Guild Wars 2

riku.2091:

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.

You’ve missed the point completely, those could all be done on the rifle and not as a collection of skills from the class.

Until they add cripple to Longshot 1 and or remove the range penalty Rifle > Longbow any day.

I’m a bit confused here with the arguments going on. People are comparing the Warrior Rifle to the Ranger Longbow, yes? They are very similar weapons for both professions, they both have a focus on single target ranged damage, both can inflict cripple and vulnerability and both have a knockback ability.

The question, as I see it, is do you just want buffs to the longbow and it’s niche or do you want a rifle for the ranger? The answer to this has very different answers. We’re not going to get the warrior rifle just to have it, if we get a rifle it has to function differently than both the longbow and shortbow.

riku.2091:

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

Rogers’ Rangers (not ‘Rodger’ as I misspelled earlier) were military rangers who fought in the ‘French and Indian War’. The general fantasy ranger, and the Ranger of Guild Wars 2, is also a character who is a fighter, and is often seen fighting in wars. Such as the war against the Elder Dragons in Guild Wars 2. Someone who upholds the law is not a fighter, but a peacemaker. A police officer, for instance, avoids fighting if possible because he wants to uphold peace and order.

If we are going to go into the discussion of what originally inspired the fantasy ranger, then there is a much higher chance that it was inspired by Robert Rogers, since a ton of fiction has been created based on his legend. Including several different books, a movie from 1940, and an NBC television series from 1958. The Lord of the Rings were written between 1937 and 1949.

Riot Inducer.8964:

I’m a bit confused here with the arguments going on. People are comparing the Warrior Rifle to the Ranger Longbow, yes? They are very similar weapons for both professions, they both have a focus on single target ranged damage, both can inflict cripple and vulnerability and both have a knockback ability.

The question, as I see it, is do you just want buffs to the longbow and it’s niche or do you want a rifle for the ranger? The answer to this has very different answers. We’re not going to get the warrior rifle just to have it, if we get a rifle it has to function differently than both the longbow and shortbow.

That’s another reason why I would like to see a rifle specifically for the Ranger. Because it could be cool to see how a ArenaNet would make a definitive rifle for the Ranger. I love the animations they have done with the greatsword, and I can imagine how well that could translate to a rifle.

Kasama.8941:

riku.2091:

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

Rogers’ Rangers (not ‘Rodger’ as I misspelled earlier) were military rangers who fought in the ‘French and Indian War’. The general fantasy ranger, and the Ranger of Guild Wars 2, is also a character who is a fighter, and is often seen fighting in wars. Such as the war against the Elder Dragons in Guild Wars 2. Someone who upholds the law is not a fighter, but a peacemaker. A police officer, for instance, avoids fighting if possible because he wants to uphold peace and order.

If we are going to go into the discussion of what originally inspired the fantasy ranger, then there is a much higher chance that it was inspired by Robert Rogers, since a ton of fiction has been created based on his legend. Including several different books, a movie from 1940, and an NBC television series from 1958. The Lord of the Rings were written between 1937 and 1949.

Riot Inducer.8964:

I’m a bit confused here with the arguments going on. People are comparing the Warrior Rifle to the Ranger Longbow, yes? They are very similar weapons for both professions, they both have a focus on single target ranged damage, both can inflict cripple and vulnerability and both have a knockback ability.

The question, as I see it, is do you just want buffs to the longbow and it’s niche or do you want a rifle for the ranger? The answer to this has very different answers. We’re not going to get the warrior rifle just to have it, if we get a rifle it has to function differently than both the longbow and shortbow.

That’s another reason why I would like to see a rifle specifically for the Ranger. Because it could be cool to see how a ArenaNet would make a definitive rifle for the Ranger. I love the animations they have done with the greatsword, and I can imagine how well that could translate to a rifle.

But that’s the point. What could they give the rifle that we can’t already do? Giving it roughly the same abilities put together would probably unbalance the class, and just doing it cause it looks cool would be a waste of time when they could be working on other things.

I think that’s the biggest problem I have. Everyone who wants the rifle seems to be admitting that it wouldn’t bring anything new to the table. They just…want a rifle. Because. For the coolz.

