Guild Wars 2

Senticon.3452:

Guys, it’s kinda funny how you point to wrong meaning of “ranger” since there are thousands of interpretations of this term,

No there aren’t. It’s one who ranges land; i.e. a warden or a scout. Any organization referred to as “rangers” are called that based on this definition, including patrols and army rangers. There is no definition of the term having anything to do with using ranged weapons. Sorry. Furthermore, games can’t take real world terms and totally change the definitions to suit their whims, it doesn’t work that way. That’s like what Blizzard kept trying to argue with the “shamans” vs. “shaman” debate in WoW. They only succeeded in making themselves sound foolish – there is no debate, it’s “shamans”.

On the game-play side, this need people have to think of classes as ‘melee’ or ‘ranged’ amazes me as well. It’s a useless and purely gamist dichotomy- that’s not how classes are designed in this game and it’s not how classes should be designed period. All classes are competent at both melee and range and are expected to adjust their tactics based on need.

GuardianOMS.8067:

What? Why make one race look like another with the only distinction being skin color? Why not just ask for humans to have that color since you apparently already like their models?

Not skin color, skin. This includes a number of things like features and tones.

Mirta.5029:

Bonefield.9813:

By the same token, having similar height harms nobody, while providing the benefit of letting people make the character they want to make. My wife is taller than most men, while I’m shorter than the average guy, and it’d be kind of nice to see a greater range of height variation in what we’re allowed to do with our characters. Even if you don’t consider it sexist, it is restrictive; a lot of the character customization options are based on what the developers and designers consider attractive or ideal (as much has been said outright), and that leaves something to be desired for those of us who don’t share their tastes.

Create the shortest guy and make your wife create the tallest girl. No matter how tall she is she will never be taller than most guys in reality and no matter how short you are you’re likely not to be shorter than a very short woman. The GW2 height system represents it well.
I like realism. Does that mean that your vote should count for more than mine?

Maybe this was just a badly worded sentence, but you do realize there are lots of women that are taller than most men right? I know a girl that’s 6’5".

But, the reality is that the creation system in this game doesn’t allow you to create extreme outliers. I know there’s a height comparison chart out there somewhere, but I’d be willing to bet that the tallest male slot is meant to represent roughly someone who is 6’5 or 6’6" while the tallest female slot is meant to represent someone who is about 6’2". I’m on the fence about whether that’s ok or not. The fact is that women who are 6’5" do exist even if they are extremely rare.

Then again, men who are taller than 6’5" also exist. It’s arguable that it should allow every height for both sexes, but it’s also arguable that that would lead to a game world where the average height for males and females was the same, which would be unrealistic.

Initiative is THE Thief mechanic, basically taking the place of the f skills and unique mechanics other classes have. Steal and Stealth are just parts of their arsenal.

So Initiative is comparable to attunement swapping, pets, clones, etc. more than Stealth and Steal are. Removing it would be bad, though I wouldn’t cry if they implemented a very short global cooldown to reduce spamming.

Yeah the game lacks narrative focus which the living story really isn’t helping much with. Baddie of the month is fine from time to time but it shouldn’t dominate the content. There neeeds to be a build up of something really big and interesting.

The term ranger does not refer to ranged combat. I’m in utter astonishment how many people seem to assume this despite it being a common real world term you should have learned in junior high.

The term ranger refers to someone who ranges land; i.e. a scout or a warden; as a fantasy trope it originates from Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, who was primarily a swordsman.

Dezaq.1203:

I find this post funny. And that is because you say the Norn race looks too much like humans, but you WANT their size to be more like a human.. why did you even start this topic?

It should be clear to anyone with a brain that I was discussing two different things – their skins and their models/body shape. Their skins are barely distinctive from humans while their actual model is just very out of proportion. What I was saying is that their models should be made more human-like/realistic and their skins should be more distinctive from humans.

Air on Scepter I also find to be inexplicably weak. I can demolish large groups of enemies with fire and and Air has trouble killing one at a time. The support it provides isn’t anywhere near good enough to justify that. Is there some secret that I’m not privy to here?

What Thieves need are better support options and a better ability to avoid or mitigate damage. One of my biggest complaints is that they don’t get good Endurance regeneration despite how reliant on evades they are.

