Guild Wars 2

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ranger?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirmisher?s=t
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ranger

The problem is that either side will read these exactly as they want to. And while we’re debating it, we’re further dividing our community and directing our attention away from improving our experiences with the profession or discussing how the profession can be improved.

-goes back into lurk mode-

MikazukiYuki.5036:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ranger?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirmisher?s=t
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ranger

The problem is that either side will read these exactly as they want to. And while we’re debating it, we’re further dividing our community and directing our attention away from improving our experiences with the profession or discussing how the profession can be improved.

-goes back into lurk mode-

This guy gets it.

just rename the ranger to zookeeper and give us a real archer with an add on :P

From Witionary
ranger (plural rangers)
One who ranges; a rover.
1) A roving robber; one who seeks plunder.
2) A keeper, guardian, or soldier who ranges over a region (generally of wilderness) to protect the area or enforce the law.
3) (obsolete) That which separates or arranges; a sieve.
4) A dog that beats the ground in search of game.

I think ANet’s vision for us in No. 4

So… when should we expect the superior changes that needs for our beloved class?

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 actually agree with what you’re saying almost entirely, however, your statement “GW2 is made by ppl who made GW1” isn’t true unfortunately. No one on the GW2 staff, except Mike O’Brian, were around when GW1 was in development. Those devs are long gone.

Which is part of the problem methinks…

MikazukiYuki.5036:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ranger?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirmisher?s=t
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Ranger

The problem is that either side will read these exactly as they want to. And while we’re debating it, we’re further dividing our community and directing our attention away from improving our experiences with the profession or discussing how the profession can be improved.

-goes back into lurk mode-

-sigh-

There’s no debate to be had with the definition. The context of the OP makes it crystal clear where they’re coming from. The end.

Any debate therein regarding the definition of ranger is just argue trolls eating each other, several leading on into QQ rants about the ranger class in GW2.

Or perhaps rocks for brains posters feeding themselves to said trolls because they’re ignorant. It’s hard to tell sometimes.

Either way, trolls or trolls and some stupids, not a conducive conversation to be had there. We agree on that much.

Obsidian.1328:

I actually agree with what you’re saying almost entirely, however, your statement “GW2 is made by ppl who made GW1” isn’t true unfortunately. No one on the GW2 staff, except Mike O’Brian, were around when GW1 was in development. Those devs are long gone.

Which is part of the problem methinks…

This isn’t true.

CETheLUcid

Name them then…

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.

My archer’s profession is warrior.

My melee skirmisher’s profession is ranger.

3 bow classes in this game: warrior, thief, and ranger.
- You can make a good archer out of any of them. Arguably the thief is the one archer fiends should focus on. My warrior went archer simply because I didn’t like the rifle… anytime she’s not trying to ‘tank’, she pops out her longbow and goes to town. My ranger and thief are not bow users because I don’t like how bow plays on those classes, even though it is very powerful on both. The patch made ranger bows even more powerful than they were before.

The ranger archetype is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmisher
- And you will note that these are troops designed to harass enemy lines by ‘any means necessary’, weakening the enemy with quick in and quick out strikes, setting them up for an engagement with the main troops. That in modern warfare has evolved to become the main tactic.

Oidmetala.8426:

just rename the ranger to zookeeper and give us a real archer with an add on :P

The new ranger? :p

Or wait, zookeeper not zoolander.

Kichwas.7152:

Oidmetala.8426:

just rename the ranger to zookeeper and give us a real archer with an add on :P

The new ranger? :p

Or wait, zookeeper not zoolander.

The problem is that this game doesn’t waste class-space for archetypes that revolve around nonsensical, simplistic gamist desires like fighting with a bow all day, err day- because that’s a stupid waste of a class/trait system in an MMO.

Again, the problem is player mentality. You shouldn’t roll any class in this game expecting to get by with using nothing but a bow (or any other single weapon) 100% of the time. That’s a good thing – it means the game involves tactics, customization, and a certain amount of verisimilitude.