And Kasama, our Rangers don’t start off as soldiers against the dragons, unless they’re Sylvari and Norn. The two least technological races in the game. In contrast, the most industrial race will ALWAYS get a firearm, eliminating the argument about Charr rangers not having access to firearms. Every other character is pretty much just some random x, who through certain events get noticed by the big heroes, and start their journey to battle the dragon.

If rangers did get rifles I actually would prefer them to function as something akin to a hybrid between longbows and shortbows. Namely, keep all the mechanics built for maintaining distance between the two (cripple, knockback, evasion) and build on that, possibly adding pin-down, stun, etc. to the mix.

I’d like a weapon built almost entirely around maintaining your range and the rifle would provide a good vessel for that.

Elric of Grans.7684:

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.

Mages have, indeed, long been associated with Daggers. For example, my EQ2 Illusionist was able to use them when the game released (November 8, 2004). The association certainly long predates EQ2.

This used to be a huge discussion on Guild Wars 2 Guru for a while after the Ranger announcement, but if I recall correctly, ArenaNet had said Rangers are strictly bows to offset the strictly guns Engineer.

However, that never really ended the discussion, as seen here.

My own thoughts on rifles are mixed. IMHO, the Ranger isn’t a Druid or a master of ranged weapons. He’s just a wilderness geurilla-fighter who uses whatever weapons that fit his purpose. In this case, that’s bows, swords, throwing weapons, and assorted offhands.

You can make the argument that rifles fit the Ranger thematically, sure. However, the rifle just doesn’t add anything to the Ranger in terms of gameplay. We already have the Longbow for long-range, high-damage builds, and the Shortbow and Axes for Mid to close-range, condition damage builds. All the weapons also have their own form of AoE: Barrage, Poison Spray, or Ricochet/Splitblade + Bonfire or Path of Scars/Whirling Defense. The only real role the Rifle could have is a heavy-control weapon, but then its competing with Point-Blank Shot, Crippling Shot/Concussive Shot, and Winter’s Bite. The only control types not present on a weapon are immobilize, launch, and fear, and the only one not available readily through pet skills or utilities is launch.

As cool as a rifle would be, there’s just not much room for it between the Longbow, Shortbow, and Axe. Rather than crowd another unnecessary weapon into the mix, I’d rather A-Net work more on making all our current options viable.

Kasama.8941:

If we are going to go into the discussion of what originally inspired the fantasy ranger, then there is a much higher chance that it was inspired by Robert Rogers, since a ton of fiction has been created based on his legend. Including several different books, a movie from 1940, and an NBC television series from 1958. The Lord of the Rings were written between 1937 and 1949.

The original fantasy Ranger was Strider in The Lord of the Rings. He used a sword. Clearly in no way influenced by Rogers’ Rangers. He was one of the Rangers of the North, a group who ranged the borderlands and were skilled in sword, bow and spear. There were also Rangers of the South, who were much the game. The first Ranger class in RPGs was in D&D and was also closely related to the medieval rangers, not Rogers’. They also ranged the wilderness, protecting it against any threat. In one optional ruleset, they were required to be skilled in bows, sword and spears, but standard rules made them legitimate options.

riku.2091:

I think that’s the biggest problem I have. Everyone who wants the rifle seems to be admitting that it wouldn’t bring anything new to the table. They just…want a rifle. Because. For the coolz.

And Kasama, our Rangers don’t start off as soldiers against the dragons, unless they’re Sylvari and Norn. The two least technological races in the game. In contrast, the most industrial race will ALWAYS get a firearm, eliminating the argument about Charr rangers not having access to firearms. Every other character is pretty much just some random x, who through certain events get noticed by the big heroes, and start their journey to battle the dragon.

If we only had weapons because we needed them, this game would be much more boring. Why have daggers when we have torches, or greatswords when we have the swords, then? As said many times in this thread; it’s not about whether or not we need a rifle, it’s simply just that it could be fun. This is a game, there doesn’t need to be any other reason then that. This is not the first topic about it, and it won’t be the last, so obviously it’s something a lot of people want. The fact that people are even arguing against this with lore is bizarre, since no one is forced to use any weapon. If the rifle was added to the game, then people who liked it could use it, and people who didn’t like it could choose to completely ignore it. Just like we do with any other weapon.

