Rangers should be able to use long ranged weapons, there are more melee weapons for rangers to use than long range. I would love to be able to use rifles.
Ranger -
1) a soldier specially trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, especially in jungle terrain
2) someone who ranges.
range (verb)
to pass over or through (an area or region) in all directions, as in exploring or searching.
Also, ranger is supposed to be a nature type. A rifle, which is a machine, doesn’t fit into the classes theme.
i read 1 , 2 .. and I said exactly. like a hunter with his rifle, what you think guns must only appear in urban areas ? a big game hunter is plenty of guns and nature combined. which is what im tryign to go for.
But it’s not a hunter. It’s a Ranger. There’s nothing about hunting in ranger lore.
yes its not a hunter or a bowman. If you want to use Ranger to its fine term, or stereotype then they need to be wearing shorts a stash and would still be carrying a gun. If you want to go into extremes they can also make it into a powerranger with multi coloured representations of their afinities and do martial arts. .. and ride bikes.
uuh what?
I’m using the Ranger from guild wars lore. The half druid, half warrior that can tame pets.
this ranger
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Ranger
and this ranger
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/
uuh what?
I’m using the Ranger from guild wars lore. The half druid, half warrior that can tame pets.
this ranger
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Rangerand this ranger
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/
Is there a different one? All I see is they prefer long ranged attack, and their weapon of CHOICE is a bow. so with this lore logic, a rifle would make more sense than a greatsword, axe. right?
Is there a different one? All I see is they prefer long ranged attack, and their weapon of CHOICE is a bow. so with this lore logic, a rifle would make more sense than a greatsword, axe. right?
Focus on the nature part. Rangers have a theme of being very natural and druidic.
Bows, swords, axes, torches, and horns all fall into being simple natural weapons.
Rifles are technology, and don’t fit into the rangers theme.
(edited by Division.9618)
Is there a different one? All I see is they prefer long ranged attack, and their weapon of CHOICE is a bow. so with this lore logic, a rifle would make more sense than a greatsword, axe. right?
Focus on the nature part. Rangers have a theme of being very natural and druidic.
Bows, swords, axes, torches, and horns all fall into being simple natural weapons.
Rifles are technology, and don’t fit into the rangers theme.
I didn’t know bows were so natural. Is there some mystical bow tree were they all grow from like fruit? Bows are tech just like guns are tech. Bows are made out of wood and metal, just like rifles. I don’t see the difference.
I’m not sure why people feel the need to debate the logic of X class having X weapon. We use a spear GUN don’t we? The rifles in this game are little more then muskets, simple mechanical parts, a tube of metal to project shot. That’s the same level of mechanical parts we would find in our spear gun, and our spike trap, though i suppose we could argue that the traps are magical, but then i could argue that my gun is actually just a log that shoots because i think it should. Woo magic..
There is no logical reason we don’t have access to Rifles or hammers, or maces, crossbows or offhand swords. Its just not in the game yet, and i fully expect the game to expand outwards with new weapons for each class, rather then upwards into higher levels.
So please stop trying to use logic, we are not all born with the ability and there is no need to strain yourself trying to understand simple things. Id avoid common sense, too, that’s a tough one for some i hear.
I didn’t know bows were so natural. Is there some mystical bow tree were they all grow from like fruit? Bows are tech just like guns are tech. Bows are made out of wood and metal, just like rifles. I don’t see the difference.
Are we going to start an argument about the definition of what’s natural and what’s technology? Because that argument will never get anywhere.
I’m just going off the idea that bows are far more simpler than guns. Easier to make from its natural parts without any manufacturing.
They should’ve been able to use rifles, yes. Rifles don’t fit the “nature” theme? Tell any outdoorsman that and watch them laugh. Rangers are hunters, and hunters have used longbarrel guns for as long as they’ve existed. It’s stupid that rangers can’t. I’ve thought so since the beginning. Doesn’t matter now, of course.
(edited by Arshay Duskbrow.1306)
I’m not sure why people feel the need to debate the logic of X class having X weapon. We use a spear GUN don’t we? The rifles in this game are little more then muskets, simple mechanical parts, a tube of metal to project shot. That’s the same level of mechanical parts we would find in our spear gun, and our spike trap, though i suppose we could argue that the traps are magical, but then i could argue that my gun is actually just a log that shoots because i think it should. Woo magic..