Einlanzer.1627:

The problem is that this game doesn’t waste class-space for archetypes that revolve around nonsensical, simplistic gamist desires like fighting with a bow all day, err day- because that’s a stupid waste of a class/trait system in an MMO.

Again, the problem is player mentality. You shouldn’t roll any class in this game expecting to get by with using nothing but a bow (or any other single weapon) 100% of the time. That’s a good thing – it means the game involves tactics, customization, and a certain amount of verisimilitude.

You also shouldn’t take what is advertised as an ‘unparalleled archer’ (ANet’s words, not mine) and find it so weak with bows that our only real option for damage is melee.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Einlanzer.1627:

The problem is that this game doesn’t waste class-space for archetypes that revolve around nonsensical, simplistic gamist desires like fighting with a bow all day, err day- because that’s a stupid waste of a class/trait system in an MMO.

Again, the problem is player mentality. You shouldn’t roll any class in this game expecting to get by with using nothing but a bow (or any other single weapon) 100% of the time. That’s a good thing – it means the game involves tactics, customization, and a certain amount of verisimilitude.

You also shouldn’t take what is advertised as an ‘unparalleled archer’ (ANet’s words, not mine) and find it so weak with bows that our only real option for damage is melee.

I genuinely don’t find that to be the case, I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction from the community. Archery is still a very key component of the Ranger’s arsenal and both Shortbows and Longbows are at worst average as weapon sets, and no other class can use both.

Einlanzer.1627:

SynfulChaot.3169:

You also shouldn’t take what is advertised as an ‘unparalleled archer’ (ANet’s words, not mine) and find it so weak with bows that our only real option for damage is melee.

I genuinely don’t find that to be the case, I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction from the community. Archery is still a very key component of the Ranger’s arsenal and both Shortbows and Longbows are at worst average as weapon sets, and no other class can use both.

Archery is, and I tend to run SB/GS, LB/GS, or SB/LB depending on the situation. But we handle the weapons worse than the other bow wielders and do less damage with them. And it’s hard to stay truly ranged as no pet can attack from full range so we can’t support our pet when in LB range.

While it is true that no other class can use both types of bow, unparalleled does not mean access. Unparalleled means unparalleled.

Definition of UNPARALLELED
: having no parallel; especially : having no equal or match
: unique in kind or quality

We are outmatched in the SB by the thief. We are outmatched in the LB by the warrior. We are not unparalleled. And that makes us archery types sad.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Einlanzer.1627:

SynfulChaot.3169:

You also shouldn’t take what is advertised as an ‘unparalleled archer’ (ANet’s words, not mine) and find it so weak with bows that our only real option for damage is melee.

I genuinely don’t find that to be the case, I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction from the community. Archery is still a very key component of the Ranger’s arsenal and both Shortbows and Longbows are at worst average as weapon sets, and no other class can use both.

Archery is, and I tend to run SB/GS, LB/GS, or SB/LB depending on the situation. But we handle the weapons worse than the other bow wielders and do less damage with them. And it’s hard to stay truly ranged as no pet can attack from full range so we can’t support our pet when in LB range.

While it is true that no other class can use both types of bow, unparalleled does not mean access. Unparalleled means unparalleled.

Definition of UNPARALLELED
: having no parallel; especially : having no equal or match
: unique in kind or quality

We are outmatched in the SB by the thief. We are outmatched in the LB by the warrior. We are not unparalleled. And that makes us archery types sad.

This is just semantics. I can turn your argument around by saying that by defintion rangers are ‘unparalleled’ merely because they are the only class that can use both bow types. This gives them more skills with a bow and unmatched versatility.

In the end, that bit of flavor text is not a substantial enough thing to even have these battles over. People just need to realize that the ranger is about more than archery, but still has better ranged versatility than other classes.

