Guild Wars 2

Alright, this has been made countless times, but it seems that they have either died or just had terrible ideas on implementation. I want to revive the topic once again to show that there are still want for such additions to this somewhat lackluster class.

We need a couple changes/additions:

Pets:

Alright, we have covered this before, but it seems to go ignored in terms of innovation.
“But I don’t want my BM build to be changed, I like the way it is now!”

Well, this is not to change how pets work across the board, just add options to change how they act.

1. There should be a definite improvement on how well controlled these pets are. The easiest solution? Add a “Assist” option for pet AI, attacking only what you attack. I’m honestly surprised this was not in the game from the start.

2. An option to turn off pets all together! Now this is the controversial one, but there are ways to not affect the original design.

2a. Have it so you can turn off your pet and the damage lost for not having a pet is instead just added to you. You would not be able to change this option during combat and your pet dieing would not give you the damage boost.

2b. This one connects to 2a, but is another way to go about it. Add a trait somewhere that makes it so you gain a flat damage boost, but lose the ability to summon any pets/spirits. This would also change how some utilities work, like the ones that are specific for pets. The utilities could also just be ignored, if you didn’t want to put too much effort in.

Ranger itself:

Independent ranger would be a definite revive to this otherwise stale class. Give them the ability to be the ultimate woodsman as they should. They need abilities to run as an efficient lone wolf, without their wolf. This connects more to 2, but this is a bit more expanded on the ranger more than the pet with this setup. They are rangers.

3. Lets face it, our range blows. Long bow, opposed to popular/uneducated belief, is not good. The auto attack just doesn’t work with how combat works in game and is way too slow to be even considered efficient. The barrage is near suicidal against a group with retaliation. The only “eh” thing about it is the rapid fire, which rely heavily on quickness, which has been nerfed. The skill is also easily avoidable.

Short bow? What, you mean that mid range weapon? Yeah, the one that also is meant for conditions and is more used till you can get up close and sword mixer the enemy.

Axe? Mid range that dabbles more in condition than solid damage.

Now we can go on on how to change these, but this isn’t a thread about changing ranger so that their old self isn’t possible. This is about adding things that can work with what is already there.

3a. With the stated, we need another ranged option. My suggestion? Rifle.

There has been interesting ideas for how they could work, but most have been about more medium to short range. They need another long range option, not medium or short. Plus, engineer already does short range rifle and warrior does medium range rifle.

Now, the one ability I recommend for the rifle is a charged long range “Snipe”, much like the slingshot “Sniper shot” ability during Wintersday snowball mayhem. There are two ways that this could be used

First, auto attack. The longer you charge, the more damage it will do. If hit while channeling, will automatically fire. This would make it so you could not abuse it in close range, but not make it completely useless in close range. Channeling wold have you rooted to where you are, similar to “Kill Shot”, but you can also hit it quickly to simulate are regular attack while moving to be able to still fight while being wailed on, but not be immobile. Just the damage will be low since you did not charge it.

Second, this one I don’t recommend, since it would be less fun and ruin the long range aspect, but it would be better than nothing. Directly implement “Sniper Shot”. Same CD, same damage, same mechanic. I recommend the first suggestion highly over this one.

This would also be a 1900 range weapon.

4. They need more team orientated skills. Now this can be very touchy, for that it can change how fights are played. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. The game needs more options to make it more strategic, more dynamic, and just have more plain ol’ good fun.

This would have to undergo more view from all class perspectives than just looking at ranger, but I would say that they need these skills to be used without their pets involvement.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/New-ranger-skill-to-make-us-special-in-WvW

That link is a great place to talk for this, since this thread is more built on just ranger, more than other class involvement.

To sum up, ranger range is very lackluster and needs something new to revive that gameplay without alienating current rangers, but still having something new to choose from. They also need more independent setups that don’t have to rely on pets for some kind of resource. They also need more team oriented abilities too that don’t include their pets.

These ideas are not perfect and I won’t act as if they are. I want as much constructive criticism to forge this into very well developed ideas from multiple individuals. I also don’t want this to just fade into the crypt of dead threads, so I will try to keep the discussion as active as possible. There needs to be more development on classes, not just ranger, but this is an excellent place to start some hardcore additions. Heck, I would work for anet just for this type of thing if they needed/wanted it.

Keep this civil gentlemen and gentlewomen

Reserved for updates

More range wouldn’t help us in Dungeons where we really need the most help.

Some things that would help:

• Pet regains attack of opportunity / opening strike anytime you recall it out of the radius of a telegraphed attack. (cannot trigger more than once ever 5 seconds).
• While near you in Passive mode, your pet grants your weapon bar & traps up to a 66% cooldown reduction. This bonus resets back to 15% every time your pet receives damage, and it takes 15 seconds to fully scale back up.
• Spirit Evolution: When your pet is defeated, all Party members gain 10 seconds of Stability, and 20 seconds of Vigor.

ilr.9675:

More range wouldn’t help us in Dungeons where we really need the most help.

Some things that would help:

• Pet regains attack of opportunity / opening strike anytime you recall it out of the radius of a telegraphed attack. (cannot trigger more than once ever 5 seconds).
• While near you in Passive mode, your pet grants your weapon bar up to a 66% cooldown reduction. This bonus resets back to 15% every time your pet receives damage, and it takes 15 seconds to fully scale back up.
• Spirit Evolution: When your pet is defeated, all Party members gain 10 seconds of Stability, and 20 seconds of Vigor.

