Guild Wars 2

Since we are a ranged class (although I understand we are more focused in nature rather than ranged weapons) I think a rifle option would be nice. I think if it got the same ranged buff that longbow and harpoon get it could be a viable long ranged weapon. I think it should not deal conditions but add vulnerability on enemies and focus on big crits with high cast times with a severe penalty for close range. I know this would turn rangers into snipers but I feel its more fitting that rangers be snipers not warriors. I just want some feedback and some suggestions on what the abilities could be. If it is popular we could put it into the suggestions thread.

Not interested in rifles, Bows are where its at. My problem is with longbow, such a crappy mediocre weapon atm and it needs work badly. I would like longbow to be redesigned to be like warriors rifle, that would be hella nice. In fact i dont get why our arrows are so dodgeable, Id love for them to bring back read the wind as a trait, making longbow arrows move twice as fast, Id cream myself. Maybe make hunters shot a damage attack like kill shot so we have a damage attack outside of rapid fire, and possibly get rid of the long ranged shot penalty for being closer ranged, or just lowering the penalty.

I’d like rifles and it seems to fit the class.

I don’t want rifles, as I believe they do not fit this class at all. Rangers are not snipers by nature of the class. They are more of a druid pet class then what people seem to think it is. Training with swords makes sense with dexterity and control, and one could easily make bows, axes, and torches in the wild. A rifle just seems very not what this class is about – strength of technology. And the game itself shows the one sniper (to my knowledge) is a warrior.

If we get any more weapons honestly I’d prefer we get the hammer…if only for nostalgia’s sake. Bring back the bunny thumpers!!!

I think we’re fine for two-handed weapons. If we were going to get another weapon I’d want another main-hand option since right now we have only 2 to go with our 4 offhand options.

Why not a mainhand dagger skill set? It could be a skirmishing weapon with a mix of melee and ranged attacks, like our offhand dagger skills.

Torch might make a fun support-focused mainhand weapon. It would suit rangers to have use of a non-conventional weapon in the main hand, and torches would show a confidence and competence working with natural forces.

they’re rangers they’re not hunters lol.
But no, You know who I think should be able to use rifles?
Thieves,

Without the title of the thief, they’re just your everyday basic common people.

They’re not highly trained professionals in heavy face to face combat, they’re not skillful marksman in Longbowmanship, they lack the upper body strength to lift a greatsword, a rifle would fit perfectly in their criteria.

As a ranger I am not pining for rifles. If I want that I’d probably go with an engineer.

As for complaints with the longbow, I’d make sure you are getting the most out of it. Longbow, so far in my experience, is best used in WvW when I am often sniping at defenders just within reach, and that is when the longbow is best. Longbow seems to be ideal from a more defensive and guarded standpoint (EG on a wall or a ridge, etc)…you need to maintain that distance to get the best benefit. For most any other game-play, a shortbow is probably best as it lends more to maneuverability and on-your-feet skirmishing.

The key to the bow is knowing when to use which type and which skill.

Oh God, not this again! Could we get a stickied thread for all the people who want quivers, rifles or pet-less Rangers?

We are talking about a class that is in touch with nature and keeps a pet. Using a Rifle is the exact opposite of what the class is about. Rifles are very much the domain of Engineers, but are also rightfully used by Warriors.

That ANet made ranger a bit druidy doesn’t mean he isn’t also a hunter type. Since GW1 ranger was always for me a guy with bow and traps. I play ranger coz I like archers, NOT druids, so I don’t see a reason to don’t give us another option… especially now, when both legendary bows are ‘meh’ and rifle looks great :P

If elementalists can use daggerand necros axes, then saying something “doesn’t fit” isn’t in place

I think you should be able to play a hunter type with range combat focus which is why i would like a rifle. But i understand it is also a druid type class. The traits to kind of define whether you are a hunter or druid though. So i think both play styles are viable

Mage + Dagger… they have been doing that in RPGs since the beginning (no, seriously, the dawn of the genre!). The use of a dagger as a conduit for magic predates RPGs and is in fact ancient.

Necro + Axe… honestly, I am not sure where that one came from. I could see scythe or sickle, but axe is completely new to me. Makes no sense at all.

I want to be able to wield a longbow mainhand & shortbow offhand. then i’d be super-ranged-sniper-leet. <sigh> seriously, a rifle??

If we need another ranged weapon, I’d be more open to ranged dagger skills for mainhand. But that kind of seems a lot like our ranged axe throws so…..I dunno. I’m happy with Rangers where they are now.

