughing stock over powered.

We all complain at times about GW2 but their balance is fairly close. A couple of small, well thought out changes is all that is needed.

Not a total redesign.

….best line of the week ….. The whole thing seems more like a corporate focus meeting rapid fire idea thread that’s just as effective as our rapid fire is now.

lol

As a sustain class our rapid fire should become like barrage/hunters call delayed damage airborn so I am already hitting with other skills or juking. A single target barrage basically. I need/want 2 layered damages in LB. Perceptual burst from the recipients side anyways.

And if we are pure sustain axe 5 shouldn’t lock down a skirmishers feet.

Whirling Defense should change completely. We do a cast time, then we have, a couple of Eagles flying at high speed around us, reflecting projectiles, dealing damage, etc, while we are able to continue running around using our other skills.

Chrispy.5641:

Arrys.7145:

Forzani.2584:

I agree with you Chrispy. Tweaks. That is all that is needed to make the Ranger legit. Look what happened to Warriors. Offhand sword added torment….increased passive healing and a 3 condition wipe on full bar of adrenaline.

Class went from laughing stock under powered to laughing stock over powered.

We all complain at times about GW2 but their balance is fairly close. A couple of small, well thought out changes is all that is needed.

Not a total redesign.

….best line of the week ….. The whole thing seems more like a corporate focus meeting rapid fire idea thread that’s just as effective as our rapid fire is now.

lol

As a sustain class our rapid fire should become like barrage/hunters call delayed damage airborn so I am already hitting with other skills or juking. A single target barrage basically. I need/want 2 layered damages in LB. Perceptual burst from the recipients side anyways.

And if we are pure sustain axe 5 shouldn’t lock down a skirmishers feet.

Whirling Defense should change completely. We do a cast time, then we have, a couple of Eagles flying at high speed around us, reflecting projectiles, dealing damage, etc, while we are able to continue running around using our other skills.

Yeah that’ld work. But their concept is clearly we are a mobile light infantry/cavalry. That means it’s nonsensical we would have developed fighting techniques barrage whirling defense that self cc. Doesn’t match their vision of us as skirmishers at all.

I am afraid to say that the devs have no concept for the ranger. They are throwing random changes out without any vision what so ever and then change the supposed philosophy to match the random changes.

Chokolata.1870:

I am afraid to say that the devs have no concept for the ranger. They are throwing random changes out without any vision what so ever and then change the supposed philosophy to match the random changes.

have you even read the CDI? Or even looked at the changes that have happened to ranger? They’ve all fit the same theme…

I have been reading the CDI since it came out. The general theme is this:

-people post suggestions
-there is little discussion
-only one developer posts, who for the most part has no idea about the ranger class as far as I can tell
-the developer is only citing the same mantra over and over, which is completely different from the official ranger description
-at one point perma stow became a glimmer of hope and people focused on that, but not long after it was said, by the same developer who posted it, that it is a big maybe in the far future as ranger is THE PET CLASS (ranger pet changes to the AI will not happen any time soon, if ever, as has been stated by the main guys because it messes with general mob AI)
-we have absolutely no idea on what the official stance of the developers is and what changes they are considering

Conclusion:The CDI is a big PR stunt that will have no relevance in the long run. Anet will continue to do what they have been doing, which is purposely ignoring the design faults of the class and continuing to do low hanging fruit changes

I guarantee you, the next big patch will yet again bring a NET NERF to the ranger class without bringing any QOL improvements.

Forzani.2584:

I agree with you Chrispy. Tweaks. That is all that is needed to make the Ranger legit. Look what happened to Warriors. Offhand sword added torment….increased passive healing and a 3 condition wipe on full bar of adrenaline.

Class went from laughing stock under powered to laughing stock over powered.

We all complain at times about GW2 but their balance is fairly close. A couple of small, well thought out changes is all that is needed.

Not a total redesign.

….best line of the week ….. The whole thing seems more like a corporate focus meeting rapid fire idea thread that’s just as effective as our rapid fire is now.

lol

Big problem is they see what happened to the warrior and are going to be even more cautious in the future with updates. It either won’t happen to us or it will take so kitten long, it won’t even matter in the end because they will have moved other classes 2 spaces for our every 1.

Azukas.1426:

Rangers are fine as they are right now TBH. Sure we need some polish, but EVERY class needs polish…well maybe not warriors

That being said Rangers are great in PvP, WvW, and ok in PvE. The ONLY place they need help in is GvG scene, and let’s face it. Anet don’t recognize that scene so let’s not hold our breath.

As for that CDI discussion…..ppl are just lobbying to get their class OP as possible.

You can take your make believe GvG Scene and drown it. To even call GvG a game mode makes me think your living under a really really heavy rock.

SPvP = 1 Viable build for past 5 months….
WvW = Same bunker/condition builds for past YEAR.

Power Builds = There has never been a viable one…

You have like 2 builds all up the ranger can use and there not even fun to play or rewarding.

Chokolata.1870:

Conclusion:The CDI is a big PR stunt that will have no relevance in the long run. Anet will continue to do what they have been doing, which is purposely ignoring the design faults of the class and continuing to do low hanging fruit changes

Ever since the devs announced that they were aiming for low-hanging fruit changes, my expectations from them went from expecting minor changes to only getting tool-tip fixes. I guess the CDI was a false glimmer of hope since I started to think that something good could come out from it, but the further I read on the more I’m reverting back to expecting nothing. Come April, we better be getting some awesome tool-tip fixes.

I actually expect the opposite, balance changes will be made to match the tool tips… usually in the form of nerfs.

I’m almost sad that I laughed at that knowing how likely it is to happen. Ugh…

The big discussion right now in the CDI thread isn’t 100% Ranger related, and while it isn’t, it is good that we’re finally talking about the Burst vs. Sustained….not that I expect much to actually come out of that though.

The most important piece of information mentioned by any dev post in the CDI so far was actually the post about the intent to give rangers more options for condition removal outside of Empathic Bond, which is happening “soon.”

That’s a huge piece of information since every “top” build since launch has incorporated Empathic Bond into it.

The vision that the devs have for rangers in guild wars 2 as far as sustained damage output is the exact way the ranger played in guild wars 1, so it’s no surprise that the goal of the class is to incorporate how the class felt in guild wars 1 into this game. The trouble I have envisioning this is that in guild wars 1, conditions were very long lasting, rangers had interrupts as support tools, and stances as defensive mechanisms.

So from my perspective, I don’t quite fully understand where the devs intend to incorporate the “survive and sustain” into guild wars 2 mechanics, and whether it will be evade heavy or if we are going to get more soft CC options to control our opponents to be able to kite and sustain better, or etc. I’m sure it’s probably something they don’t even have a 100% set in stone idea for either though, so I’m probably jumping the gun on the process.