Guild Wars 2

Rangers use bows because bows are a weapon that is equipable by that profession and you cannot argue with that.

The problem is that those weapons, on a ranger, are crap. Every other bow wielder does it better, that also is crap.

ANet messed up the profession bad, debating on the etymology of a feaking word wont change that and it wont stip the kittenstorm.

Why make a new post about this? Not being listened to else where?

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Sandpit.3467:

Why make a new post about this? Not being listened to else where?

lol can a moderator close this thread please? Valid class discussion and build threads are being burried by threads like this.

Thank you oh wise moderator!

Warlord.9074:

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

OK, but the pets DON’T work right, AND, they just further nerfed them adding insult to injury.

solrik.6028:

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Rangers in D&D are both archers and melee fighters, in fact you can specialize in either/or. Sorry, you lose.

Einlanzer.1627:

Sorry, you lose.

So this is what this thread is all about? If you want duels, get them in game.

nagymbear.5280:

Einlanzer.1627:

Sorry, you lose.

So this is what this thread is all about? If you want duels, get them in game.

It was a retort to the quoted poster’s snarky remark. Nice job screening out criticism of the post containing the opinion you agree with though.

As much as I agree with the OP, the Ranger needs something to make it unique and desirable. Unfortunately a pet that has terrible AI, can’t hit moving targets, terrible damage, and dies too quick, doesn’t make the class desirable.

As many have pointed out, there isn’t one thing the ranger class can do better than any other class unless you want to count getting excluded from dungeons.

If the Ranger is technically take after the outdoor/woodsman/wild protector, then at least the Ranger should come with these abilities:

- Ability to either call on or control multiple pets at once during battle
- Pets that actually run considerably faster than the players
- Pets that detect stealth
- Ability to either camoflauge or conceal one self much like thieves

At minimum if the Ranger is to follow the actual definition, then at the very least, it should have the above

Einlanzer.1627:

solrik.6028:

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Ranger’

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Rangers in D&D are both archers and melee fighters, in fact you can specialize in either/or. Sorry, you lose.

We are terrible in both compared to other classes.

So your point was what again?

Azreell.1568:

Einlanzer.1627:

solrik.6028:

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Ranger’

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Rangers in D&D are both archers and melee fighters, in fact you can specialize in either/or. Sorry, you lose.

We are terrible in both compared to other classes.

So your point was what again?

My point, when this started, was actually that IF the argument can be made that rangers are in fact bad at both, then the problem is not directly their archery skills, it’s the design of the pet system messing up their DPS potential.

Einlanzer.1627:

Azreell.1568:

Einlanzer.1627:

solrik.6028:

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Ranger’

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Rangers in D&D are both archers and melee fighters, in fact you can specialize in either/or. Sorry, you lose.

We are terrible in both compared to other classes.

So your point was what again?

My point, when this started, was actually that IF the argument can be made that rangers are in fact bad at both, then the problem is not directly their archery skills, it’s the design of the pet system messing up their DPS potential.

Of course it’s a class mechanic flaw.

I will go on record in saying Anet will NEVER get this class right due to the pet system.

It will bounce from OP to useless and back many times in PvP and in PvE it will remain the laughing stock it is today.

It’s a sad fact as I truly love the class , but I gave up on playing it as the effort and time investment will not be worth the reward. I have been a ranger since release but this ride is far to bumpy for my tastes.

kitten with the whole tired Ranger isn’t an archer argument….Its old. Anyone unfamiliar with the game WILL roll a Ranger thinking he’s the “unparalleled archer” that it states which clearly is not the case as other classes can do the job better. I dont give a kitten if they CAN use 2 bows.. a warrior CAN easily/effortlessly out damage them from “Range” still…. Some of you trolls should be lawyers I swear.

I picked the Ranger because i bought the “unpparallel archer” description. I never liked the pet system (can´t control my pet and nearly half dps rely on it, poor AI) either way i was happy using SB. Now its range is the same than a throwable axe. So the arrows have the same range as an axe flying through the air. That can´t be right. No matter what you say, Ranger was presented as the archer class of the game. Having 2 bows with low (equal to other classes not focused in bows) range/dps don´t make us “unpparallel archers”. I don´t want to use 20 diffrent weapons, i am just expecting to have at least 2 and efficent. If i want to use swords i would pick a warrior not a Ranger.