The other races are pretty good, but the Norn bodies and skins just don’t cut it.

a.) They’re really too large relative to other races. It’s fine that they’re bigger but the gap is too much. There should be some overlap – the smallest norn should be smaller than the biggest human.

b.) Revise the proportions on one or both sexes. Females look too much like human women (more so than the actual human females) while males look like cartoonish caricatures with massively exaggerated top-heaviness and they look virtually nothing like one another.

c.) Change their skins a bit to make them look a little less like humans in general. Add a touch of winter flair, change their skin tones to a grayer color scheme, give them some harder lines/edges, or whatever else you think would be appropriate.

They should really be a lot more aesthetically appealing and distinctive than they are.

Actually, intelligence is positively correlated with height/mass.

That said, Asura have gigantic heads so they must have much bigger brains than the other races.

I actually agree with the OP – I think the Charr or alright but the Norn are simply too big. They should be roughly 25-50% larger than humans at most, not more than double their size, and there should be some overlap – the smallest norn should be smaller than the biggest humans.

I think the aesthetics for the other races or spot on (except maybe Asura head size), but for some reason I can’t get behind the Norn. Actually it’s not for “some reason”, it’s for a very specific combination of reasons.

1.) The males look too much like overly-exaggerated humans. The Norn male would be much cooler if it looked either much less like a human or much more like a human. The body shapes are just fugly and way too cartoonishly exaggerated. They should either only be moderately bigger than humans or have an altogether different appearance from humans, if not both.

2.) The females look more like human females than the human females do and very little like the norn males. This is mostly due to the fact that they have similar proportions to a human while the male’s proportions are cartoonish (extremely top-heavy), like a caricature rather than an actual person. Again, it’s just skewed. They should look like winter-hardened giants and not just regular human women.

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

So, here’s something you guys might like to hear.

I actually did a numbers crunch and a longbow at max range, 30/25/0/15/0 or something similar, actually hits for MORE damage than any comparable greatsword spec. In fact, a max-range longbow actually hits almost as hard as a 1H sword in melee. Combined with the pet’s DPS, a ranger with a longbow actually hits just as hard as a warrior with an axe.

That means that, yes, when you are in WvW shooting a guy from the walls with a longbow and you see a warrior running at the zerg with an axe, you’re actually hitting for more than he is.

Obviously, this favors situations where you can maxrange a target while still receiving buffs from your allies, like WvW, and isn’t as useful in dungeons and the like where most classes get their best damage in melee, but a 2200 base DPS longbow (compared to ranger 1H sword at 2300 and warrior axe at 2900) is extremely respectable.

I am actually not too surprised to hear this given that Longbow DPS went up by 20% or so in the last patch. I was about to post about the melee>ranged paradigm being a little short-sighted, but this makes me feel better if it’s accurate.

Nah it’s mostly l2p. Any Thief that can kill you really easily can also go down really easily as most Thieves in WvW run full zerker with the game’s lowest health and bad defense. Just learn how to counter them, which isn’t that hard.

Saderic.2961:

The warrior longbow autoattack is the worst thing it has going for it. It’s 5 and 3 skills are amazing and they get even better in its own combo field. I actually really like the longbow and wouldn’t mind if it got some love. Its a very interesting weapon and it would be cool if builds could focus on it more.

P.S. The Longbow for a ranger is terrible still.

I agree, I enjoy using the Longbow but the autoattack makes it harder and more difficult to use as a primary weapon than it should be. At the very least, they need to give it the same aftercast reduction Long Range Shot got.

Yes, Stealth doesn’t drop aggro and lasts only 3 seconds. Among other things, this makes the #3 downed skill hysterically useless. As in, I actually laugh at my monitor when I use it and it predictably does nothing then I die. I’m posting this here because I would go so far as to call the skill bugged in PvE, and it has been since launch.

Apparently, someone made the actual decision to do this at some point way back, but it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard in my life. Stealth should about twice as long in PvE as it is in PvP and it should reset aggro. It’s the only defense the Thief really has.

Yes, Smoke Bomb is so bad that it actually feels like a bugged skill and has on multiple occasions caused me to laugh at my monitor as it literally does nothing and I think to myself “what the hell is wrong with Anet?”. The only use it has at all is giving you access to the stealth version of the #1 skill which causes bleeds, giving you a slightly better chance at a rally.

Not going to sugarcoat it- whoever decided that Stealth shouldn’t drop aggro and that Stealth should only ever last 3 seconds in PvE is a moron. Stealth is non-functioning as a defensive skill and totally overpowered as an offensive one when it should be balanced for both.

Softspoken.2410:

Make it a 1/2 second cast and a 3 second stealth and we’re talking.

