Guild Wars 2

DeceiverX.8361:

The ranged weapon makes the ranger.

That makes YOUR idea of the Ranger, though the original Ranger was equally adept with melee weapons. You like Archers, which may be a sub-class/“kit” of a Ranger, but not representative of all Rangers-at least not traditionally at all. The word Ranger, kitten many have already established many times over, has nothing to do with the range on ranged weapons.

You can still play as an “Archer” if you’d like anyway, though by your post I assume you believe it’s not viable to do so. But you can go that route if you really only like bows on Rangers.

Star Ace.5207:

Solid Gold.9310:

Rangers who have played Rangers in other mmo’s.

Too bad for you this isn’t those other games you were used too? No offense meant, but GW2’s Ranger needs not be bound to “ageless” MMO criteria used in other games… especially considering that at least this Ranger is closer to the original archetype than many of those other MMOs where it’s usually just an Archer.

Again, no offense or argument intended. I do not like “L2P” thrown around either, but many of the OP’s complaints could have been very well avoided by just playing his/her Ranger differently, rather than pretending the Profession to play JUST as he/she expected.

Feel free to disagree of course. No point in debating something we won’t change our minds about, and there’s nothing wrong with not thinking the same way.

As I said, I have respect for people who want to play differently, and for game studios who wish to make accommodations for newer playstyles.

Fact of the matter is that it shouldn’t come at the cost of forcing people to change the way they want to play just because its a “fresh spin on things” or a “defining factor” from other games.

That’s why I proposed the idea that I did. Nowhere does it take away the experience from people wanting to use the pets. Defaulting the player with one definitely encourages this, and I think that’s all that’s needed to get players to at least sample this playstyle.

I’m not hating against originality or changing things up, but I’m hating against the notion that change is required for everyone, even if not desired.

And frankly, a ton of the ranger frustration threads come up from people who feel exactly the same way I do. I won’t argue there are people who are happy with the way rangers play. It’s just that a lot of people aren’t happy there isn’t an archer or any kind of alternative for the archetype.

It’s what makes our arguments equally valid, and why I like the idea. Nowhere do numbers have to be changed, nowhere do major overhauls need to be done. Just provide an irremovable boon to players not using the pet which compensates for the lost damage. They therefore miss out on the utility the pet brings such as soaking aggro/buffing players/etc., but are at least allowed to play the build they choose to.

Again, it’s going by ANet’s policy here that they wanted to create a game where people got to play anything how they want to. Frankly, the archer ranger just doesn’t exist, and a lot of people are upset about it. Nobody’s asking for ratio increases or perfect AI, but people simply wish to play differently and be considered/allowed to play differently without such awful penalties.

DeceiverX.8361:

— snip —

I’m sorry, but despite the name the GW2 ranger is a pet class.

Overthrust.2659:

the ranger is in a bad position, mostly because 40 percent of your dmg is dead crawling in your legs 90 percent of the time (the other 10 is inmobile after pet swap) also all our traits are garbage for that dead pet and the rest are just nonsense that requirse you be half dead to trigger, on top of that nerfed weapons…. we have nothing to support a zerg. Icould go on all day long but Im tired and currently leveling my warrior permastun with 4kdmg without dimishing returns inmune to conditions with endure pain invulnerability

Ok. The ranger pet is in a bad place, but it’s not that bad. If your pet is down 90% of the time then you might want to micromanage your pet a bit more. Now 100% uptime is very hard to impossible to do. But only 10% is … pretty bad. Unless your talking of WvW zergs. Then yes, you may be right.

SynfulChaot.3169:

DeceiverX.8361:

— snip —

I’m sorry, but despite the name the GW2 ranger is a pet class.

Overthrust.2659:

the ranger is in a bad position, mostly because 40 percent of your dmg is dead crawling in your legs 90 percent of the time (the other 10 is inmobile after pet swap) also all our traits are garbage for that dead pet and the rest are just nonsense that requirse you be half dead to trigger, on top of that nerfed weapons…. we have nothing to support a zerg. Icould go on all day long but Im tired and currently leveling my warrior permastun with 4kdmg without dimishing returns inmune to conditions with endure pain invulnerability

Ok. The ranger pet is in a bad place, but it’s not that bad. If your pet is down 90% of the time then you might want to micromanage your pet a bit more. Now 100% uptime is very hard to impossible to do. But only 10% is … pretty bad. Unless your talking of WvW zergs. Then yes, you may be right.

yeah talking about wvw stuff with the pets.

DeceiverX.8361:

As I said, I have respect for people who want to play differently, and for game studios who wish to make accommodations for newer playstyles.

Fact of the matter is that it shouldn’t come at the cost of forcing people to change the way they want to play just because its a “fresh spin on things” or a “defining factor” from other games.

That’s why I proposed the idea that I did. Nowhere does it take away the experience from people wanting to use the pets. Defaulting the player with one definitely encourages this, and I think that’s all that’s needed to get players to at least sample this playstyle.

The problem with removing the pets or making them optional is that they are the ranger’s primary class mechanic. You cannot remove any other class’s primary mechanic. Why should the ranger be unique in being able to?

DeceiverX.8361:

I’m not hating against originality or changing things up, but I’m hating against the notion that change is required for everyone, even if not desired.

And frankly, a ton of the ranger frustration threads come up from people who feel exactly the same way I do. I won’t argue there are people who are happy with the way rangers play. It’s just that a lot of people aren’t happy there isn’t an archer or any kind of alternative for the archetype.

