Guild Wars 2

Anet game designer envisaged a sword/bow/dagger-wielding, elven-ish, druid-ish, at-one-with-nature-and-the-beasts Ranger.

Says said designer to American art team, “Go create some armour for a Ranger”.
Infamous last words;

We now have as many variations as one could imagine for an American ‘Texas’ Ranger in a cowboy hat and trench coat—but without the possibility to actually wield pistols or a rifle. Click for a Texas Ranger

End Result; Ludicrous. Tell me this ain’t how it went down, and I’ll eat my hat.
Anet, may we please have more armour that has synergy with a fantasy-style Ranger?

Pure Heart.1456:

Anet, may we please have more armour that has synergy with a fantasy-style Ranger?

Or… Give us pistols and rifles. :p

One can dream of a life without trenchcoats

On board with op. I’m tired of coats and kitten steampunk armors. But that’s what we’ll get as long as the armor classes shares skins and the game is heading in its current direction.

cafard.8953:

Pure Heart.1456:

Anet, may we please have more armour that has synergy with a fantasy-style Ranger?

Or… Give us pistols and rifles. :p

Yeah, why not. The class has been heading way out of its origins ever since the game was developed anyways.

Seriously though, if they ever add anything, I want a staff and a MH dagger.

We have engis and thieves looking like this. Also the world ranger has different meanings between fantasy worlds.

Also, if they were going to give all classes new weaps (not going to happen but anyways), rangers would most likely get a staff for druidic support build.

Why rangers want pistols and rifles is beyond me. The longbow is probably the best ranged power wep and short bow is great for medium hybrid and conditions pressure. What could rifle or pistol do

I agree, ranged DPS weapons are available with Axe MH, LB and SB. Staff for support would be the greatest.

As a sylvari i use cultural-ta armor mix with cultural gs and kudzu + yellow flower backpack. Looks like a walking flower garden (and i wear a kodan mask just for fun)
Nearly every day somebody ask what i wear

Oh it’s not all bad, some trenchcoats are alright!

On a side note, yeah, I would love to see pistols or rifles, been a ranger main for a very long time, and I don’t like either of the bows. If I ever need range I just grab an axe

Its not just the amount of trench coats that is bad…throw on the glorious hero chest piece in the wardrobe and you’ll see how bad 90% of the pants look as well.

xSarin.2498:

Oh it’s not all bad, some trenchcoats are alright!

On a side note, yeah, I would love to see pistols or rifles

Doesn’t fit the class, doesn’t fit its’ theme, doesn’t do anything that the bows already do, or anything the thief or engie already do. Why certain rangers want pistols and/or rifles for anything other than aesthetics is beyond me. And if that’s the main reason, you might aswell roll an engie.

If Anet hasn’t abadoned this class’ origins completely, they should actually add something that is needed and in theme of the ranger in the future.

Lazze.9870:

xSarin.2498:

Oh it’s not all bad, some trenchcoats are alright!

On a side note, yeah, I would love to see pistols or rifles

Doesn’t fit the class, doesn’t fit its’ theme, doesn’t do anything that the bows already do, or anything the thief or engie already do. Why certain rangers want pistols and/or rifles for anything other than aesthetics is beyond me. And if that’s the main reason, you might aswell roll an engie.

If Anet hasn’t abadoned this class’ origins completely, they should actually add something that is needed and in theme of the ranger in the future.

If I want a rifle for asthetics that means I like how the Ranger plays. If I like how the ranger plays why would I want to play an Engineer just to get a look I desire.

I want a rifle, I also want a melee axe with a dagger. I want my Ranger to be the guy from Last of the Mohicans. I could play a warrior for Rifle and melee axe, but not the dagger, and it would be heavy armor.

The problem with Rifle is the question, “what could it do that the ranger can’t already do?” That’s a tough question. But if that question can be answers satisfactorily it should be, because that is really the only relevant question that should be holding us back.

Pure Heart.1456:

Anet game designer envisaged a sword/bow/dagger-wielding, elven-ish, druid-ish, at-one-with-nature-and-the-beasts Ranger.

Says said designer to American art team, “Go create some armour for a Ranger”.
Infamous last words;

We now have as many variations as one could imagine for an American ‘Texas’ Ranger in a cowboy hat and trench coat—but without the possibility to actually wield pistols or a rifle. Click for a Texas Ranger

End Result; Ludicrous. Tell me this ain’t how it went down, and I’ll eat my hat.
Anet, may we please have more armour that has synergy with a fantasy-style Ranger?