Yes, please. The only reason I also have a Warrior is because of the rifle. I don’t even really like the Warriors playstyle. If the Ranger had a rifle, I could replace the Warrior with another profession.

I also love the 1755 rangers that were inspired by Robert Rogers. They used animals like dogs for hunting, and had a great knowledge of nature and military strategy. They only carried rifles.

Further more, it would also be nice to have rifles so we could finally silence the whole; “Rangers can’t carry rifles because they are suppose to be in tuned with nature” excuse. In the real world people evolved from using bows to using rifles over time, because rifles were simple more effective. It only makes sense that Rangers in Guild Wars 2, masters of ranged combat, would recognize the benefit of a rifle as well.

Riot Inducer.8964:

If we get any more weapons honestly I’d prefer we get the hammer…if only for nostalgia’s sake. Bring back the bunny thumpers!!!

MMm hammers, I love hammers…..A nice two hand axe wouldn’t hurt my feelings either.

functionally you do need to create differentiation between classes and within the adventurers engineer’s fit rifles alot better so I really don’t see us getting them.

Kasama.8941
Yes, please. The only reason I also have a Warrior is because of the rifle. I don’t even really like the Warriors playstyle. If the Ranger had a rifle, I could replace the Warrior with another profession.
I also love the 1755 rangers that were inspired by Robert Rogers. They used animals like dogs for hunting, and had a great knowledge of nature and military strategy. They only carried rifles.
Further more, it would also be nice to have rifles so we could finally silence the whole; “Rangers can’t carry rifles because they are suppose to be in tuned with nature” excuse. In the real world people evolved from using bows to using rifles over time, because rifles were simple more effective. It only makes sense that Rangers in Guild Wars 2, masters of ranged combat, would recognize the benefit of a rifle as well.

Quote button keeps going out late at night.

I don’t find this a good argument. First off, this is a completely different world. Secondly, the lore behind rifles in this game points to them exclusively being used in war-based roles. Engineers and Warriors, it makes sense, as they are both very battle-oriented (In theory). Rangers, to me, seem more like nature survivalist druids. I mean, their dagger and sword attacks kinda give me the druid kinda feeling. A rifle would just be unpractical if only for ammo and gunpowder. Why carry around a rifle I’d need to eventually buy/make supplies for when I could just carry my bow? It would be a lot easier and cheaper than buying or making gunpowder or bullets when I just need pointy sticks(I know it’s a gross generalization) to kill my enemy? Also, what it the rifle breaks? Every ranger weapon outside of the dagger and swords(and speargun) can easily be made in the wild. And before you bring up the speargun, I think they did that so rangers wouldn’t loose their versatility under water. On solid ground, however, it’s a non-issue. As for ranged master = all ranged weapons, I’d like to say false. I think it’s pointing out that Rangers have the most non-magical ranged options out of the all classes. Two natural 1200 ranged weapons (900 natural range for thieves and warriors), and a 900 range weapon( 130 for warriors and 600 for Necros), with abilites designed to prevent enemies from staying too close to you (Daze and cripple on shortbow, Point-blank and AoE cripple on Longbow, Chill on axe).

riku.2091:

I don’t find this a good argument. First off, this is a completely different world. Secondly, the lore behind rifles in this game points to them exclusively being used in war-based roles. Engineers and Warriors, it makes sense, as they are both very battle-oriented (In theory). Rangers, to me, seem more like nature survivalist druids. I mean, their dagger and sword attacks kinda give me the druid kinda feeling. A rifle would just be unpractical if only for ammo and gunpowder. Why carry around a rifle I’d need to eventually buy/make supplies for when I could just carry my bow? It would be a lot easier and cheaper than buying or making gunpowder or bullets when I just need pointy sticks(I know it’s a gross generalization) to kill my enemy? Also, what it the rifle breaks? Every ranger weapon outside of the dagger and swords(and speargun) can easily be made in the wild. And before you bring up the speargun, I think they did that so rangers wouldn’t loose their versatility under water. On solid ground, however, it’s a non-issue. As for ranged master = all ranged weapons, I’d like to say false. I think it’s pointing out that Rangers have the most non-magical ranged options out of the all classes. Two natural 1200 ranged weapons (900 natural range for thieves and warriors), and a 900 range weapon( 130 for warriors and 600 for Necros), with abilites designed to prevent enemies from staying too close to you (Daze and cripple on shortbow, Point-blank and AoE cripple on Longbow, Chill on axe).