Every race you play as can and wants to fight. Every race is also given orders from people within their own race who are a “higher rank” then them, and they follow those orders without question. Later we join one of three orders, where we are literally joined in a rank of many other people. All that pretty much qualifies us as soldiers, even if we don’t start of as one.

Elric of Grans.7684:

Kasama.8941:

If we are going to go into the discussion of what originally inspired the fantasy ranger, then there is a much higher chance that it was inspired by Robert Rogers, since a ton of fiction has been created based on his legend. Including several different books, a movie from 1940, and an NBC television series from 1958. The Lord of the Rings were written between 1937 and 1949.

The original fantasy Ranger was Strider in The Lord of the Rings. He used a sword. Clearly in no way influenced by Rogers’ Rangers. He was one of the Rangers of the North, a group who ranged the borderlands and were skilled in sword, bow and spear. There were also Rangers of the South, who were much the game. The first Ranger class in RPGs was in D&D and was also closely related to the medieval rangers, not Rogers’. They also ranged the wilderness, protecting it against any threat. In one optional ruleset, they were required to be skilled in bows, sword and spears, but standard rules made them legitimate options.

I messed up that explanation a bit there. What I meant to write was “there is a much higher chance that Tolkien was inspired by Robert Rogers, since a ton of fiction has been created based on his legend”. My point is that Tolkiens description of the ranger has a lot in common with Robert Rogers, so there’s a high chance that the Rogers’ Rangers were the original inspiration for the fantasy ranger. But that’s just a guess of curse.

I really don’t understand where this argument of “Rangers shouldn’t have access to Rifles – or firearms at all – because they are nature oriented.” I mean: they use swords don’t they? Aren’t swords crafted using refined metal? Should Rangers be limited to Torches and Warhorns alone?

Rangers have a naturalistic flavor to them but it is not their definition. I know not everyone likes their rifles mixed with their mental image of Ranger. But then I don’t see why Mesmers – a magey class focused around screwing with enemies and wasting their efforts on clones – should have access to the Greatsword as a weapon; this doesn’t mean the Greatsword doesn’t work as a Mesmer weapon or “fit”.

As for gameplay niche – I’m sure Arenanet would do a superb job differentiating Ranger-Rifle from Warrior and Engineer’s Rifle skillset; and in terms of class weapon space, I’d bet there’s room for Ranger-Rifle next to Ranger-Longbow or -Shortbow.

Godunderscor.1086:

I really don’t understand where this argument of “Rangers shouldn’t have access to Rifles – or firearms at all – because they are nature oriented.” I mean: they use swords don’t they? Aren’t swords crafted using refined metal? Should Rangers be limited to Torches and Warhorns alone?

Rangers have a naturalistic flavor to them but it is not their definition. I know not everyone likes their rifles mixed with their mental image of Ranger. But then I don’t see why Mesmers – a magey class focused around screwing with enemies and wasting their efforts on clones – should have access to the Greatsword as a weapon; this doesn’t mean the Greatsword doesn’t work as a Mesmer weapon or “fit”.

We already covered the swords. Strider didn’t go around headshoting people with a rifle. He DID go around with swords. Dagger poisons, and Torch burns. Two different conditions.

And…uh, yeah. It kinda is their definition. Rangers are to nature as Engineers are to technology. Think of this. There are two firearms, and two bows. Each ranged family has a member based on speed, another on power.

Warriors can use longbows and rifles(Both power options), while Thieves can use shortbows and pistols(Both speed options).

Rangers use shortbows and longbows(Power and speed option).

Engineers use pistols and rifles(Power and speed option).

I believe someone mentioned that ANet did make a statement on this – Rangers don’t get pistols and rifles, and Engineers don’t get bows. Why? Lore, and because of overlap. I can literally think of nothing that could justify giving us another skillset, since we have everything we could want covered through weapons and pets. Whether or not it’s perfect is a matter of patching, not giving us a new weapon.