It’s what makes our arguments equally valid, and why I like the idea. Nowhere do numbers have to be changed, nowhere do major overhauls need to be done. Just provide an irremovable boon to players not using the pet which compensates for the lost damage. They therefore miss out on the utility the pet brings such as soaking aggro/buffing players/etc., but are at least allowed to play the build they choose to.

Again, it’s going by ANet’s policy here that they wanted to create a game where people got to play anything how they want to. Frankly, the archer ranger just doesn’t exist, and a lot of people are upset about it. Nobody’s asking for ratio increases or perfect AI, but people simply wish to play differently and be considered/allowed to play differently without such awful penalties.

As much as I would love a ‘ranged-only’ option for GW2, that … isn’t really feasible in the game. I should probably clarify why, right?

ArenaNet, to reward those for going into the ‘greater dangers’ in melee, has decided that ranged attacks should be inferior to melee due to being in ‘less danger’. They also added ranged-only punishing mechanics like reflect when no melee-only variants exist (retaliation affects melee and ranged). In addition, all melee classes have good gap closers preventing ranged classes from remaining ranged.

So as much as a good ranged class would be, the mechanics of the game are set up to punish us for choosing such a playstyle. Melee is the meta of the game. It is the sad and unfortunate truth.

Again, yes it is the “pet” class because it’s the only one which gets a pet. But if we went by class features, the warrior shouldn’t have access to a longbow due to the armor it wears, not to mention the fact it shoots fire arrows and casts fire effects like a magic class. Yet it does. Why? Because it can, and because it allows for people to play in other ways if they want to.

The only time I find my pet alive is exploring the surface map. WvW, target cricles from bosses, dungeons, etc. wipe the floor with my pet. I’m not pet-friendly because I perform on a higher level of skill than my pet is capable if performing at. I like PvE’ing against 10 mobs at a time and pushing myself to the limit in kiting mobs/people and avoiding damage. It’s being so vulnerable but also so capable that makes ranged classes so much fun. When you try to play at that level, the pet becomes a total liability and completely interferes in basically every way possible.

Frankly the pet management tool isn’t exactly responsive or particularly good for microing, either (see the many threads regarding pet management being kitty). I wouldn’t call attack/defend/return microing. Starcraft and Meepo from Dota are examples of microing. The pet is an excuse for a new mechanic which wasn’t fully developed imho and detracts from possible build varieties.

And that’s the thing. What is there to lose by making such a change? It doesn’t affect pet users (except they could strategically ditch pets during WvW and whatnot)? I just don’t see any real reason to argue against it or a reason for why it shouldn’t be implemented.

DeceiverX.8361:

Again, yes it is the “pet” class because it’s the only one which gets a pet. But if we went by class features, the warrior shouldn’t have access to a longbow due to the armor it wears, not to mention the fact it shoots fire arrows and casts fire effects like a magic class. Yet it does. Why? Because it can, and because it allows for people to play in other ways if they want to.

The only time I find my pet alive is exploring the surface map. WvW, target cricles from bosses, dungeons, etc. wipe the floor with my pet. I’m not pet-friendly because I perform on a higher level of skill than my pet is capable if performing at. I like PvE’ing against 10 mobs at a time and pushing myself to the limit in kiting mobs/people and avoiding damage. It’s being so vulnerable but also so capable that makes ranged classes so much fun. When you try to play at that level, the pet becomes a total liability and completely interferes in basically every way possible.

Frankly the pet management tool isn’t exactly responsive or particularly good for microing, either (see the many threads regarding pet management being kitty). I wouldn’t call attack/defend/return microing. Starcraft and Meepo from Dota are examples of microing. The pet is an excuse for a new mechanic which wasn’t fully developed imho and detracts from possible build varieties.

And that’s the thing. What is there to lose by making such a change? It doesn’t affect pet users (except they could strategically ditch pets during WvW and whatnot)? I just don’t see any real reason to argue against it or a reason for why it shouldn’t be implemented.

I’m more a proponent of a major revamp/update to the pet system rather than an even optional abandonment of it. It’s definitely got some pretty massive issues, but I think the class would be a lot better if they fixed the issues rather than making the pet optional. All that would do is make the pet unused in most game modes (except maybe roaming WvW and PvP where the pet isn’t a liability.

One of the biggest problems with making the pet optional is that it isn’t just one of the rangers random mechanics. It’s our primary mechanic. Many of our skills and traits are build specifically around our pet. It would be a massive, massive rebuild of the class from the ground up. Fixing the pet’s issues would be comparatively easy to basically having to build an entire new class from scratch.

I think it might have been better for ArenaNet to have named the ranger ‘Beastmaster’ as that is much closer to what the class is than any other ranger archetype and it would keep down the “that isn’t a ranger” complaints, despite it being GW2’s portrayal of a ranger.

SynfulChaot.3169:

The problem with removing the pets or making them optional is that they are the ranger’s primary class mechanic. You cannot remove any other class’s primary mechanic. Why should the ranger be unique in being able to?

As much as I would love a ‘ranged-only’ option for GW2, that … isn’t really feasible in the game. I should probably clarify why, right?

ArenaNet, to reward those for going into the ‘greater dangers’ in melee, has decided that ranged attacks should be inferior to melee due to being in ‘less danger’. They also added ranged-only punishing mechanics like reflect when no melee-only variants exist (retaliation affects melee and ranged). In addition, all melee classes have good gap closers preventing ranged classes from remaining ranged.

So as much as a good ranged class would be, the mechanics of the game are set up to punish us for choosing such a playstyle. Melee is the meta of the game. It is the sad and unfortunate truth.