This thread was created through the eyes of sPvP/WvW, but I am glad that you have brought up a stand point from a PvE aspect. While I will agree that there could be modifications for such, I think it’s more of a minor issue. Since the game tends to lean more towards PvP, but that does not mean it should go ignored. Not wanting to cut anything out, PvP or PvE

One thing I really liked in rift was the way pets worked in scaling, the system is totally diffrent in GW2 so I don’t have a clear vision of how it could work out but I’ll just briefly explain it anyway.

In Rift you would pick talents (traits) from 3 diffrent classes in the same family (Rogue family) there the Ranger was the one focused on pets and while all that had only a few base points in the ranger tree could still summon a pet it would have a max level based upon the amount of points you had in the tree, basically you needed to max it out to have a high damage max level pet, likewise you had to go far in the marksman tree to enhance your ranged damage skills and so on, some adaptation of this would be nice although I admit I don’t quite see how it would ever be possible given how diffrent the systems are you could only ever max out in one tree there to start with but I liked it anyhow cause it meant you could more precisely spec to what you wanted melee dps, stealth rogue dps, melee tank, support healer, marksman, ranger with pet etc.

Manekk.6981:

One thing I really liked in rift was the way pets worked in scaling, the system is totally diffrent in GW2 so I don’t have a clear vision of how it could work out but I’ll just briefly explain it anyway.

In Rift you would pick talents (traits) from 3 diffrent classes in the same family (Rogue family) there the Ranger was the one focused on pets and while all that had only a few base points in the ranger tree could still summon a pet it would have a max level based upon the amount of points you had in the tree, basically you needed to max it out to have a high damage max level pet, likewise you had to go far in the marksman tree to enhance your ranged damage skills and so on, some adaptation of this would be nice although I admit I don’t quite see how it would ever be possible given how diffrent the systems are you could only ever max out in one tree there to start with but I liked it anyhow cause it meant you could more precisely spec to what you wanted melee dps, stealth rogue dps, melee tank, support healer, marksman, ranger with pet etc.

Interesting, a little similar to my trait idea, but this one seems to be more focused on stats per point than trait slots. This would be excellent to add to it though, one tree that solely gives pets stats while one that gives solely to ranger, while the other three could be for either or, depending on what you want.

Glitchfull.5826:

Now we can go on on how to change these, but this isn’t a thread about changing ranger so that their old self isn’t possible. This is about adding things that can work with what is already there.

3a. With the stated, we need another ranged option. My suggestion? Rifle.

4. They need more team orientated skills. Now this can be very touchy, for that it can change how fights are played. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. The game needs more options to make it more strategic, more dynamic, and just have more plain ol’ good fun.

3a. very very very bad idea – in the list of reasons there are climatic thing – rifle does not match to ranger! we(rangers) are warrior of the wilderness, silent fighters using powers of nature to defeat aur oponents – noisy mechanical industrial rifles are just oposite way.
4. with this one I agree

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Now we can go on on how to change these, but this isn’t a thread about changing ranger so that their old self isn’t possible. This is about adding things that can work with what is already there.

3a. With the stated, we need another ranged option. My suggestion? Rifle.

4. They need more team orientated skills. Now this can be very touchy, for that it can change how fights are played. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. The game needs more options to make it more strategic, more dynamic, and just have more plain ol’ good fun.

3a. very very very bad idea – in the list of reasons there are climatic thing – rifle does not match to ranger! we(rangers) are warrior of the wilderness, silent fighters using powers of nature to defeat aur oponents – noisy mechanical industrial rifles are just oposite way.
4. with this one I agree

Would you rather keep a concept that has no bearing on the game itself, besides stopping things from being added, a concept that can be easily changed, or would you want new things added to the class to make it more diverse and interesting, thus making the game more diverse and interesting?

Glitchfull.5826:

This thread was created through the eyes of sPvP/WvW, but I am glad that you have brought up a stand point from a PvE aspect. While I will agree that there could be modifications for such, I think it’s more of a minor issue. Since the game tends to lean more towards PvP, but that does not mean it should go ignored. Not wanting to cut anything out, PvP or PvE

understood…. but if you’re really serious about PvP, then you have to Parlay to the more competitive mentality which is basically the opposite direction you went in. IE: We’d need instead for the mechanics of Ranged-fire on this class to be changed themselves. …To manual aiming & prediction like the most handicapped Snipers in any game that bothers to “simulate projectiles”. Introducing crosswinds and arrow-drop, etc. …stuff that the casual players tends to throw their hands up at and say “I can’t hit anything!!”. Which is basically where we’re already at right now except that even the better players can’t hit anything at a “gamechanging” distance or angle from what everyone else can already hit things at. :\

Also this conundrum with “Pets dealing too much spike damage in PvP” was actually a carry-over from GW1 after they buffed pets there. (I was a major contributor to those discussions with Lindsey at the time and so was Auron <—who’s a lot better known in most GW communities than I am of course).

