Guild Wars 2

This might not be due to the patch, but something is amiss with the Longbow #1, Dual Shot. The tooltip indicates it does a certain amount of damage x2, but in reality the damage displayed for both shots together, not each individually.

Consequently, Dual Shot is exceedingly weak, seemingly much weaker than any other autoattack in the game. It appears to me to be a bug or an oversight, and it’s particularly egregious since it didn’t get the aftercast reduction that Long Range Shot got on the Ranger.

Yamsandjams.3267:

Einlanzer.1627:

I just looked at this thread for the first time since I started it and I have to say I’m surprised by the responses – Dual Shot is objectively and demonstrably very weak. This is because it suffers from the same thing Long Range Shot did until the last patch – an overly long aftercast delay. I don’t understand why Long Range Shot was buffed and Dual Shot wasn’t.

Here’s a rifle/longbow breakdown on my level 80 warrior:
Bleeding Shot- 171 direct + 285 bleeding per shot
Dual Shot – 282 × 2 shot

What the tooltip doesn’t mention is that the 282 is for both attacks, not each.
Additionally, Dual Shot is on a 1.25 recast while Bleeding Shot is about .8

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

It’s such a dramatic difference that it’s completely obvious immediately when you begin to test it, where are you people getting that it’s an effective autoattack? It’s completely, totally kitten. I can’t be 100% certain, but I am relatively sure it’s the weakest autoattack in the game.

I don’t really think that’s a valid comparison. Your calculations are assuming that the bleed damage is all delivered as up-front direct damage every 0.8 seconds, when in fact that damage will occur over a period of 4 seconds. I feel the way you’ve described it mathematically is too simplified, as it completely ignores the way in which condition damage operates.

Also, I’m not sure your math is accurate. You say that dual shot does 282 every 1.25 seconds, but then conclude the DPS is 196.5. Would it not be 282 damage / 1.25 seconds = 225.6 damage/second?

The direct damage from bleeding shot with the numbers you quoted would be 171 damage / 0.8 seconds = 213.8 damage/second.

So in terms of direct damage, dual shot would actually be slightly higher. A reasonable measure of the bleed damage would be more complicated to incorporate the damage-over-time aspect, but it would easily push the DPS higher since the difference between the direct damage is quite small. However, it’s also important to remember that bleeds can be completely negated through condition removal.

The two shots from the bow can also have some interesting side-effects. For instance, this allows two chances for an on-crit sigil to proc since both hits can crit separately, and it also can partially negate blind since only one arrow will be affected by blind and the other will still hit. The slower attacks also make it less vulnerable to confusion damage. On the other hand, that’s also double the damage received from retaliation.

Not really. Condition Removal is the counter to condition damage in the same way that toughness/armor is the counter for direct damage. Condition damage might be slightly less valuable in general than direct damage, but it’s still situational, and given the magnitude of difference between the two skills it is a moot distinction that only serves to obfuscate the rather obvious conclusion that something is amiss with Dual Shot.

I’m not sure what happened with my math, that’s totally odd, but still the accurate figures are close enough and maintain roughly the same disparity, so my original argument remains valid:

Rifle = 456/.8 = 570 DPS
Longbow = 282/1.25 = 225.6 DPS

The Rifle might favor sustained DPS and require a few seconds for full ramp-up, but as I said above, it’s mostly splitting hairs. Dual Shot is crap.

My honest opinion is either that ANet meant for the damage to be for each shot rather than for both, and so therefore Dual Shot is bugged and doing half the damage it should be doing, or they massively miscalculated on the rate of fire like they did with Long Range shot and it should be doing at least 20% more damage. Possibly both.

I just looked at this thread for the first time since I started it and I have to say I’m surprised by the responses – Dual Shot is objectively and demonstrably very weak. This is because it suffers from the same thing Long Range Shot did until the last patch – an overly long aftercast delay. I don’t understand why Long Range Shot was buffed and Dual Shot wasn’t.

