Guild Wars 2

im spec’d all in berserker gear, with ascended back and rings, and with a 30/30/0/10/0 build. not going to get into to much detail about it but in general a glass cannon. i just finished the dredge fractal ( the lava pot boss ) where i though the dmg numbers i put up against the boss in particular ( but all mobs as well ) reflected my build well, with super high dmg from hunter rapid shot combo. in my group was a warrior who told me he was putting up almost double the dmg i was. ( correct me if im wrong ) a berserker glass cannon build using 100 blades combo? now i know all the is kind of vague and ignorant, but i was under the impression that my build should be able to out damage the heavy armor class? id just like to get some input and thoughts from the community as im sure somebody out there will be able to shed some light on my confusion. and my apologies for bad grammar, spelling, and if there’s a post already pertaining to this.

he’s probly under the impression that because our pets have x amount of our damage he must be stronger.

he’s probly forgetting pets hit hard compared to us..

if hes been in pvp to get this view ranger pets are ignored alot so their damage isnt easily seen by a non ranger..

if he has this view from pve then its probly cus pets die alot so we loose alot of dps durning those downed pet moments

tbh he should be able to out damage you, but being able to out play you is another matter..

Which pet are you using?

ranger does not have “super high damage”, its very likely that the war was dishing twice your dmg. Wars can even outdamage rangers with a rifle in most single target situation (and thats counting the pet).

Also, a big chunk of our dmg is on the pet, which in fractals is always dead or set to peaceful.

This game not like another games, and light armored class can have better survivablity than heavy armored (f.e. Elementalist)

"using 100 blades combo?"
Obviously
and build with axes.
Rifle warrior will easy overdamage ranger too

Warrior has more instant damage, ie burst damage but Ranger puts out more or equal damage over time, even with power/crit builds because the damage isn’t high but it’s a consitant damage, not relying on adrenaline etc

Absolute highest I was able to pull off in that particular fractal was a Rapid Fire for 176k damage, meaning a 17k Rapid Fire. I know Warriors who can, and do, Killshot for more than that. Hundred Blades can regularly hit for over 30k on a mob with decent vulnerability, which if pulled off on that boss would be over 300k damage.

So yeah, at least for the duration of HB vs RF, he most likely was doing double your damage output.

"but Ranger puts out more or equal"
No, never and ever

"not relying on adrenaline etc"
Dunno what you talking about... Warriors can use Adrenaline skills every 10 sec and their most DPS skills have low cooldown too

Sarcasmic.6741:

Absolute highest I was able to pull off in that particular fractal was a Rapid Fire for 176k damage, meaning a 17k Rapid Fire. I know Warriors who can, and do, Killshot for more than that. Hundred Blades can regularly hit for over 30k on a mob with decent vulnerability, which if pulled off on that boss would be over 300k damage.

So yeah, at least for the duration of HB vs RF, he most likely was doing double your damage output.

But this is not including pet? Don’t forget pet’s do just as much damage as the Ranger, some do more damage than the ranger, like felines and drakes.

DancinPuppeh.8421:

Warrior has more instant damage, ie burst damage but Ranger puts out more or equal damage over time, even with power/crit builds because the damage isn’t high but it’s a consitant damage, not relying on adrenaline etc

i disagree, i find its quite the opposite….adrenaline is never an issue, especially if traited. The ranger on the other hand HAS to trait BM to dish out constant dmg and not let the pet die, but considering the amount of time your pet is not attacking, the agony, bosses oneshotting them or even worse taking advantage from them (acquatic fractal) that damage is anything but reliable, and if the pets dies you’ll be down 15+ trait points (and half of your damage) for 60 seconds

Anet have weakest game designers in the World ^^

DancinPuppeh.8421:

But this is not including pet? Don’t forget pet’s do just as much damage as the Ranger, some do more damage than the ranger, like felines and drakes.

Pet’s damage is negligible. My build is similar to the OP’s (30/30/10/0/0), meaning my pets have none of the buffs to damage that would make them hit more than a wet noodle. Had my pet been alive and attacking during that Rapid Fire, the total damage may have been closer to 20k. The pet does not double the damage in this type of build.