Point is: you have to cater this towards your RAWRs, your Aurons, even the Elitist PVP’ers among Anet’s own dev team to expect any passage in PvP in spite of the ironic fact that all that does is make PvP even more niche and less appealing to the casual player. That’s just the direction they’ve always gone in. Their catering is selective. They are the Anti-League-ofLegends team basically… Doing their best to divert as many PvE resources as they can sneak out of NC’s coffers towards the Tourney PvP ideal. No viable auto-attack builds, no “smarter pets” playing the game FOR YOU, no Buffs for Stowing, no DMG buff wellfare for Baddies, Definitely no 2000 range auto-sniping, no QQ’ing, FINAL DESTINATION.

ilr.9675:

Glitchfull.5826:

This thread was created through the eyes of sPvP/WvW, but I am glad that you have brought up a stand point from a PvE aspect. While I will agree that there could be modifications for such, I think it’s more of a minor issue. Since the game tends to lean more towards PvP, but that does not mean it should go ignored. Not wanting to cut anything out, PvP or PvE

understood…. but if you’re really serious about PvP, then you have to Parlay to the more competitive mentality which is basically the opposite direction you went in. IE: We’d need instead for the mechanics of Ranged-fire on this class to be changed themselves. …To manual aiming & prediction like the most handicapped Snipers in any game that bothers to “simulate projectiles”. Introducing crosswinds and arrow-drop, etc. …stuff that the casual players tends to throw their hands up at and say “I can’t hit anything!!”. Which is basically where we’re already at right now except that even the better players can’t hit anything at a “gamechanging” distance or angle from what everyone else can already hit things at. :\

Also this conundrum with “Pets dealing too much spike damage in PvP” was actually a carry-over from GW1 after they buffed pets there. (I was a major contributor to those discussion with Lindsey at the time and so was Auron <—who’s a lot better know in most GW communities than I am of course).

Point is: you have to cater this towards your RAWRs, your Aurons, even the Elitist PVP’ers among Anet’s own dev team to expect any passage in PvP in spite of the ironic fact that all that does is make PvP even more niche and less appealing to the casual player. That’s just the direction they’ve always gone in. Their catering is selective. They are the Anti-LeagueofLegends team basically… Doing their best to divert as many PvE resources as they can sneak out of NC’s coffers towards the Tourney PvP ideal. No viable auto-attack builds, no “smarter pets” playing the game FOR YOU, no Buffs for Stowing, no DMG buff wellfare for Baddies, Definitely no 2000 range auto-sniping, no QQ’ing, FINAL DESTINATION.

If your wanting “FPS” style fighting, you came to the wrong game. The idea that faster paced combat is more “skilled” compared to rpg style combat is a very controversial argument, which has no right or wrong. My opinion on the matter is that centering your screen on someone is not a very skillful thing, just my opinion.

I never said anything about pets in the aspect of damage, other than part of your total damage does rely on your pet in some cases. Also, Anet sounds like they are wanting to reduce pet damage, so that wouldn’t be an issue even if it was.

I would also disagree with their “selective catering” and I have a feeling they would too. They have made strides to improve the game for all players, spectator for the hardcore. Making that huge leap for a true competitive scene. Living story, for the casuals who want new things to it. We have our opinions on both, but is irrelevant to that fact that they have added things for both.

Also, if you are thinking that I was implying a gameplay option around auto attacking, you are wrong. I suggested one ability for the rifle, never did I say that you would be able to destroy with an auto attack.

Glitchfull.5826:

Manekk.6981:

One thing I really liked in rift was the way pets worked in scaling, the system is totally diffrent in GW2 so I don’t have a clear vision of how it could work out but I’ll just briefly explain it anyway.

In Rift you would pick talents (traits) from 3 diffrent classes in the same family (Rogue family) there the Ranger was the one focused on pets and while all that had only a few base points in the ranger tree could still summon a pet it would have a max level based upon the amount of points you had in the tree, basically you needed to max it out to have a high damage max level pet, likewise you had to go far in the marksman tree to enhance your ranged damage skills and so on, some adaptation of this would be nice although I admit I don’t quite see how it would ever be possible given how diffrent the systems are you could only ever max out in one tree there to start with but I liked it anyhow cause it meant you could more precisely spec to what you wanted melee dps, stealth rogue dps, melee tank, support healer, marksman, ranger with pet etc.

Interesting, a little similar to my trait idea, but this one seems to be more focused on stats per point than trait slots. This would be excellent to add to it though, one tree that solely gives pets stats while one that gives solely to ranger, while the other three could be for either or, depending on what you want.

Nah it didn’t actually give any stats to you or pet directly unless specifically stated so in the part of the tree you placed your points it was more percentage increases to for example certain ranged skills, in the pets section it balanced itself since there was no point in bringing a low level pet to high level content unless you put points in it since you also needed hitrating and so did pets so even assuming they could live they wouldn’t be able to do any damage high above their level.

If we weren’t able to max out more than one traitline in GW2 a similar system for pets could actually be used that’s where it falls here but it would be cool to be able to spec into a higher personal damage if you wanted to than you currently can, of course then you’d have to forsake the pet and vice verca.

Manekk.6981:

Glitchfull.5826:

Manekk.6981:

One thing I really liked in rift was the way pets worked in scaling, the system is totally diffrent in GW2 so I don’t have a clear vision of how it could work out but I’ll just briefly explain it anyway.