Edit: It used to be better in PvE, when going into stealth made your attacker sprint back to their starting position, and could make enough distance for you to reset aggro and channel a significant revive / bandage.

It actually never worked that well even before the PvE stealth nerf. It always needed to last longer than 3 seconds to be effective at all. Stealth should last twice as long in PvE as it does in PvP and WvW.

jcbroe.4329:

I have melee and ranged on my ranger, and I would like both to be viable, because just as there is no holy trinity in this game, there is also no melee/ranged class. I need to do both, and I’m capable of doing both, and if you need a full on archer only class, there are many other games out there that will satisfy that desire.

In the mean time, this is guild wars 2, which requires kiting, positional warfare, and the tactical skirmishing ability to dance in and out of ranged and melee combat. If you don’t like it, the doors that way ->

/thread

This man nails it.

DeWolfe.2174:

Einlanzer.1627:

Melee is stronger than ranged for all professions because of risk vs. reward.

Nailed it! And, it’s what’s completely breaking lure and RP in the game. Besides the fact that, in reality, it’s completely the opposite. Ranged is ALWAYS preferred to melee. In PvE/Dungeons, there should be NO invulnerability applied to any NPC because you aren’t “close” enough. If you can get the higher ground or an advantage point, you should win, period.

We need to promote logic and smarter combat in the game more and more.
Sniper > dagger’s every time

This post barely makes sense, but I’ll respond to one point. Ranged is only “always” preferred when everyone is using ranged weapons and you have modern technology (guns in this game probably wouldn’t count).

As soon as you introduce an environment where a substantial number of people are using melee weapons and/or technology is low-ish (like in a fantasy setting), it changes the dynamic. You try taking a Longbow into a skirmish once you pick off one or two people and the rest charge at you. No, you wouldn’t, you’d switch to a melee weapon so you could defend yourself.

That is in fact why the whole notion of “bows all day err day” is really stupid and deserving of ridicule.

Chuo.4238:

80 is far too many levels. Far more than are necessary. In fact, I think levels altogether are an antiquated system that should stay in WoW and D&D where they belong. I’d so much rather see skill-based character progression than simple, stupid XP accumulation for levels (there are games out there like this – and one notable one I can think of is 10 years old…so it can be done, and done well).

I almost didn’t buy GW2 when I found out that the level cap at launch is 80. Seriously? What a no-brainer way to play. And at launch! It didn’t even have to take years and several xpacs to get it to 80!

Increase in level cap = I permanently go play something else. So that is the impact, as far as I am concerned.

I actually agree with this. Skill-based sand-boxy systems are much better for an MMO; it’s amazing that the class/level system has remained the dominant paradigm for so long the way it has.

Doug.9628:

“Though weak at close range limited by their quivers” sorry, nope. What’s with all these types of posts lately? Having a preference for ranged only combat is the same as having a weakness for melee combat, and yes the reverse is true too. Use both.

Yeah I used to be driven crazy on the WoW forums by hunter players. Hunter melee was initially not too bad in WoW, and over the years it eroded to the point of uselessness. Every time someone would make a topic about hunters needing to get their melee mojo back, they were mocked by hundreds of drooling hunter players with intelligent retorts like “leave my stat sticks alone” and “hunter is ranged, if you want melee play rogue”.

I have seriously started to feel like idiots are disproportionately drawn to hunter/ranger classes in games. The term “huntard” turned out to be quite well-founded.

Deepcuts.9740:

What risk?
Most bosses can one shot kill your no mater where you stand in PvE.
Most players can close the gap in WvW very very fast.
At least the Great Sword gives you some evades and on top of that more dmage.

It still requires more active movement and evading. Longbow doesn’t do the same or better DPS than the Greatsword specifically because this game relies on mobility in combat, and the closer into the fight you are the more mobility you need. In most fights, you will get more uptime on the Longbow than on the Greatsword, which helps even out the actual DPS.

Combat in this game is more dynamic than in most MMOs; trying to compare the weapons solely on the basis of DPS in a vacuum is folly; that should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Aioros.4862:

And yet longbow rangers get more reward from being far away and brutally penalized for being closer.

Also rangers wear medium armor because Rangers should not be so hands on.

Every single time I read one of your posts I’m flabbergasted by how myopic they are.

Rangers are penalized at close range on the Longbow only, which is not the same as asserting they are penalized period. It’s like that because the Longbow is a skirmishing weapon, and it’s designed as a tradeoff. You do bonus damage at long range, and get a penalty at very close range. If you need to fight in close range, you don’t do it with the Longbow.