It makes sense that the Ranger in the game realized the same thing that we did in the real world when rifles were created. Rifles replaced bows because they had longer range then bows and crossbows, because they could be reloaded faster then crossbows, and because it was easier to learn how to shot with a rifle compared to a bow. The Ranger even uses metal and wood in his other weapons anyway. You are coming with arguments that has nothing to do with how the game is played. You don’t need to buy bullets or gunpowder, your rifles can’t break, and you can carry a secondary weapon anyway. And why would using a rifle in combat remove your ability to use nature magic? It’s just a weapon. This is really just about whether your mind is set in some old fantasy ideal, or you are open to new possibilities.

I doubt I would use one but rangers should be able to use all non-magic range weapons. Just my opinion. Personally I don’t think they should be able to use 2-handed weapons (greatsword).

Kasama.8941:

riku.2091:

I don’t find this a good argument. First off, this is a completely different world. Secondly, the lore behind rifles in this game points to them exclusively being used in war-based roles. Engineers and Warriors, it makes sense, as they are both very battle-oriented (In theory). Rangers, to me, seem more like nature survivalist druids. I mean, their dagger and sword attacks kinda give me the druid kinda feeling. A rifle would just be unpractical if only for ammo and gunpowder. Why carry around a rifle I’d need to eventually buy/make supplies for when I could just carry my bow? It would be a lot easier and cheaper than buying or making gunpowder or bullets when I just need pointy sticks(I know it’s a gross generalization) to kill my enemy? Also, what it the rifle breaks? Every ranger weapon outside of the dagger and swords(and speargun) can easily be made in the wild. And before you bring up the speargun, I think they did that so rangers wouldn’t loose their versatility under water. On solid ground, however, it’s a non-issue. As for ranged master = all ranged weapons, I’d like to say false. I think it’s pointing out that Rangers have the most non-magical ranged options out of the all classes. Two natural 1200 ranged weapons (900 natural range for thieves and warriors), and a 900 range weapon( 130 for warriors and 600 for Necros), with abilites designed to prevent enemies from staying too close to you (Daze and cripple on shortbow, Point-blank and AoE cripple on Longbow, Chill on axe).

It makes sense that the Ranger in the game realized the same thing that we did in the real world when rifles were created. Rifles replaced bows because they had longer range then bows and crossbows, because they could be reloaded faster then crossbows, and because it was easier to learn how to shot with a rifle compared to a bow. The Ranger even uses metal and wood in his other weapons anyway. You are coming with arguments that has nothing to do with how the game is played. You don’t need to buy bullets or gunpowder, your rifles can’t break, and you can carry a secondary weapon anyway. And why would using a rifle in combat remove your ability to use nature magic? It’s just a weapon. This is really just about whether your mind is set in some old fantasy ideal, or you are open to new possibilities.

Because I’m not arguing from the point of gameplay. I’m arguing from the point of lore. Which I think is just as important to consider when possible. And, after its all said, do we really need another ranged weapon? It would just get redundant.

And and this particular instance, I don’t believe I’m stuck in some old ideal. I’m pretty sure rifle rangers IS the old ideal, thanks to WoW and misconception over the term “Ranger”. I just don’t see the ranger as a rifle class. And just because it’s easier to use and has longer range doesn’t really mean it’s better. If I’m remembering correctly, arrows can be far more devastating then bullets, anyways.

riku.2091
You’re seeking logic in a world of fantasy … According to logic, yeah the Ranger is kinda a ranged-druid, but if this game was based on pure logic, it would kinda suck. I think ranger should be able to use any ranged weapons, i don’t see why rifle doesn’t fit, because it’s mechanic ? So what ? In WvWvW i can use asura’s turret to shoot people, why am i able to use this if it’s mechanic ?
I think the ranger’s backgroung is about a character who knows how to aim perfectly ( the warrior have powerfull strength, elementalist can control elements etc .. ) so i don’t see why using a rifle isn’t part of the ranger’s backgroud

I want more main hand options… Axe and sword just don’t cut it….

I would like Mace or Dagger… although as someone said Torch would be a cool main hand if it could be made that way.

Hammer would be cool to to give people 2 options for melee 2-handed

riku.2091:

If I’m remembering correctly, arrows can be far more devastating then bullets, anyways.