In Rift you would pick talents (traits) from 3 diffrent classes in the same family (Rogue family) there the Ranger was the one focused on pets and while all that had only a few base points in the ranger tree could still summon a pet it would have a max level based upon the amount of points you had in the tree, basically you needed to max it out to have a high damage max level pet, likewise you had to go far in the marksman tree to enhance your ranged damage skills and so on, some adaptation of this would be nice although I admit I don’t quite see how it would ever be possible given how diffrent the systems are you could only ever max out in one tree there to start with but I liked it anyhow cause it meant you could more precisely spec to what you wanted melee dps, stealth rogue dps, melee tank, support healer, marksman, ranger with pet etc.

Interesting, a little similar to my trait idea, but this one seems to be more focused on stats per point than trait slots. This would be excellent to add to it though, one tree that solely gives pets stats while one that gives solely to ranger, while the other three could be for either or, depending on what you want.

Nah it didn’t actually give any stats to you or pet directly unless specifically stated so in the part of the tree you placed your points it was more percentage increases to for example certain ranged skills, in the pets section it balanced itself since there was no point in bringing a low level pet to high level content unless you put points in it since you also needed hitrating and so did pets so even assuming they could live they wouldn’t be able to do any damage high above their level.

If we weren’t able to max out more than one traitline in GW2 a similar system for pets could actually be used that’s where it falls here but it would be cool to be able to spec into a higher personal damage if you wanted to than you currently can, of course then you’d have to forsake the pet and vice verca.

In that case, I don’t see it working, so I agree. That is a little bit out of possible solutions. Still, very smart how the system balanced itself out.

Glitchfull.5826:

If your wanting “FPS” style fighting, you came to the wrong game.

LOL.
Knew you’d do that…. just generalize everything about it down to point and click.
Good job. B/c RPG is also just point and click too. And it was clear from the start that Anet wanted this game to be a hybrid between Action and RPG. I don’t know where you were 6 years ago when it was first revealed…

But it’s clear you aren’t interested in the full depth of this issue. Not dissing here, just saying we’re at an impass until you acknowledge their past history, especially with Competitive play.

ilr.9675:

Glitchfull.5826:

If your wanting “FPS” style fighting, you came to the wrong game.

LOL.
Knew you’d do that…. just generalize everything about it down to point and click.
Good job. B/c RPG is also just point and click too. And it was clear from the start that Anet wanted this game to be a hybrid between Action and RPG. I don’t know where you were 6 years ago when it was first revealed…

But it’s clear you aren’t interested in the full depth of this issue. Not dissing here, just saying we’re at an impass until you acknowledge their past history, especially with Competitive play.

The terrible thing is, you are attempting to diss me, which is highly nonconstructive. I put the quotations because I was not generalizing, I was trying to put a category into mind for you to understand what I was talking about. Sorry if you couldn’t grasp it, maybe I should have gone more in depth of what I meant by “FPS”, just didn’t think I had to.

You clearly are attached to that one sentence than the rest of the post, so let me go on to demolish any misunderstandings, since that seems to be the only point you care about.

This game is not a point and click in terms of skill. FPS skill is determined highly on how well you can point and click while RPG style goes about how well you can manage what you have in a current situation and using these elements to overcome another player with a similar setup or an engine. Never does the ability to “Aim” have factor in the player’s skill, since this is a game where skill is determined by your current situation and using resources given to you to overcome another player with a similar setup or an engine that posses the resources beyond you.

A little bit more clear? If not, I’m terribly sorry, but this thread must not go off topic. So, I will end with that it would be helpful if anyone would post an idea to what they think could be done about ranger with the ideas previously given or new ones!

no rifles or mechanical weapons, and no class in the game should have a 1900 range weapon.

Glitchfull.5826:

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Now we can go on on how to change these, but this isn’t a thread about changing ranger so that their old self isn’t possible. This is about adding things that can work with what is already there.

3a. With the stated, we need another ranged option. My suggestion? Rifle.

4. They need more team orientated skills. Now this can be very touchy, for that it can change how fights are played. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. The game needs more options to make it more strategic, more dynamic, and just have more plain ol’ good fun.

3a. very very very bad idea – in the list of reasons there are climatic thing – rifle does not match to ranger! we(rangers) are warrior of the wilderness, silent fighters using powers of nature to defeat aur oponents – noisy mechanical industrial rifles are just oposite way.
4. with this one I agree

Would you rather keep a concept that has no bearing on the game itself, besides stopping things from being added, a concept that can be easily changed, or would you want new things added to the class to make it more diverse and interesting, thus making the game more diverse and interesting?

so what precisely is “more diverse and intereesting” in givig ranger weapon that first don’t match to them, second have no place – sorry man, but realy ranger already have a single-target long range weapon. Giving them another is like… nah bad idea.

I don’t say that our current single-target long-range option are best (we already have biggest range on properly traited longbow, but that don’t mean it make very difference when going to fight….) but still we have already that option and double’ing it is rather worse option that just some fixes to existing one didn’t it?

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Now we can go on on how to change these, but this isn’t a thread about changing ranger so that their old self isn’t possible. This is about adding things that can work with what is already there.