There is no logical reason we don’t have access to Rifles or hammers, or maces, crossbows or offhand swords. Its just not in the game yet, and i fully expect the game to expand outwards with new weapons for each class, rather then upwards into higher levels.
So please stop trying to use logic, we are not all born with the ability and there is no need to strain yourself trying to understand simple things. Id avoid common sense, too, that’s a tough one for some i hear.
All right then. Tell me this, why should we have a gun? Why add a pointless new weapon that will make balancing much harder?
Of course there’s a logical reason. Classes get a set amount of weapons that each do a specific task to help that class.. The devs pick a weapon that will match the classes theme and put the weapon on it. Needlessly adding a new weapon just because “i think it’s cool” is a stupid idea and will make balance harder.
Do you think devs will add new weapons to completely mess up the balance of a class, or just add a new class for expansions that will be much easier to balance?
(edited by Division.9618)
They should’ve been able to use rifles, yes. Rifles don’t fit the “nature” theme? Tell any outdoorsman that and watch them laugh. Rangers are hunters, and hunters have used longbarrel guns for as long as they’ve existed. It’s stupid that rangers can’t. I’ve thought so since the beginning. Doesn’t matter now, of course.
Tell that outdoorsman that i have a bow and arrow that has infinite arrows, fires at a longer range than a rifle, does about the same damage as his rifle, with the same accuracy, and can literally rain down arrows over a wide area. I think he will change his mind.
Are you trying to compare real life to fiction?
Also, nothing in GW lore says rangers are strictly hunters. In fact, in guild wars 2, the norn opening pretty much means that every single class can be a hunter. Does that mean every single class should be able to use a rifle?
(edited by Division.9618)
Ranger already has a long ranged weapon (Longbow). The other side is filled in by Shortbow. So theres no real need for rifle here, except to complicate things. Granted, LB is terrible, but I don’t see them adding in rifle anytime soon—they have a ton of more important things to fix. Maybe in a future expansion? I wouldnt expect anything though.
Haha you know guys I luv the fact that ANET has actually said, they are keeping the Ranger with the bows due to the lore….ok..but listen here ANET..what type of games have you been playing where a WARRIOR OUT DAMAGES A RANGER WITH A FECKING BOW?!!?!…let alone actually having to use a bow is NOT in a fantasy based class….hunters on WoW uses guns..what can’t ours?
Because this isn’t WOW?? And hunter= / = ranger
I’ve played a hunter in WOW. But I really don’t see the need for rifle here.
A warrior doesn’t have a pet. Of cos in a vacuum without the pet and other stuff he’s going to do more damage than you.
Please tell me more, how a Two-Handed Sword is more natural to a ranger then a rifle.
Just think about it… Range…r…. Range. What come to your mind after hearing it? Rangers should specialize on range. Maybe sometimes going in to melee. All I see is many people with rangers in melee.
Please tell me more, how a Two-Handed Sword is more natural to a ranger then a rifle.
Just think about it… Range…r…. Range. What come to your mind after hearing it? Rangers should specialize on range. Maybe sometimes going in to melee. All I see is many people with rangers in melee.
No, “Ranger” does not mean it must be ranged. Thats not the definition of ranger. A ranger here is more of a wanderer whos in tune with nature. What comes to my mind is Aragorn, and he carries a greatsword.
This topic pops up every other week, so you are defiantly not alone in wanting rifles. I’ve had this debate as well in other threads, with Ranger players who believe that because they have a image of how their Ranger should look like, others should share that same vision. And that bows are somehow natural, while rifles are ascendant from something unnatural. I’ve even made examples of comparing Robert Rogers to Aragon, but people can’t get this idea out of their head, that weapons apparently are a “threat” to nature. Even though rifles are made of all natural materials from metal and wood, to gun powder. Then there are others who argues with us not needing rifles, because apparently a rifle is something we can only get if we need it, while all other weapons can be added to the game for the sake of fun. And all of this despite the fact that they don’t even have to use the kitten rifle! It’s just plain ignorant.
(edited by Kasama.8941)
Please tell me more, how a Two-Handed Sword is more natural to a ranger then a rifle.
Just think about it… Range…r…. Range. What come to your mind after hearing it? Rangers should specialize on range. Maybe sometimes going in to melee. All I see is many people with rangers in melee.
No, “Ranger” does not mean it must be ranged. Thats not the definition of ranger. A ranger here is more of a wanderer whos in tune with nature. What comes to my mind is Aragorn, and he carries a greatsword.