Maybe it would be harder to sidestep back and forth to dodge bullets like what can currently be done with arrows. =)

I raged the other night in some WvW when I started getting countless people I was attacking just strafing back the forth and having all my arrows miss. I’m done with PvP for a while thanks to that. sigh

Sera.8490
riku.2091
You’re seeking logic in a world of fantasy … According to logic, yeah the Ranger is kinda a ranged-druid, but if this game was based on pure logic, it would kinda suck. I think ranger should be able to use any ranged weapons, i don’t see why rifle doesn’t fit, because it’s mechanic ? So what ? In WvWvW i can use asura’s turret to shoot people, why am i able to use this if it’s mechanic ?
I think the ranger’s backgroung is about a character who knows how to aim perfectly ( the warrior have powerfull strength, elementalist can control elements etc .. ) so i don’t see why using a rifle isn’t part of the ranger’s backgroud

The ranger’s background is not someone who can aim perfectly, it is a person in tune with their pet and nature. Rifles =/= Nature.

And, as I’ve pointed out before, we already HAVE two 1200 range weapons. Why do we need a third? That’s just unbalanced. And what would the rifles do that our bows cannot already do? I play a rifle warrior on the side, and it’s pretty much the same thing as a longbow ranger. The only difference? Its normal attack bleeds. Which we already have covered by our shortbow. So let’s take a look here.

Warrior Rifle:
Bleeding Shot: Bleeds on normal (Shortbow)
Aimed Shot: Cripples (Longbow and shortbow)
Volley: Rapid fire (Longbow and shortbow normal)
Brutal Shot: Vulnerable (Longbow and opening strikes)
Rifle Butt: Knock-back (Longbow)

So pretty much, same capabilities as a Longbow ranger, bar bleeding.

Engineer Rifle:
Hip Shot: Pierces (Axe, and Longbow and Shortbow with piercing arrows trait)
Net Shot: Immobilizes (5 pets with immobilize as an attack)
Blunderbuss: Bleeds (We have a better version called splitblade on Axe)
Overcharged Shot: Knocks back you and target.
Jump Shot: AoE blast and jump to target.

So, other than OS and JS, the ranger has everything the rifle has to offer covered. As for those last two attacks, they are certainly NOT in sync with the image of the Ranger (explosive excess).

riku.2091:

Because I’m not arguing from the point of gameplay. I’m arguing from the point of lore. Which I think is just as important to consider when possible. And, after its all said, do we really need another ranged weapon? It would just get redundant.

And and this particular instance, I don’t believe I’m stuck in some old ideal. I’m pretty sure rifle rangers IS the old ideal, thanks to WoW and misconception over the term “Ranger”. I just don’t see the ranger as a rifle class. And just because it’s easier to use and has longer range doesn’t really mean it’s better. If I’m remembering correctly, arrows can be far more devastating then bullets, anyways.

As I said, it’s just about what you prefer. I think rifles fits perfectly with the lore of the Ranger. The charr grows up in a city that’s surrounded by metal and mechanics, yet they can be Rangers too. A rifle alone can’t turn you away from being a ranger.

We don’t need another ranged weapon more then we need a new weapon in general. It’s simply just for adding flavor to the profession. But no one says the rifle just has to shot bullets, like the Warrior rifle skills. Just look at what they did with the greatsword skills. A rifle could for instance have a skill that shoots a high damage shot, but the skill effect is a hawk flying after the bullet, like the greatsword leap skill. Another skill could be a pheromone shot that attracts ants, who then attacks the opponent. There could even be a skill where you stab your opponent with your rifle tip, like a spear. Or how about just making it a CC weapon with cripple and weakness skills? There’s plenty of original things you can do.

The Ranger is pretty much the same as it was in Guild Wars 1, which was released around the same time as WoW. Rangers were not originally created by fantasy, but was (and still is) a military company that was created back in 1755 by a man named Robert Rodgers. He used survival techniques inspired by indians, so he could survive in nature for a long period of time while still traveling lightly. This meant that he could go places that a normal soldier couldn’t and also travel faster over long distances, which made him able to ambush enemies very easily. His weapon of choice was a musket. Here’s an part episode from an old survival series, that tells the story of him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wufppTptb2g

NO, rangers should most definitely not be given use of rifles and pistols. Rangers are warriors that fight with and for nature. The whole lore of rangers is that they are in tune with nature, while rifles are based on destructive technology, rifles are absolutely contradictory to nature.

Rangers are not hunters such as in World of Warcraft, while we use bows, our lore is not the same as that of the hunter of beasts such as in other games. A hunter kills animals for fun, a hunter is not in tune with nature, as he seeks to conquer nature, rather than harmonize with it and respect it.

