Guild Wars 2

Why have conditions recently popped up for hot debate?

Is it because everyone who is QQing for a nerf is running some faceroll DPS i-have-no-condi-removal type build? Shifts in build metas is the only reason I can think of for why you’re all QQing.

I seriously hope they leave conditions as they are. Might teach DPS fanboys that you can’t have the best of everything after all. And actually, I do have a vested interest in keeping conditions as they are. Speaking as a Ranger, the last thing I want to see is our only viable WvW roaming/pvp build (condi bunker regen) nerfed because of your QQing.

If they nerf condi too they might as well just delete the Ranger profession.

Read The Wind should be merged with Eagle Eye.

Read The Wind IS a useful trait (though many would argue it should be a fundamental standard for the Ranger, as should Piercing Arrows [see: Engi rifle, necro staff, mesmer GS]…), but it is simply not worth taking over the other better traits in Marksmanship.

Either that or provide an additional buff such as 25% increased attack speed to compensate for such a lackluster GM trait.

Edit: I’d also like to use this thread to convey my utter disappointment at the new Ranger GM traits in general, as I feel it reflects that the devs just didn’t take our feedback on board after such a huge CDI thread.

Prysin.8542:

thats a fully traited + signet BM pet.
The pet will hit ridiculously hard at the cost of the player hitting like a wet noodle (unless if condition build).

How to counter this build?
Kill pet THEN player.

Any further reason for QQ now that counter has been given?
No

Probably the most perfect answer i’ve seen on this forum ever in the history of anything

I’ve been using it in WvW for about 15 mins now.

At first I was like “oooh…”

But then I was like “urgh…”

This shouldn’t be a grandmaster trait. This is a basic fix.

It carries the illusion of increased attack speed which is why Anet are palming it off as a GM trait.

Should at the least be merged with Eagle Eye or Piercing Arrows.

Ridiculous.

Simply for the fact that mesmers ARE considered OP in 1v1 situations (that may be due to 75% of people not knowing how to fight them properly, but it’s irrelevant), I would say they are one of the professions currently least in need of buffs (alongside warriors, thieves and engis). I love playing mesmer, and having access to both lots of stealth and tab-target-taunting clones makes it one of the best duelists. I wouldn’t go as far to say mesmers are OP (though I am a bit skeptical about the balance of the access to so much stealth and clones) but adding all these buffs certainly would make us OP.

I’ve always mained a Ranger and never really played Guardian past level 5. I’m saving to buy another character slot though because I’m crafting sunrise and I’d like a human guardian to use it.

I use a Condi Bunker/regen build (one of the two current viable builds for Rangers) and I seem to be able to kill Guardians a lot more easily (with less effort) or more quickly than I kill other professions.

I always previously used a zerker Ranger (but finally had to concede that Rangers just suck at physical damage….well, any damage as a matter of fact but at least condi is quicker… and I would basically NEVER kill guardians 1v1 with that build) so I switched it up to my current build and Guardians seem to melt under conditions, especially since they can’t damage me enough to make me retreat. I always considered you guys to be a cleansing profession, what’s the state of your condition removal right now?

What are the meta builds for pvp/wvw? Is there anything you guys particularly want from Anet in the balance patch?

Now that Allie Murdock, the only person who had an in depth understanding of what was said in the Ranger CDI is leaving. Sure, she may have passed on ideas to the devs but they didn’t get half as involved as she did. Ah well, I have no problems sticking with my condi bunker for at least the next year.

It’s a no-brainer for solo or small group roaming.

Go condi bunker in full apothecary. You can almost faceroll it 1v1.

This thread is silly and nonconstructive. Appealing for it to be removed.

@Durzlla.

Definitely like the sound of something like that. Sounds as though it would polish the gameplay off much more neatly and make it more enjoyable. Though, like you say, there is the risk of having all your eggs in one basket (i.e. on your pet), it certainly puts more emphasis on tactical pet control so I’d hope that the supposed incoming AI improvements would compliment something like this.