Yet so many people complain about Thieves’ stealth and ANet seems just fine with nerfing it. While I get stealing is the class mechanic for the thief, that ability is just an inherently good one, and a non-steal-based thief isn’t going to rely on steal for damage or specific buffs due to its unreliability. It’s a great gap-closer and has good synergy with the class mechanics in itself. And most thieves don’t build steal-oriented anyways. Mug was just too good to pass up before it was nerfed due to the damage it dealt.

And that’s the thing. Putting your pet away doesn’t mean playing totally without it. There are situations where the pets do help out more so than extra damage (again unless you’re like me when I solo), and a good ranger is going to know when that opportunity rises. Requiring to have a class build around its featured idea is just poor design, and as I keep iterating, exactly the opposite of what ANet intended to do. Class features are indeed features. They shouldn’t force people into specific gameplay patterns just to emphasize the class features.

If a ranger starts shelling out heavy damage, people are gonna focus it. Wire him into close range. Throw down combo fields as soon as he launches barrage to either force him to end it early to avoid death or get off as much as possible and die. If people built no-pet-all-bow, it just makes reflect that much MORE potent, then, as then the ranger gets totally shut down by one simple mechanic. If anything, it’s more punishing to allow full-bow builds, then, due to this design.

Like I said, there’s a difference between putting your pet away for more damage and totally not using it. Good rangers will know what to do and when, and pets will therefore retain their value. The way I play – both PvE and PvP, I’d build bow-oriented. That doesn’t mean one should be stronger, and I’m not against reworking pet AI as an additional change to allow pet users to become more competitive.

Overthrust.2659:

the ranger is in a bad position, mostly because 40 percent of your dmg is dead crawling in your legs 90 percent of the time (the other 10 is inmobile after pet swap) also all our traits are garbage for that dead pet and the rest are just nonsense that requirse you be half dead to trigger, on top of that nerfed weapons…. we have nothing to support a zerg. Icould go on all day long but Im tired and currently leveling my warrior permastun with 4kdmg without dimishing returns inmune to conditions with endure pain invulnerability

So basically, because you can’t learn the class you reroll to the most broken class ingame currently running one of the easiest and arguably OP builds in game. Also has Anet EVER confirmed this 40% of damage is the pet, or are you just saying it because you saw the number somewhere?
It takes a keen eye to spot what we can do to support a zerg, but if you won’t put in the effort then it’s probably best you don’t represent a ranger, enjoy you perma-stun warrior though, I know it requires skill for that

Star Ace.5207:

DeceiverX.8361:

The ranged weapon makes the ranger.

That makes YOUR idea of the Ranger, though the original Ranger was equally adept with melee weapons. You like Archers, which may be a sub-class/“kit” of a Ranger, but not representative of all Rangers-at least not traditionally at all. The word Ranger, kitten many have already established many times over, has nothing to do with the range on ranged weapons.

You can still play as an “Archer” if you’d like anyway, though by your post I assume you believe it’s not viable to do so. But you can go that route if you really only like bows on Rangers.

And all of that misses the POINT (or perhaps inadvertently reinforces it): that pets are not the defining trait of rangers and should not be mandatory in this game.

I’ve said for a while now having a pet should be the 5 point benefit of the beastmaster line.

warriorjrd.8695:

Overthrust.2659:

the ranger is in a bad position, mostly because 40 percent of your dmg is dead crawling in your legs 90 percent of the time (the other 10 is inmobile after pet swap) also all our traits are garbage for that dead pet and the rest are just nonsense that requirse you be half dead to trigger, on top of that nerfed weapons…. we have nothing to support a zerg. Icould go on all day long but Im tired and currently leveling my warrior permastun with 4kdmg without dimishing returns inmune to conditions with endure pain invulnerability

So basically, because you can’t learn the class you reroll to the most broken class ingame currently running one of the easiest and arguably OP builds in game. Also has Anet EVER confirmed this 40% of damage is the pet, or are you just saying it because you saw the number somewhere?
It takes a keen eye to spot what we can do to support a zerg, but if you won’t put in the effort then it’s probably best you don’t represent a ranger, enjoy you perma-stun warrior though, I know it requires skill for that

You made it sound like 70% of the rangers qq-ing here bout the class are bad players.. oh please, if something is actually bad just face it and admit it..

DeceiverX.8361:

— snip —

The problem here, as I see it, is that if they had a ‘petless’ option, then they’d need to return our damage coefficient back to 100% otherwise we’d be patently weaker than all other classes. As a result if that became an option, why would you run a pet at all? Why would you again weaken yourself and lower your own damage output to re-link a percentage of your damage to a not-fully-controllable AI that cannot avoid many of the game’s damage sources? That is unless running a pet would have our overall damage between you and your pet to over 100%. And then we’d be accused, and rightly so, of being OP as we’d be capable of more damage output than any other class.

Now to make rangers feel more archery oriented I had a novel thought. Make our damage work backwards from the other classes. Make our bows deal more damage than our melee weapons. Then we’d want to stay at range.

So basically, because you can’t learn the class you reroll to the most broken class ingame currently running one of the easiest and arguably OP builds in game. Also has Anet EVER confirmed this 40% of damage is the pet, or are you just saying it because you saw the number somewhere?
It takes a keen eye to spot what we can do to support a zerg, but if you won’t put in the effort then it’s probably best you don’t represent a ranger, enjoy you perma-stun warrior though, I know it requires skill for that

[/quote]

Yea they can be useful, but they’re kind of the jack of all trades in WvW. Spring is great for rams, they have good skirmish potential (albeit that thieves do this a bit better imho), and have medicore resourcefulness in the zergfights (I’d argue moreso than thieves aside from wire/poison, but that’s really insignificant in the zerg tbh being an ex-Rallian (switched servers to join friends earlier today)). Nonetheless, this isn’t about other classes being OP or whether or not rangers are good or bad as a class; it’s about choice, QoL, and the overarching pet issue.