So no, rangers should most definitely not be given rifles, I feel this would greatly harm the feel of the ranger as a nature guardian and forest warrior. Rangers are silent and swift, respectful and caring, a rifle just goes boom, loud and unelegant, ugly and unnatural.

Rangers are in tune with nature, while the very concept of a rifle is unnatural and harmful.

Kasama
The charr grows up in a city that’s surrounded by metal and mechanics, yet they can be Rangers too. A rifle alone can’t turn you away from being a ranger.

Yep. Which is why Charr rangers have hidden pistol and Charrzooka. Since the other races aren’t so technology-based, they don’t need rifles.

Kasama
We don’t need another ranged weapon more then we need a new weapon in general. It’s simply just for adding flavor to the profession. But no one says the rifle just has to shot bullets, like the Warrior rifle skills.

So…then why give us a weapon you admit we don’t need? What else would they shoot? Rainbows and farts? (Dreamer gets a pass here. Legendary and all.)

Kasama
Or how about just making it a CC weapon with cripple and weakness skills? There’s plenty of original things you can do.

Are we talking about a rifle or a shotgun? I’m pretty sure those are VERY different things.

And as for Robert Rodgers’s rangers, they were SOLDIERS, inspired by the indians’ survival tactics. Not rangers in the way this game means. Rangers here are a druid pet class with martial training at its core, and only become survival-focused if the player uses them that way.

I’d be in support of it simply because
A) I happen to only be interested in long-range weapons.
and
2) I’ve made a ranger my main. >_>

Ideally, what I would have liked is a class that was almost entirely built around pure-range (getting access to both types of bows and guns), with their traits, utilities, etc. almost entirely facilitating keeping themselves at a great distance in some form or another…

As we didn’t get that though, I pretty much settled on Ranger due to Longbow+Eagle Eye and Shortbow having a 12ØØ range… It’s generally decent enough for the most part, but I’m not really enamoured with things as they are (especially as longbow is concerned). So anything that can give me more options on that front would be better.

(Honestly, Rifle/Longbow Thief would probably suit me better, but I’d still take Rifle ranger over that at this point simply since I don’t want to re-roll. <_<)

I vote against.

Yep. Which is why Charr rangers have hidden pistol and Charrzooka. Since the other races aren’t so technology-based, they don’t need rifles.

So…then why give us a weapon you admit we don’t need? What else would they shoot? Rainbows and farts? (Dreamer gets a pass here. Legendary and all.)

Are we talking about a rifle or a shotgun? I’m pretty sure those are VERY different things.

And as for Robert Rodgers’s rangers, they were SOLDIERS, inspired by the indians’ survival tactics. Not rangers in the way this game means. Rangers here are a druid pet class with martial training at its core, and only become survival-focused if the player uses them that way.

It’s not about need, it’s about adding more value to the profession. And other professions do have rifles, that’s why you have different skins of the rifle. One skin is a plant rifle for the sylvari, another is a technology based rifle for the asura. The reason why guns are more visible at the charr is because they invented them, and they are proud of that.

Because it’s fun and adds flavor. Why does there need to be other reasons then that?
The key word in my sentence was “just”, meaning that you can add more to the bullet.

Why would it suddenly be a shotgun because it cripples and adds weakness? That’s a really strange logic.

Rodger’ Rangers were soldiers because they were the first official rangers in the world. So they really didn’t have much choice. Their approach to combat had nothing to do with being a soldier, though. They were used for reconnaissance and raids. And they weren’t just inspired by indian survival techniques, they literally used them. Some of the rules that Robert Rodger wrote was: “4. Before reaching your destination, send one or two men forward to scout the area and avoid traps.” – “12. If a rally is used after a retreat, make it on the high ground to slow the enemy advance.” – “13. When laying in ambuscade, wait for the enemy to get close enough that your fire will be doubly frightening, and after firing, the enemy can be rushed with hatchets.” – “22. When returning from a scout, use a different path as the enemy may have seen you leave and will wait for your return to attack when you’re tired.” – “24. When traveling by water, leave at night to avoid detection.” They also often traveled with dogs as companions, so the only thing that doesn’t add up is the magic part. Other then that, they were rangers in every meaning of the word. And they still choose to use muskets.