Well it was actually Chuck Norris who was the one who made that decision. He was a fan of the GW1 and decided “hey, if they are making a ranger, it had better look like me gosh darn it!” So he called up Anet and was all like “HEY!!! Make your ranger look like me!” and Anet was all “Yes sir!”

So thats why ranger armor looks more like “American Texas Ranger”.

Also what would you consider a more fantasy ranger look? I find the trench coat, and hat look to fall more in line with a fantasy ranger than anything.

Kal Spiro.9745:

If I want a rifle for asthetics that means I like how the Ranger plays. If I like how the ranger plays why would I want to play an Engineer just to get a look I desire.

Perhaps to make a point. Adding a weapon for pure aesthetics reasons is just as stupid as rolling a new class simply because of a desired look.

Your ranger will never resemble the guy from the Last of the Mohicans for some of the same reason it shouldn’t have a rifle. It’s so far off its’ origins and the theme of the class it’s not even funny.

By the way, you’re wrong. Potential usage isn’t the only relevant factor when adding a weapon. The ranger class has its’ rpg origins, and I can tell those origins weren’t inspired by a bloody gunslinger. And if they won’t give necros more access to stability because of “theme related reasons”, I’m sure that goes for anything else they would add.

The Strider’s Defense trait they added is pretty useless, but at least it shows where they drawing their inspiration from when working on the ranger and what they want the class to be like. Google it if you don’t get the reference.

The last part of your post I already mentioned, I suppose it didn’t went way over your head.. Rifles and pistols wouldn’t add anything new. Nor will ranger rifles/pistols be distinguished enough from excisting weapon skills in the game. All talk about themes aside, I haven’t seen a single, purely mechanical valid reason for adding rifles and pistols to the ranger.

People want it for the looks. It’s stupid.

Lazze.9870:

Rifles and pistols wouldn’t add anything new. Nor will ranger rifles/pistols be distinguished enough from excisting weapon skills in the game. All talk about themes aside, I haven’t seen a single, purely mechanical valid reason for adding rifles and pistols to the ranger.

People want it for the looks. It’s stupid.

Look my friend, the Ranger class fits too many archetypes for its own good. Archer, Beastmaster, Oooga-booga-not-too-clever-but-bone-throwing-superstitious-stick-throwers Shaman, etc. Also Hunter.

And what do you need to hunt? A bear, a bow and 25 stacks of might A mustache, a dog and a rifle, that’s what!

Now many classes have access to mustache and rifle, so yes, in theory you could give them a dog to make a perfect Hunter archetype. But frankly, people who like pets already play ranger. In fact, not even all people playing rangers like pets. But i’m being sidetracked. In short, giving dogs to warriors and engies is not going to happen, ever. So they’re stuck with a rifle and a mustache, this is lacking.

The ranger on the other hand has the dog. And the mustache, of course. Giving us a rifle is the only way to properly fulfill the Hunter archetype in a civilised society.

cafard.8953:

The ranger on the other hand has the dog. And the mustache, of course. Giving us a rifle is the only way to properly fulfill the Hunter archetype in a civilised society.

I have images of british fox hunters with huge mustaches popping up in my mind every time I read comments about adding a rifle for the ranger.

Lazze.9870:

cafard.8953:

The ranger on the other hand has the dog. And the mustache, of course. Giving us a rifle is the only way to properly fulfill the Hunter archetype in a civilised society.

I have images of british fox hunters with huge mustaches popping up in my mind every time I read comments about adding a rifle for the ranger.

Then you sir, have the correct idea in mind.

As for the RP origin, seriously ANet doesn’t actually understand what they want the Ranger to be at all. That’s why it’s taken them two years to even get the Ranger half way decent as just a general class, short of a handful of effective bits and one or two builds at a time. Making it so that I can play a man who chooses to ally with the ways of a primitive nature loving people while continuing to use the implements of a more technologically advanced culture doesn’t take away from those origins.

We do want it for the looks, though I would like to see a similar but different skill set to Longbow. I like Longbow for what it is, but I could go for option B on all accounts, whatever option B would be. Truth be told, though, if there was a way they could make a rifle skin for longbow that had the animation style of a rifle, that would be good enough for me. I know that’s as unlikely, but it would be good enough. I don’t even care that barrage would make no sense.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Lazze.9870:

cafard.8953:

The ranger on the other hand has the dog. And the mustache, of course. Giving us a rifle is the only way to properly fulfill the Hunter archetype in a civilised society.

I have images of british fox hunters with huge mustaches popping up in my mind every time I read comments about adding a rifle for the ranger.

Then you sir, have the correct idea in mind.