Also, all but 2 classes wear medium or light armor, and all of them have some capacity to be in melee. Rangers actually have better attrition than most which is also aided by the pet.

Seeing all these posts from people that seem to have a religious need to identify classes through “melee” or “ranged” monikers makes me want to scream. That mentality was solely created by WoW and it’s a terrible way to think of class design. D&D doesn’t do that. In 3rd edition, Fighters were just as capable as Archers as Rangers were. The difference between the classes wasn’t in what weapons they used but in their themes. That’s how it should be. Rangers are not solely Archers any more than Warriors are solely Swordsmen.

The problem with your idea is that FFXIV’s classes are based around weapon types and consequently there are a lot more of them. This is not how GW2 is designed.

They are both hybrids but are strategically different. If you’re doing a lot of single target fighting, (or against champions/bosses) Rifle is probably better. If you’re doing a lot of zergs or group fights, Longbow is probably better.

How do people not get that melee is supposed to outdamage ranged across the board? This is meant to compensate for the time that being in melee requires moving around more and puts you at higher risk. Even if your Greatsword outdamages your Longbow in a DPS test, it doesn’t necessarily make it a better weapon; there will be a lot of fights where your Longbow will get more uptime and will outperform your Greatsword while also putting you in less danger. That’s by design. If Longbow outdamaged Greatsword in basic DPS tests, the Greatsword would be pointless.

Aberrant.6749:

Einlanzer.1627:

Aberrant.6749:

At least the thief downed state is pretty awesome… much of the rest could use some tweaking though. Bad at group play and can’t beat several classes 1v1 unless they are braindead (looks @ guardian & mesmer)… capped at 900 range… so what is my thief for? Oh… I can gank yaks pretty kitten well on my thief. Aight thanks.

Thief downed state is utterly wretched, like the worst of any class, while leveling in the open world and contributes to why Thieves feel weak in PvE.

Please go play an engineer… then come back and tell me thief downed is wretched.

I do play an Engineer. It’s bad, but I don’t think it’s worse than Thief. I think both are well below average.

Ambrecombe.4398:

Einlanzer.1627:

This means:
Bleeding Shot – 456 per shot; 1 shot per .8 seconds = 547.2 DPS
Dual Shot – 282 per shot; 1 shot per 1.25 seconds = 196.5 DPS

Your calculation are totaly wrong, same goes for the damage input coming out of your skills. I don’t know where you got those numbers but they can certainly not be right.

With full exotic Rampager gear :
My Longbow (2916 attack) gets
466 × 2!!!
My Rifle (3041 attack) gets
310 × 1

So lets do you some calculation again…
Longbow ->[(466 : 125) x 100] x 2 = 745,6 DPS
Rifle -> (310 : 80) x 100 = 387,5 DPS*

*This doesn’t include damage coming out of bleeds.

You should try reading before you comment. My numbers came directly from my tooltip, which were accurate when I was testing the damage. It’s actually your calculations that are way off.

a.) Bleeds are about as substantial as direct damage in most situations, so removing them from the equation totally is completely asinine. Bleed damage has the drawback of being removable, but has the perk of ignoring armor/toughness. It will be more useful than direct damage in some fights and less useful in others, but it still counts.

b.) The tooltip for Dual Shot is misleading. In your case, both arrows together do 466, not each one. So divide your total calculation by 2, and that’s an accurate comparison of the two for direct damage only. Because of the difference in rate of fire, your Bleeding Shot out-damages Dual Shot even when you only look at direct damage. The bleeds skew it so much it’s hilarious that anyone is dense enough to argue about this.

I think Fire, Earth, and Water are in a pretty good spot on the Staff right now, but Air is still in need of some buffs. The bottom line is that it offers situational utility and poor damage so there’s never a reason to linger in it.

The aftercast reduction on Chain Lightning is nice but the fundamental problem with it remains – it’s only better than Fire’s #1 when fighting exactly 2 targets, and even then Fire is better for its other skills. I think there are problems with the way Ricochet is designed in this game in general that affect quite a few skills (Trick Shot, Dancing Dagger, Richochet, Chain Lightning, etc). It would be better if there was only a chance to bounce but the damage was significantly improved, much like the Thief’s Pistol trait Ricochet.

Lightning Surge is potentially amazing, but it doesn’t do nearly enough damage for its wind-up time and cooldown. It needs to either cast faster or do much better damage.