Guys, be careful, be very-very careful …

Because every time one of you writes, “Now my SB has the same range as throwing an Ax …” it makes my skin crawl. Try and remember that the Necro throwing Ax has a range of 600, and given the current direction of the “changes” (nerfs) to the Ranger class, you’re inches away from having Anet ensure that your ax range is “on-par” with the Necros.

Ps: Of course I am assuming that a teeny-tiny ax damage buff (like SB got) along with a 300 range reduction in range is not already being planned! In fact, I’m calling it right now, that’s the next “buff” to rangers …. a miniscule Ax damage increase, along with 300 range reduction.

This – again. Guys, remember that pretty much everyone who rolled a ranger expected it to be a RANGED kittening class. It says so on their website, on the character creation screen, and was how it was in GW1.

The simple fact that Anet decided to neuter all ranged damage notwithstanding, EVERY SINGLE DESCRIPTION of the kittening ranger in any media described them as a ranged class.

Deal with it – it’s not a “misconception”, it’s not “false hopes” it’s expecting what you were kittening told you were going to get.

Keen eye, unrivaled archers. Ability to kill from range. Not second fiddle in ranged damage behind warriors and thieves – un-kittening-paralleled.

stale.9785:

This – again. Guys, remember that pretty much everyone who rolled a ranger expected it to be a RANGED kittening class. It says so on their website, on the character creation screen, and was how it was in GW1.

The simple fact that Anet decided to neuter all ranged damage notwithstanding, EVERY SINGLE DESCRIPTION of the kittening ranger in any media described them as a ranged class.

Deal with it – it’s not a “misconception”, it’s not “false hopes” it’s expecting what you were kittening told you were going to get.

Keen eye, unrivaled archers. Ability to kill from range. Not second fiddle in ranged damage behind warriors and thieves – un-kittening-paralleled.

This is pretty much the way a lot of us feel.

I did not roll the ranger to be a melee class. I rolled the ranger to be well a ranged kiting pet class which is quite frankly how it was describe – with some melee options.

If i want to play melee – there are far better class options out there.

The pet should be optional for the rangers.
Atm it is like forcing a GW1 ranger to play with a pet.

In GW1 there was only about 2 effective Short range Bow builds that was the Interrup and Burning Poison condition build.
In GW2 they just devived the effective ranger Builds from GW1 and mixed it with the Key attributes of the Class, which combination do not go along and made a mess of the ranger class and weapon.
Especially when you are forced to use the Pet. That is why a Bunker pet build is so effective, because they go with thoughts and gameplay that Anet have in mind.

Einlanzer.1627:

solrik.6028:

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Rangers in D&D are both archers and melee fighters, in fact you can specialize in either/or. Sorry, you lose.

How so?

I don’t remember myself saying “D&D” but rather “MMOs”.

MMOs is plural and can refer to any MMO. The ranger is more often than not a class that uses MOSTLY bows and in less common games daggers/swords.

Also, there is an or in my statement.
Also, I said “mostly focused on bows” which does not mean “only focused on bows”.

Your point?

Odd part about it is – I tend to like to play pet classes in most mmorpgs.

My feeling on the pet classes as a whole in GW2 are pretty much an epic failure. They are more a liability then a mechanic in the current game model.

Shame as this class has so much potential.

I can agree with that Azreell

Wow… posted this on my lunch break. didn’t expect people to actually pay this much attention to my stupid thread.

Go go gadget forum warriors!

Its an important point that rangers need to get over, rangers doesnt mean ranged only dispite what you guys want to think. If you disagree with this it doesnt matter. Anet believes this and so do most skilled rangers out there. It isnt a hard concept to understand.

In GW2 Rangers are “Unparalleled Archers” it says it right there in the class description.
So yes Rangers == Archers.
We are still waiting on the “unparalleled” part.

I disagree with the TC wholeheartedly. Ranger = archer = range class. I am not stupid and know what a ranger is. They are beyond archers due to the fact that they also master various weapons including swords, axe, and daggers. But in this game, ANYONE who wants to play a range class will logically say, “ranger”… not “warrior”.

Love yours truly,

Simon

Azreell.1568:

stale.9785:

This – again. Guys, remember that pretty much everyone who rolled a ranger expected it to be a RANGED kittening class. It says so on their website, on the character creation screen, and was how it was in GW1.

The simple fact that Anet decided to neuter all ranged damage notwithstanding, EVERY SINGLE DESCRIPTION of the kittening ranger in any media described them as a ranged class.

