Zuer
Maguuma
[AON]
Maguuma
[AON]
Ranger doesn't mean archer...
Yes, it is very annoying reading that over and over again on the forums. It’s not like it’s even an esoteric term; people should know that it has nothing to do with fighting at range.
Furthermore, people keep referring to the designation of “unparalleled archers” as if it backs up their claim. That merely means they are adaptable at range, which they are. No other classes uses both bow types and 3 different long range weapons. That neither implies that they aren’t good in melee combat nor that other classes aren’t good at ranged combat.
(edited by Einlanzer.1627)
I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anet’s own description of the class opens with these words: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.” This has already been posted a million times. One hand doesn’t seem to know what the other is doing after reading those words, and seeing the reality of GW2 Rangers and their bows.
I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anets own description of the class opens with these words: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.”
See above.
WTF AGAIN?!
GW2 is made by ppl who made GW1. In GW1 ranger was only class using bows. If GW player wants to play archer, he will roll ranger. Is it so kittening hard to understand?
It doesn’t matter what it means in lore. What matter is that, ranger is closest to archer archetype and it’s the only choice for ppl, like me, who always play bowman/archer/marksman/etc.
Thieves SB shooting funny spirals or warriors napalm launcher aren’t interesting options.
(edited by Terkov.4138)
+1
Like the Army Rangers, or forest rangers. But we probably should be the best class to use a bow with – not that we should only use a bow.
WTF AGAIN?!
GW2 is made by ppl who made GW1. In GW1 ranger was only class using bows. If GW player wants to play archer, he will roll ranger. Is it so kittening hard to understand?
Thieves SB shooting funny spirals or warriors napalm launcher aren’t interesting options.
Yes, again- We’ll try one more time. Rangers can be archers, but they can also be things besides archers, and other classes can also fight at range. The statement “unparalleled archers” refers to their flexibility at range, not their power.
I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anets own description of the class opens with these words: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.”
See above.
And you should stop making stuff up.
For the love of God, stop saying “unparalleled archers” means we can use 3 ranged weapons. Archery is shooting arrows with bows (archery comes from the Latin word for bow, “Arcus”), it has nothing to do with throwing axes.
You can say Ranger means master of fruitloops and cheerios for all anyone cares about the definition.
At the end of the day, the majority of the player base just wants to play an Archer Archtype. The ranger is that class in GW2. Or was, prior to SB nerf.
SBI | Oceans | Ranger – Thief – Ele – Eng – Nec – Guard – Rev
Celestial Avatar is like an old man: Takes forever to get up and is spent in 4 seconds
Celestial Avatar is like an old man: Takes forever to get up and is spent in 4 seconds
WTF AGAIN?!
GW2 is made by ppl who made GW1. In GW1 ranger was only class using bows. If GW player wants to play archer, he will roll ranger. Is it so kittening hard to understand?
Thieves SB shooting funny spirals or warriors napalm launcher aren’t interesting options.Yes, again- We’ll try one more time. Rangers can be archers, but they can also be things besides archers, and other classes can also fight at range. The statement “unparalleled archers” refers to their flexibility at range, not their power.
And? Then why do you feel some need to teach ppl? If they rolled ranger to be archers, they will be archers, and will cry for buffs for archer-like builds. Should I also make topic “Ranger doesn’t mean zookeeper”?
Not to mention, ranger class in GW2 was supposed to be 2 classes earlier: marksman and warden – it clearly shows the archery part of it.
I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anets own description of the class opens with these words: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.”
See above.
And you should stop making stuff up.
For the love of God, stop saying “unparalleled archers” means we can use 3 ranged weapons. Archery is shooting arrows with bows (archery comes from the Latin word for bow, “Arcus”), it has nothing to do with throwing axes.
Yes, and Rangers are the only class that can use both bow types. Seriously, how do you people not realize how silly you sound?
Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.
Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.
It’s you who pretty much can’t figure out that the Arenanet’s description of rangers highlights their skill with bows and how rangers should be efficient killers from afar, not their close quarter skills.
(edited by Aioros.4862)
the term “unparalleled Archers” means the we should have no other class equal to us as archers and that clearly is not the case
From dictionary.com
unparalleled
adjective
not paralleled; unequaled or unmatched; peerless; unprecedented
You can say Ranger means master of fruitloops and cheerios for all anyone cares about the definition.
At the end of the day, the majority of the player base just wants to play an Archer Archtype. The ranger is that class in GW2. Or was, prior to SB nerf.