Pets, especially in fractal boss fights, are dead far more than they are alive, making building for pet damage wasted trait points (thank the lack of pet dodge and AR for that one).

I appreciate all the feedback, keep it coming im learning a lot here! and yes my pet is either dead or passive during boss which i forgot to take into account. and so it doesnt matter which armor class you are than it has nothing to do with damage in the long run? the most recent mmo’s i played were more along the lines, if you chose a light armor toon you would hit high dmg, and if you took a heavy armor toon you would hit less dmg but have higher survivability. gw2 doesnt work along this premise i take it than?

My group support Warrior doubles any glass canon or beastmastery spec’d Ranger. I sometimes get frustrated when I switch from my Ranger, to my Warrior, and see the damage he can deliver.

I can’t wait to get my parser running correctly so people can see the actual numbers, instead of theorycrafting things they know nothing about.

There is a reason speed runs are all about warriors and the one mesmer they bring to time warp them.

Warrior is god of damage in PvE — you don’t know what you’re talking about when you say their damage doesn’t blow everything else out of the water.

It’s not just HB. Axe mainhand also does kitten tons of damage. Their autoattacks can easily hit for 4-5k.

And just to clear some stuff up — Greatsword warriors NEVER use adrenaline because keeping it filled at the latest level gives them far better returns with traits than spending it on a weaker attack that only gives them might (which they already stack via crits and sigil of strength).

It’s just this game has been terribly balanced numberswise since beta.

At one point rangers and necros were putting out incredible damage in beta. They got nerfed, and the ruined classes you see now numberswise are those that used to be god tier in beta.

The ranger greatsword at some point could melt people. Post beta nerfs, it now does even less damage than the ranger mainhand sword, which has more mobility, evades, and customization via offhands.

And don’t forget, melee is king in PvE when you have either high hp and plate or a guardian around, because melee not only does significantly more damage than ranged, but it also does it in cleave. So that 17k Rapid Fire you did is to a single target while that 13k shatter+6k Blurred Frenzy from a mesmer hits aoe and the Warrior does 30k to a group as well.

In the quest they took to compensate melee for their risk instead of adjusting mobs to not be so overly punitive to melee compared to range, they overshot the numbers of said melee damage.

Because of weak design this game will died (not literally, sure - it becomes to unpopular, nothing more) soon It will have the same "popularity" as the GW1 - very low. PVE will be close to the desert and WvWvW will be empty too. And only few fans of the arena battles will be there.

Sadly, now we just didnt have another good game in the World, but it will be released soon...

Most worse in that situation - developers didnt even want to listen experienced players, but only listen some crazy noobs.

Interestingly, I just had this very discussion with a guildmate a couple of nights ago. The thing is that arguments of this nature tend to be very one-dimensional, and only consider the raw damage numbers of the professions being compared. But you can’t simply look at raw damage numbers in a vacuum and expect to understand anything about DPS.

Anyway, let’s look at what we’re actually talking about: raw damage, raw DPS, and net DPS – three very different things. Raw damage is the numbers you see popping up on the screen. Raw DPS is the average amount of damage that you output in any given second, and net DPS is the average amount of damage that actually makes it to your target in any given second. The first is a snapshot of a moment in time, the other two are time-dependent.

Warriors attempt to dish out big damage in a short span of time, but their damage drops considerably between their flurries. Sure many of their skills are on relatively short cds, but the important concept is that the vast majority of their damage is applied in quick bursts. This means that they have very high raw DPS during a burst, but a much lower raw DPS between bursts. So a warrior is more efficient in a short fight.

Rangers on the other hand push out multiple small hits over the span of a fight, and their bursts aren’t nearly as high. Their raw damage is unarguably smaller than a warrior’s, but the ranger is going to be landing more hits during a fight than a warrior can. Because their raw DPS during any given period of a fight is more consistent, the ranger’s raw DPS is as good as, if not higher than, a warrior’s if the fight goes on long enough. So rangers become the more efficient choice the longer a fight lasts.