As good an idea as it may be, I’m not holding out much hope for the implementation of these more elaborate plans and trait changes any time soon, simply for the fact that the “balance” history of the devs is much more ‘quick-fix’ and simple-change-based rather than reworking more significant areas of a profession. I just hope that by the time the next significant balance patch comes round there will have been enough QQing by Rangers to make devs pull their fingers out and actual deliver some of these quality ideas. I was, however, encouraged to see Allie take an interest in that ‘aspect of the pet’ idea. Let’s just see if it comes to fruition.

and they gave Rangers the runts, right?

People have acknowledged this for months

Serenity.6149:

…The problem isn’t that there’s no Holy Trinity in this game. The problem is that the core game design has removed the need for support and control roles in PVE. The one truth in GW2 is that damage trumps all, and that’s what makes it boring…

I think you make a valid point here. I would certainly like to see Anet concentrate and build on the most viable build(s) for each profession. Of course that’s not to say that they shouldn’t stop trying to improve build diversity, but it would provide a bit more of a niche for each profession that is closer trinity but without its downfalls.

I realise this would run the risk of: “oh if you wanna play support, roll an ele”; “oh if you wanna play a debuffer, roll a necro”; “if you wanna play healer, roll a guardian” etc, however isn’t that the way it is at the moment? Profession roles are unavoidable no matter how balanced you try to make the game.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, Mesmers never really fitted into the Trinity, even in GW1. I think A.Net realized they could capitalize on not having the stale Trinity mechanic.

I think you could have a point there, though I’m getting the impression that that capitalization is now depleting for some of the reasons I mentioned in the OP. They’ve certainly catered to a specific audience with this game, and I don’t think it’s a great long-term business plan.

Zelkovan.2630:

Bryzy.2719:

And that’s a valid opinion, but don’t for a second presume to tell me there is some kind of agenda behind my use of language because I’m not an illiterate fool like many in the darker areas of the internet.

Language is malleable, and the general definitive ideas behind communism are that everybody is treated the same. I’m not looking to get into a political discussion through my use of adjectives.

I’m not trying to get into an political discussion with you nor am I saying you are an illiterate fool, but it makes you look silly when you use philisophical and social ideas and relate them to something that doesn’t even have traces of those ideas.

It’s the same thing as me noting that Crafting is vertical progression and costs more and more as you get higher, therefore it is a capitalist based system and the poor will never benefit. The balancing attitude of Anet is also fascist therefore because they buff certain classes and nerf others. Also, map completion is imperialistic as I’m conquering the whole word via exploration. Also, the game is anti-sylvaritism because Scarlet blew up LA and now everyone is feeling all anzy about Sylvari. See how silly that is? Granted, i’m exaggerating but there is no proper place for those terms =/

Seabreeze.8437:

Thank you! I laughed so hard at that first paragraph, as I get so tired of seeing words like that which are only used to get people’s attention.

Back to the subject, I know there aren’t TRUE healer classes here, but aren’t water elementalists and guardians kiiiiinda like that? It’s probably a stretch, but they’re good support roles at least, especially the guardian.

Yes, you can support with those classes but the problem is that healing power scales so terribly that it usually isn’t worth it. That and the fact that every class has a high self-heal makes healing pointless as people can just heal themselves. That’s another topic altogether though.

I appreciate your take on it. I agree with your assertions there. I was merely using it as a simplistic way to describe how all professions are supposed to be able to equally perform any role, which was another of Anet’s founding philosophies.

Inexor.7804:

If you want trinity: Play another game, simple as that.

Read the OP.

Dalanor.5387:

So OP is the same kind of person, who bought the game without any research on it and 2 year after release he still wonders why it isn’t have a trinity when clearly stated numerous times it won’t have a standard trinity system. Yeah, same stuff always.

Close the thread pls. Thanks!

No, I knew full-well that there’d be no trinity system when I bought the game, I’ve played (on-and-off) since release on August 25th 2012. If you’d read my OP, you would see that this thread is used to speculate on how the game-driving ideals of trinity vs no trinity are affecting GW2. This isn’t a players-who-want-trinity vs. players-who-don’t thread. Kindly take your immaturity elsewhere.

Zelkovan.2630:

So no, the game is not boring without a Holy Trinity. I daresay it’s better without it because I can role any class I want, play how I want without worrying about a “comp” with friends and I like it that way.