No, it still is.
Seriously, how do you people not realize how silly you sound?
Oh the irony!!! /facepalm
Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.
Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.
I’ll just leave this here then: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/
Quoted from that page:
“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”
So when you tell people to stop this “ranger is range” argument, don’t forget that the entire class was sold as “ranger is range”. Of course people who’ve spent hundreds of hours on a character are going to be a little kitten ed when they find out rangers aren’t potent archers (they’re just average). If the class had been described as a “jack of most trades” when it comes to weaponry, I guarantee you there wouldn’t be as much debate on this topic as there is.
Wouldn’t you be kitten ed if you bought a computer that you were told could “run everything on full graphics!” only to discover GW2 runs at 5fps?
(edited for diplomacy)
(edited by Redjuice.2693)
Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.
This game is designed in such a way that all classes have similar offensive potential at any range they have access to (all classes have access to 900 and all but Thief at 1200). This is because they intended your build to play a bigger role in your various offensive/defensive specs than your class. The difference between the classes in terms of specialization is in versatility, not power. And Rangers are the clear winner there as the only class that has access to both types of bows and 3 ranged weapons.
You people have no idea what you’re talking about.
(edited by Einlanzer.1627)
People are probably going to yell at me for this, but… I believe that Rangers should be strongest ( unless traited for it) with a bow, but should not exclusively use one. Ie. LB/Axe and Dager.
I love seeing rangers roll with Shortbow/Longbow , they put the range in ranger. Sword+dagger best thing that ever happened to rangers.
Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.
Don’t brag, you’re no Nostradamus, it’s only natural that when people are right they mention the one irrefutable evidence that they are right.
Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.
All classes have similar offensive potential at any range they have access to (all classes have access to 900 and all but Thief at 1200). The difference between the classes in terms of specialization is in versatility, not power. And Rangers are the clear winner there.
You people have no idea what you’re talking about.
And why do you think you interpretation is the right one?
Anet shows ranger as archer class → ppl looking for archer class play ranger.
What’s the problem? Because someone on forum connected profession name with range? I’d understand if you were GW1 assassin and someone wrote the 3 first letters define your class, but here idk what’s your problem.
Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.
Don’t brag, you’re no Nostradamus, it’s only natural that when people are right they mention the one irrefutable evidence that they are right.
Oh, it’s totally refutable. Unparalleled means unmatched. And Rangers are unmatched in archery because they are the only class that uses both bow types, and each type has a different role and skill-set, giving rangers greater tactical options with bows than any other class has by far. Damage is a matter of build.
Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.
Don’t brag, you’re no Nostradamus, it’s only natural that when people are right they mention the one irrefutable evidence that they are right.
Oh, it’s totally refutable. Unparalleled means unmatched. And Rangers are unmatched in archery because they are the only class that uses both bow types, and each type has a different role and skill-set, giving rangers greater tactical options with bows than any other class has by far.
Ok, assuming I’ll follow your way of thinking. Ranger is the class with best options for ranged combat (best = most, nerf/buff can happen anytime). So why isn’t it THE archer class? It’s not like being dedicated marksman cripples your melee (outside of balance issues).
Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.
Don’t brag, you’re no Nostradamus, it’s only natural that when people are right they mention the one irrefutable evidence that they are right.
Oh, it’s totally refutable. Unparalleled means unmatched. And Rangers are unmatched in archery because they are the only class that uses both bow types, and each type has a different role and skill-set, giving rangers greater tactical options with bows than any other class has by far.
Ok, assuming I’ll follow your way of thinking. Ranger is the class with best options for ranged combat (best = most, nerf/buff can happen anytime). So why isn’t it THE archer class? It’s not like being dedicated marksman cripples your melee (outside of balance issues).
Because there is no such thing as an “archer” class. The classes are designed around broader themes than using a single weapon type. More than one class can use a bow, and any class that uses a bow can use other stuff as well. It’s called versatility, customization, and realism. It’s just how the classes are designed, and the game is better for it.
All I am saying is I played gw1 and the ranger was a bow class. When I bought gw2 I expected ranger (hey, same name as gw1 class) to be similar: a class that has a pet and is focused on a bow. Not to mention any sort of pre-release art about the ranger was always a ranger with a bow and a pet. To be honest this thread is one of those “suck it up guys, if you thought ranger was xxx before then you are wrong” rants. So sorry it is “very annoying” to hear that people who play as a ranger want a good bow class, it is just I (and many other people who bought the game) were all expecting the ranger to be a good bow class.