3a. With the stated, we need another ranged option. My suggestion? Rifle.

4. They need more team orientated skills. Now this can be very touchy, for that it can change how fights are played. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. The game needs more options to make it more strategic, more dynamic, and just have more plain ol’ good fun.

3a. very very very bad idea – in the list of reasons there are climatic thing – rifle does not match to ranger! we(rangers) are warrior of the wilderness, silent fighters using powers of nature to defeat aur oponents – noisy mechanical industrial rifles are just oposite way.
4. with this one I agree

Would you rather keep a concept that has no bearing on the game itself, besides stopping things from being added, a concept that can be easily changed, or would you want new things added to the class to make it more diverse and interesting, thus making the game more diverse and interesting?

so what precisely is “more diverse and intereesting” in givig ranger weapon that first don’t match to them, second have no place – sorry man, but realy ranger already have a single-target long range weapon. Giving them another is like… nah bad idea.

I don’t say that our current single-target long-range option are best (we already have biggest range on properly traited longbow, but that don’t mean it make very difference when going to fight….) but still we have already that option and double’ing it is rather worse option that just some fixes to existing one didn’t it?

Then state what you believe should be done, this was not constructive at all and is why the response was questioning your desire for modification. If your on this thread just to argue pointless concepts, then you are in the wrong thread for such.

You are the second to attempt to create a topic that does not belong here, let’s get back on track.

I never said my idea was the perfect one and should be the only ones. I stated ideas to be considered and either taking into account and modified by other users or inspire new ideas. So, should be treated as such. Now, what do you purpose for the ranger? This is not an invitation to attempt to bash another user’s idea and bring nothing to the table to work with.

Raven.9603:

no rifles or mechanical weapons, and no class in the game should have a 1900 range weapon.

I have stated it before, will again. Please be constructive with your replies, give us ideas and why. Do not just say “Oh, I hate your idea! So I’m just going to argue and not bring anything to work with.”

i think they should use a spear instead of the rifle, the ranger has always been to me at least…the master huntsman who uses stuff he can find to hunt, lets face it..you cant really find bullets laying around the woods, plains, mountains. a spear would be a semi acceptable mid to long range weapon, in guild wars 1 it was put on paragons….or as i call them the jock strap! but in guild wars 2 i believe that a spear would be accpetable.

when the game was first being developed the ranger was supposed to be 2 different classes, and one of them was equipped with the spear. the spear should do several things.

the lore also supports this, being in that a ranger is one with nature, and never leaves tracks that he was in the area.
1.) inflict multiple conditions
2.) have a faster refire rate than the longbow at the offset of 200 range
3.) it would have a higher critical hit chance
4.) the damage should be in between the short and longbow

and whats nice about this idea…the skins are already in game. they are unfortunately underwater weapons, but most people dont like underwater weapons, and this would give a weapon many more uses.

Glitchfull.5826:

Raven.9603:

no rifles or mechanical weapons, and no class in the game should have a 1900 range weapon.

I have stated it before, will again. Please be constructive with your replies, give us ideas and why. Do not just say “Oh, I hate your idea! So I’m just going to argue and not bring anything to work with.”

these are internet forums. expect nothing much or you will be let down, and dont try to dictate the responses of others.

i dont want mechanical weapons because they are contrary to the feel of a natural class. 1900 range is obviously grossly overpowered and really shouldnt require explanation.

i think we could use a ranged aoe weapon (maybe multi-arrow themed, ala warrior longbow), but “snipe” is too much of a narrow niche and we already have ranged single target power based weapons. i’d rather see longbow 3 get a snipe possibility (triple damage) when a certain condition is met (like, the ranger has opening strikes active, or the target has x stacks of vuln, or the target is crippled).

Glitchfull.5826:

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Now we can go on on how to change these, but this isn’t a thread about changing ranger so that their old self isn’t possible. This is about adding things that can work with what is already there.

3a. With the stated, we need another ranged option. My suggestion? Rifle.

4. They need more team orientated skills. Now this can be very touchy, for that it can change how fights are played. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. The game needs more options to make it more strategic, more dynamic, and just have more plain ol’ good fun.

3a. very very very bad idea – in the list of reasons there are climatic thing – rifle does not match to ranger! we(rangers) are warrior of the wilderness, silent fighters using powers of nature to defeat aur oponents – noisy mechanical industrial rifles are just oposite way.
4. with this one I agree

Would you rather keep a concept that has no bearing on the game itself, besides stopping things from being added, a concept that can be easily changed, or would you want new things added to the class to make it more diverse and interesting, thus making the game more diverse and interesting?

so what precisely is “more diverse and intereesting” in givig ranger weapon that first don’t match to them, second have no place – sorry man, but realy ranger already have a single-target long range weapon. Giving them another is like… nah bad idea.

I don’t say that our current single-target long-range option are best (we already have biggest range on properly traited longbow, but that don’t mean it make very difference when going to fight….) but still we have already that option and double’ing it is rather worse option that just some fixes to existing one didn’t it?

Then state what you believe should be done, this was not constructive at all and is why the response was questioning your desire for modification. If your on this thread just to argue pointless concepts, then you are in the wrong thread for such.

You are the second to attempt to create a topic that does not belong here, let’s get back on track.