I think we can all agree that warriors have more access to raw damage, but rangers apply their damage more consistently over time. Regardless, raw damage and raw DPS don’t win fights. Having a higher net DPS than your opponent wins fights. So in a ranger vs. warrior scenario, superior mobility, superior access to damage mitigation techniques, and the ability to spread consistent outgoing damage over multiple sources are the tools a ranger can use to win the “damage” battle.

TLDR – “Damage” is too vague of a concept for a proper discussion. Warriors win the raw damage battle, but over time rangers win the raw DPS battle. The net DPS battle can go either way – that’s where player skill enters the equation.

I have played these type of games for many years. I have always been pulled towards clases like archers and casters like necros/Cabalists/Warlocks …Damage over time.

For all those classes, their DPS can be very good….after an amount of time occurs. That is fine in PvE. In PvP burst damage is > over time damage.

Forzani.2584:

I have played these type of games for many years. I have always been pulled towards clases like archers and casters like necros/Cabalists/Warlocks …Damage over time.

For all those classes, their DPS can be very good….after an amount of time occurs. That is fine in PvE. In PvP burst damage is > over time damage.

I have to disagree with you there. If that were true, then warriors and thieves would win every single fight which obviously doesn’t happen.

If you can eat or avoid burst damage, then DoT wins. If you can’t, burst wins. It’s an oversimplification, but DoT player needs to slow the fight down to win while a burst player needs to speed it up to win.

Warriors are supposed to do more damage Remember we have pets and traps etc. to take into account that don’t pop up in the combat log.

RummyTheMad.7290:

Forzani.2584:

I have played these type of games for many years. I have always been pulled towards clases like archers and casters like necros/Cabalists/Warlocks …Damage over time.

For all those classes, their DPS can be very good….after an amount of time occurs. That is fine in PvE. In PvP burst damage is > over time damage.

I have to disagree with you there. If that were true, then warriors and thieves would win every single fight which obviously doesn’t happen.

If you can eat or avoid burst damage, then DoT wins. If you can’t, burst wins. It’s an oversimplification, but DoT player needs to slow the fight down to win while a burst player needs to speed it up to win.

Browse the forums a bit. the #1 complaint in the game is Thief. Both stealth and dying to them after a 4 second chain.

Forzani.2584:

RummyTheMad.7290:

Forzani.2584:

I have played these type of games for many years. I have always been pulled towards clases like archers and casters like necros/Cabalists/Warlocks …Damage over time.

For all those classes, their DPS can be very good….after an amount of time occurs. That is fine in PvE. In PvP burst damage is > over time damage.

I have to disagree with you there. If that were true, then warriors and thieves would win every single fight which obviously doesn’t happen.

If you can eat or avoid burst damage, then DoT wins. If you can’t, burst wins. It’s an oversimplification, but DoT player needs to slow the fight down to win while a burst player needs to speed it up to win.

Browse the forums a bit. the #1 complaint in the game is Thief. Both stealth and dying to them after a 4 second chain.

I’m on here everyday, and I’m nothing if not completely familiar with people complaining about thieves. Just because the complaints exist does not mean that they are legitimate. Once you learn how to deal with thieves, they are little more than an annoyance…unless they are genuinely good players. But then again, good players playing rangers are also hard to beat. Good players are good. Surprise.

RummyTheMad.7290:

Forzani.2584:

RummyTheMad.7290:

Forzani.2584:

I have played these type of games for many years. I have always been pulled towards clases like archers and casters like necros/Cabalists/Warlocks …Damage over time.

For all those classes, their DPS can be very good….after an amount of time occurs. That is fine in PvE. In PvP burst damage is > over time damage.

I have to disagree with you there. If that were true, then warriors and thieves would win every single fight which obviously doesn’t happen.

If you can eat or avoid burst damage, then DoT wins. If you can’t, burst wins. It’s an oversimplification, but DoT player needs to slow the fight down to win while a burst player needs to speed it up to win.

Browse the forums a bit. the #1 complaint in the game is Thief. Both stealth and dying to them after a 4 second chain.

I’m on here everyday, and I’m nothing if not completely familiar with people complaining about thieves. Just because the complaints exist does not mean that they are legitimate. Once you learn how to deal with thieves, they are little more than an annoyance…unless they are genuinely good players. But then again, good players playing rangers are also hard to beat. Good players are good. Surprise.