Einlanzer.1627:

This is just semantics. I can turn your argument around by saying that by defintion rangers are ‘unparalleled’ merely because they are the only class that can use both bow types. This gives them more skills with a bow and unmatched versatility.

You frequently do, and guess what, nobody is buying it because it’s just kitten; so give up flogging that dead horse, until ANet gives rangers dual wielding bows that is an stupid argument.

It doesn’t matter how many bows one can wield if one can’t wield them well. We want to be useful, not just a jack-of-all-trades and a master of absolutely none.

Sandpit.3467:

Einlanzer.1627:

This is just semantics. I can turn your argument around by saying that by defintion rangers are ‘unparalleled’ merely because they are the only class that can use both bow types. This gives them more skills with a bow and unmatched versatility.

You frequently do, and guess what, nobody is buying it because it’s just kitten; so give up flogging that dead horse, until ANet gives rangers dual wielding bows that is an stupid argument.

In fact many people have agreed – just because you don’t comprehend it doesn’t make it a stupid argument. It’s actually such an extremely simple and obvious argument that I find it hilarious I keep having to read posts like yours. Good day.

SynfulChaot.3169:

It doesn’t matter how many bows one can wield if one can’t wield them well. We want to be useful, not just a jack-of-all-trades and a master of absolutely none.

This game is very clearly not designed in such a way that one class is supposed to be ‘better’ with a given weapon than other classes. If it’s actually working that way, it’s not intended to be. Acting like Rangers should be better with bows than other classes is stupid considering warriors aren’t better with swords than the other classes that use them. It’s … just… not… how… this… game… is… designed. The “unparalleled archers” comment very clearly refers to the fact that, unlike other professions, they are adept with both shortbows and longbows, giving them a much greater breadth of strategic options with bows.

I honestly don’t understand how you people can be so dense.

It is not even worth discussing this point further with you, Ein. You are set in your opinions and no more healthy dialogue can occur with you.

SynfulChaot.3169:

It is not even worth discussing this point further with you, Ein. You are set in your opinions and no more healthy dialogue can occur with you.

Nice concession. By the by, the game’s design philosophy is a matter of fact, not opinion. Good day.

Einlanzer.1627:

SynfulChaot.3169:

It is not even worth discussing this point further with you, Ein. You are set in your opinions and no more healthy dialogue can occur with you.

Nice concession. By the by, the game’s design philosophy is a matter of fact, not opinion. Good day.

Wasn’t a concession. It was a statement of truth. Now will you kindly step aside so the rest of us can actually discuss this topic? Thank you.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Einlanzer.1627:

The problem is that this game doesn’t waste class-space for archetypes that revolve around nonsensical, simplistic gamist desires like fighting with a bow all day, err day- because that’s a stupid waste of a class/trait system in an MMO.

Again, the problem is player mentality. You shouldn’t roll any class in this game expecting to get by with using nothing but a bow (or any other single weapon) 100% of the time. That’s a good thing – it means the game involves tactics, customization, and a certain amount of verisimilitude.

You also shouldn’t take what is advertised as an ‘unparalleled archer’ (ANet’s words, not mine) and find it so weak with bows that our only real option for damage is melee.

Elementalists seem to do just fine with one weapon/weapon set. Warriors are OP with just an axe. They don’t even need an off hand weapon or a weapon swap.

Shiren.9532:

Elementalists seem to do just fine with one weapon/weapon set. Warriors are OP with just an axe. They don’t even need an off hand weapon or a weapon swap.

I’ve yet to find any situation in which, as a ranger, I did not swap weapons at least once for maximum effectiveness. Yes, some classes don’t need it due to class mechanics (eles; their ‘one weapon set’ is 20 skills, not 5) or due to their weapons just being that powerful (warrior, I’m looking at you). Rangers, however, need to do a lot more work just to try to do as much damage. And that usually always necessitates weapon swapping.