And that’s a valid opinion, but don’t for a second presume to tell me there is some kind of agenda behind my use of language because I’m not an illiterate fool like many in the darker areas of the internet.

Language is malleable, and the general definitive ideas behind communism are that everybody is treated the same. I’m not looking to get into a political discussion through my use of adjectives.

Vexander.9850:

Jski.6180:

No.
Your more or less asking for ppl to play the way you want and not let them have the freedom to chose how they play.

It goes both ways you know. In games I love playing a healer. Can’t do that here.

I have to agree with Vexander here. I can’t help but feel as though Anet are really restricting their potential player base by limiting the extent to which a player can perform a given role. It really is denying a game style that a large proportion (look at WoW) of MMO players prefer to play. But then again, perhaps it’s just that Anet are deliberately looking to ignore those kind of players and I’m missing the point entirely.

TL;DR:

This is NOT a thread requesting the return of the trinity. It well never happen. Read the post before you decide to comment something along those lines. This is a thread to discuss how lack of trinity is affecting GW2.

- Bad balancing + communist style gameplay = boring = loss of players
- If trinity was in place, player skill is still a key factor in winning pvp/wvw

This is a speculative thread and is open to all opinions, not one in which I’m am forcing forward my own – though I do state it.

Note: for newer players, ‘holy trinity’ refers to the profession-specific roles of tank, DPS and healer.

I’ve noticed more players recently giving up this game/logging far fewer hours to pursue real life or other gaming ventures. I’ve no idea if this is a legitimate trend (it most likely isn’t in the scheme of things) as I don’t have access to Anet’s playerbase statistics.

From what I’ve witnessed amongst players, GW2 appears to be a kind of ‘fleeting fancy’ when it comes to gameplay. That is, people will get the game, play for a couple of months, then get bored.

It’s my opinion that the poor profession-balancing skills of the devs [read: Rangers are due for another shafting], combined with the rather communist-esque design of the gameplay [read: no holy-trinity] are completely detrimental to the ‘addictiveness’ of the game. Simply put, comparatively, GW2 just isn’t that addictive meaning it isn’t as fun as other games.

I realise that some are advocates of the “skill factor” (i.e. removing the holy trinity means player skill plays a larger role in pvp/wvw), however I don’t believe this is necessarily the case. If we had the classic DPS/Tank/Healer roles, players’ individual skill would still determine the outcome of a fight. A really good tank would wear down DPS players, a really good DPS player might out-damage a healer’s healing power etc etc.

I have no expectation that Anet will ever incorporate the trinity into the game. The removal of it is, afterall, one of the game’s foundational ideals. It’s just my view that this makes for a weaker game in the long run.

Thoughts?

Well, actually it does matter when the only profession getting shafted once again is the Ranger, even after a huge “collaborative” development thread.

…trait for game mechanics that should already be standard gameplay? And why are we also forced to choose between the “good” traits (eagle eye, spotter, piercing arrows etc) which should already be merged??

Most recently observed with the “read the wind” trait. A GRANDMASTER trait that provides an attribute that we should have had in the first place. I’d just make clear to other professions that this trait does NOT double our bow attack speed, it just merely fixes the problem of slow and easily-dodgeable arrow flight. Y’know, I’m really trying to keep cool here but there’s so, so much genuine, brilliant feedback from the Ranger community and Anet is just ignoring it all.

Also, take Piercing Arrows for example. Why should we have to trait for this? The Necromancer staff auto pierces as standard, the Mesmer GS auto pierces as standard, and the Thief SB auto bounces as standard. I’m sure other classes have access to this but I’m tired and can’t think right now.

I’m genuinely worried that Rangers are just going to end up shafted once again. The lackluster “collaboration” on part of the devs in the Ranger CDI reflects the incoming “balance” changes, and I for one will not be optimistic.

Durzlla.6295:

You realize those wouldn’t work as traits at all right lol?

Someone missed the joke

Well, your excitement will be short-lived when you realise it doesn’t decrease the cooldown of the auto-attack. All this will mean is that players will actually have to dodge to avoid arrows rather than just side-step them. This is something that should be implemented as basic gameplay, and they’re choosing to implement it at GRANDMASTER trait level? It goes to show that Anet have no idea what to do with Rangers.