This thread isn’t about how to deal with certain classes…or how some players deal with burst damage better than other. The point is, the biggest complaint from every pvp game I have played like this is burst damage. The first year the Devs are always trying to find the right balance and are constantly tuning the burst down…and usually the Dots up.

….legitimate complaints ? Noone likes to die in less than 4 seconds. Even if they are bad players. Maybe Anet should come out with a statement …sorry dude, you are a bad player. Stop whinning and get better…. Safe to say you won’t get as many complaints from those ‘bad’ players when they lose to a Ranger after a 30+ second fight.

Forzani.2584:

This thread isn’t about how to deal with certain classes…or how some players deal with burst damage better than other. The point is, the biggest complaint from every pvp game I have played like this is burst damage. The first year the Devs are always trying to find the right balance and are constantly tuning the burst down…and usually the Dots up.

….legitimate complaints ? Noone likes to die in less than 4 seconds. Even if they are bad players. Maybe Anet should come out with a statement …sorry dude, you are a bad player. Stop whinning and get better…. Safe to say you won’t get as many complaints from those ‘bad’ players when they lose to a Ranger after a 30+ second fight.

I know what the thread is about, I was just responding to your comment which specifically referenced thieves and how they are the source of complaints. The point being that complaints are not always representative of reality.

Anyway, you are right of course. Nobody likes to die from a surprise burst, and it can be very frustrating while you are learning how to play. Accordingly, people are going to complain about high-risk/high-reward classes like thieves. It’s to be expected, but it doesn’t mean that anything is inherently broken, or poorly balanced.

It’s funny that you should mention ANet putting out statements of that nature. I think it was in a developer blog post shortly before release when they said (and I’m paraphrasing): please take the time to learn how certain game mechanics work before reporting them as OP or broken. Essentially, they are saying spend some time figuring out how something works instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that it doesn’t work. I’m not sure what happened to the blog posts when they switched the website to its current format, but I’ll see if I can find it so I can link it for you.

RummyTheMad.7290:

Interestingly, I just had this very discussion with a guildmate a couple of nights ago. The thing is that arguments of this nature tend to be very one-dimensional, and only consider the raw damage numbers of the professions being compared. But you can’t simply look at raw damage numbers in a vacuum and expect to understand anything about DPS.

Anyway, let’s look at what we’re actually talking about: raw damage, raw DPS, and net DPS – three very different things. Raw damage is the numbers you see popping up on the screen. Raw DPS is the average amount of damage that you output in any given second, and net DPS is the average amount of damage that actually makes it to your target in any given second. The first is a snapshot of a moment in time, the other two are time-dependent.

Warriors attempt to dish out big damage in a short span of time, but their damage drops considerably between their flurries. Sure many of their skills are on relatively short cds, but the important concept is that the vast majority of their damage is applied in quick bursts. This means that they have very high raw DPS during a burst, but a much lower raw DPS between bursts. So a warrior is more efficient in a short fight.

Rangers on the other hand push out multiple small hits over the span of a fight, and their bursts aren’t nearly as high. Their raw damage is unarguably smaller than a warrior’s, but the ranger is going to be landing more hits during a fight than a warrior can. Because their raw DPS during any given period of a fight is more consistent, the ranger’s raw DPS is as good as, if not higher than, a warrior’s if the fight goes on long enough. So rangers become the more efficient choice the longer a fight lasts.

I think we can all agree that warriors have more access to raw damage, but rangers apply their damage more consistently over time. Regardless, raw damage and raw DPS don’t win fights. Having a higher net DPS than your opponent wins fights. So in a ranger vs. warrior scenario, superior mobility, superior access to damage mitigation techniques, and the ability to spread consistent outgoing damage over multiple sources are the tools a ranger can use to win the “damage” battle.

TLDR – “Damage” is too vague of a concept for a proper discussion. Warriors win the raw damage battle, but over time rangers win the raw DPS battle. The net DPS battle can go either way – that’s where player skill enters the equation.

I’m glad you pointed this out. I wish more players understood this concept. I’m sure most people would disagree that ranger does equivalent (or better depending on players and builds) net damage to an enemy even when the facts are shown plainly in front of them, though, which is sad.