Deal with it – it’s not a “misconception”, it’s not “false hopes” it’s expecting what you were kittening told you were going to get.

Keen eye, unrivaled archers. Ability to kill from range. Not second fiddle in ranged damage behind warriors and thieves – un-kittening-paralleled.

This is pretty much the way a lot of us feel.

I did not roll the ranger to be a melee class. I rolled the ranger to be well a ranged kiting pet class which is quite frankly how it was describe – with some melee options.

If i want to play melee – there are far better class options out there.

The problem is your insistence on labeling classes as ‘melee’ or ‘ranged’, which is not only not how classes are designed in this game, that’s not how they’re designed in most games.

It’s a mentality fostered by some of Blizzard’s shallow, gamist class design philosophies. The classes in this game revolve around simulationist themes rather than gamist ones. Do rangers needs more love? Probably. Do they need to be pigeonholed into ranged gameplay only? No.

Just right after I agreed with you on the other post, Einlanzer.

If I want to play a class that shoots fire and creammate the body of my enemies, I’ll not go for a warrior, but an elementalist. If I want to have an army of zombies (inspired by M-Jackson – Thriller), I’ll roll with a necro. If I want to be Legolas… I’ll go for a ranger.

Understand for others. They don’t care about rangers being able to use melee weapons, but they do care that rangers sucks with bows incomparison with other classes (Warrior, thief). But honestly, I’m perfectly fine with the way it is. I like my LB =b

Simon.3106:

Just right after I agreed with you on the other post, Einlanzer.

If I want to play a class that shoots fire and creammate the body of my enemies, I’ll not go for a warrior, but an elementalist. If I want to have an army of zombies (inspired by M-Jackson – Thriller), I’ll roll with a necro. If I want to be Legolas… I’ll go for a ranger.

Understand for others. They don’t care about rangers being able to use melee weapons, but they do care that rangers sucks with bows incomparison with other classes (Warrior, thief). But honestly, I’m perfectly fine with the way it is. I like my LB =b

But all of the classes use whatever makes sense for them thematically, which is the way it should be. The idea of a class that only uses bows, especially whenever the class is not named archer and has a wilderness survivalist theme, was always kind of dumb. A scout or woodland ranger would use a variety of tools and would be competent in melee skirmishes.

As I’ve explained multiple times, the intent behind the designation of “unparalleled archer” was that rangers are the only class that uses both the longbow and the shortbow. This makes their bowmastery unparalleled in the sense that they have a lot more versatility with bows than other classes. This remains the case even if Rangers are in need of some buffs in general, so people are confusing the issue and focusing their ire in the wrong places.

So, to sum up this thread….

Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t
Yes it does
No it doesn’t

Did I miss anything?

Sandpit.3467:

So, to sum up this thread….

slingblade: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Aioros: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Raven: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Braveheartless: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Redjuice: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Paz Shadow: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Faux Sheaux: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Miiro: Let’s compromise
Einlanzer: I’m ignoring you
Burnfall: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Minute: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Sandpit: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Solrik: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
nagymbear: MODS HALP
Xanthus: yip yip yip yip yip yip
Azreell: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Azreell: YES IT DOES
Einlanzer: NO IT DOESN’T
Preecher: Yes it does
Exocet: Yes it does
stale: Yes it does
Zuer: Wtf gogo gadget
Einlanzer: NOOOOOOOO

Fix’d

the problem is not the bows, the problem is the pet.

No one’s made any reference to a specific, very popular ranger character yet…I’m surprised. Anyway… -grabs popcorn- This is starting to look like a nice show.

Faux Sheaux.6179:

Sandpit.3467:

So, to sum up this thread….

slingblade: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Aioros: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Raven: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Braveheartless: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Redjuice: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Paz Shadow: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Faux Sheaux: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Miiro: Let’s compromise
Einlanzer: I’m ignoring you
Burnfall: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Minute: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Sandpit: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Solrik: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
nagymbear: MODS HALP
Xanthus: yip yip yip yip yip yip
Azreell: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Azreell: YES IT DOES
Einlanzer: NO IT DOESN’T
Preecher: Yes it does
Exocet: Yes it does
stale: Yes it does
Zuer: Wtf gogo gadget
Einlanzer: NOOOOOOOO

Fix’d

You must admit, my comment is awesome.