Gust is just bad- it has bad range, bad effect area, is on a long cooldown, and does no damage. It needs to be totally reworked

Windborn Speed and Static Field both offer decent utility, but are situational and won’t be super useful in the majority of fights. I think they’d be fine though, if the problems with the above 3 were addressed.

Aberrant.6749:

At least the thief downed state is pretty awesome… much of the rest could use some tweaking though. Bad at group play and can’t beat several classes 1v1 unless they are braindead (looks @ guardian & mesmer)… capped at 900 range… so what is my thief for? Oh… I can gank yaks pretty kitten well on my thief. Aight thanks.

Thief downed state is utterly wretched, like the worst of any class, while leveling in the open world and contributes to why Thieves feel weak in PvE.

Thanks for the well-wishes!

Khal Drogo.9631:

Einlanzer.1627:

Well, you realize that you have to develop a taste right? It usually requires eating something new a few times before you really start to dig it. That’s why kids tend to be very picky eaters and people expand their palette as they age.

And besides, if you complained about it then it actually would be called complaining. How many people never get treated to nice meals?

I wish this was even remotely true. You know about a fruit called the durian? Some people find it pungent to the point that it is repulsive and my government has actually made it illegal to bring them into public transport in order not to offend tourists (mostly). I never had a problem with it at all even the first time I had it.

Locals constantly amuse ourselves to the facial responses of the people (both children and adults) who are unaccustomed to the fruit. Some may enjoy it eventually as an acquired taste but I believe some would never want to try it again. Unlike others, we are not so sensitive to be offended if that was the case.

It is entirely true, and I don’t see what how your anecdote of the durian challenges that. There are many, many foods that I initially didn’t like but after a few times of trying them something clicked and I started loving them.

Initiative is definitely the cause of most of the problems.

P/P is a prime example – the main reason it’s so bad is because the bread and butter DPS skill shares a resource with all of the utility skills. This means that you’re always over-sacrificing in one area or the other. Trying to push good DPS out of P/P requires sacrificing all of its mobility and utility. Trying to get any mobility or utility out of P/P means tanking your DPS. Granted, there are options for addressing this within the context of Initiative (like buffing Vital Shot so you aren’t so dependent on Unload for DPS), but nevertheless it wouldn’t be as much of an issue with cooldowns.

Khal Drogo.9631:

Delryn.7235:

Don’t bother, there will always be people to complain about everything. Hand them a platter full of the finest foods on earth for free and they’ll find something to complain about.

Thats very true. As an Asian used to home cooked Asian food, I was treated to an expensive European fine dining experience and honestly I wasn’t won over, no disrespect to the chefs, restaurant or the cuisine. Not sure its called complaining though.

Well, you realize that you have to develop a taste right? It usually requires eating something new a few times before you really start to dig it. That’s why kids tend to be very picky eaters and people expand their palette as they age.

And besides, if you complained about it then it actually would be called complaining. How many people never get treated to nice meals?

Anyone complaining about this is just… ridiculous.

This is pretty sweet.

I’m amazed by how many thief players try to argue that thieves are good in PvE and zergs. It’s such a clear case of “the game is easy enough that I can make the weakest class work but I don’t realize how weak that class is because I haven’t really played anything else”.

Thieves need buffs in most areas.

Aryto.5873:

ANet I want to believe you can release an expansion-level amount of changes and content. I don’t think I’ve seen it yet, but I want to believe you can do it.

Even if I haven’t liked everything in every release so far, there’s always been an aspect of it I did enjoy. As soon as I saw the quote the OP posted, I knew it would be cause for reaction. With Whiteside saying “entire new landmasses are on the list,” that gives me hope.

The things that define expansion content for me are akin to the feelings I got when the game released: A sense of wonder and excitement to explore wonderful new areas with memorable art and design, New mechanics, skills, professions, classes to create builds for and learn how to use effectively, Ever-evolving complexity and creativity in dungeon/boss mechanics that make those encounters fun, engaging, and help you improve at your chosen classes, and the idea that with story and lore, nothing is forbidden (Assassinate the Queen, truly cleanse Orr of the Risen, reveal the Pale Tree really is the final dragon =p)

Content spread over frequent releases is great and all, but don’t forget the power behind a huge release that rekindles the sense that “Oh gosh, there is so much to do, I’ll never get to it all!” like an expansion gives.