Also, ranger is it’s own Mesmer with QZ so, I mean, come on people can’t you just find some love for rangers?

Finally, before I go, I will throw out the hypothesis that 30/30/10/0/0 is not the highest DPS build of this profession. Rather, one must trait into BM as well to get the most DPS.

If I keep coming on here I’ll end up giving away all my secrets. Lol

RummyTheMad.7290:

Interestingly, I just had this very discussion with a guildmate a couple of nights ago. The thing is that arguments of this nature tend to be very one-dimensional, and only consider the raw damage numbers of the professions being compared. But you can’t simply look at raw damage numbers in a vacuum and expect to understand anything about DPS.

Anyway, let’s look at what we’re actually talking about: raw damage, raw DPS, and net DPS – three very different things. Raw damage is the numbers you see popping up on the screen. Raw DPS is the average amount of damage that you output in any given second, and net DPS is the average amount of damage that actually makes it to your target in any given second. The first is a snapshot of a moment in time, the other two are time-dependent.

Warriors attempt to dish out big damage in a short span of time, but their damage drops considerably between their flurries. Sure many of their skills are on relatively short cds, but the important concept is that the vast majority of their damage is applied in quick bursts. This means that they have very high raw DPS during a burst, but a much lower raw DPS between bursts. So a warrior is more efficient in a short fight.

Rangers on the other hand push out multiple small hits over the span of a fight, and their bursts aren’t nearly as high. Their raw damage is unarguably smaller than a warrior’s, but the ranger is going to be landing more hits during a fight than a warrior can. Because their raw DPS during any given period of a fight is more consistent, the ranger’s raw DPS is as good as, if not higher than, a warrior’s if the fight goes on long enough. So rangers become the more efficient choice the longer a fight lasts.

I think we can all agree that warriors have more access to raw damage, but rangers apply their damage more consistently over time. Regardless, raw damage and raw DPS don’t win fights. Having a higher net DPS than your opponent wins fights. So in a ranger vs. warrior scenario, superior mobility, superior access to damage mitigation techniques, and the ability to spread consistent outgoing damage over multiple sources are the tools a ranger can use to win the “damage” battle.

TLDR – “Damage” is too vague of a concept for a proper discussion. Warriors win the raw damage battle, but over time rangers win the raw DPS battle. The net DPS battle can go either way – that’s where player skill enters the equation.

You’re entirely wrong.

First, and foremost not only can I outdamage a Ranger on my support Warrior by at least double, to as much as three times during my burst, I also increase my groups DPS because I provide perma Fury, perma 3 stacks of Might, added precision and +10% bonus crit damage from banner, not to mention adding survivability to the group with perma Regen, and perma Swiftness.

Every hit I do, hits harder, as fast, if not faster than the Ranger, and his pet. The pets attack TOO slow, and do not provide consistent damage because; 1) they are easy to dodge or avoid. 2) they die too easy.

The Warrior also beats the Ranger in mobility, because the Warrior has perma swiftness, and equal endruance regen, and get this, the regen food that does not stack with the Rangers 50% endurance regeneration, STACKS WITH THE WARRIORS.

For the Ranger to get better defensive mitigation, they have to give up damage, while the Warrior really does not. Going to 3500 Armor on my Warrior only dropped my Attack to 3200, this is without Ascended gear.

If I can ever get my parser to work, you guys are going to cry when you see the difference.

RummyTheMad.7290:

Snip—-
TLDR – “Damage” is too vague of a concept for a proper discussion. Warriors win the raw damage battle, but over time rangers win the raw DPS battle. The net DPS battle can go either way – that’s where player skill enters the equation.

This will never happen, Warriors will always out dps a ranger by a HUGE margin. Even if you were to have them both beat down on a 1million hp dummy that can be critted, warriors will win the dps race.

1minute, 5minutes, 1 hour it makes no difference. Warriors will still win the dps charts/time with a greatsword. Vs any other ranger weapon set.