EDIT: to be clear, this isn’t a thread “picking on” mesmers. This is a thread criticising Anet’s ability to balance and introduce fair traits given the sheer volumes of feedback they’ve been getting.

Doubling the enemy’s cooldowns on interrupt? I…I just can’t.

It hasn’t even been implemented yet and everyone can already see it’s going to be overpowered. Mesmers don’t NEED such an unnecessarily powerful buff – they’re one of the top classes right now with the utility, sheer amount of stealth and frankly frustrating amount of clones they have making them one of the worst professions to 1v1 with. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying they are overpowered as things currently stand.

But it’s not just the mesmer trait either…. Guardians getting THREE THOUSAND more HP at level 80?

What do Rangers get? 2x faster arrows. Something so simple that should be implemented as standard, and not brought in as a Grandmaster trait. I know these are just 1 of several new traits, but it just goes to show Rangers are on the verge of being shafted once again. It also shows that little attention has been paid to the discussion of Ranger bows in the CDI.

last 9 days…. blerghhh…

come on marjory’s weapons!

urghhh last 3 days have sucked, fingers crossed for marjory’s dagger + axe tomorrow…. I can afford both now!

Allie, has making a viable DPS or burst build been up for discussion internally? Or are you guys resolutely sticking with your sustained damage philosophy?

On a side note, I’ve seen quite a few players in-game mentioning how cool it would be to have one or two ‘unique pets’ in the game, perhaps something like a phoenix with particle effects. It’s no core issue, but it might be a simple addition to add a bit more appeal to the profession.

Really hoping for Majory’s Dagger!! Would go absolutely perfect on my Ranger with my green-trimmed medium zodiac armour

I roll a condi bunker/regen ranger and have never lost 1v1 to any thief.

PU mesmers on the other hand are, in my opinion, OP 1v1 in PvP especially. Their abilities combined with the nightmare task of keeping them targeted because of all the kitten clones and stealth makes them difficult to fight if they are at least of average+ skill.

Devs please lock this thread, read through, and start afresh with summaries and a discussion direction. It’s getting too messy in here.

Bran.7425:

Maybe they should just lock it out soon as the weekend will probably have it reach 40-50 pages (not a fun prospect to play catch up on)

That way that Monday or Tuesday they could open with a new thread discussion what idea were liked/dislike/not fitting the design they are going for. Maybe give the rangers some heads up on where the profession is heading so the player can make informed choices (on gear reselection, pets to use on content mode of choice, or simply that it is time to re-roll/leave)

This. We need some direction here, Anet.

Atherakhia.4086:

When I, and I assume others, say this class needs burst we’re not talking about over-the-top, 1 shot KO damage. We’re asking for something that does enough damage to pressure the opposing team to force them to use a cooldown.

Agree with everything Atherakhia said, but would also like to reiterate the above quote.

@Durzlla

No, when the majority of the Ranger community (as evidenced by comments in this thread) are unhappy with the sustained damage philosophy, the logical approach is most certainly not to undermine them by emphasizing a playstyle they are unhappy with, or from which they derive no enjoyment.

The points you are attempting to make in favour of using a sustained damage approach are irrelevant to the issue at hand. We don’t want to be forced to play a sustained damage role. Sure, keep the option, but give us a solid DPS option too. Why deprive us?

Main points:

1. Design philosophy needs to be malleable to fit with what the players want from their gameplay experience

2. Nerfing all other professions in favour of sustained is definitely not a logical approach. Once again I’ll reiterate why:

- This leaves a gaping chasm for all manner of problems with profession mechanics
- Will most certainly lead to widespread fury and people quitting the game entirely
- Is ignoring completely what the majority of Ranger players want from their gameplay experience
- Is far more time and resource-consuming than the opposite approach

Abrilete.1439:

I think that we all agree that right now, considering all the gap-closers, escape habilities, teleports and stealths, the game rewards powerful bursts and Hit’n Run tactics.
That’s why sustained damage is not very effective.

