Ranger Talk: Buff Range / Party Buff Range
1 2
P.S. Again… Rangers in GW 2 are presented to players as Bow wielders by default in the ‘Archer’ sense, before the age of guns. If Anet wanted to present the Ranger to players as Rifle users, they would have done so, but they didn’t.
And coming from the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, it states, “Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance. As an adventurer profession, rangers wear medium armor.”
It is amazing how no one except me until now has quoted that. I was waiting for someone else to, yet no one did (yea, I get why…)
So let’s break down the above quoted, because after all, it is how Anet defines the class that matters most. Let’s see… ‘proficient’ with the Bow, yet ‘surgical’ with the Sword. (emphasis on the word yet, guys, because there is a reason for that).
Last I checked, someone ‘proficient’ in something is someone who uses that something more often (in this case, the Bow, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not), whereas someone ‘surgical’ with something uses that something (in this case, the Sword) sparingly or wisely, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not.
End of debate on my end.
Nothing in that statement says a ranger needs to stand at a specific distance to be proficient with the bow. In certain situations the bow is a lot more valuable at point blank range, a proficient ranger would be able to handle that. You keep trying to ignore the glaring failure in your argument, the rangers meta dungeon build includes the longbow.
And if you think “surgical” means to use something sparingly you need to invest in a dictionary.
Now since you have hit a point where people are using facts to poke holes in your arguments that are entirely based on how you “feel” the ranger should be played from all of your experience playing a different video game, you can lie to yourself that you are taking the high road by leaving.
Jim Hunter when my other account isn’t suspended
(edited by Puck.9612)
P.S. Again… Rangers in GW 2 are presented to players as Bow wielders by default in the ‘Archer’ sense, before the age of guns. If Anet wanted to present the Ranger to players as Rifle users, they would have done so, but they didn’t.
And coming from the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, it states, “Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance. As an adventurer profession, rangers wear medium armor.”
It is amazing how no one except me until now has quoted that. I was waiting for someone else to, yet no one did (yea, I get why…)
So let’s break down the above quoted, because after all, it is how Anet defines the class that matters most. Let’s see… ‘proficient’ with the Bow, yet ‘surgical’ with the Sword. (emphasis on the word yet, guys, because there is a reason for that).
Last I checked, someone ‘proficient’ in something is someone who uses that something more often (in this case, the Bow, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not), whereas someone ‘surgical’ with something uses that something (in this case, the Sword) sparingly or wisely, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not.
End of debate on my end.
Nothing in that statement says a ranger needs to stand at a specific distance to be proficient with the bow. In certain situations the bow is a lot more valuable at point blank range, a proficient ranger would be able to handle that. You keep trying to ignore the glaring failure in your argument, the rangers meta dungeon build includes the longbow.
And if you think “surgical” means to use something sparingly you need to invest in a dictionary.
Now since you have hit a point where people are using facts to poke holes in your arguments that are entirely based on how you “feel” the ranger should be played from all of your experience playing a different video game, you can lie to yourself that you are taking the high road by leaving.
EDIT in response to your latest reply riddled with misconception: My playing experience as a Ranger in GW 1 has absolutely nothing to do with my experience as a Ranger in GW 2 in that I already knew playing a Ranger was different in GW 2 than in GW 1. I did not expect GW 2 to be like GW 1.
I just made clear I am a 10-year GW 1 veteran for the sake of letting you and everyone else know I am very familiar with the Guild Wars series and how it works despite the differences between GW 1 and GW 2, not for the sake of proving my GW 2 experience like you foolishly lead yourself to believe.
It was also foolish of you (and others) to be so quick to assume that this thread was influenced by how Rangers worked in GW 1, because it was not influenced by GW 1 Rangers whatsoever.
And as for the rest of what you say and have already said, there is nothing more I can say to you or anyone else here, anyway, if I were to continue this argument that I have not already said, so why bother repeating myself? My reasons are clear why I made this thread, and it pertains to GW 2 NOT GW 1!
I went about saying how the numbers in my idea are adjustable/can easily be adjusted (for balancing), that is to say, the range at which Rangers receive buffs, yet you don’t want to acknowledge that part of what I said to a few other players who have commented in this thread.