Don’t compare the ranger of a fantasy game with the ranger of real life too much, because in real life no one uses bows anymore, compare it with fantasy lore. Fantasy lore clearly says that rangers and rifles are a very ill match. Rangers are about nature (hunters are not rangers, hunters are also anti-nature), and rifles are about as anti-nature as is possible.

Groans.

The term `ranger’ predates 1755 too, you know. I have already linked the dictionary definition in another thread where yet another person butchered the meaning: I cannot be bothered doing it again. I am sure you have your own, or the ability to fine one, so do it yourself.

Rangers in RPGs originate from D&D, where the initial inspiration was Aragorn from Lord of the Rings. Robin Hood was also cited as an inspiration (a few others, but I cannot recall off the top of my head: they are listed in the old, old, old Player’s Handbook). They were characters who ranged across the wilderness. Every RPG that has come since has been influenced by D&D in some way, and the Ranger has always been derived from that original class. Feel free to throw whatever arguments you want: I can just pick up the original Rangers Handbook and point out that it does not fit the classic definition of the class.

At the end of the day, however, this is Guild Wars. Just as Blizzard went with their own interpretations of classes, the same is equally possible here. The Ranger has not used rifles in the history of Guild Wars and still does not to this day. It seems pretty clear that ArenaNet do not consider it a Ranger weapon. In addition, the way they have presented the class is as typical of the classic Ranger as you can get, which suggests they are strongly hanging to the roots of the class. Not a bad idea, and most people who traditionally play a Ranger will want to, you know, play a Ranger, not something completely different that has `Ranger’ as the name. It would be like a Thief with no Stealing: they would be an Assassin, not a Thief.

Could we please put this issue to rest and not start three or four threads on it every single day? Could we get a Mod in here to start locking these things, as there is more discussion on meaningless garbage like this than there is on actually playing the game!

Seeing how Anet don’t want to boost the longbow, I’d love to see the rifle for the ranger class.

Bleed, cripple, push back, faster ROF, no range penalty, and hits just as hard? I’ll take that over a longbow any day.

Barrage is worthless even with quickness since there’s a max target cap of 5. It’s more of an annoyance than a threat. The only thing it can do that a rifle can’t do is to spam it on mesmer/thief in their down state so they can’t hide from you.

Aridia.3042:

Seeing how Anet don’t want to boost the longbow, I’d love to see the rifle for the ranger class.

Bleed, cripple, push back, faster ROF, no range penalty, and hits just as hard? I’ll take that over a longbow any day.

Barrage is worthless even with quickness since there’s a max target cap of 5. It’s more of an annoyance than a threat. The only thing it can do that a rifle can’t do is to spam it on mesmer/thief in their down state so they can’t hide from you.

Again, these are all things we can already do. And you assume ANet “doesnt want to” fix the longbow. This points to two things: Longbow works the way they intended it too, or there are other, bigger problems which are more important at the moment. Adding a weapon merely to be a stronger version of another weapon is not good. Even for flavor.

Well here’s my rant on this topic:
I wholehearted agree with the idea that rangers should be able to use all ranged weapons, except pistols, coz that would be silly. Now before you all start telling me about it being against the lore and that rangers fight with and for nature, think for a minute.

Rangers fight for nature. The elder dragons are part of nature as they were not created (they predate even The 6). Therefore, by your logic, rangers should all lay down their weapons and start worshiping the elder dragons, maybe even trying to fight for the dragons. As the situation changes in Tyria with the awakening of the dragons and the appearance of the Risen, rangers must also adapt to the new circumstances, if they can kill the Risen faster with a bow, then do it with a bow. If they can kill the Risen faster with a rifle, why not use a rifle?

In the end, it is really about preference and choice, if you want to stick to the original ranger as stated by Elric, then go ahead, there’s nothing stopping you. if you feel the need to pick up a rifle, it will be there for you. Adding the rifle wouldn’t be game-breaking but it will attract more people the class, maybe even the game.

There is no reason to claim that the Longbow is not going to be changed. The game is two weeks old and they have repeatedly stated that balance changes will be cautious and take a long time to appear. TheLongbow could be buffed in the future. There is also no reason to believe that, should the Rifle be given to the Ranger, that it would function in any way vaguely similar to how it does for the Warrior. In fact, you could guarantee 100% that it would not. Look at Engineer Rifle, or Warrior Longbow. Weapons function dramatically different from one class to the next. Any delusion otherwise is pure insanity.

FrozenLuv.6017:

Adding the rifle wouldn’t be game-breaking but it will attract more people the class, maybe even the game.