SynfulChaot.3169:

DeceiverX.8361:

— snip —

The problem here, as I see it, is that if they had a ‘petless’ option, then they’d need to return our damage coefficient back to 100% otherwise we’d be patently weaker than all other classes. As a result if that became an option, why would you run a pet at all? Why would you again weaken yourself and lower your own damage output to re-link a percentage of your damage to a not-fully-controllable AI that cannot avoid many of the game’s damage sources? That is unless running a pet would have our overall damage between you and your pet to over 100%. And then we’d be accused, and rightly so, of being OP as we’d be capable of more damage output than any other class.

Now to make rangers feel more archery oriented I had a novel thought. Make our damage work backwards from the other classes. Make our bows deal more damage than our melee weapons. Then we’d want to stay at range.

Finally, someone finally says it. <3

warriorjrd.8695:

Also has Anet EVER confirmed this 40% of damage is the pet, or are you just saying it because you saw the number somewhere?

Yes it has. 30-40% of our damage is calculated at the design level as coming from our pet. That’s why our attacks are so comparatively low to all the other classes.

SynfulChaot.3169:

DeceiverX.8361:

— snip —

The problem here, as I see it, is that if they had a ‘petless’ option, then they’d need to return our damage coefficient back to 100% otherwise we’d be patently weaker than all other classes. As a result if that became an option, why would you run a pet at all? Why would you again weaken yourself and lower your own damage output to re-link a percentage of your damage to a not-fully-controllable AI that cannot avoid many of the game’s damage sources? That is unless running a pet would have our overall damage between you and your pet to over 100%. And then we’d be accused, and rightly so, of being OP as we’d be capable of more damage output than any other class.

Now to make rangers feel more archery oriented I had a novel thought. Make our damage work backwards from the other classes. Make our bows deal more damage than our melee weapons. Then we’d want to stay at range.

Again, aggro-soak and bonus effects. That utility can be huge when done right as [so (chat filter says no to as + so haha)] many people argue (and when f2 finally works/doesn’t miss is really good).

Buff the bows and you end up with bow warriors/shortbow thieves getting quite a hefty boost. As it stands, bow warrior is already a pretty solid build, too, and poison seeing increased damage would be nuts.

Again, pop reflect and the bow archer is nothing, as you mentioned. The beastmaster or skirmisher is still functioning fairly well, as the bow archer would have no feats in pets and the BM would.

So perhaps an inverse relation between BM progression and ranger (as the single entity) damage? That way if the BM releases the pet he’s fighting uphill, and a bow-based ranger has issues regarding keeping his pet alive and well should he need to summon it? It’d also allow for the possibility of buffing pets/doing something about the interface/responsiveness and the lack of proper AI/response to rings/WvW.

DeceiverX.8361:

Buff the bows and you end up with bow warriors/shortbow thieves getting quite a hefty boost. As it stands, bow warrior is already a pretty solid build, too, and poison seeing increased damage would be nuts.

I’m talking of reversing that melee>range paradigm for rangers only. We are supposed to be ‘unparalled archers’, no?

DeceiverX.8361:

Again, pop reflect and the bow archer is nothing, as you mentioned. The beastmaster or skirmisher is still functioning fairly well, as the bow archer would have no feats in pets and the BM would.

Yes. That is true. It would be a counter to us. As would forcing us into melee. But right now there is no reason for us to not be in melee as melee does far more damage than our bows do.

Nike.2631:

Star Ace.5207:

DeceiverX.8361:

The ranged weapon makes the ranger.

That makes YOUR idea of the Ranger, though the original Ranger was equally adept with melee weapons. You like Archers, which may be a sub-class/“kit” of a Ranger, but not representative of all Rangers-at least not traditionally at all. The word Ranger, kitten many have already established many times over, has nothing to do with the range on ranged weapons.

You can still play as an “Archer” if you’d like anyway, though by your post I assume you believe it’s not viable to do so. But you can go that route if you really only like bows on Rangers.

And all of that misses the POINT (or perhaps inadvertently reinforces it): that pets are not the defining trait of rangers and should not be mandatory in this game.

I’ve said for a while now having a pet should be the 5 point benefit of the beastmaster line.

I think this is probably why nothing has been done regarding the whole ordeal.

The community is actually split regarding what the ranger is actually supposed to signify. Some state it’s all about pets, others about archery.

Unifying the ranger community on this issue and actually working towards a solution that appeals to both sides is probably the way to progress here instead of arguing about whether or not an interpretation is more valid than another.

Which is why I am suggesting such measures. ANet’s philosophy is to cater to everyone in how they choose to want to build/play their characters. Kind of silly to have people arguing over ANet’s content that one philosophy of play or interpretation is inherently wrong or misaligned.

And omygosh typos. Should not be writing at 2:30 in the morning.

Sorry. My feeling on the ranger is that it should stay true to ArenaNet’s vision of the ranger, which is a combination of a beastmaster and a marksman. Not to what everyone in the community thinks the ranger should be. The ranger has too many potential archetypes to be easily described by all as the same thing.

SynfulChaot.3169:

DeceiverX.8361:

Buff the bows and you end up with bow warriors/shortbow thieves getting quite a hefty boost. As it stands, bow warrior is already a pretty solid build, too, and poison seeing increased damage would be nuts.