I never said my idea was the perfect one and should be the only ones. I stated ideas to be considered and either taking into account and modified by other users or inspire new ideas. So, should be treated as such. Now, what do you purpose for the ranger? This is not an invitation to attempt to bash another user’s idea and bring nothing to the table to work with.

going Your thinking track criticism of any idea never could be constructive
Ranger already have the highest range in the game (1500 on traited longbow) and as for now only engi grenadier with some grandmaster trait have grenade range at same point (but all AoE circle have to be within the range, what makes them little worse at that point)
sugested by You range of 1900 would be first very OP second useless anywhere outside WvW (in sPvP there are no place to have good usage of such a range – even that 1500 is little useless and in PvE mobs deaggro even on actual 1500 and at the dungs… – again there are not even a romm that have 1900 range long)
so considering thing that have been said – yes in terms of rangers atack range I don’t desire any changes – for now is as good as it should be – still that’s about atack range – discussion cn start when we will proceed to effectiveness of those atacks.

PS. the idea of spears could make it – after making my mind there is a problem with short/mid range AoE weapon

Raven.9603:

Glitchfull.5826:

Raven.9603:

no rifles or mechanical weapons, and no class in the game should have a 1900 range weapon.

I have stated it before, will again. Please be constructive with your replies, give us ideas and why. Do not just say “Oh, I hate your idea! So I’m just going to argue and not bring anything to work with.”

these are internet forums. expect nothing much or you will be let down, and dont try to dictate the responses of others.

i dont want mechanical weapons because they are contrary to the feel of a natural class. 1900 range is obviously grossly overpowered and really shouldnt require explanation.

i think we could use a ranged aoe weapon (maybe multi-arrow themed, ala warrior longbow), but “snipe” is too much of a narrow niche and we already have ranged single target power based weapons. i’d rather see longbow 3 get a snipe possibility (triple damage) when a certain condition is met (like, the ranger has opening strikes active, or the target has x stacks of vuln, or the target is crippled).

I will expect constructive responses, because you all deserve that I know you can. Doing other wise would be an insult to you in my opinion. So, it is more of a compliment if anything.

I can see why 1900 is a bit long for a weapon in the game. My ideas aren’t set in stone and are not the final say, they never will be and I know this. I was merely was coming up with a semi random number, knowing that it would change.

A ranged AoE weapon would be a nice addition and could certainly conclude in helping the lack of team orientated skills. The main two problems I see with ranger that give them a bad image is the lack of team skills and decent ranged weapons. Though I think they should deal with the issue of their already present single target ranged weapon (Long Bow) first. With the LB fixed, that would give you the option between picking it, the short bow, or possibly that spear idea.

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Lord Trejgon.2809:

Glitchfull.5826:

Now we can go on on how to change these, but this isn’t a thread about changing ranger so that their old self isn’t possible. This is about adding things that can work with what is already there.

3a. With the stated, we need another ranged option. My suggestion? Rifle.

4. They need more team orientated skills. Now this can be very touchy, for that it can change how fights are played. Honestly, I think that is a good thing. The game needs more options to make it more strategic, more dynamic, and just have more plain ol’ good fun.

3a. very very very bad idea – in the list of reasons there are climatic thing – rifle does not match to ranger! we(rangers) are warrior of the wilderness, silent fighters using powers of nature to defeat aur oponents – noisy mechanical industrial rifles are just oposite way.
4. with this one I agree

Would you rather keep a concept that has no bearing on the game itself, besides stopping things from being added, a concept that can be easily changed, or would you want new things added to the class to make it more diverse and interesting, thus making the game more diverse and interesting?

so what precisely is “more diverse and intereesting” in givig ranger weapon that first don’t match to them, second have no place – sorry man, but realy ranger already have a single-target long range weapon. Giving them another is like… nah bad idea.

I don’t say that our current single-target long-range option are best (we already have biggest range on properly traited longbow, but that don’t mean it make very difference when going to fight….) but still we have already that option and double’ing it is rather worse option that just some fixes to existing one didn’t it?

Then state what you believe should be done, this was not constructive at all and is why the response was questioning your desire for modification. If your on this thread just to argue pointless concepts, then you are in the wrong thread for such.

You are the second to attempt to create a topic that does not belong here, let’s get back on track.

I never said my idea was the perfect one and should be the only ones. I stated ideas to be considered and either taking into account and modified by other users or inspire new ideas. So, should be treated as such. Now, what do you purpose for the ranger? This is not an invitation to attempt to bash another user’s idea and bring nothing to the table to work with.

going Your thinking track criticism of any idea never could be constructive
Ranger already have the highest range in the game (1500 on traited longbow) and as for now only engi grenadier with some grandmaster trait have grenade range at same point (but all AoE circle have to be within the range, what makes them little worse at that point)
sugested by You range of 1900 would be first very OP second useless anywhere outside WvW (in sPvP there are no place to have good usage of such a range – even that 1500 is little useless and in PvE mobs deaggro even on actual 1500 and at the dungs… – again there are not even a romm that have 1900 range long)
so considering thing that have been said – yes in terms of rangers atack range I don’t desire any changes – for now is as good as it should be – still that’s about atack range – discussion cn start when we will proceed to effectiveness of those atacks.