Xanthus.1278:

Faux Sheaux.6179:

Sandpit.3467:

So, to sum up this thread….

slingblade: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Aioros: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Raven: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Braveheartless: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Redjuice: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Paz Shadow: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Faux Sheaux: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Miiro: Let’s compromise
Einlanzer: I’m ignoring you
Burnfall: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Minute: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Sandpit: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Solrik: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
nagymbear: MODS HALP
Xanthus: yip yip yip yip yip yip
Azreell: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Azreell: YES IT DOES
Einlanzer: NO IT DOESN’T
Preecher: Yes it does
Exocet: Yes it does
stale: Yes it does
Zuer: Wtf gogo gadget
Einlanzer: NOOOOOOOO

Fix’d

You must admit, my comment is awesome.

I’m pretty sure that’s an oversimplification that leaves quite a few people and things out. Also, I’m pretty sure I never had a meltdown. That would be the other people screaming incessantly about the state of rangers since the patch.

Still, it’s kinda funny.

Sigh… Yes Ranger doesn’t = Range Apparently

But in Guildwars 2 the Profession Ranger DOES equal a ranged class, read all the descriptions for the class and yes in GW2 Ranger = Ranged class…

Here is a better and more complete definition of Fantasy Rangers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_%28character_class%29

Einlanzer, let the rangers be. We all have our opinions, you have shared yours so you’ve done your part, my friend =)

Xanthus, I admit your comment is awesome, hah!

Did anyone noticed my name isn’t on that list? Because if it is, the debate would sadly be over. -_-\/

Dante.1508:

Sigh… Yes Ranger doesn’t = Range Apparently

But in Guildwars 2 the Profession Ranger DOES equal a ranged class, read all the descriptions for the class and yes in GW2 Ranger = Ranged class…

Here we go again. The description is that they are unparalleled archers. That description is accurate. That does not, however, mean that they are a “ranged class”. This designation does not exist in this (and many other games) like it does in WoW and people just need to get it out of their minds.

The classes have a lot more thought put behind them than “this is a ranged class” and “this is a melee class”. Welcome to a more cerebral game.

Can´t you people understand that if someone chooses a ranger is looking to hit foes from afar, kitting the “unparalleled archer”. Honestly i can´t understand those who say “BUT YOU CAN USE A GREAT SWORD!” come on guys, what else would you pick if you want to use a bow? A warrior? A necro? It´s as simple as that.

Einlanzer.1627:

Dante.1508:

Sigh… Yes Ranger doesn’t = Range Apparently

But in Guildwars 2 the Profession Ranger DOES equal a ranged class, read all the descriptions for the class and yes in GW2 Ranger = Ranged class…

Here we go again. The description is that they are unparalleled archers. That description is accurate. That does not, however, mean that they are a “ranged class”. This designation does not exist in this (and many other games) like it does in WoW and people just need to get it out of their minds.

The classes have a lot more thought put behind them than “this is a ranged class” and “this is a melee class”. Welcome to a more cerebral game.

Yes Black = White…

Keep thinking that Congrats live in your imaginary world where everything you say is right, good for you, but the Definition of Rangers here is Primarily a Ranged Class with optional extras..

The whole argument used to define a class against is merely a bit of flavor text on the professions page?
Boy, this is like the whole RAW vs RAI battle in D&D all over again.

Keep in mind, this “unparallelled” stuff is only on that front page professions of the site. Even the wiki description of the profession doesn’t say they are, even noting their combo with the sword.

i rolled a ranger because i wanted to shoot the living hell out of people with my bows, not beat them to death with a sword. i dont care if i can do other things with my toon. the ranger was advertised as being the best class at range being unparalleled with the bow. it isnt however, the rangers bows suck kitten damage wise because of the pet. i should have rolled a warrior so i can do damage at range, because as this games AI is, everything closes with you as quickly as possible. which basically makes the longbow useless….who thought it would be a great idea to make the longbow do less damage the closer a enemy gets?

Einlanzer.1627:

Dante.1508:

Sigh… Yes Ranger doesn’t = Range Apparently

But in Guildwars 2 the Profession Ranger DOES equal a ranged class, read all the descriptions for the class and yes in GW2 Ranger = Ranged class…

Here we go again. The description is that they are unparalleled archers. That description is accurate. That does not, however, mean that they are a “ranged class”. This designation does not exist in this (and many other games) like it does in WoW and people just need to get it out of their minds.

The classes have a lot more thought put behind them than “this is a ranged class” and “this is a melee class”. Welcome to a more cerebral game.

