Guild Wars 2

Im not even crying so much because of WHaO nerf, but because how fast they nerfed the skill, how much do the devs hate rangers, they had to actually hotfix it as if it were some sort of ridiculously game breaking bug lol

I noticed this first on sPvP, where only 3 of my team mates was getting the buff, it’s strange because before the patch/hotfix I would always be able to buff all 4 team players(excluding myself), I guess this is due to WHaO change?

Ever since the hotfix warhorn skill 5 doesnt affect 5 targets it only buffs 4, same thing seems to happen with WHaO when its traited.
Anyone else or just me?

Im a main ranger, I started playing the “ranger” character on runescape back in 2005, I played ranger in GW1, I played hunter in WoW, I play ranger in GW2, Ive played so many ranger classes in so many different games, yet its the first time I am playing a class named ranger that doesnt feel anything like a ranger (talking about the druid ofc)

Im a main ranger and I hate druid.

Ehecatl.9172:

The difference, as pointed out in the wiki page, is that the artificial was manufactured by man. That’s really the only specification for something to not be natural. Even then it’s just a man made specification. Humans like to label things for the sake of labeling them. My argument is simply that there’s no reason to not consider naturally occuring objects like stars and planets as a part of the natural world.

Being natural=/= being part of nature, if you look up the definition of the word natural you’ll see it has many of them. one of which is “referiing to nature” another is “without artificial additives”
You are using the word natural with one definition (naturally occuring ie with no human influence) and this doesnt mean they are part of nature.
Not being artificial may mean it’s natural, but doesnt mean it’s part of nature.

Ehecatl.9172:

I think I see what your standard of nature is. You need life to be present. But life only isn’t present in the larger universe if you decide that Earth is somehow separate from it, which it’s not. We also don’t strictly know if there is life in other places in the universe or not, though statistically there probably is. I suppose my question to you is how far away from life does something have to be before it stops being nature to you?

Below is what I consider a near perfect definition of nature (from the wikipedia webpage):

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects – the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness–wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention.

I understand quoting wikipedia doesnt give me much credibility but I currently dont have time to search for various sources on this.
To answer your question, and to quote myself from previous posts, life cannot exist without nature and life is an integral part of nature. If no sort of life can be detected in an environment (without human influence) then that environment is not natural (as in part of nature).

As a final note, since I feel this is slowly derailing I’ll say this, if Anet want to make their druid all about celestial and stuff that is fine, if that fits their definition of nature that is fine. It’s their game and they are welcome to do with it as they please.
However we were led to believe the Druid specc would be more centered around nature as in plants, and animals.
If they had made the druid more like that and focused less on the celestial part I’m pretty sure no one would be complaining about it, you wouldn’t see people opening threads about how druids aren’t natural enough cause they dont have enough celestial on their theme.

Ehecatl.9172:

The definition of nature is, as per your own wiki link, "The natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general."

The sun, stars, planets, and other forces in space are absolutely a part of the physical universe.

Your are taking that definition a bit too literally as it said in the page “in the broadest sense”, if we were to take it that literally then any physical thing could be considered as part of nature, including the things we currently consider the complete opposite of nature: the artificial

Ehecatl.9172:

It is a very narrow definition to only include life itself as nature. The link you left clearly shows that the ocean, weather, and geology are all a part of nature. Water and geological and atmospheric phenomena are not unique to Earth. Most works of fantasy include weather control under the domain of “nature magic” because the weather is considered a force of nature.

I did not say only life was nature, in fact I was quoting you when you said Nature is where life exists, which like I said I completely agree. I’ll also add to it that life is part of nature, life cannot exist without nature and nature is not truly nature without life involved.

I don’t understand where you’re going with this. I’m not trying to be offensive or anything but I legitimately can’t understand what you’re trying to say.

I edited my post, it had a small typo, hope its more clear

Actually when I’m looking at the stars I’m usually boggling my mind at the idea that I’m actually looking back tens of thousands if not millions or billions of years into the past due to the time it takes for light to traverse the distance between us and the stars and how light makes up our entire visual range. But then again I’m kind of a weird guy.

But you said it in your own post. The natural beauty of the sky. Natural. The stars, sun, moon, and planets are not man made. They exist independent of us and have been a natural part of the universe since long before we existed. Like a mountain overlooking a vast forest can be considered nature, so to can the stars that will one day come to their own end and thus release the star dust needed to form new planets that may one day accumulate it’s own life.

That last paragraph only enforces the fact tha this is indeed about semantics. When I said natural I meant its raw beauty unadulterted by our action, natural beauty as opposed to man-made beauty (art and whatnot)

Ehecatl.9172:

I… What? Are you saying that the Sun isn’t the center of our solar system? I’m very confused.