PS. the idea of spears could make it – after making my mind there is a problem with short/mid range AoE weapon

The problem I have is not the ideas that have been given, it’s the lack of ideas. I understand that range was a bit ridiculous, but it was a semi random number that was meant to be changed. The way I balanced the number was with the stationary approach to the charge up and could even add that the longer you hold, the farther it goes. The number starting around maybe 900 and then rising the longer held. This could add another skill factor in that you would then need to learn your skill properly and the range with it, giving people a better “That guy is skilled” statement to say.

This is just an idea.

The problem to begin with was that people were just posting “Omg, that be op, no no no” and then not given any ideas afterwards. That was not being constructive and by me pointing said things out, promotes constructive posts.

You say they are fine, that is okay. We understand where you stand, there is no need to continue stating it.

Dante.1763:

i think they should use a spear instead of the rifle, the ranger has always been to me at least…the master huntsman who uses stuff he can find to hunt, lets face it..you cant really find bullets laying around the woods, plains, mountains. a spear would be a semi acceptable mid to long range weapon, in guild wars 1 it was put on paragons….or as i call them the jock strap! but in guild wars 2 i believe that a spear would be accpetable.

when the game was first being developed the ranger was supposed to be 2 different classes, and one of them was equipped with the spear. the spear should do several things.

the lore also supports this, being in that a ranger is one with nature, and never leaves tracks that he was in the area.
1.) inflict multiple conditions
2.) have a faster refire rate than the longbow at the offset of 200 range
3.) it would have a higher critical hit chance
4.) the damage should be in between the short and longbow

and whats nice about this idea…the skins are already in game. they are unfortunately underwater weapons, but most people dont like underwater weapons, and this would give a weapon many more uses.

Sounds very interesting, the only issues I see coming up by others is how your character gets another spear and anet being stingy and not wanting to make spears usable off land. Other than that, it sounds like a good idea and would be very good for option choices.

I was thinking a time ago about something that could merge AoE’s from both bows to one weapon.
that was an idea of new type of bow – Recurved bow
stadnard range 1200 (maybe possibility to Eagle Eye affect it)
first skill would be normal shot (though about some condi with it but no idea what would be good)
second something like volley from shortbow just bleeding (3/5 stacks?) instead of poisoning.
3rd – maybe some gap maker :P
4th – no idea
5th – something like barrage.
That would be something more climatic, and they can even use longbow skins at the begining – only question is if that should be exclusive-ranger weapon? or it should be given also to some another class(es)?
(and what give to 4th skill )

We don’t really need any more range than what we have. Longbow does its job well. Yes, it could be better, but it’s not as terrible as people make it out to be. It’s not supposed to be (for Rangers) the omni-situational ranged weapon. It’s a very situational weapon designed for turreting not moving.

Honestly, what we really need is either a trait or utility like “Read the Wind” from GW1. This skill made all the shots you fire for X amount of seconds do more damage and fly twice as fast. Really, I would have put this in place of Sharpening Stones, but that’s just me. This is different from QZ because it doesn’t increase your attack speed, just the speed of your projectiles.

Fade.1743:

We don’t really need any more range than what we have. Longbow does its job well. Yes, it could be better, but it’s not as terrible as people make it out to be. It’s not supposed to be (for Rangers) the omni-situational ranged weapon. It’s a very situational weapon designed for turreting not moving.

Honestly, what we really need is either a trait or utility like “Read the Wind” from GW1. This skill made all the shots you fire for X amount of seconds do more damage and fly twice as fast. Really, I would have put this in place of Sharpening Stones, but that’s just me. This is different from QZ because it doesn’t increase your attack speed, just the speed of your projectiles.

That ability would be good for rangers and I don’t think it would unbalance anyone. Would be just a different function for projectiles, but I will disagree on them not needing another ranged option.

Long bow is terrible, popular belief from a lot of these bad rangers is that they are good. Their view point coming from a PvE stand point for majority of them supporting it, where pets gain aggro and they never take a single hit. These are the same people that run double bear in PvP.

The only and I mean only time that it works is when you are in a position that they can not reach you. Issue with that even? Your already unreachable, so anything would practically work and almost all do better. Mass group fight? Dead from retaliation. Single target? They just avoid the damage all together with easily predicted animations from the long bow.

This weapon is just plain terrible and you know it is even worse when a power short bow is better than long bow. Not saying power build is good at all to begin with, just that short bow does it better when it’s mainly condi.

Long bow needs a definite modification to bring it back up to par with everything else and there is a high need for another ranged weapon to fill in the gap between short bow and long bow.

There are 3 other bows in the Guild Wars universe that filled that role in GW1 and could be used by other classes. The Horn-bow, Recurve Bow and Flat-bow. Usually Rangers would use Flat-bows since they had the medium of all stats for the bows (arc height, distance and projectile speed). But that’s expansion content.

Longbow on a Ranger does have the longest range. I don’t consider Grenadier Engineer to be on par since there are a lot more restrictions. (And that setup is my main in WvW so I’ve had lots of practice with it) It does need things to be tweaked, but our focus as a community should NOT be on something new but fixing what we have.