Why don´t you tell all the ppl who gather materials and spent a lot of time and effort to craft The Dreamer to use a sword, ah?
Tell all that ppl that they won´t be playing Legolas but Aragorn despite the ranger´s profession description telling you “pick this if you want to play with a bow”.
Can´t you get it dude? It´s about play style not if you can be good or not with the profession.
You made dozens of post clarifying your thouths, ok.
“Welcome to a more cerebreal game”? wtf that means? Get yours attended before posting the same thing over and over and insulting ppl who thinks different than you.

Terkov.4138:

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.

I feel I should point out any class could use a bow in GW1.

I guess I’m the only one who actually mains a Ranger just so I can melee like Aragorn and Drizzt.

Einlanzer.1627:

Aioros.4862:

Einlanzer.1627:

slingblade.1437:

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?

No you’re the one that sounds silly

Pretty sure i was one of the first to point out that “ranger” means someone who “ranges” the act of traveling in the context of wilderness and mountains it has nothing to do with devotion to long ranged weaponry if it did then firearms would almost certainly factor into the class,

We can look at this from several angles,

1) the Ranger class would not exist without its birth in D&D where it is defined as a woodsman and is capable of choosing to specialize in ranged combat or two weapon fighting, this ranger was inspired by rangers from Tolkien Fiction particularly Aragorn who consistently prefers a hand and half sword but is seen using a bow from this you could conclude that a ranger is an excellent tracker with affinity for nature while being capable with any weapon (self sufficient jack of trades class)

2) the ranger conceived in Guild wars 1 was primarily a Bow using class and any cross class character had to be part ranger to use bows, Beastmastery while potent was optional and we could conclude that following tradition from GW1 to gw2 would make the ranger the most potent archery class, however this evidence is unsubstantial because if the gw2 ranger was designed with fans of GW1 ranger in mind wed have access to stakitten and more importantly Hammers(see Bunny Thumpers)

3) unparalleled archers as im reading above ppl claim means “unmatched” technically this is a yes and no, unparalleled doesn’t so much mean no one is as good as me as much as it means no one can fire a bow like i can or in a similar (parallel) way, this can be represented by the ranger having a greater range, greater firing speed or numerous special debilitating effects, but once again just because the press release for rangers give these terms “unparalleled archers” doesn’t mean they should hold much weight in game (see hype marketing, Reference Peter Molynoob talking about his fable series)

also worth pointing out here is the difference between archery and marksmanship which is as different as accuracy is to precision(crits ftw) at this point i can only express my personal opinion but i would say a warrior being a dedicated soldier should be an unparalleled archer using the longbow to rain arrows down onto an area, The Ranger should perhaps in line with its traits be a Skilled Marksman able to land shot after shot in critical areas of a target while making them weaker slower and more vulnerable, this however should not detract from their capabilities in melee which should be its primary concern,

To conclude, every class in this game has some form of melee Bias even/especially the spellcasters, arguing that the ranger should be different is Foolish it is simply not the way they designed this game, however when Fans of the ranger pick up a bow, what do you expect them to want out of it? anything less than “unmatched archers” is going to be rejected, personally i wouldn’t mind some changes making rangers exceptional with ranged weapons parallel with other classes melee but as a fan of S/D and GS i wouldn’t want it to trivialize our melee capabilities, if ppl want the ranger to be exceptional at range maybe look at marksman vs archer, give warriors skills like barrage and let rangers have triple shot, volley, sloth hunter, pin down, god forbid enkindle arrows for the condi-gen rangers.

Zuer.2814:

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.

Well kitten, if I knew I was going to be a thief without stealth or a warrior without heavy armor I would have just rolled one of them.

Ision.3207:

Guys, be careful, be very-very careful …

Because every time one of you writes, “Now my SB has the same range as throwing an Ax …” it makes my skin crawl. Try and remember that the Necro throwing Ax has a range of 600, and given the current direction of the “changes” (nerfs) to the Ranger class, you’re inches away from having Anet ensure that your ax range is “on-par” with the Necros.

Ps: Of course I am assuming that a teeny-tiny ax damage buff (like SB got) along with a 300 range reduction in range is not already being planned! In fact, I’m calling it right now, that’s the next “buff” to rangers …. a miniscule Ax damage increase, along with 300 range reduction.

The can reduce the range down to 130 for all i care, sick of throwing my axes like some carni