Yes, the typical “ranger” does not mean archer, but the guild wars ranger has always been an archer and was designed to continue to be an archer. Just go to Google images, type in “gw2 ranger” and look at the photos there. Every single one is a ranger with a bow.
Green Eye of Grenth | PR Officer | JQ
All I am saying is I played gw1 and the ranger was a bow class. When I bought gw2 I expected ranger (hey, same name as gw1 class) to be similar: a class that has a pet and is focused on a bow. Not to mention any sort of pre-release art about the ranger was always a ranger with a bow and a pet. To be honest this thread is one of those “suck it up guys, if you thought ranger was xxx before then you are wrong” rants. So sorry it is “very annoying” to hear that people who play as a ranger want a good bow class, it is just I (and many other people who bought the game) were all expecting the ranger to be a good bow class.
Yes, the typical “ranger” does not mean archer, but the guild wars ranger has always been an archer and was designed to continue to be an archer. Just go to Google images, type in “gw2 ranger” and look at the photos there. Every single one is a ranger with a bow.
The Ranger is a good bow class, they can just do other things besides use a bow. The reason why is because there is no “bow” class. The class design philosophies are broader in scope than that, as well they should be. Archery is just one component of what the Ranger can do.
Having a lot of options in how to be mediocre doesn’t make the class an unparalleled archer. It makes us an unparalleled loot bag.
Ehmry Bay – Grindhouse Gaming [GH]
Menorah | Charr Cat | Some Cat Thing
Still running my old RRR build because why not
Menorah | Charr Cat | Some Cat Thing
Still running my old RRR build because why not
Having a lot of options in how to be mediocre doesn’t make the class an unparalleled archer. It makes us an unparalleled loot bag.
Again, the class is not ‘mediocre’ because they don’t totally specialize in archery. Every class has a broad range of things they can do. If they are truly mediocre, it’s due to the way pets are designed. It leads to the Ranger’s DPS being weaker than it should be across the board.
You can’t separate pet design and weapon design. Our weapons are designed based on the assumption we are using our pets as intended. If we have faulty pets, then the weapons are just as faulty for complementing a broken element of our class.
Ehmry Bay – Grindhouse Gaming [GH]
Menorah | Charr Cat | Some Cat Thing
Still running my old RRR build because why not
Menorah | Charr Cat | Some Cat Thing
Still running my old RRR build because why not
People want to read things on this forums as one way or the other, I don’t understand why it cannot be both. If somebody cant use lore to express how rangers are not locked into a range only option then what else should they use?
Would you walk up to an Army Ranger and say he is only a sniper? No, because an Army Ranger is somebody who moves over various different terrains and still gets the job done. It has nothing to do with his ability to range something, it means land. So go look that up in your latin books because the class name isn’t arcus.
[SAV] Miiro 80 Ranger
Jade Quarry Champion Hunter
Solo/Small man WvW
Jade Quarry Champion Hunter
Solo/Small man WvW
You can’t separate pet design and weapon design. Our weapons are designed based on the assumption we are using our pets as intended. If we have faulty pets, then the weapons are just as faulty for complementing a broken element of our class.
Regardless, the pet system is the cause of the problem and should also be the solution for the problem.
ANet advertised the ranger as an archer. Look at the description, look at the wallpaper. People are hardly to blame if they think the ranger is good with bows. And it doesn’t matter what you think they are, and what the name does and does not suggest. See what the devs thought of the ranger in this video at 55 mins. They thought that berserker ranger was really strong with a lonbgow (I presume not in general, but damagewise). Which is funny because you would want the ranger to be at 1200 range to deal good damage, and that is where the autoattack started giving you a lot of obstructed messages. If is hopefuly better now, but back in the middle of March the devs thought that the rangers are the long range masters. People don’t want the ranger to be an archer only, but it would be a good start if they were as good at range as some of the other classes.
Khert Devileyes – Ranger / Mano Negra – Thief / Nagymbear – Warrior /
Elona Bonechill – Necro / Fionna Gymirdottier – Guard /// RoF
Elona Bonechill – Necro / Fionna Gymirdottier – Guard /// RoF
Having a lot of options in how to be mediocre doesn’t make the class an unparalleled archer. It makes us an unparalleled loot bag.
Thank you. A bit of an exaggeration, but that’s alright, I get what you mean.