The Sun is a star in the center of our solar system that provides light, warmth, and energy that is absolutely vital to the survival of all life on Earth. It is doubtful that Tyria operates differently somehow, especially since we know photosynthesis exists in the world.

I clearly said in my post the sun is the center of our solar system, what you didnt get was the point that I was trying to make, which is about the semantics

Ehecatl.9172:

Not just the Sun however. The Moon is important too. It has an effect on the tides and illuminates the night so that living creatures can see and hunt. Last I checked the ocean was considered a part of nature.

Again just because something is important to life doesnt make it part of nature, and the flaw in your previous argument is that you said celestial bodies are part of nature yet you only describe why the sun and the moon in specific are essential to life(and thus part of nature, according to you)

Ehecatl.9172:

Stars are too far away to have a direct effect on life on our planet, but they may effect life on others. Nature isn’t limited to one planet but rather exists wherever life does.

So nature exists where life does, I totaly agree with that. Then why would celestial bodies be considered part of nature if they haven’t been proven to contain any life?

Ehecatl.9172:

Even then rock and soil are considered parts of nature. Earth isn’t the only planet that is composed of mineral materials. It’s not even the only planet that has water on it.
To consider ONLY plants and animals as a part of nature is pretty narrow minded.

Where in any of my posts did I say only plants and animals are nature? A planet having nature in it doesnt make it nature. Earth isnt nature, it HAS nature in it. And saying other planets are nature because they have nature in it doesnt make sense, nature is a part of the planet.

Ehecatl.9172:

And I don’t know about you, but I consider laying under the night sky watching the stars or watching the sun rise or set to be nature oriented activities.

It certainly is, however, what you would be doing in this case would be appreciating the beauty of the night sky, the bright moon and starts opposed to the blank dark vast space, appreciating its natural beauty (at least its what I assume you would be doing)
You re probably not thinking “what an awesome celestial body the moon is, with it’s rotational speed and effect over ocean tides”

Its about the semantics, you can call the sun (and the moon) part of nature, when you are talking about the effect they have on our environment, but you cant say they are part of nature just because they have elements similar to our own nature.

Ehecatl.9172:

I am curious how you suppose nature would exist without the Sun. The celestial bodies are as much a part of nature as water, which is similarly not alive but vital to the existence of life.

There’s the sun – source of light that is essencial to life (arguable)
And there’s the sun – the astral body, center of our solar system

One belongs to the realm of nature, the other belongs in the realm of space.

And what you’re saying is since the sun is essential to life, celestial bodies are part of nature? That logic

Celestial =/= nature, and saying nature is about planets and stars doesnt make any sense to me either.
Someone tells you they are into nature and natural stuff and asks for your suggestion on something to watch or read, do you tell them “yeah go watch Start Trek or The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”?? I hope not!

Here’s wikipedia’s definition on nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature
(notice how the “celestial” part is such a minor mention, more of a “you might also be interested in” section)

Can you really blame anyone for the heal " tunnel vision", when 4 out of the 5 staff skills literally contain the words heal or healing, 3 out of the 5 glyphs have heal on them, and every minor trait is directed toward healing, while the major traits are just augmentations of both the staff and glyphs, for the most part.

People really need to stop sugar coating this specc, the reason why its so focused on supporting and pretty much ignores our class mechanic is just because our class mechanic is broken, and rather than giving us a specc that would improve it in some way or another they just went as far away from it as possible, why? Because they cant fix it.

Ill explain a bit better why I think druid sucks and why the above suggested elite specc shows it
Druid specc sucks because its mostly healing, pretty much ALL the traits are for healing/supporting, what if I wanted to play a damage dealing druid? Sure it has some damage skills and staff probably has some base damage. but those traits… Oh well

As you saw the Bounty Hunter traits can be used in synergy with other weapons, with other trait lines and with other playstyles, youre not funneled into just damage, like druid funnels you into support/healing

The above point is my biggest problem with druid, and the direction Anet is taking with this “amazing spec”, that there is now a healing specc that is “needed in some encounters” because “dodging just wont be enough to stay alive”, youre basicaly saying that whoever plays healer now is responsible for keeping others alive, and if the group wipes, guess who’s gona be receiving the blame

So much for bring the player not the class…
I wont get into the whole celestial thing either or as some call it the Astralranger

Welp druid is out, and I hate it, like genuinely hate it, but instead of making another rant thread about how druid sucks I’m creating my own specc and showing in another way why druid sucks.