Here’s a rifle/longbow breakdown on my level 80 warrior:
Bleeding Shot- 171 direct + 285 bleeding per shot
Dual Shot – 282 × 2 shot

What the tooltip doesn’t mention is that the 282 is for both attacks, not each.
Additionally, Dual Shot is on a 1.25 recast while Bleeding Shot is about .8

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

It’s such a dramatic difference that it’s completely obvious immediately when you begin to test it, where are you people getting that it’s an effective autoattack? It’s completely, totally kitten. I can’t be 100% certain, but I am relatively sure it’s the weakest autoattack in the game.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

Daendur.2357:

if you want to go ranged, why did you chose thief ? for the great 1200 range cluster bomb ? lol
gw2’s thief gives you a lot more chances than most of other games’ thieves…

QFT! +1

There’s no reason a thief shouldn’t be able to operate at range. Have you seriously never seen thief/assassin characters killing from a distance with crossbows, etc.? It’s for this reason that I always thought WoW’s concept of the rogue was terrible.

That said, I’m not one of those people that’s furious about the Cluster Bomb nerf; the shortbow is still very usable, although I do think the way all the ricochet-type skills are designed leaves a little to be desired. I’m much more concerned with the state of MH Pistol.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Einlanzer.1627:

SynfulChaot.3169:

You also shouldn’t take what is advertised as an ‘unparalleled archer’ (ANet’s words, not mine) and find it so weak with bows that our only real option for damage is melee.

I genuinely don’t find that to be the case, I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction from the community. Archery is still a very key component of the Ranger’s arsenal and both Shortbows and Longbows are at worst average as weapon sets, and no other class can use both.

Archery is, and I tend to run SB/GS, LB/GS, or SB/LB depending on the situation. But we handle the weapons worse than the other bow wielders and do less damage with them. And it’s hard to stay truly ranged as no pet can attack from full range so we can’t support our pet when in LB range.

While it is true that no other class can use both types of bow, unparalleled does not mean access. Unparalleled means unparalleled.

Definition of UNPARALLELED
: having no parallel; especially : having no equal or match
: unique in kind or quality

We are outmatched in the SB by the thief. We are outmatched in the LB by the warrior. We are not unparalleled. And that makes us archery types sad.

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.

In the end, that bit of flavor text is not a substantial enough thing to even have these battles over. People just need to realize that the ranger is about more than archery, but still has better ranged versatility than other classes.

SynfulChaot.3169:

Einlanzer.1627:

The problem is that this game doesn’t waste class-space for archetypes that revolve around nonsensical, simplistic gamist desires like fighting with a bow all day, err day- because that’s a stupid waste of a class/trait system in an MMO.

Again, the problem is player mentality. You shouldn’t roll any class in this game expecting to get by with using nothing but a bow (or any other single weapon) 100% of the time. That’s a good thing – it means the game involves tactics, customization, and a certain amount of verisimilitude.

You also shouldn’t take what is advertised as an ‘unparalleled archer’ (ANet’s words, not mine) and find it so weak with bows that our only real option for damage is melee.

I genuinely don’t find that to be the case, I think it’s a knee-jerk reaction from the community. Archery is still a very key component of the Ranger’s arsenal and both Shortbows and Longbows are at worst average as weapon sets, and no other class can use both.

Your first two sentences indicated your argument that the end-game is dead pivoted solely around a nonsensical complaint about legendaries becoming obsolete due to a simple range nerf that affected all weapon skills of a certain type on a single profession and not specifically the legendary in question.

I immediately stopped reading – that’s one hell of an irrational conclusion drawn from a massive hyperbole.

Kichwas.7152:

Oidmetala.8426:

just rename the ranger to zookeeper and give us a real archer with an add on :P

The new ranger? :p

Or wait, zookeeper not zoolander.

The problem is that this game doesn’t waste class-space for archetypes that revolve around nonsensical, simplistic gamist desires like fighting with a bow all day, err day- because that’s a stupid waste of a class/trait system in an MMO.

Again, the problem is player mentality. You shouldn’t roll any class in this game expecting to get by with using nothing but a bow (or any other single weapon) 100% of the time. That’s a good thing – it means the game involves tactics, customization, and a certain amount of verisimilitude.