I want to second this because it’s very true. It can be easily argued that releasing a lot of content at one time has the benefit of generating more hype and increasing your sense of wonder about the game. I like the living world stuff, but it isn’t a satisfactory replacement for expansion-style mass content releases, or at least hasn’t been so far. I hope they can manage both.

Wolfheart.1938:

A better question would be, what are the benefits of increasing the level cap?

Yes, I’d like to hear an answer to this as well.

I feel like raising the level cap would be a mistake. Especially given the way the game is designed, it would be far better for the level cap to always stay at 80 and for new content to be spread across the current range with a focus on horizontal growth rather than vertical growth and the living story used to provide narrative focus to the end game.

The WoW paradigm of hyperbolic scaling in each new expansion and pigeonholing all new content into the new 5 or 10 levels and effectively truncating the rest of the game is just awful.

Naustis.8510:

AND U SHOULD BE THE WEAKEST RANGE PROFESION

Tell me, why u should be stronger in range fight, than ranger, necro, guardian, engi,ele, mesmer? Thiefs got the best melee dps, so to balance it u got the weakest range

No they don’t. It seems like I have to repeat this ad nauseum on the forums, but this game isn’t built around the concept of ‘melee’ and ‘ranged’ classes. All classes are roughly offensively equal in all areas. The reason you think thieves have highest melee dps is because most of them spec glass cannon. The only differences between the classes are strategic in nature.

This doesn’t make any sense. I just left Cursed Shore to go to a lower level area and it seems like the two scaled down totally differently. In Cursed Shore, rifle massively outdamages longbow #1, but when I went to a level 20 area they were much, much closer in their total output.

Is there an explanation for this?

Shiren.9532:

Could be worse. It could be long range shot.

I don’t actually think it’s stronger than Long Range Shot, especially now that it has been buffed.

Lancaeron.1524:

Race change is NOT a good idea. Why? It would and WILL screw up your personal storyline from levels 1 thru 30, and after 30 it’s based upon choices you make, regardless of race, but from there on, it depends on which Order you choose to be a part of. However, I can see changing Orders being easily implemented. For my side of things, if ANet chooses to implement an Order change facility, that’s great, just allow the player to use both the former level 80 Order armors/weapons, and the current Order’s weapons/armors.

The idea, in case you missed it, would be that it would reset your personal story. There would be separate service that would only reset your personal story so you could replay it and make different choices.

Temporary content is a novelty, it does not replace actual growth of the game world, which is what pulls most players in and keeps them.

SynfulChaot.3169:

It is not even worth discussing this point further with you, Ein. You are set in your opinions and no more healthy dialogue can occur with you.

Nice concession. By the by, the game’s design philosophy is a matter of fact, not opinion. Good day.

SynfulChaot.3169:

It doesn’t matter how many bows one can wield if one can’t wield them well. We want to be useful, not just a jack-of-all-trades and a master of absolutely none.

This game is very clearly not designed in such a way that one class is supposed to be ‘better’ with a given weapon than other classes. If it’s actually working that way, it’s not intended to be. Acting like Rangers should be better with bows than other classes is stupid considering warriors aren’t better with swords than the other classes that use them. It’s … just… not… how… this… game… is… designed. The “unparalleled archers” comment very clearly refers to the fact that, unlike other professions, they are adept with both shortbows and longbows, giving them a much greater breadth of strategic options with bows.

I honestly don’t understand how you people can be so dense.

Sandpit.3467:

Einlanzer.1627:

This is just semantics. I can turn your argument around by saying that by defintion rangers are ‘unparalleled’ merely because they are the only class that can use both bow types. This gives them more skills with a bow and unmatched versatility.

You frequently do, and guess what, nobody is buying it because it’s just kitten; so give up flogging that dead horse, until ANet gives rangers dual wielding bows that is an stupid argument.

In fact many people have agreed – just because you don’t comprehend it doesn’t make it a stupid argument. It’s actually such an extremely simple and obvious argument that I find it hilarious I keep having to read posts like yours. Good day.

I don’t know if this is a recent mess-up, or if it’s been around forever and I just now noticed it, but something is massively wrong with the Warrior’s Longbow #1 skill, Dual Shot.

The tooltip indicates it does a certain amount of low-medium damage x2, but this is misleading because in reality the damage displayed is for both shots together, not each individually. Additionally, it has a very slow rate of fire that, unlike Long Range Shot, wasn’t buffed in the last patch.

Consequently, Dual Shot is exceedingly weak, seemingly much weaker than any other autoattack in the game. It appears to me to be a major bug or an oversight, like it should be doing twice the damage it does.