FrozenLuv.6017:

maybe even the game.

LOL

I doubt adding a rifle would attract many, if any, to the Ranger. The core mechanic of the class is the pet, not weapon selection (that is the Warrior you are thinking of, and they have Rifles: you may like them!). Whether or not you like having a pet is going to be a major determining factor to who does/does not play the class. Attract people to the game, however? Even hyperbole fails to describe that accurately!

Yea, using hyperbole to try and convince people wasn’t great idea in hindsight. -_-
i’m not saying that the long bow wouldn’t be changed, i’m even happy the way they are. Its just that saying something is against the lore is a really bad reason to justify why a class shouldn’t have something, its just choice and preference, similar to how the other classes have weapons that don’t make sense, (i’m looking at you, necros with axes).

The thing is that the class atm focus on mobility and on pets.
Tbh i cant really rely on pets so half of the class dont function properly.
Now becouse they focus on mobility we really lacking a weapon that has mostly dps abilities.
Anyways back to the point i dont think that rifle suits BUT maybe double pistol ?? I know that when you thinking ranger you thinking wooden weapons but our only “wooden choice” that i can think atm is crossbow.

PS: In general i want 2 handed axes in the game – something that is confirmed for expansion.
PS2: Fix shortbow. The fair is to have it as main weapon but its so …. mediocre.
PS3: I also dont like our 1 handed main hand weapons but i love GS.

Right… bow is “pro-nature” weapon. But you seem to forget bow has been invented to hunt animals and rifle first targer were humans! So how does bow fit for nature defender?
And get out with definitions based on traditional thingies. This is game, not classic RPG. I made ranger because I wanted marksman kind of character (and ranger has longes range in game), just as in every game I play – even GW1.
Why should I be put into some druidic theme if I don’t even use such skills or traits? My ranger is purely bow-oriented. If you imagine this class other way it’s YOUR opinion, not fact.

To sum it up… I don’t see reason to don’t have another OPTION (yep, option, if someone doesn’t want to use it he doesn’t have to) in weapon selection.

Btw. isn’t GS strange for ranger? I understand axe or hammer, but GS is most anti druidic/survivalist 2-handed weapon I could imagine

arji.7192:

PS: In general i want 2 handed axes in the game – something that is confirmed for expansion.
.

This would be AWESOME, not just for rangers but for everyone. Crossbows would also be a nice addition. Just because other weapons can do essentially do the job just as well, doesn’t mean that weapon shouldn’t be in the game. It once again comes down to choice, people might find rifles aesthetically pleasing.

Ranger’s don’t need rifles, but they need a serious improvement of the flashy-factor on bows. They’re horribly behind all other professions in the visual design department. the attacks on their melee weapons also have better visual execution than those on ranged weapons, which is even more bizarre for a class that’s still designed to be more range-oriented than melee. so I hope ANet looks at that. rifles aren’t needed for that, but if its the only way it can happen, I’ll agree to it

Once again, i must reiterate that its not about the NEED of a rifle, but about having the CHOICE of a rifle. It doesn’t even need to be implemented in the short run. It would just be nice to being able CHOOSE the rifle as a weapon set.

Then why does not every class have every single weapon? It is not about whether or not they actually need them, it is about the choice.

Elric of Grans.7684
Then why does not every class have every single weapon? It is not about whether or not they actually need them, it is about the choice.

THAT’S A GREAT IDEA, no sarcasm, i’m loving the way you think more and more

Zsymon.8457:

Don’t compare the ranger of a fantasy game with the ranger of real life too much, because in real life no one uses bows anymore, compare it with fantasy lore. Fantasy lore clearly says that rangers and rifles are a very ill match. Rangers are about nature (hunters are not rangers, hunters are also anti-nature), and rifles are about as anti-nature as is possible.

People use bows for hunting all the time in the real world. And everything that is created in fantasy, has its roots in the real world. But what fantasy lore “says”, and what Guild Wars 2 lore is, are two different things. Implying that fantasy has some kind of rule set is just ridiculous. It’s fantasy, for crying out loud! Fantasy can be whatever the universe, it’s created for, allows it to be. And as I’ve already written twice in this topic; it only makes sense that Rangers, in Guild Wars 2, realized the benefits of a rifle, just like we did in the real world when rifles were first created. Why would Rangers be stubborn about it and go “oh, I can’t use this weapon to my benefit, because I like nature magic”?