It would be nice to see the Devs opinion on this matter.

Well they seem to have already given their opinion which, unfortunately, involves nerfing the DPS of the other classes in an attempt to make Rangers’ sustained damage relatively more viable. The much more logical option would instead be to bring the Ranger’s burst capabilities up to par with the other classes’. This would not only require less work but it would also appease the Ranger community and avoid kittening off the other classes.

I have a feeling our lack of burst capabilities is the primary reason (though of course there are others) that we have always been ‘bottom of the pile’. The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of true balance at the moment – as people have been discussing – is the seemingly unwavering Ranger design philosophy. This is the thing that needs to be changed, because it underlies all the core issues with our class.

Cufufalating.8479:

I have to say I dont really agree with the anti-sustained DPS / anti-kiting sentiment most people here have.

Bursting is not something think works very well at a high level of play, and kiting (espeically for rangers) is extremely effective vs melee opponents. Kiting doesnt mean you keep 1000+ range perminantly, clearly that will never happen. All it means it you keep 200-300 range for a significant portion of a fight.

So yeah.. I would like to see rangers maintain a sustained damage role because I dont agree that its a bad/inefficient/boring/inherently wrong playstyle.

Nobody is suggesting we take away the sustained damage role. We’re just asking for the option to be able to provide decent burst or DPS. It’s a role many of us want to play particularly in PvE. I’m happy to keep my bunker/regen build for PvP and solo WvW roaming, but I want to be wanted in dungeons etc too.

BobbyT.7192:

Bryzy.2719:

Allie Murdock.8152:

I realize that many classes have high burst right now, but our intent is to limit power creep as much as possible. Just because the Ranger’s damage is more spread out, doesn’t mean it does less damage than the burst of other classes. Does that make sense?

For example: One class could, in the span of 30 seconds, do 15k damage in say 5-10 seconds, but then their burst skills go on cooldown so they have to wait out the rest of the time before they can try again. A sustained class should be able to do that same amount of damage in that same amount of time, but the damage is more spread out (hence sustained). This can be better in certain situations, and allows for the sustained class to fill a hole in a team comp.

I’m not saying this is a perfect system or that it’s even fully functional in the game, I’m just trying to explain why doing burst shouldn’t necessarily be better than doing sustained damage. It depends on the situation.

We also know that some classes right now are better at burst than others, and those are things that we look to address in balance patches so there isn’t a surplus of any one class.

All things considered, many of us, the players, would dearly love to be able to play a viable burst build, or have some aspect of decent physical DPS. To limit the Ranger class to sustained damage is to contradict your own paradigm-shifting philosophy of “any profession can fulfill any role”. Furthermore, it’s actively mitigating our enjoyment of the profession. Essentially, there are those of us who only ever want to play Ranger, and, forgive the childish phrasing, but it is frankly unfair to deny us the potential enjoyment we can get out of this profession.

Kind of a pet peeve of mine when people talk about “classes fulfilling any role” like they expect any class to be able to do everything. As far as I’m aware, they only said each class can do 3 roles.
Control, support, damage.
When it comes to the damage, they never said every class will have high burst, just that they will be able to do damage in a certain way. And having lots of sustain damage vs burst is still consider damage

“we just call it DAMAGE, and when it comes to making red bars go down, you can never have enough of it. Don’t trivialize it though; damage is a very versatile aspect of combat. There are so many ways that a character can do damage.”

Now with PvE, it’s up for debate whether or not is effective there, But that’s more of a problem with the design of the content then it is with the mechanics of a class

There’s one simple fact you’ve neglected.

Ranger is the only class without a decent burst build (whether physical or cond.).

Anet have at least 2 options here; the first of which appears to be the one they want to take:

1. To nerf all other classes’ DPS builds and keep Ranger as a “sustained damage” class. Not only would this infuriate the other classes but it also deprives the Ranger community of the one thing we all want.

2. To leave other classes’ DPS as-is (perhaps with exception to warriors) and give Rangers a viable DPS/burst method. This simultaneously avoids the risk of kittening off the other classes and makes the majority of Rangers happy by finally allowing them to play a fun build and be useful in PvE. It’s also the option that would require the least effort.