I’m talking of reversing that melee>range paradigm for rangers only. We are supposed to be ‘unparalled archers’, no?

DeceiverX.8361:

Again, pop reflect and the bow archer is nothing, as you mentioned. The beastmaster or skirmisher is still functioning fairly well, as the bow archer would have no feats in pets and the BM would.

Yes. That is true. It would be a counter to us. As would forcing us into melee. But right now there is no reason for us to not be in melee as melee does far more damage than our bows do.

Exactly why in order to appeal to everyone, a whole rework is in fact necessary. Put pet stuff into the BM line and allow the power/precision lines to buff direct bow damage further while also allowing players to store their pets for further bonuses such that they can achieve significantly more ranged damage. When you’re at range and doing it right, there’s no need to have a pet charge into battle.

Melee shouldn’t be penalized, for if they wish to avoid the penalties, then they’d be fighting without an aggro magnet in close quarters – no easy task – but it carries a high-risk high-reward style of play to it.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Sorry. My feeling on the ranger is that it should stay true to ArenaNet’s vision of the ranger, which is a combination of a beastmaster and a marksman. Not to what everyone in the community thinks the ranger should be. The ranger has too many potential archetypes to be easily described by all as the same thing.

Which is why rangers should come together and discuss the issues to come up with a proper resolution rather than bickering about who’s in the right to interpret what.

It should be a mix, but people should be allowed to delve into each one based on preference. You like the pet system, and I do not. If ANet read this thread and immediately agreed that bows need to become the big appeal of the ranger rather than the pet, and therefore totally removed all pet mechanics, would you be okay with that? Likely not, which is exactly how the archer players feel about saying such a comment or stating we have to play the way we are now despite being upset with it.

So why not work something that divides the traits better to cater to everyone (per ANet’s vision of gameplay for every class), rather than restricting people? I understand you want to defend your pets because you like them, and nowhere am I asking for nerfs. It’d just be cool to get people to rally behind the idea of actually fixing the class entirely than just trying to dismiss a large portion of the playerbase.

Catch my drift here?

DeceiverX.8361:

Exactly why in order to appeal to everyone, a whole rework is in fact necessary. Put pet stuff into the BM line and allow the power/precision lines to buff direct bow damage further while also allowing players to store their pets for further bonuses such that they can achieve significantly more ranged damage. When you’re at range and doing it right, there’s no need to have a pet charge into battle.

The problem, again, is that by giving bonuses for not using the class mechanic, you are giving little reason to use the class mechanic outside of certain game modes such as PvP or roaming WvW. I can think of little reason for a PvE or zerg WvW ranger to ever use a pet if they could do 100% damage themselves without having one.

If we’re currently operating with a DPS schedule of 70% us/30% pet with no cost of traits, then what I’m ideally looking for is 100% us, and +10% pet upon putting 5 points into beastmaster.

We have traits that give +10% damage for having full endurance. I can place myself and think through many fights so that I have full endurance as readily as I can manage to keep dear Fluffy alive. I think ‘max endurance’ and ‘pet not dead’ might be highly comparable prerequisites for getting an extra 10% DPS…

If Rangers are supposedly a fusion of bestmaster and marksmen… well, the beastmaster part is kind of failing in the face of the content designers (and their relentless dodge-or-die mentality). Lets get more marksman going and make beastmastery really sing… within its trait line.

I think we’d also be somewhere on the path back to sanity if pets’ base stats were tweaked down and ALL PETS received 1/2 of our stats (with the Beastmaster trait line still buffing that). Amongst other things it would create more diversity in pets – tanky rangers get rugged pets that can hang in there with them, support rangers get pets that support better, DPS rangers get leaner, toothier buddies that hit harder.

With the introduction of ascended gear, pets really need to keep pace. This would allow them to keep exactly the same pace as their master- benefiting each time their owner checks off one of those pink-hued milestones.

As I mentioned earlier, how many Steal-based thieves are there? Not many. Most of them do d/p, p/d, or d/d backstab builds for either the utility the blinds give, or the raw damage backstab provides. If people want the gap-close build, they don’t build into steal, either. They build s/d for shadow step and the utility that brings. Arguably the actual effects granted by stealing are rather underwhelming, and most thieves are associated with stealth more than stealing. Just because stealing is the class mechanic doesn’t imply everyone should be building solely around it.

So to argue that just because the ranger gets a pet means it’s required for basic functionality isn’t really that valid to be honest. Yeah, it’s unique, and much like stealing, or adrenaline, or any of the other class mechanics, it’s handy, but it definitely doesn’t and shouldn’t be the centerpiece for all players playing that class just because it’s unique.

At the end of the day it’s all about preference. Like I said in my original post (and many others have said), give an alternative to bow ranger for the playstyle, and I will gladly delete my character and start a new one of that class. But ANet doing so still leaves the problem of the identity of the ranger unresolved, and only makes progression as a ranger more linear and less inviting.

Once the Ranger’s primary mechanic (pet) stops being a handicap more than an asset. Once many of our weapon skills are de-bugged and buffed a bit. Once most of our utilities are either re-vamped, re-balanced, or added to. Once our trait lines are fixed (seriously, 3 out of the 5 are pretty poorly set-up. Not only that, but the background art for the WS and BM lines are backwards — STILL). THEN, and only then, will I be at peace.

I mained a Ranger in gw1 R/N. rangers on this game are so bad compared to all the good skills and damage we had in gw1.