There’s absolutely nothing anti-natural about a rifle, saying that only reveals that you have no idea how a rifle works. First of all, a rifle can be made of materials that are all found in nature (wood and metal). Even gunpowder is made of things found in nature (sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter). And the fact that a rifle is loud does not make it anti-natural on its own. Animals can be trained so they aren’t scared of the gunfire, and in a war situation there is so much noise from other things away, so a gunfire noise from a Ranger won’t make any difference.

No and they never will. A Ranger does not mean ‘a person who uses ranged weaponry’. Here is what it means:

The term ranger seems to correspond to the Medieval Latin word regardatores which appeared in 1217 in the Charter of the Forest. Regardatores was later rendered as rangers in the English translations of the Charter. Rangers were royal officials employed to “range” through the countryside providing law and order (often against poaching). Their duties were originally confined to seeing that the Forest Law was enforced in the outlands, or purlieus, of the royal forests.

Rangers are basicly the protectors of nature and guns are the absolute opposite of nature, they are industry and will never be used in the hands of a Ranger. In any game. Ever.

Ebs.6280:

No and they never will. A Ranger does not mean ‘a person who uses ranged weaponry’. Here is what it means:

The term ranger seems to correspond to the Medieval Latin word regardatores which appeared in 1217 in the Charter of the Forest. Regardatores was later rendered as rangers in the English translations of the Charter. Rangers were royal officials employed to “range” through the countryside providing law and order (often against poaching). Their duties were originally confined to seeing that the Forest Law was enforced in the outlands, or purlieus, of the royal forests.

Rangers are basicly the protectors of nature and guns are the absolute opposite of nature, they are industry and will never be used in the hands of a Ranger. In any game. Ever.

There’s a huge difference between a royal official ranger who is trained to uphold law and order, and a ranger who fights in a war. You can’t just compare the two based on the term alone. That’s like saying a park ranger and a military ranger is the same thing, just because they share the same name.

Fundamentally, it boils down to this – rangers are wilderness scouts. Scouts rely on concealment, discretion, and being “one with nature”, and their combat tactics usually involve stalking, ambushing, and skirmishing.

It’s not that a ranger would never use a gun in any situation ever, that’s not the purpose of weapon restrictions. Weapon restrictions are an abstraction; it is more precise to say that every profession has weapons they are significantly more likely to use in generalized situations than other weapons, and the weapon restrictions are what supports the intended flavor of each profession in the game world.

Rangers getting rifles would mean you’d see rangers all over the place in the game using rifles (in part because many of them come from playing hunters in wow, don’t get me started on that class). This is a direct contradiction to the flavor and the feel that the ranger class in GW2 is supposed to evoke, and that’s why it probably shouldn’t ever happen.

More importantly, it is important to get over the misconception that Ranger = ranged weapon master. That is NOT the case, and WoW is the only game ever (ok, not literally) that designs classes around a gamist/mechanical gimmick like “melee” or “ranged” rather than a thematic concept, which is one of the reasons it’s extremely overrated.

I think all that “ranger is not archer/hunter/anything” isn’t right. In GW1 I was ranger because of bow! Ranger was most bow-oriented class. In GW2 longbow ranger has longest (1500 traited) range, so he also feels good for ppl looking for archer-type character.
Let’s not keep to ranger definition that closely, coz it’s only name. It’s like saing theif should be focused on stealing than knifing, assasinating, being ninja, because he is thief, not assassin :P
And I have to agree that rifles make more noise than bows, but in GW2 there are models with silencers!

And btw. I prefer bows, but it wouldn’t hurt to have another option, eh?

Kasama.8941:

Ebs.6280:

No and they never will. A Ranger does not mean ‘a person who uses ranged weaponry’. Here is what it means:

The term ranger seems to correspond to the Medieval Latin word regardatores which appeared in 1217 in the Charter of the Forest. Regardatores was later rendered as rangers in the English translations of the Charter. Rangers were royal officials employed to “range” through the countryside providing law and order (often against poaching). Their duties were originally confined to seeing that the Forest Law was enforced in the outlands, or purlieus, of the royal forests.

Rangers are basicly the protectors of nature and guns are the absolute opposite of nature, they are industry and will never be used in the hands of a Ranger. In any game. Ever.

There’s a huge difference between a royal official ranger who is trained to uphold law and order, and a ranger who fights in a war. You can’t just compare the two based on the term alone. That’s like saying a park ranger and a military ranger is the same thing, just because they share the same name.

Wasn’t that exactly what you were trying to do earlier with Rodger’s Rangers?