As someone who’s spammed AoE against mass retaliation, it rarely should kill anyone. If it can, treat retaliation like confusion. It’s usually a short term duration that’s based on being hit. Or…just run a signet build and pop Signet of Stone during the attack.

Again, longbow isn’t terrible. It’s just that people think it should be our go-to ranged weapon, when it’s not. It’s a situational weapon. Shortbow and Axe should be considered our go-to weapons.

The only problem I have with the Rangers is the pets. For a design where they are meant to be an integral part of the Rangers role, they sure don’t fit the bill.

1. Losing all the stacks of masters bond upon entering the water, which absolutely sucks in WvW. With 25 stacks, at least my pet has a bit of survivability, without them, they are dead meat. What are we to do in WvW? Run around the entire lake, while your comrades swim straight through? This is just poor.

2. The pets are just too slow. Pets like felines or bears, there is no way they should be running at your speed when you send them after a target. Yes we have “sick em” but come on make it just have increased attack speed and more damage. These pets should just naturally run a lot faster than you when going after their targets. No player should be able to outrun them, regardless of whether they have swiftness or not.

3. This has been mentioned 1000x over, the pets survivability just sucks. Even built as a beastmaster, even built with loads of healing. they just drop too fast. This is further a problem because of point 1. Built like that in a 1 or 2 person battle, they are fine, but in small groups or zerg fights.. good bye, they are done. That is a huge loss of dps to the ranger from either having them killed off or having to pull them out of battle. I’d either be in favor of stowing them away and absorbing a portion of their damage, or making your pets invulnerable and just dropping their damage 40%.

4. Their F2 abilities still have horrid response time, and I mean like really really horrid response time. I would much rather have it on auto-rotation with the rest of the pet skills.

An idea, allow us to trait the pets themselves in addition to the beast master line. This way we can choose to either make them dps, tanks, or just an average between the 2. One of the abilities in the train line could be to dodge.

Glitchfull.5826:

Fade.1743:

We don’t really need any more range than what we have. Longbow does its job well. Yes, it could be better, but it’s not as terrible as people make it out to be. It’s not supposed to be (for Rangers) the omni-situational ranged weapon. It’s a very situational weapon designed for turreting not moving.

Honestly, what we really need is either a trait or utility like “Read the Wind” from GW1. This skill made all the shots you fire for X amount of seconds do more damage and fly twice as fast. Really, I would have put this in place of Sharpening Stones, but that’s just me. This is different from QZ because it doesn’t increase your attack speed, just the speed of your projectiles.

That ability would be good for rangers and I don’t think it would unbalance anyone. Would be just a different function for projectiles, but I will disagree on them not needing another ranged option.

Long bow is terrible, popular belief from a lot of these bad rangers is that they are good. Their view point coming from a PvE stand point for majority of them supporting it, where pets gain aggro and they never take a single hit. These are the same people that run double bear in PvP.

The only and I mean only time that it works is when you are in a position that they can not reach you. Issue with that even? Your already unreachable, so anything would practically work and almost all do better. Mass group fight? Dead from retaliation. Single target? They just avoid the damage all together with easily predicted animations from the long bow.

This weapon is just plain terrible and you know it is even worse when a power short bow is better than long bow. Not saying power build is good at all to begin with, just that short bow does it better when it’s mainly condi.

Long bow needs a definite modification to bring it back up to par with everything else and there is a high need for another ranged weapon to fill in the gap between short bow and long bow.

I didn’t ever equip bear…
I used longbow when I need to.
I don’t have a problem with keeping distance
I have many situations when casts Barrage on retaliate zerg – and only once retaliation brings my hp below 50% – more problem with confusion
and dodge cannot evade everything – well used get evade half dmg of rapid fire – but ppl cannot dodging all the time

Glitchfull.5826:

That ability would be good for rangers and I don’t think it would unbalance anyone. Would be just a different function for projectiles, but I will disagree on them not needing another ranged option.

Long bow is terrible, popular belief from a lot of these bad rangers is that they are good. Their view point coming from a PvE stand point for majority of them supporting it, where pets gain aggro and they never take a single hit. These are the same people that run double bear in PvP.

The only and I mean only time that it works is when you are in a position that they can not reach you. Issue with that even? Your already unreachable, so anything would practically work and almost all do better. Mass group fight? Dead from retaliation. Single target? They just avoid the damage all together with easily predicted animations from the long bow.

This weapon is just plain terrible and you know it is even worse when a power short bow is better than long bow. Not saying power build is good at all to begin with, just that short bow does it better when it’s mainly condi.

Long bow needs a definite modification to bring it back up to par with everything else and there is a high need for another ranged weapon to fill in the gap between short bow and long bow.

I use longbow all the time these days in wvw, but I don’t main the weapon. Since my pIaystyle preference is tanky dps melee I use the #3 for the pet swiftness (makes my pet stickier on moving targets) and stacks of vulnerability, and the knockback for interrupts / pushing over ledges and the like. Rapid fire I really only use if there’s decent distance between me and the target, and barrage I use more like an aoe field that I stand in and try to force people to fight in when I switch to melee. Like most of the weapons in this game it’s how you use them with your playstyle more than anything else. The autoattack on it is stupid strong though (imo at least). I’ve hit people of upwards to 3k with just an autoattack, which is pretty freaking nice.