Now Ranger’s shortbow/longbow Vs Warriors Rifle, Warriors win if the rangers dont have their pet.

the only time it Might ever come close, is if a feline pet is alive 100% of the time doing damage. In dungeons, that will never happen.

Rangers are not balanced for PvE and need to be looked into.

@jkctmc and Brangien – Well, I’m guessing that you just read the TLDR part, and I would encourage you to read my post in its entirety as it completely explains everything you are refuting in your posts.

You guys are still arguing raw damage, and I certainly don’t disagree that a warrior hits for more damage per hit. But so what? If none of those big hits actually connect, then our theoretical warrior’s net DPS is 0. It doesn’t matter how big the individual hits are. Get it?

I have a fully geared level 80 warrior in addition to my ranger (engi, guardian, and thief too btw), so I’m familiar with what the class is capable of in terms of damage. Regardless of how much damage a warrior can pump out, I can control a fight far more effectively on my ranger, and I seldom lose to anyone that doesn’t play well – including warriors. Especially warriors actually.

So, if warriors simply “do more damage,” and that’s all that matters, how does anyone ever beat them? How has anyone ever killed your warrior? Warriors consistently have more armor and a larger health pool too, so they should have to do less damage over the course of a fight to beat a ranger than a ranger has to do to beat them… How is it that anyone is able to beat warriors 1v1?

I stand by my point because it’s true. Net DPS is the only thing that matters in the grand scheme. You can argue against it all you want, but reality dictates that I’m right.

RummyTheMad.7290:

@jkctmc and Brangien – Well, I’m guessing that you just read the TLDR part, and I would encourage you to read my post in its entirety as it completely explains everything you are refuting in your posts.

You guys are still arguing raw damage, and I certainly don’t disagree that a warrior hits for more damage per hit. But so what? If none of those big hits actually connect, then our theoretical warrior’s net DPS is 0. It doesn’t matter how big the individual hits are. Get it?

I have a fully geared level 80 warrior in addition to my ranger (engi, guardian, and thief too btw), so I’m familiar with what the class is capable of in terms of damage. Regardless of how much damage a warrior can pump out, I can control a fight far more effectively on my ranger, and I seldom lose to anyone that doesn’t play well – including warriors. Especially warriors actually.

So, if warriors simply “do more damage,” and that’s all that matters, how does anyone ever beat them? How has anyone ever killed your warrior? Warriors consistently have more armor and a larger health pool too, so they should have to do less damage over the course of a fight to beat a ranger than a ranger has to do to beat them… How is it that anyone is able to beat warriors 1v1?

I stand by my point because it’s true. Net DPS is the only thing that matters in the grand scheme. You can argue against it all you want, but reality dictates that I’m right.

That’s just it, I have never died to a Ranger at all, ever in this game on any of my 5 fully geared 80s, and I attend fight clubs every chance I get.

How are you not hitting with your Warrior? I have zero issues hitting with my Warrior, and our Warriors have the same tools the Ranger has, without the need of a pet to use some of those tools. I can virtually move enough to avoid both the Rangers Shortbow attacks, and Longbow attacks, and with swifted movement, I can dodge all melee pets, easily. I havn’t tried it because the damage you receive from axes is so miniscule, the need to dodge it, or out-run it hasn’t presented itself. But I’m pretty sure you can also out-run main-hand axe too. For the troll factor, and a nice giggle, I’ve kited Rangers before.

I mean really, how in the world do you die to a Ranger? The only way to die to a Ranger would be a lack of knowledge about this game, and its mechanics.

Reality does not dictate that you are right, because it is not reality. I’m irritated they put in paid transfers because I’ve dueled dozens of people on these forums who believed they were right, until I showed them, they are not. Your theorycrafting does not work in practice, even though it sounds good on paper.

The Warrior is the most complete class in this game, and what they bring to a group, as I mentioned above supercedes anything a Ranger can do.

What Jk is saying is true. What your saying is not reality, it’s theory. And while it looks like ranger wins on paper over the long run, which the fights normally don’t last that long, it’s not reality because you are not taking into account that after a couple of seconds, the warriors burst starts all over again, leaving the gap between the warrior and the ranger further apart. Your theory would be correct IF and only if the warrior could only use their burst once in a fight. Honestly though, their burst is enough to take out most ranger’s without having to wait for the timer to apply a second burst.