Also, I don’t see how this discussion is relevant in any way. Why does it matter if the ranger is an archer or not? I just want to be better than some other class at something relevant, hell, at anything relevant. I can’t think of a situation where I would rather use my ranger instead of any of my alts because she can do something that my alts can’t, not just because I like her.
Tarnished Coast
Astrid Strongheart, Norn Ranger.
“I wish juvenile wolves were bigger”
Astrid Strongheart, Norn Ranger.
“I wish juvenile wolves were bigger”
I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anet’s own description of the class opens with these words: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.” This has already been posted a million times. One hand doesn’t seem to know what the other is doing after reading those words, and seeing the reality of GW2 Rangers and their bows.
Plus there’s a bow (not a sword/greatsword) prominently displayed in the RANGER CHARACTER CREATION SCREEN where the description opens with “rangers are proficient with a bow” while there is NO MENTION OF ANOTHER WEAPON OR MELEE COMBAT AT ALL. Plus rangers can be seen wielding a bow in pretty much all the ranger illustrations.
Plus historically rangers relied on stealth (not an option for a GW2 character btw), traps and ranged combat for hunting in the wilderness. Unless you think a ranger’s first option would be sneaking up to a boar and attacking it with a greatsword.
Surely it doesn’t come as a surprise that a lot of players looking to create a bowman character chose ranger over thief and warrior.
Swords/Dagger/Torches make perfect sense for the ranger but the class description clearly implies that there is a focus on the bow while there is no mention of bows in the description of any other class whatsoever.
One thing that’s driving me crazy about this topic is that this patch keeps getting talked about as if it hamstrung the notion of “rangers as archers” when, if anything it enhanced it.
Now, instead of having one good, fairly versatile bow and one mostly worthkitten w, you have two pretty good bows with different strengths and tactical applications. You can now play a true archer more than you could before by slotting both bow types and switching between them based on tactical need, unlike before, both are pretty well-functioning.
Rangers can now function better as true archers than they could before.
(edited by Einlanzer.1627)
You can’t separate pet design and weapon design. Our weapons are designed based on the assumption we are using our pets as intended. If we have faulty pets, then the weapons are just as faulty for complementing a broken element of our class.
Regardless, the pet system is the cause of the problem and should also be the solution for the problem.
The whole basis of the “ranger should be a ranger” argument is that people recognize our bows aren’t working as intended. They can’t be efficient if they are centered around such a broken system as pets.
You recognize that pets are an issue, yet you still continue to shoot down everyone who says rangers should be better at being ranged. You support yourself by saying we have the most options to be ranged and interpret it as us being the game’s unparalleled archers.
It doesn’t work that way though. Our weapons are fundamentally tied to our pets. They buff our pets, they prepare our pets, a large part of their functionality is based off the assumption that the pets will utilize what we give them.
But they don’t.
This whole argument is stupid. It’s an argument over vernacular, and since it’s the internet there can be a hundred different interpretations equally right and equally wrong.
We are not unparalled archers. Other classes can do more damage with greater utility with each of our bows. Saying otherwise is to ignore the obvious flaws in our weapon design and cater more to the state that this game is in. People aren’t happy with it for good reason.
I don’t even want to talk about the axe, because the whole idea of throwing an axe Chuck Norris style was stupid in the first place. No one throws axes.
Ehmry Bay – Grindhouse Gaming [GH]
Menorah | Charr Cat | Some Cat Thing
Still running my old RRR build because why not
Menorah | Charr Cat | Some Cat Thing
Still running my old RRR build because why not
(edited by Faux Sheaux.6179)
Ranger was deigned ann created by Guild Wasrs 1 designers, not by its Lore definition.
Ranger- http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Ranger
“Rangers are unique in their ability to succeed with the help of, or even in spite of, their environment. They favor long-range combat, the bow being their weapon of choice, and can be especially effective from elevated locations such as bridges and cliffs.” .
Mind as well say
Thief doesn’t mean Ninja and Assassin
Assassin-http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Assassin
“Assassin walks the shadows, a deadly viper ready to strike at the heart when the enemy least expects it, nowhere and everywhere all at once. Assassins are masters of their chosen weapon, the dagger, and are expert at inflicting Critical Strikes that cause massive damage. They have mastered the ability to move as shadows—
Ninja- http://www.cart-white.co.uk/ninja/stealth.htm
“It is often said that the Ninja is a supreme master of stealth, able to vanish in a puff of smoke or change into a wild animal form in order to facilitate an escape. In actuality it is the Ninja’s understanding of invisibility that gives them the advantage. Invisibility in reality is simply knowing how to fool the enemies senses in order to remain undetected, much like a magician misdirects in order to mystify and confuse”.