I know, DeceiverX, you love the pet but I really think there is more to the problem .
Yes, it is insane to split character damage (btw: because someone asked for how we knowthis: i think some developer said it after they nerves the skill co-efficients if GS, which btw where identical to those of Spear, which remained untouched, I think in that same interview the guy also said that ranged dps is supposed to be lower than melee due to the lower risk involved →dodge or die meta).
But: I could live with that! And even with the bad Ai. But did you ever read other forums? Guardians talking about how they have to be revamped since theY can’t handle the condition meta due to their low base health
Or mesmers as-ing how they have lost their spot in GvG since the confu need?!
Man! Rangers have 1(!!!!!1) active condition remove

• They finall got a freaking blastfinisher.
• rangers main condition damage source: traps are in the bloody crit and critical damage line?!
• our 2 on demand invulnerablilities either sacrifice our pet (40% damage!) Or require 30 points ?

I think there is much more wrong with the ranger than the pet.

Overthrust.2659:

the ranger is in a bad position, mostly because 40 percent of your dmg is dead crawling in your legs 90 percent of the time (the other 10 is inmobile after pet swap) also all our traits are garbage for that dead pet and the rest are just nonsense that requirse you be half dead to trigger, on top of that nerfed weapons…. we have nothing to support a zerg. Icould go on all day long but Im tired and currently leveling my warrior permastun with 4kdmg without dimishing returns inmune to conditions with endure pain invulnerability

Sounds like the perfect profession for you

I’ve been playing LB spec for a while now. If they just removed the auto attack range and damage scaling I personally think we would be in a better situation. Right now it’s just too easy in this game to stay on a target. Auto attacks for 300-400 damage when I have full power gear, guard stacks (100 power), consumables (100 power + % power), and bloodlust buff (50-150 power) makes me sad.

Edit: With pets a simple survivability buff (immune to aoe and more toughness/vit) is all they need. Pets in this game are very strong if they could live longer than 5 seconds in WvW.

Through proper F3, F1 use the player actually has 100% control of the pet. When traiting we are lucky enough to have the most broken traitline to ever exist in the form of Wilderness Survival which not only improves our defense against power through toughness and protection on dodge roll but also conditions with empathic bond. Moreover, condition damage is in that line providing us with the ability to trait tanky and still have really high damage going down the condition route. Then, our best condition weapons are ones with survivability built in, like sword 2 and 3, and shotrbow 3. Also, we get mad damage from our offhand like a torch.

You complain arrow skills suck when I think they are amazing. If you are in a group fight and there is a warrior romping about that doesn’t have berzerker’s stance up, then crippling shot. Thief comes out to burst a teammate and you can instantly hit him with SB 5 which usually means they die if your necro is good enough to fear chain the fool fast enough. Longbow is an amazing weapon, I know people don’t like it but the damage can be really high, and the CC and stealth are on such short cooldowns that you can 1 v 1 ANYTHING and take very little damage unless you get bursted before you can react.

As for melee and caster issues. SERIOUSLY? What issues? People complain that warrior is a hard counter to the ranger atm which is just dead wrong. Shared anguish, and a stunbreak and you should win. If you don’t win learn to dodge and kite. Most warriors are forced into melee range which means you can just throw down crippling shot, cc them as they try to stun, use your pet to peel for yourself etc, or better yet use one of the many dodges you have.

I know a lot of people don’t know who I am because I don’t stream. But I have over 4500 tournament games played on ranger. I have played every build there is and I have played both the meta ranger builds and full zerker ranger at top tier which no one else in this game can boast. Honestly, I win almost every 1 v 1s in tourneys even against the things people consider broken like condi immune engis (as a condi ranger), and stunlock warriors (as a spirit ranger), and s/d thieves (as both condi and full zerker ranger).

So when I say it is a learn to play issue it must be because this class is very very strong albeit the skill cap is very high because we have to micromanage our pets like they are a second player to get really good results. I go to WvW and 1 v 3 all the time and win (granted most WvW’s suck but still). Awareness is something that you must have because you do not have the passive defense of a warrior but you do have evasiveness so if you can watch more than one thing at a time you have an ample amount of dodges to stay alive.

lmaogg.7325:

warriorjrd.8695:

Overthrust.2659:

the ranger is in a bad position, mostly because 40 percent of your dmg is dead crawling in your legs 90 percent of the time (the other 10 is inmobile after pet swap) also all our traits are garbage for that dead pet and the rest are just nonsense that requirse you be half dead to trigger, on top of that nerfed weapons…. we have nothing to support a zerg. Icould go on all day long but Im tired and currently leveling my warrior permastun with 4kdmg without dimishing returns inmune to conditions with endure pain invulnerability

So basically, because you can’t learn the class you reroll to the most broken class ingame currently running one of the easiest and arguably OP builds in game. Also has Anet EVER confirmed this 40% of damage is the pet, or are you just saying it because you saw the number somewhere?
It takes a keen eye to spot what we can do to support a zerg, but if you won’t put in the effort then it’s probably best you don’t represent a ranger, enjoy you perma-stun warrior though, I know it requires skill for that

You made it sound like 70% of the rangers qq-ing here bout the class are bad players.. oh please, if something is actually bad just face it and admit it..

Mate, I’ve put the time and effort into finding viable builds for wvw. I’ve made several, and the only thing bad about each is the pet. I know the pet is garbage, but honestly other than that we’re not that bad off.

Chopps.5047:

Overthrust.2659:

the ranger is in a bad position, mostly because 40 percent of your dmg is dead crawling in your legs 90 percent of the time (the other 10 is inmobile after pet swap) also all our traits are garbage for that dead pet and the rest are just nonsense that requirse you be half dead to trigger, on top of that nerfed weapons…. we have nothing to support a zerg. Icould go on all day long but Im tired and currently leveling my warrior permastun with 4kdmg without dimishing returns inmune to conditions with endure pain invulnerability

Sounds like the perfect profession for you

It is! is just awesome.