Look at the warzones, warrior wins hands down. last week I got one shot by a warrior, his rifle did more damage to me then I had hit points. And I didn’t even know where he was hiding at, I was running to catch up to the group that was planning on storming a fort.

jkctmc.8754:

Words

I don’t have issues hitting with my warrior. I don’t recall mentioning that I do, and if it seems I was implying that, I was not.

I don’t think I’ve ever lost a 1v1 to a ranger either. So what? All that proves is that I’ve never 1v1’ed a ranger that can beat me. Period. I think the forums have pretty well shown us that many ranger don’t play the class well, so I don’t find that to be shocking. But that sort of anecdotal “evidence” is meaningless. Don’t mistake correlation for causation.

I do wish we could duel more easily. I’m certainly not amazing or anything, but I’m pretty good, and I have a very solid PvP record on my ranger. I also have enough experience to know that the player, not the profession, is what wins fights. Could I beat you 1v1? I have no idea. What exactly do you think that would prove anyway? You may be an exceptional player, and you may be even better with your warrior. Neither of those two things makes any statement about the ranger profession.

I also agree that warriors are a solid profession. I’m not arguing that rangers are better than warriors or vice versa. I was making a general statement about how damage is dealt and avoided and how that relates to winning fights. You seem to be taking that to mean that I think rangers are inherently better. I’m not following your leap in “logic” on that one.

Seriously though, are you actually arguing that your relative net DPS is not the relevant measure in any given fight? That’s just math… If I do enough damage to you to down you, and you don’t do the same to me, I win. I was simply trying to flesh out the discussion a bit so that we aren’t falling into the same old “big numbers better” trap that all of these discussions seem to fall into.

Akisame.9508:

What Jk is saying is true. What your saying is not reality, it’s theory. And while it looks like ranger wins on paper over the long run, which the fights normally don’t last that long, it’s not reality because you are not taking into account that after a couple of seconds, the warriors burst starts all over again, leaving the gap between the warrior and the ranger further apart. Your theory would be correct IF and only if the warrior could only use their burst once in a fight. Honestly though, their burst is enough to take out most ranger’s without having to wait for the timer to apply a second burst.

Look at the warzones, warrior wins hands down. last week I got one shot by a warrior, his rifle did more damage to me then I had hit points. And I didn’t even know where he was hiding at, I was running to catch up to the group that was planning on storming a fort.

Again, I encourage you to actually read my post. What I said is that rangers deal their damage more consistently while warrior damage comes in spurts. I realize that they can start the rotation over again, but a ranger can also dodge again.

Seriously guys. Drop the attitude for a second. I’m making general statements about damage and how we are talking about it. Rangers and warriors were referenced because…well look at the thread title.

@RummyTheMad

You do realize since the invention of MMOs there has been one underlying fact that everyone who has played MMOs long enough understands? That one underlying fact is that burst wins fights.

You can not dispute something that has been proven a thousand times over, in every MMO to date. Just because GW2 has done away with the holy trinity (tank, dps, healer) doesn’t mean that one fact has been removed.

Rangers do not have burst damage, and Warriors do. Even if Warriors didn’t have burst damage, they still do more damage overtime than a Ranger could ever do, by no less than double on tanky, or support builds, to as much as three times as much damage with a damage based build. And I am not even including the potential of Kill Shot, nor Eviscerate.

There is no other class in the game that has the sustainable damage a Warrior has, and there is only one class that can match the burst damage a Warrior has, and that is the Thief.

I can’t even believe someone would try to compare the Ranger to the Warrior.

jkctmc.8754:

@RummyTheMad

You do realize since the invention of MMOs there has been one underlying fact that everyone who has played MMOs long enough understands? That one underlying fact is that burst wins fights.

You can not dispute something that has been proven a thousand times over, in every MMO to date. Just because GW2 has done away with the holy trinity (tank, dps, healer) doesn’t mean that one fact has been removed.

Rangers do not have burst damage, and Warriors do. Even if Warriors didn’t have burst damage, they still do more damage overtime than a Ranger could ever do, by no less than double on tanky, or support builds, to as much as three times as much damage with a damage based build.