That says it all…
Advocate of Justice, Liberty and Truth
(edited by Burnfall.9573)
Rangers are unparalleled archers- no other class has the ability to slot both longbow and a shortbow, effectively using bows only and have the full breadth of 10 weapon skills with different specialities to play with.
Damage is a matter of build, and if it’s a problem for Rangers it’s a problem across the board, not just with bows.
Also, axes really should have just been melee weapons.
Warriors can use longbow and rifle. And don’t tell me rifle is not a bow, because I know it is not. Warriors have IMHO better utility on their ranged weapons than a ranger, and from what I’ve heard they deal more damage with it too.
Khert Devileyes – Ranger / Mano Negra – Thief / Nagymbear – Warrior /
Elona Bonechill – Necro / Fionna Gymirdottier – Guard /// RoF
Elona Bonechill – Necro / Fionna Gymirdottier – Guard /// RoF
Rangers are not just archers, and that’s good, but they are still unparalleled archers- no other class has the ability to slot both longbow and a shortbow, effectively using bows only and have the full breadth of 10 weapon skills with different specialities to play with. Everyone’s acting like this patch somehow made the “ranger as archer” situation worse when it actually made it better by buffing damage and adjusting ranges to give you a reason to use both of them.
Damage is a matter of build, and if it’s a problem for Rangers it’s a problem across the board caused by the pet design, not a problem specifically with bows.
Also, axes really should have just been melee weapons. Throwing axes is kind of dumb.
Warriors can use longbow and rifle. And don’t tell me rifle is not a bow, because I know it is not. Warriors have IMHO better utility on their ranged weapons than a ranger, and from what I’ve heard they deal more damage with it too.
Warrior longbow is specialized AOE with poor single target damage and less range than Ranger Longbow, and their Rifle is high specialized for single-target DPS and split between power and condition damage. It also doesn’t have amazing utility.
At best, warrior options rival Ranger options, but rangers are unquestionably better archers. Notice that’s specifically what the description states, not that they are better at all forms of ranged combat.
Ranger means pet class, Archers have nothing to do with being a pet class. Being a pet class is what hold rangers back from being true archers, rangers will never be archers in Gw2 becasue they are a pet class instead. LTP
“Just press 2 to win all the dps was us cuz we’re a
warrior and we’re the best class” Eugene
warrior and we’re the best class” Eugene
One thing that’s driving me crazy about this topic is that this patch keeps getting talked about as if it hamstrung the notion of “rangers as archers” when, if anything it enhanced it.
Now, instead of having one good, fairly versatile bow and one mostly worthkitten w, you have two pretty good bows with different strengths and tactical applications. You can now play a true archer more than you could before by slotting both bow types and switching between them based on tactical need, unlike before, both are pretty well-functioning.
Rangers can now function better as true archers than they could before.
This issue has been heavily debated in other threads. For a lot of players running condition builds and using piercing arrows like myself for example, such a drastic decrease in the shortbow range heavily decreased it’s damage potential for skills 1+2 (you need to run closer to the target and can hit way fewer targets) and also decreased the tactical appeal for skills 3-5 since you now need to be standing a lot closer to the opponent to use them.
Longbow mainly became more appealing to me in relation to the post-nerf shortbow but I don’t see myself farming enough to get berserker gear. Plus vanilla pets have been nerfed and you now need to trait around em to make em as effective as they were pre-nerf (or apparently even more effective if you got trait points to spare but I don’t)
So I can safely say I function worse as an archer than I did before. It’s not the end of the class for me or anything like that but my favourite build and weapon was heavily nerfed and I kinda enjoyed playing it so that sucks.
Overall I feel my warrior is at a better place when it comes to ranged combat than my ranger.
Additionally, when people argue that it’s a "SHORT"bow. It isn’t “short” distance, it’s “short” length. A short bow and longbow are meant to have the same firing distance, but the longbow has more kinetic energy transfer, therefore it can fire sturdier arrows that can pierce thicker armor. Short bows fire lighter arrows, are easier to man, and faster to use. There is no distance differentiation.
Really, people should look into word derivations before trying to make such silly cases.
ranger (n.)
late 14c., “gamekeeper,” agent noun from range (v.). Attested from 1660s in sense of “man (often mounted) who polices an area.”