Yes I am starting to feel slightly frustrated at these stubborn design philosophies. The game is supposed to cater to the players, not to withhold some grand ideology for each class even if it is detrimental to peoples’ enjoyment of the game.

Allie Murdock.8152:

I realize that many classes have high burst right now, but our intent is to limit power creep as much as possible. Just because the Ranger’s damage is more spread out, doesn’t mean it does less damage than the burst of other classes. Does that make sense?

For example: One class could, in the span of 30 seconds, do 15k damage in say 5-10 seconds, but then their burst skills go on cooldown so they have to wait out the rest of the time before they can try again. A sustained class should be able to do that same amount of damage in that same amount of time, but the damage is more spread out (hence sustained). This can be better in certain situations, and allows for the sustained class to fill a hole in a team comp.

I’m not saying this is a perfect system or that it’s even fully functional in the game, I’m just trying to explain why doing burst shouldn’t necessarily be better than doing sustained damage. It depends on the situation.

We also know that some classes right now are better at burst than others, and those are things that we look to address in balance patches so there isn’t a surplus of any one class.

I find this a bit disappointing. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate where you’re coming from and the fact that you guys want to stick to your Ranger philosophy.

All things considered, many of us, the players, would dearly love to be able to play a viable burst build, or have some aspect of decent physical DPS. To limit the Ranger class to sustained damage is to contradict your own paradigm-shifting philosophy of “any profession can fulfill any role”. Furthermore, it’s actively mitigating our enjoyment of the profession. Essentially, there are those of us who only ever want to play Ranger, and, forgive the childish phrasing, but it is frankly unfair to deny us the potential enjoyment we can get out of this profession.

Rather than focusing on nerfing the DPS builds of other classes to achieve balance, the more reasonable solution would be to provide an up-to-par DPS build for the minority without (i.e. Rangers). The longbow has so, so much potential for giving the Ranger back control of their DPS, and there are some good ideas floating around for improving that weapon.

A final thing I’d like to address is that while other professions may have to wait longer to recharge their bursting abilities, they can all too easily withdraw from the fight (thieves & warriors in particular), heal or simply dodge the Ranger’s sustained attacks (see: Rapid Fire) until their next burst.

Simply put, bursting is just much more fun than sustained damage. And a game should designed to provide precisely that quality.

Going to pitch in here and say I really like the idea of having an “aspect” individual to particular pet families when they are stowed (or even when they’re not!). A perma-stowing option would be fantastic and completely remove our dungeon issues, amongst others, though I won’t be too optimistic with that from a development point of view.

I formulated another idea for changing the role of the pet (to save re-posting I’ll link my original thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Pets-should-their-role-be-changed/first#post3676765) that would:

1. Reduce the need for improved AI (no longer require them to run after targets so much)

2. Prove much more useful to the individual and team in ALL scenarios (dungeons, WvW, PvP, PvE general)

3. Improve the perception of the Ranger as a profession and become more welcomed in dungeons/PvE

4. Improve pet survivability, reducing our handicap upon their death during AoE-intense zerg battles or other such scenarios.

5. Keep the pet mechanic central to the role of the Ranger profession, in line with Anet’s vision.

Now, as a commenter pointed out this suggestion is likely to involve some significant re-works to particular aspects of trait lines and additions to the profession. Implementing something like this would be no easy task, but I hope in the very least it might serve as an idea driver!

It’s good to know that the devs are genuinely interested in the ideas here at least.

I think it’s a wise move by Anet investing more time/resources into profession development – simply for the fact that our character is the one element of the game we are experiencing 100% of the time. Our gaming experience is therefore entirely centered around the performance of our profession: so to improve the quality of profession development and evolution is most certainly to improve the quality of gameplay experience more than any other element of the game.

Bran.7425:

Bryzy.2719:

Bran.7425:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I’ve created my ranger expecting an archer.

Was this because of just the profession’s flavor text? Or because of some other game’s idea of what a ‘Ranger’ is? Please don’t say it was because Ranger has the ‘range’ as the first five letters.

Rangers are “unparalelled archers”.

Probably because of that. And why shouldn’t he?