Yes, which is exactly why I’m glad this isn’t what the ranger is based on.

“Rangers are usually associated with the wisdom of nature. Rangers tend to be wise, cunning, and perceptive in addition to being skilled woodsmen. Many are skilled in stealth, wilderness survival, beast-mastery, herbalism, and tracking. Archery and (often dual-wielding) swordplay are common to rangers, though there are many instances where rangers use a variety of weapons, skills, and sometimes magic or have a resistance to magic.”

Most of these ideas have in some ways been introduced through the Guild Wars ranger throughout the two games. The class did for example have a natural armor resistance to elemental damage in the first game. If you’re complaining about Anet not knowing how the class should be like, how would adding rifles and pistols into the mix making it any better? That would more than anything they’ve already done make it look like they have no idea about what they want to do with this class.

The problem with the ranger in the second game is that it ended up being a mash-up of different ideas from other classes, and then simply called the ranger for the sake of the original game. I think Anet have a pretty good idea on what the ranger should be like thematically, simply because it’s one of the classes that carried on from the first game. However, mechanically it hasn’t worked out as well as it should have been.

Just from the top of my head, getting rid of the beastmaster aspects (ofc, that is never gonna happen) and make a class mechanic evolved around some of its other elements would be a step in the right direction imo. The shout skills could, for instance, have simply been replaced by stances like the class had in the first game, which would improve the somewhat current lack of mobility the class has. The first game had several, both offensive and defensive/supportive ranger stances commonly used in meta builds, that I would love to see adapted into GW2.

Lazze.9870:

The problem with the ranger in the second game is that it ended up being a mash-up of different ideas from other classes, and then simply called the ranger for the sake of the original game. I think Anet have a pretty good idea on what the ranger should be like thematically, simply because it’s one of the classes that carried on from the first game. However, mechanically it hasn’t worked out as well as it should have been.

Just this. You say it specifically, as I said it. They had no actual direction when they made this. It’s not the ranger from the first game in anything but name and cosmetic appearance of some of the powers. I know it’s certainly not my ranger.

I’m not down with pistols, I really don’t see how a gun slinger fits into any theme, but a rifle has no trouble at all. It’s actually more work to try to explain away a rifle than to accept it. Why don’t ranger’s use rifles? “Oh because no thematic representation of a ranger used a rifle.” Why not? “Oh because it’s not naturey… also because they’re not a thing that existed for any of those rangers.” Any real life representation of a ranger, though, has immediately accepted and incorporated rifles as something they would choose over a bow because they are automatically superior.

Shooting something with a bullet and shooting it with an arrow is still killing something. Bullets are just more powerful, more accurate and more efficient. Mechanically speaking that’s not true, but thematically speaking it is. As such, of course Rangers would have adopted them as a tool as soon as they became available to use. Especially Charr and Asura rangers who care about that sort of thing, with humans right behind them.

Kal Spiro.9745:

It’s actually more work to try to explain away a rifle than to accept it.

If that was the case I wouldn’t be doing it.

GW2’s ranger has chosen to stick with the bow instead of using a rifle. That’s a design decision Anet already made (speaking of accepting things). The weapons the ranger is currently using are all common weapons to the ranger archetype. Swords, daggers, axes, bows, torch etc. It’s pretty obvious to me that Anet wanted this class’ weapons to stay true to the familiar ranger archetype as far as weapon usage goes.

I find it almost funny how you’re complaining about developers having no idea about what to do with this class, and then you still want to change one of the few things that still makes it clear that this class is based upon the classic ranger archetype, that being its choice of weapons. And I don’t care if rifles are superior to bows because Anet isn’t following that logic in their fantasy game. You could make the same argument about every other aspect of the game, and you would eventually end up completely changing the game from what it currently is.

Going back to what this class needs, rifles aren’t one of those things. They wouldn’t add anything new to ranger and/or anything that is different enough to seperate it from the warrior and engie rifles. I’d rather want them to expand upon the ideas of the class being a user of nature magic, and give the class weapons and skills that could enhance this part of the class. Not only because it would make sense and further expand upon the archetype, but also because the class needs it. And because I can’t stand another reason for new rangers to stand behind their pet and fire shots from a distance.

Vikkela.7261:

One can dream of a life without trenchcoats

Trenchcoats, super long tunics, and dresses… for male medium armor… I don’t think the “artist” know how to draw anything else OTHER THAN trenchcoats and things that are like trenchcoats.

There are, literally, only two armor sets that aren’t trenchcoat or variation of trenchcoat:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Human_male_medium_armor

Right now it looks like glorious is the only option worth going after.