Aragorn is a strider as they call him. He is skilled in it but he is not one. Look for legolas…
Haha you know guys I luv the fact that ANET has actually said, they are keeping the Ranger with the bows due to the lore….ok..but listen here ANET..what type of games have you been playing where a WARRIOR OUT DAMAGES A RANGER WITH A FECKING BOW?!!?!…let alone actually having to use a bow is NOT in a fantasy based class….hunters on WoW uses guns..what can’t ours?
Because this isn’t WOW?? And hunter= / = ranger
I’ve played a hunter in WOW. But I really don’t see the need for rifle here.
A warrior doesn’t have a pet. Of cos in a vacuum without the pet and other stuff he’s going to do more damage than you.
To me it doesn’t seem right that a warrior – does more damage at range than a ranger.
He has heavy armor + range + good range damage. He actually could fight almost always at range. To me a warrior has to stay where he belongs: heave armor : melee.
As written here: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/
“…Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows…” It doesn’t seem to be that at the moment.
From Wiki:
“…Archery is the art, practice, or skill of propelling arrows with the use of a bow, from Latin arcus. Historically, archery has been used for hunting and combat…”
So archery includes hunting as well. You lose.
Maybe let rifles be used by the engineers and warriors. but range damage from range weapons (Bows and Longbows excluding staff,scepter e.t.c) should be the highest for the ranger or at least equal to other profession.
(edited by Danepher.5263)
Please tell me more, how a Two-Handed Sword is more natural to a ranger then a rifle.
Just think about it… Range…r…. Range. What come to your mind after hearing it? Rangers should specialize on range. Maybe sometimes going in to melee. All I see is many people with rangers in melee.
No, “Ranger” does not mean it must be ranged. Thats not the definition of ranger. A ranger here is more of a wanderer whos in tune with nature. What comes to my mind is Aragorn, and he carries a greatsword.
Aragorn is a strider as they call him. He is skilled in it but he is not one. Look for legolas…
Haha you know guys I luv the fact that ANET has actually said, they are keeping the Ranger with the bows due to the lore….ok..but listen here ANET..what type of games have you been playing where a WARRIOR OUT DAMAGES A RANGER WITH A FECKING BOW?!!?!…let alone actually having to use a bow is NOT in a fantasy based class….hunters on WoW uses guns..what can’t ours?
Because this isn’t WOW?? And hunter= / = ranger
I’ve played a hunter in WOW. But I really don’t see the need for rifle here.
A warrior doesn’t have a pet. Of cos in a vacuum without the pet and other stuff he’s going to do more damage than you.
To me it doesn’t seem right that a warrior – does more damage at range than a ranger.
He has heavy armor + range + good range damage. He actually could fight almost always at range. To me a warrior has to stay where he belongs: heave armor : melee.As written here: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/
“…Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows…” It doesn’t seem to be that at the moment.
From Wiki:
“…Archery is the art, practice, or skill of propelling arrows with the use of a bow, from Latin arcus. Historically, archery has been used for hunting and combat…”So archery includes hunting as well. You lose.
Yes, because GW2 should be like every other MMO? -.- So boring! A warrior’s LB has a different role when compare to the ranger’s LB. I don’t see why you feel the need to quote wiki to state nothing at all. Find me a warrior that uses a bow in PVP, since its obviously so superior. Don’t forget ranger has 300 more range than the warrior always, and the rest of the ranger’s skills are built for a skirmish playstyle (more support). You’re tunnel visioned when you focus on things in a vacuum; your argument doesn’t hold water.
I don’t understand why a ranger and rifle don’t match up… but a warrior in full-plate and guantlets does. Fine, but how about we keep everything as is but force warriors to remove their glove armour to equip firearms?
Yes, because GW2 should be like every other MMO? -.- So boring! A warrior’s LB has a different role when compare to the ranger’s LB. I don’t see why you feel the need to quote wiki to state nothing at all. Find me a warrior that uses a bow in PVP, since its obviously so superior. Don’t forget ranger has 300 more range than the warrior always, and the rest of the ranger’s skills are built for a skirmish playstyle (more support). You’re tunnel visioned when you focus on things in a vacuum; your argument doesn’t hold water.