That paragraph below it detailing ‘Pets’.

So what I am gathering from this is a lot of skimming while reading is going on.
If we are going on the assumption that the flavors text are correct then Warrior will have to remain a better archer as he is a “master of weaponary” and a bow is still a weapon.

Yes, the paragraph below does indeed detail pets. But that does not make the statement that Rangers are “unparalleled archers” suddenly obsolete. He chose the Ranger profession to play an archer because that is what ArenaNet have described it as. Whether or not that description is accurate is completely irrelevant.

Please take your nonconstructive and frankly condescending comments elsewhere. This thread is not the place for them.

Bran.7425:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I’ve created my ranger expecting an archer.

Was this because of just the profession’s flavor text? Or because of some other game’s idea of what a ‘Ranger’ is? Please don’t say it was because Ranger has the ‘range’ as the first five letters.

Rangers are “unparalelled archers”.

Probably because of that. And why shouldn’t he?

Specific Game Mode

All really, but preference would be WvW

Proposal Overview

Overhaul longbow skills to give Rangers back their archetypal weapon of choice

Goal of Proposal

“Unparalleled Archers”. Even Warriors have a better longbow skillset than we do.

Many Rangers would love to use the longbow if it wasn’t such a stagnant weapon. Longbow skills are clearly designed towards DPS functionality (as the GS is to the warrior, guardian, mesmer, and dual daggers are to thieves and eles), but they don’t pack enough punch. Open up a viable DPS build option for the ranger (for which there is currently none). Though “sustained damage” is included in Anet’s Ranger philosophy, it is not fair that every other class gets a decent physical DPS build. There is no holy trinity in this game, and Anet themselves said that any class should be able to perform any role. Allow the Ranger to take back more control over their own DPS rather than relying on terrible pet mechanics.

Proposal Functionality

Here I present some simple skill-change ideas that have frequented the Ranger forums for quite some time.

LB skill 1 suggestions:

- Either speed up the arrow flight or increase its damage
- Create a chargeable shot by holding down the key; in line with the sniper-esque image

LB skill 2 suggestion:

- Either increase damage or decrease cast time. LB auto attack currently gives more DPS than rapid fire, and this just isn’t right. It’s also too easy to dodge.

- Or replace the skill entirely with a single, powerful shot that could perhaps also add a condition such as stacked vulnerability or cripple.

LB skill 5 suggestion:

- Allow movement during the casting of Barrage. This skill isn’t good enough to warrant such vulnerability.

- OR, if no movement, then grant the player stability during the casting time

Associated Risks

There should be none as long as the buffs aren’t TOO much (which would be wishful thinking anyway). People might say “factoring in pet damage means that Rangers would be too powerful with these buffs”, but pet damage (or lack thereof) is the problem in the first place. Pets are just totally unreliable and hold back too much of what SHOULD be the Ranger’s DPS.

I’ve proposed a similar sort of idea. Check it out and see what you think. Perhaps the ideals from both could be integrated?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Pets-should-their-role-be-changed/first#post3675958

Thanks for the constructive input.

@Bran but do you think it would be worth a beastmastery redesign for this kind of change?

I use a regen bunker (condition damaging) build in pvp/WvW roaming with “Guard” and “Protect Me”, and my shouts are traited to give regen + swiftness. The cast time on guard CAN get a bit annoying if I’m being ganked and need the regen, but I have “Protect Me” as my back up for those situations. Overall I love my build and don’t have a real problem with the guard cast time but it WOULD be nice for it to be insta.

Changing the role of the pet – TL;DR at bottom

Please note: this is just a suggestion, and I want your thoughts on the current role of the pet. Are you happy with it as it is, or do you think we need an overhaul like this?

As it currently stands, we’re looking at roughly a 75/25 split in damage between ranger/pet (depending on pet used).

This is a problem. A combination of poor pet AI, lagged f2 casting (which thankfully is being addressed) and generally defensively weak pets means that 25% of our damage is far too easy to disappear.

Rather than saying “oh just fix pet AI”, perhaps we need to take a step back and look at changing the role of the pet.