Burst damage brings people’s health down more quickly than DoT. It’s not better, it’s faster which can make it more difficult to counter in a timely fashion. Burst relies on the target being unable to respond quickly enough, and it can therefore be extremely effective. No argument there. I’m aware of the differences, and your oversimplification of the matter is neither accurate nor true.

Regardless, I’m trying to have a discussion about damage, and you are trying to have an argument over points that I’m not even making. I’ll let you continue that endeavor solo.

RummyTheMad.7290:

jkctmc.8754:

@RummyTheMad

You do realize since the invention of MMOs there has been one underlying fact that everyone who has played MMOs long enough understands? That one underlying fact is that burst wins fights.

You can not dispute something that has been proven a thousand times over, in every MMO to date. Just because GW2 has done away with the holy trinity (tank, dps, healer) doesn’t mean that one fact has been removed.

Rangers do not have burst damage, and Warriors do. Even if Warriors didn’t have burst damage, they still do more damage overtime than a Ranger could ever do, by no less than double on tanky, or support builds, to as much as three times as much damage with a damage based build.

Burst damage brings people’s health down more quickly than DoT. It’s not better, it’s faster which can make it more difficult to counter in a timely fashion. Burst relies on the target being unable to respond quickly enough, and it can therefore be extremely effective. No argument there. I’m aware of the differences, and your oversimplification of the matter is neither accurate nor true.

Regardless, I’m trying to have a discussion about damage, and you are trying to have an argument over points that I’m not even making. I’ll let you continue that endeavor solo.

No, you’re not trying to have a discussion. You’re making claims that are not even remotely true, and this entire thread is absurd. Anyone who has ever played a Warrior well knows that; There is no other class in the game that has the sustainable damage a Warrior has, and there is only one class that can match the burst damage a Warrior has, and that is the Thief.

I can’t even believe someone would try to compare the Ranger to the Warrior.

Rummy, I’m not trying to get you upset or anything. I wasn’t trying to attack you either, please don’t get mad, although it might be late for that since your name is RummyTheMad. I was just stating a point that you left out in your equation, that’s it. didn’t mean anything by it personally. AkisameTheChillin (not to be confused with chili willy the penguin)

Akisame.9508:

Rummy, I’m not trying to get you upset or anything. I wasn’t trying to attack you either, please don’t get mad, although it might be late for that since your name is RummyTheMad. I was just stating a point that you left out in your equation, that’s it. didn’t mean anything by it personally. AkisameTheChillin (not to be confused with chili willy the penguin)

I’m not angry at all. I tend to write in a very dispassionate and deliberate voice, which does not at all reflect my emotional state. Other than having a lingering chest cold, I’m feeling great.

I absolutely hear what you guys are saying, and I wasn’t arguing that warriors don’t have the potential to do more raw damage. My point was (and still is), that there is more to consider than raw damage, and that your opponent’s ability to avoid damage is as important a factor when considering your overall DPS as simple damage numbers are.

We get a lot of anecdotal evidence thrown around here as proof that one class is better than another. It’s completely normal, so it has become accepted as actual evidence, which it simply is not. I consistently win fights against opponents of every profession on my ranger, so I have a hard time swallowing someone else’s “proof” that it’s not possible. I absolutely still get beat by better players, but there is no one profession that always beats me, and I personally have less trouble with warriors than most of the other professions if we’re talking about 1v1s. But again, none of that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Sure we can say that good warriors don’t lose to rangers, but we can also say the opposite with exactly the same degree of certainty – none at all. I stand by my point that your net DPS is the relevant factor in this type of discussion, and player skill is more important by a wide margin.

Do you guys sPvP your rangers? Maybe it’s just luck, build, playstyle, or the fact that I’m a low level sPvP pug, but I find Warriors (along with Engineers) to be the easiest class to beat. Sure, burst is beast, but you have to land it of course. Rangers have a bunch of useful evades and escapes, and can keep up consistent condition damage throughout a fight.

I do however suspect that a lot of newbish players pick warrior, maybe at higher level sPvP I’d find I do better against other classes.