I’d really disagree with you there regarding 100% management. When I can actively control my pet and dodge with it, scout an area without going there on my main character, then people can boast 100% control. And the people who are capable of switching perspectives/kits and dodging with both during the same aoe circle due to quick switching and understanding invulnerability frames are going to be rewarded for good microing. That’s what good microing is. The pet strictly speaking is a terrible example of microing and imho doesn’t pay off for such skilled play.

You’re speaking in 1v1’s/skirmishes. Rangers are on the upper echelon for roamers in WvW. Everyone knows that. I’m talking about WvW zerg and AOE circles/multiple targets. There’s nothing in the ranger’s kit that supports being able to effectively deal with this type of play.

But I don’t know how to word it any better. I’m not complaining about the ranger being underpowered. I’ve said this multiple times. I’m complaining about the following:

1.) Dependency on pets/the unresolved issue that there is no archer in this game.

2.) ANet seems to have no idea what they want the ranger to be. Is it an archer or a beastmaster? As it stands, it’s neither and both.

3.) The fact that defending the current ranger is simply illogical. People en masse are complaining about this class not being viable for certain styles of play no matter the build. Nobody’s asking for buffs or nerfs, but people are asking for alternatives.

4.) Those defending the ranger’s position are doing so with the view that the class is balanced in circumstances x and y. Yes they are. However for circumstances a and b they are underwhelming.

5.) People defending rangers not being changed do not realize this isn’t about buffs or nerfs to make the class stronger, but to solidify the class as a whole and allow for people to play as they want to. ANet’s main purpose in creating GW2 was to get rid of the healer/tank/dps trinity and let everyone be good at whatever they want to be good at or play in whatever way they want to. As it stands, there is no archer. People want one. Why not fix a currently scattered/commonly-low-tier class into something better while also creating the archer type so many people wish to play as? Would this not make everyone happy?

Well then in terms of large groups I agree on most things. I understand that 100% pet control in large groups is impossible and I believe if we did have 100% pet control then we could have a better group affect. Being able to activate a bear’s endure pain, a moa’s heal, and a devourer’s escape could be a huge change for rangers in group play (sadly this only helps pets live besides the moa heal).

As for the aoe and such, I believe ranger would be really strong in helping protect the backline with it’s soft and hard CC’s. No other class that I can think of has so much single target CC on such low cooldowns.

Ranger simply sucks..i’ m a rank 282 in wvw..so I ’ m not the last ranger in this game..Spent tons of gold on runes, gear, sigils…and no way..this class is simply broken.
How can a thief hit me for 5k while i have 3600 armor?^
ok thief is op but seriously..Arenanet nerfed our pets and our spirits..there is no hope for this class. Arenanet simply hates ragers

Pegaasus.3280:

Ranger simply sucks..i’ m a rank 282 in wvw..so I ’ m not the last ranger in this game..Spent tons of gold on runes, gear, sigils…and no way..this class is simply broken.
How can a thief hit me for 5k while i have 3600 armor?^
ok thief is op but seriously..Arenanet nerfed our pets and our spirits..there is no hope for this class. Arenanet simply hates ragers

Lol you really cant play this class can you? If a thief hits you for 5k with that much armour he has to be squishy as kitten, in which case you should have no issues. The fact you’re just another one of those noobs who say “theif OP ermahgerd nerf, stealth OP i cant play cry” Please, I’ve played the class for much longer than you can safely say you suck.

I play Ranger BECAUSE it is the weakest class with little to offer in group play.
I want that challenge.
If you are posting that this class is not bad, then you either haven’t played it, or you’ve
surrendered your right in a MMOG to play the role of “at range” that most people choose the class for.
Now add the pet that’s off collecting agro, unresponsive, already dead, or un-useful for the next area/stage/boss…
If you want a real challenge, take a Ranger into a dungeon.

Still, if you are a different class, you could protect your class by claiming Ranger is fine.

Bads are gonna bad. That is all.

I run dungeons from time to time, with Shortbow/Axe+Axe and generally Mossdog/Reefdrake. Spotter, naturally. Stroll in to melee to deliver healing springs when needed. Position for extra bleeds and harder CC from the shortbow. It requires constant awareness and active participation rather than just parking over on the edge of the field, but I don’t generally feel like I’m slowing anyone down.

I lol @ people defending the Ranger who is nothing short of a pathetic copy of the Ranger from GW1 ….

The majority of the updates for the Ranger have been negative and nerfs which is why I have not played the game since last year.

I just wanted to come in and check if they have fixed the Ranger yet and no it seems still broken….I feel bad for those folks who spent so much time getting their SB bows only to just have them BROKEN by Anet……OH wait I forgot ANet fixed that by just having everyone craft them…guess there not so special after all….oh well see you guys in 2014

Terkov.4138:

After playing ranger for 3 years in GW1 (too lazy and check exact time) and over 2,5k hours in GW2, I disagree with your post.

And I’m also too lazy to even explain why. I did it sooo many times on this forum.

Eurantien.4632:

This is purely a learn to play issue.

Gonna have to agree with these two posters. While the Ranger has some… okay I lie, one major handicap and some other problems, it is a—from my own experience—perfectly viable class to play in any content. The player behind the keyboard makes or breaks the class far more than ArenaNet ever could.