Champion Hunter
Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.
Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.
It got nerfed becasue a net doesn’t want skilless players running around auto attacking everything. Reason why most people think rangers suck is becasu 99% of your community does nothing but auto attack and then they wonder why they are bads.
They change needed to happen, Ranger is still in poor shape as far as other weapons besides bows, I think that some of the melee weapons axes need to be reworked to make them viable GS as well.
Lets get a bear and auto attack the QQ on the forum.
“Just press 2 to win all the dps was us cuz we’re a
warrior and we’re the best class” Eugene
warrior and we’re the best class” Eugene
Additionally, when people argue that it’s a "SHORT"bow. It isn’t “short” distance, it’s “short” length. A short bow and longbow are meant to have the same firing distance, but the longbow has more kinetic energy transfer, therefore it can fire sturdier arrows that can pierce thicker armor. Short bows fire lighter arrows, are easier to man, and faster to use. There is no distance differentiation.
Really, people should look into word derivations before trying to make such silly cases.
ranger (n.)
late 14c., “gamekeeper,” agent noun from range (v.). Attested from 1660s in sense of “man (often mounted) who polices an area.”
I don’t think many people are refuting this, but the distance is an abstraction in much the same way as Long Range Shot’s damage mechanics are an abstraction. It’s not trying to imply that the arrow gains momentum and strikes harder the further it flies, it represents how a Longbow is fundamentally a sniping weapon and is much more awkward and difficult to use effectively at closer ranges.
In the same way, the Shortbow’s reduced distance is an abstraction for how the mechanics focus on speed and therefore carries less impact and less accuracy.
(edited by Einlanzer.1627)
Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.
Just figured I’d post this. It’s annoying reading the forums and seeing people say that we should be the longest range or best range class when to justify how they think the ranger should be played.
“Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.”
Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.
This game is designed in such a way that all classes have similar offensive potential at any range they have access to (all classes have access to 900 and all but Thief at 1200). This is because they intended your build to play a bigger role in your various offensive/defensive specs than your class. The difference between the classes in terms of specialization is in versatility, not power. And Rangers are the clear winner there as the only class that has access to both types of bows and 3 ranged weapons.
You people have no idea what you’re talking about.
People do know what they are talking about, the problem is they have a different opinion than you do. That is just something that YOU and THEM need to accept.
On another note, a guildie came on the other day and asked me how I thought rangers were after the patch. I did not tell them we were broke, but I did tell him its a small bit harder. We have to keep getting more and more inventive on our builds and play styles. Which is most everyone’s problem in the end, there is not really any job in the game that another class can not do better than a ranger with half the effort.
That said I am not out of my mind. I am not going to run around screaming ANET hates rangers…… that is just plain stupid. ANET depends on revenue like any company, so in turn they care about there players. That also means they must as a company have a long term goal. What that goal is.. I have no idea. I wish they would tell us. But I do believe that Rangers what ever it is they WANT us to be, is no longer what they wanted when the game first came out.
Well that’s my 2 cents.
Commander Ravana Mace[CERN] – 80 Ranger
~Tarnished Coast since the beginning
~Tarnished Coast since the beginning
Warriors can use longbow and rifle. And don’t tell me rifle is not a bow, because I know it is not. Warriors have IMHO better utility on their ranged weapons than a ranger, and from what I’ve heard they deal more damage with it too.
Warrior longbow is specialized AOE with poor single target damage and less range than Ranger Longbow, and their Rifle is high specialized for single-target DPS and split between power and condition damage. It also doesn’t have amazing utility.
At best, warrior options rival Ranger options, but rangers are unquestionably better archers. Notice that’s specifically what the description states, not that they are better at all forms of ranged combat.
Warrior longbow has 1200 range traited (same as range longbow untraited), a 240 radious fire field that can be combined with a potent blast finisher (3 stacks of area might for 20 sec)that also deals tons of physical damage and can be further combined with leap skills for fire armor on top of that, a 180 radious area blind and a 3 sec immoblize that applies 6 stacks of bleeding for plenty of single target condition damage. So it has plenty of utility and deals plenty of single player condition and AOE damage plus considerable physical damage.
Riffle deals formidable single player physical damage while having, cripple, vulnerability and knockback. Also only the autoattack deals condition damage so it’s not by any regard “split between power and condition damage” it’s clearly a single player power based weapon that can achieve AOE potential when traited with piercing bullets same as ranger bows.