All you are is a troll doing a more than great job at getting more responses out of me, leading yourself to believe in your own fabricated delusion that I have nothing better in me to say to such a point where anything you say or have already said is irrefutable. Well guess what? You are/were wrong.
I really have to hand it to you, Puck. I sat here just cringing my teeth trying my best not to respond, yet you’re an expert at provoking a response. I am not leaving this debate because I was defeated in it (trust me, I can hold my own in a debate until doomsday).
I am leaving this debate because there comes a time where I feel I can no longer make sense to those who can cannot make sense of common sense things, because the more I argue with someone I think a fool, the more I become a fool, too (in fact, I am already a fool for even saying anything more to you).
Again, I envy your provocative skills, and your ignorance is profound. I wish I was just as good at provoking responses, and I wish I was just as ignorant like no one’s looking…
Must be really cool to be you.
P.S. I know, incoming is the ‘All you can do is insult now because you have nothing better to say’ argument. * Puts on my not so amused face * Yea, been there, seen that one before. Keep believing that, though, because that is what you will believe no matter if I continue this debate or not.
(edited by Eidolonemesis.5640)
P.S. Again… Rangers in GW 2 are presented to players as Bow wielders by default in the ‘Archer’ sense, before the age of guns. If Anet wanted to present the Ranger to players as Rifle users, they would have done so, but they didn’t.
And coming from the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, it states, “Rangers are flexible and durable—proficient with the bow, yet surgical with the sword. Their loyal pets, which rangers tame and train, distract enemies while the rangers strike safely from a distance. As an adventurer profession, rangers wear medium armor.”
It is amazing how no one except me until now has quoted that. I was waiting for someone else to, yet no one did (yea, I get why…)
So let’s break down the above quoted, because after all, it is how Anet defines the class that matters most. Let’s see… ‘proficient’ with the Bow, yet ‘surgical’ with the Sword. (emphasis on the word yet, guys, because there is a reason for that).
Last I checked, someone ‘proficient’ in something is someone who uses that something more often (in this case, the Bow, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not), whereas someone ‘surgical’ with something uses that something (in this case, the Sword) sparingly or wisely, or so that should be the case for Rangers in GW 2, yet it is not.
End of debate on my end.
Nothing in that statement says a ranger needs to stand at a specific distance to be proficient with the bow. In certain situations the bow is a lot more valuable at point blank range, a proficient ranger would be able to handle that. You keep trying to ignore the glaring failure in your argument, the rangers meta dungeon build includes the longbow.
And if you think “surgical” means to use something sparingly you need to invest in a dictionary.
Now since you have hit a point where people are using facts to poke holes in your arguments that are entirely based on how you “feel” the ranger should be played from all of your experience playing a different video game, you can lie to yourself that you are taking the high road by leaving.
I really have to hand it to you, Puck. I sat here just cringing my teeth trying my best not to respond, yet you’re an expert at provoking a response. I am not leaving this debate because I was defeated in it (trust me, I can hold my own in a debate until doomsday).
I am leaving this debate because there comes a time where I feel I can no longer make sense to those who can cannot make sense of common sense things, because the more I argue with someone I think a fool, the more I become a fool, too (in fact, I am fool for even saying anything more to you).
Again, I envy your provocative skills, and your ignorance is profound. I wish I was just as good at provoking responses, and I wish I was just as ignorant like no one’s looking…
Must be really cool to be you.
P.S. I know, incoming is the ‘All you can do is insult now because you have nothing better to say’ argument. * Puts on my not so amused face * Yea, been there, seen that one before. Keep believe that, though, because that is what you will believe no matter if I continue this debate or not.
I don’t have to resort to that, you clearly have nothing worth saying. You have been provided with counter arguments and still resort to, “This is common sense because that’s what I feel.”
You can keep clicking your heels and wishing for your feelings to be right but that isn’t going to change the way the game works. You think you have some special understanding of the ranger because you played GW1, but you aren’t some special snowflake. I played GW1 since 2005, I had multiple rangers in that game. I’ve been playing GW2 since the betas and have multiple rangers in this game, I don’t even want to think about the amount of gold I’ve spent on my rangers. So if you want to use experience as a measuring stick, I’ve still got you beat.
Either come back with an argument that has a little more substance than your feelings, or stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes real hard and keep repeating to yourself, “I know I’m right, I know I’m right…”
Jim Hunter when my other account isn’t suspended
1 2