Just stop complaining and learn how to play this class, for me (as a ranger player) it’s one of most OP classes in pvp and pve

The problem is: bows don’t (really) aoe. This may sound ridiculous and have all sorts of excuses why it’s normal but it isn’t. Warrior Longbow 2-5 all have Aoe component, free, without traiting. They can hit multiple enemies if properly used.

Killing one enemy at a time, is ridiculous, and boring. The game is about taking many on at the same time, especially in pve. You cast barrage what then? Piercing? don’t let me laugh LB piercing only works on 1200-1500 range (before that, the arrow is high in the air, and hits nothing on it’s path, unlik bullets that pierce like Hip Shot).

In the hard stuff of this game keeping pet alive is very hard. Having a ’self 40% damage nerf, 50% pet damage bonus , (resulting in about 110% damage for ranger total) is ridiculous. The pet is not trustworthy enough to trust 40% dps with.

No bow aoe (Barrage long cast time and cd, doesn’t cut it, neither piercing arrows) + pet mostly dead (40% damage nerf) = 60% damage of other professions remaining ranger, that can’t aoe properly (only a trap build can do that, and that build has it’s own downsides).

Shouts is another problem. They are VASTLY underpowered to warrior/Guard. If they just had shorter CD and an effect that always is good no matter what (like warrior/Guard), ranger builds would flourish and the profession would suddenly become that much more interesting.

And last: Incredible Crappy condition removal. If enemy lands 3 damaging conditions on you, ranger has no chance to stop them. You will take in almost every case the full blunt of the condition damage.

And people like Chopps give wrong impression of ranger. He’s like the brother of Daphoenix. The vast majority of player base cannot achieve your skill level. Balancing around your skill level (although that still is to be seen, i never actually seen chopps play, he should put up more video’s, with such over confidance in self talent), is wrong.

BadBrain.2195:

Just stop complaining and learn how to play this class, for me (as a ranger player) it’s one of most OP classes in pvp and pve

While it can play in most every area of the game, I wouldn’t put it as OP, with the exception of sPvP, which is being nerfed or was nerfed. While we CAN play in all these areas, we are far from the kings of any of them, sPvP aside.

My Ranger could go into any dungeon and survive contribute, fight any boss and survive and contribute, but it doesn’t mean we do it better than anyone else, far from it. TO ME, I was lied to by Anet when they described the ranger as a ranged class, it simply isn’t. A Warrior makes a better Ranger (and it does) at range, which is why I’m happy now. A Warrior suits my ranged play style far better than my Ranger does, cause it actually DOES ranged damage, focused and dedicated (not running around as 1000+ units in the wrong direction).

The other problem Anet is having to come to grips with is Ascended/Legendary gear not contributing to our Pets, which contributes greatly to our Damage. If you don’t understand this issue then you’re sorely mistaken.

Also, pet survivability in Dungeons is also holding PvE content down. Now Anet is starting the whole, pets will be inv. to certain AoE’s, soon every dungeon will have “special” pet rules, just so that we aren’t irrelevant in future content by the hard core gamer types.

Chopps.5047:

Ranger is a skill profession.

That is a joke. Ele/Engineer have more skills then ranger, require more skill to combine them into combo’s, but end in way better result. You are probably one of those rangers ignoring bows (cause they are crappy) and player swords /X + Axe/X. In a duel these builds might be very anoying and good. In zergs = totally useless. Other profession can build ‘middle ground’ builds, that are good good in zerg player, pve dungeons and dueling. Try to make that for ranger. Wait you can’t. I know this is not a requirement for the game and as such doenst have to exist. But it’s a serious downside to ranger, that a lot of my other level 80 professions don’t have.

Shortbow is the best example of ranger weapons having low skillcap. Auto attack = quickness arrow shooting at people. Yay easy auto attacking. Skill two has a small strategy component as it can be used for aoe but that’s it. The warrior burning is a hell of a lot better in game. (Bow 2). Skill 3 is nice, but to long CD, and to small impact on gameplay. Thief can spam same skill 3-5 times in a row. Skill 4: 1 lousy bleed (c’mon even auto attacks do better then this, and it’s 4th weapn skill! supposed to be special), and a short cripple (again there are better alternativs for this). Skill 5: A daze/stun is nice. I won’t deny it. But again in the grand scheme of things, for a 20/25 sec cd this skill does not give enough impact. 4 low impact skills and 1 fast but mediocre auto attack. Talented rangers for the win heh? Well Shortbow definitely doens’t promote smart gameplay. Other weapons have similar issues although not as much.

Now having played a Warrior at 80, I truly don’t understand how Barrage isn’t a fire and forget ability, that we have to stand still to fire it off, especially when the Warrior has as good of an ability that is fire and forget. >Baffled<

NargofWoV.4267:

Now having played a Warrior at 80, I truly don’t understand how Barrage isn’t a fire and forget ability, that we have to stand still to fire it off, especially when the Warrior has as good of an ability that is fire and forget. >Baffled<

mainly because a ranger is a ranger and a warrior is a warrior. Pls stop compairing professions. Go play your warrior.
Or are you complaining about applejuice, that it doesn’t taste like orangejuice although both is juice?

Hell, i’m tired of such complaints, its so pathetic.

Seriously I don’t get why are there so many kittens trying to defend something thats really bad… especially those who say things like “I have never encounter problems against xxx class, you are just bad.”. These people seem to be just waiting for praises to shower on them, “oh wow you own with a underpowered class, you must be a pro”.

I played every single class myself, pvp and wvw, if ranger isn’t “underpowered” like those tards who said so, it must really be a high skill cap class that majority can’t get use to then.