Don’t even start if you don’t have anything valuable to say. No matter what role he has, He does greater damage on range also. With heavy armor. To me you sound a warrior player who doesn’t want hes bonuses cut. I stated from wiki about you saying ranger =\= hunter. The two quotes given – from wiki and the GW2 offcial site read black on white what it is. He is a hunter in some way. I don’t say it must be as any other MMO, but quotes given, profession name given. Anet should go with it. A warrior doesn’t NEED to match or exceed rangers damage using range weapons (rifles and bows) NEVER. No matter what hes role in it. Lower their damage, or force them to use other armor. There is a reason why rangers use medium armor and warriors heavy. Same more or less as it was with Paragon and Dervish in GW1. The game is not balanced although the Devs had good intentions for it to be.
A ranger can kill warriors and other classes – Saying from my own experience. I played – I killed. Using two-handed sword.
At range, Rangers should be better. That’s said.
(edited by Danepher.5263)
Meh. My Dwarf can shoot pandas with his rifle, why can’t my rutabaga head use a rifle too? Nah, nevermind, I’m happy with a bow.
regardless of tech/ magic a rifle should still be a viable option for a ranger besides that It makes sense to not limit themselves to having only 2 ranged weapons. Lore wise I don’t think a greatsword would suit a ranger at all. Having 2 kinds of bows is also redundant, if we have 2 kind of bows then we should have rifles, smg, rockets, snipers, shotguns….. But relieving this suggestion of exaggerations a simple rifle would suffice and I think would help greatly in terms of versatility and “build” of the ranger.
regardless of tech/ magic a rifle should still be a viable option for a ranger besides that It makes sense to not limit themselves to having only 2 ranged weapons. Lore wise I don’t think a greatsword would suit a ranger at all. Having 2 kinds of bows is also redundant, if we have 2 kind of bows then we should have rifles, smg, rockets, snipers, shotguns….. But relieving this suggestion of exaggerations a simple rifle would suffice and I think would help greatly in terms of versatility and “build” of the ranger.
What role would a gun give? We have a ranged weapon that’s made for fast firing condition damage and kiting, and a ranged weapon that’s made for long ranged sniping with high damage (well it’s supposed to be high damage) and AOE. There’s also the throwing axe which pretty much covers everything else you could want with ranged attacks (bouncing attacks, shotgun attacks, etc).
well honestly speaking, the warrior is a better ranger than ranger, so this talk of whether it fits ranger or not is not really valid
play a warrior problem solved
if not use LB for better distance
I would love to be able to use a rifle, but I can see how it goes against the ‘natural’ feel of rangers.
To be honest, I think it’s much stranger that we can’t wield a dagger in the main hand.
plz no rifle for ranger
in my few ranger is part of nature not a class with machine guns pistols and more stupid guns
they must be swift unseen and good with bows and there pets are there great alies
that is pretty dumb, not letting rangers use rifles. id rather use that than my bow i think, and especially rather than my axe/torch combo.
that is pretty dumb, not letting rangers use rifles. id rather use that than my bow i think, and especially rather than my axe/torch combo.
sorry but ranger is not a gun user and i hope Anet wil never give them to a ranger class
i like old fasion style of fighting
not guns ore any orther weapens we use now then you beter play a FPS game
only bows maby daggers and traps and his pet
Haha you know guys I luv the fact that ANET has actually said, they are keeping the Ranger with the bows due to the lore….ok..but listen here ANET..what type of games have you been playing where a WARRIOR OUT DAMAGES A RANGER WITH A FECKING BOW?!!?!…let alone actually having to use a bow is NOT in a fantasy based class….hunters on WoW uses guns..what can’t ours?
Because this isn’t WOW?? And hunter= / = ranger
I’ve played a hunter in WOW. But I really don’t see the need for rifle here.
A warrior doesn’t have a pet. Of cos in a vacuum without the pet and other stuff he’s going to do more damage than you.
and ranger’s of Gw1 didn’t need to use their pet or in other words pets were optional for this class and didn’t use them unless they specced for beast mastery or dual classed with an assassin. The reason they didn’t use guns in gw1 because they weren’t available.
back in Gw1 we had 4 choices of bows each having their strengths and weakness which was truly their mechanic, next to enchanting their arrows or quivers.
i’m not angry that our class mechanic is the pet it’s that the supposed trade-off of ranger damage is with the pet’s damage, and the problem with that is ranger pets can’t attack moving targets which is useless in pvp and the pet can be killed faster then a mesmer clone which the clone is suppost to be a temporary pet were the rangers is supposed to be more durable
If rangers have rifles it would only be a choice. It would have things that will make it unique, however it is still a choice if people want to keep their characters all nature forest type. Why limit preferences?
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.