Keep in mind this is just something I came up with in a few hours, not very refined but I just want to get a point across

So then: Bounty Hunter

New weapon: Rifle

New mechanic: “Hunt them down!” (F5)
You calll out both of your pets to hunt down your target, this can be extremely usefull and opens up possibilites for some major pet combos, especially with the new pets coming out, pressing F5 a second time will cause your second pet to cast its “F2” skill

New skill: Mark (dont think mark as in Necro ground marks, but instead like the overhead marks) you know cause bounty hunters target and hunt down people,thats what you are

Now before I get to the traits ill explain the weapon and marks a bit better

Firstly the rifle, I feel its the perfect weapon for this ranger concept, and unlike a certain other elite specc, its just something that adds to your class, not something you feel forced to equip if youre going down that specc
Skills:
1: Auto shot that changes its damage output and effect according to range
Close up it does extra damage
Far off it puts conditions on enemy (maybe bleed or fire)
2: A shot that empowers your next pet attack, the pet instantly teleports to target and crits
3: A gap opener that applies conditions from up close
4: A gap closer that deals more damage from afar
5: A volley of shots (LB2) that pushes the foe back, doesnt really knock them back it just pushes him back, think like a stong wind :P

Marks:
These are abilities the rangers put on enemies or allies that trigger on the target being damaged, examples:
Mark1 makes allies deal extra damage to the marked foe
Mark2 triggers some condition on the enemy
(“but thats like spirits” you say, well yeah except it isnt useless in pve, and its much more versatile)
Mark3 is one that you put on an ally and whenever they suffer damage something like aoe protection or maybe damage reflection, or aoe healing, this woul pretty much be a supportive ability
And a few more, I think you get the idea of what makrs are by now.
(notice how these arent strictly just for damage)

Now for traits:

I wont go very deep into these, but just to give an idea of what traits it would have:
One that like the rifle skill 1 would increase your damage output from up close, or have a chance to trigger conditions form afar, this would apply to all weapons, and increase rifle’s efficiency
A trait that would allow both pets to stay for a bit just after swapping (F4)
Traits that increase the eficiency of marks, both offensivel and defensively
Traits that added extra effects to marks, such as walking away from or toward a marked target would make you run faster, applying conditions with marks, or removing them
A trait that makes your F5 instantly mark the target
Etc.

So what do you think about this?

Linnes.2678:

Doomslay.3504:

“when the ranger dodges the pet also dodges” for me thats all we need for pet survivability, nothing that would require traiting either, as for something traited :“when the ranger gains evasion the pet also gains evasion” (eg. from weapon skills)

The main problem with this, is that if you have an AoE circle next to your pet for example, but not next to you, are you going to want to waste a pet swap or a dodge on this? Take Subject Alpha for example on this. Sure, his dodges are easy for a single person, but once you start micro-managing yourself AND a pet, it’s gonna get rough. This being said, your pet is gonna die on Alpha anyways 80% of the time so it’s not like anything new is happening.

In such case it really depends on whether the ranger is willing to sacrifice half his endurance, or keep it for himself and just swap pets, which like I said gives a bit more depth to pet management, I personally would since it would keep my damage output at its optimum, and hopefully I would still have enough endurance for myself, but it’s situational.

jwaz.1908:

Doomslay.3504:

“when the ranger dodges the pet also dodges” for me thats all we need for pet survivability, nothing that would require traiting either, as for something traited :“when the ranger gains evasion the pet also gains evasion” (eg. from weapon skills)

This could be one solution to pets in dungeons, the only problem I have is that the ranger himself must waste his endurance, as well as constantly watch his pet (in a sea of particle effects).

I would much prefer if all pets were just immune to AOE, since many dungeon mobs and bosses have AOE abilities that 1 shot pets.

But that would dumb down the class quite a bit since you wouldn’t have to worry about your pet anymore, I think the change I suggested would give some depth to pet management, and I dont think it would be that hard to watch your pet since most of the times you will be both in harm’s way, hence your dodging to save yourself will save your pet as well, but these are just my 2 cents

“when the ranger dodges the pet also dodges” for me thats all we need for pet survivability, nothing that would require traiting either, as for something traited :“when the ranger gains evasion the pet also gains evasion” (eg. from weapon skills)

Thank you very much, that has fixed it, was kinda confused since there was no indication that we actualy had to activate them, or maybe I missed it.

Hey, I’ve been experiencing this bug when playing my ranger underwater, thing is I have no pet and no matter how much I try to take it out it just remains stowed, even when I fight, this happens when playing sPvP only.
At first I thought this was normal, as a way of reducing the ranger’s power underwater (since I do feel OP underwater) but then I actually noticed other rangers had their pets out. Like I said I’ve tried everything, the pet management window refuses to open and clicking on the stow/unstow icon is worthless.

Another thing I’ve noticed in these circumstances is that I cant swap my underwater weapon either, the swap icon isnt even there. Does this only happen to me? Is there any way to fix it or am I just doing something wrong. Help would be very much appreciated!

Here’s a pic for proof.