Proposal: what if the pet was made much weaker in terms of physical DPS, changing the ratio to around 90/10 or even 95/5, and instead shifting the pet focus to being a provider of boons and much more defensive?

The ranger itself would require a slight physical damage boost to fill in for the reduced pet damage, allowing us, the players, to take more control over our DPS. This is something desperately needed. The pet on the other hand would become more tanky and provide either multiple boons or single, strong boons depending on the pet. These boons however would be more viable or stronger than the ones our pets are currently capable of giving us at the moment. Perhaps condition removal too?

Shifting the pets to a support-focus would not only increase their general usefulness and heavily reduce the need for improved AI (e.g. We’re not tearing our hair out because the fact that we need the jaguar to chase the target to provide damage no longer matters much), but it would also pave the way for more build diversity and a better role in dungeons.

Naturally this would require a re-work of some pet skills, and the replacement of some of the pets’ auto-chain damage-based skills with boons. General themes shouldn’t be too difficult to come up with (e.g. feline pets could have a might & fury-based boon set).

I think many of us who main the ranger profession (and who have done since launch) feel that a fairly substantial overhaul of the profession mechanics like this are going to be required to give the Ranger a positive perception amongst the GW2 community.

TL;DR

- pets own too much of our damage and are unreliable at delivering it: we need to take control of our DPS

- shifting pets to a defensive, boon-providing and perhaps condition-removing type role would:

1. Reduce the need for improved AI (no longer require them to run after targets so much)

2. Prove much more useful to the individual and team in ALL scenarios (dungeons, WvW, PvP, PvE general)

3. Improve the perception of the Ranger as a profession and perhaps become more welcomed in dungeons etc.

4. Improve pet survivability, reducing our handicap upon their death during AoE-intense zerg battles or other such scenarios.

5. Keep the pet mechanic central to the role of the Ranger profession, in line with Anet’s vision.

Thoughts?

Changing the role of the pet

As it currently stands, we’re looking at roughly a 75/25 split in damage between ranger/pet.

This is a problem. A combination of poor pet AI, lagged f2 casting and generally defensively weak pets means that 25% of our damage is far too easy to disappear.
Rather than saying “oh just fix pet AI”, perhaps we need to take a step back and look at changing the role of the pet.

Proposal: what if the pet was made much weaker in terms of physical DPS, changing the ratio to around 90/10 or even 95/5, and instead shifting the pet focus to being a provider of boons and much more defensive?

The ranger itself would require a physical damage boost to fill in for the reduced pet damage, allowing us, the players, to take more control over our DPS. This is something desperately needed. The pet on the other hand would become more tanky and provide either multiple boons or single, strong boons depending on the pet.

Shifting the pets to a support-focus would not only increase their general usefulness and heavily reduce the need for improved AI (e.g. We’re not tearing our hair out because the fact that we need the jaguar to chase the target to provide damage no longer matters much), but it would also pave the way for more build diversity and a better role in dungeons.

Naturally this would require a re-work of some pet skills, and the replacement of some of the pets’ auto-chain damage-based skills with boons. General themes shouldn’t be too difficult to come up with (e.g. feline pets could have a might & fury-based boon set).

I think many who main the ranger profession (and who have done since launch) feel that a fairly substantial overhaul of the profession mechanics like this are going to be required to give the Ranger a positive perception amongst the GW2 community. ‘Till now, all we have seen from the devs (apart from unwarranted nerfs) is gimmicky, underwhelming buffs to particular skills and traits. There appears to be no recognition of what the players truly want to see changed, and it doesn’t help that the devs give absolutely no feedback as to why they have or haven’t included particular changes every patch.

I seriously, seriously hope these are fake patch notes.

However on many previous occasions pastebin has given fairly accurate leaked patch notes so I’m feeling a bit apprehensive.

If real, then Anet have addressed almost none of the core issues (bad LB skills, role of the pet, lagged F2 skills, poor mainhand axe skills etc), and given us gimmicky “buffs” that will go no way to improving how the ranger is perceived as a profession.

On the other hand, the Ranger CDI thread has only been put up relatively recently, so let’s hope these are only early patch notes that don’t take into account the work they should be putting into the Ranger after the poll results.