Their living story concept is bold and unique, but the problem lies on resources vs. payoff. Temporary content needs to supplement permanent content, not the other way around. Doing temp stuff disproportionately frustrates more players than it appeases for the exact reasons you describe. Moreover, the game just gets further and further behind in terms of growth of content, which exacerbates the frustration players already feel.

Esplen.3940:

In my personal opinion, which you may disagree with, I believe that Living Story and other temporary content are simply holiday content with no holiday tied to it.

So, with that in mind, if you are to make sure that all temporary content is permanent, why not just have Halloween and Wintersday all year round so that new players don’t miss out on those events, too?

This is just… not a good argument. For one, holiday events are recurring, and that’s what makes them cool. For two, it’s good to have some event-type temporary content, it’s just not good for it to be the majority of content that’s introduced. Again, it needs to supplement permanent additions to the game.

JETWING.2759:

They can’t balance not even 8, imagine more than 8…
:/

Ugh, this gets so tiresome. Balance is an iterative process that will never reach perfection, and subjectively poor balance is not a good reason for them to not release new content.

I myself definitely hope to see new classes emerge over time, and I’m sure they will.

All of my complaints about GW2 revolve around it needing more (permanent) content in a variety of areas:

1. More skins for weapons and armor
2. More weapon types and skills available for each class
3. More awesome and unique zones and dungeons (shameless plug for Crystal Desert and Maguuma Wastes!)

Everyone is screaming and crying about it, but 900 range makes sense on the SB. If they buff Eagle Eye, they need to move the damage component and put it on a different trait.

The only thing that really needs to happen is that pet damage needs to be decreased and coefficients increased across the board on Ranger skills. The pet should be utilitarian, you shouldn’t be totally dependent on it for basic DPS.

Xenon.4537:

One of the things that worries me about Anet’s answer to threads like this is “Oh don’t worry, we can add this to Fractals to make it permanent!” What about people who don’t like fractals? I don’t hate it, but it gets tiresome rather quickly. Even if they added new instances to the Fractals, we would still have to do old fractals if they popped up. I’m sure Anet has more imagination than that. I hope they give us new permanent content that isn’t just thumb-tacked on to old stuff.

I’m very opposed to adding them to the Fractals as well. It really doesn’t make any sense – there are several full dungeons with their own stories that have never been removed, chopped up, and put in the Fractals- why do these need to be? They should be fleshed out, given their own rewards, and put right back where they were/are.

I just refuse to buy the argument that the game needs stat progression to be good or addictive. I am very confident that over time it cheapens the game and does more harm than good to the various systems as well as the community.

No, it needs a carrot-on-stick mechanism for sure, and it needs to bring a tighter focus to the end game, but there are myriad ways to accomplish this that don’t break the game like a gear treadmill.

Yeah, people keep crying about the Shortbow range nerf when it really makes more sense now than it did before. The shortbow is meant as a mid range skirmishing weapon, the Longbow is substantially better now than it was and should be the go-to distance weapon.

Also, looking at someone’s post history is hardly ‘stalking’. Thanks bye.

I’m pretty sure Thief doing slightly less damage than other classes is by design because of the Initiative system (though I’m not convinced it’s a good design). Interesting, nevertheless.

I’d love to see some comparisons of the ranged weapons too, especially the Rifle vs. Pistol, which is a debate that pops up fairly frequently.

Shiren.9532:

I find it funny you criticise WoW class balance and praise GW2 class balance when WoW has far less class discrimination in PvE than GW2. I also find it amusing that you rant about complaints yet your own criticisms (pet DPS and general usefulness) generally echo every post ever written about the GW2 ranger since the beginning of time.

People didn’t pick the class thinking it would be the hunter, a lot of them picked it because they liked bows and wanted to use them, only to find that bows were sub par weapons from the get go and have either been getting considerably worse (crossfire DPS nerf, shortbow range nerf) or been getting incremental improvements (longbow) which don’t make them competitive. Bows need buffs, not nerfs.

Oh, I didn’t say anything about the balance, I was talking about the class design philosophies and how WoW’s is bad because the classes are designed from a gamist perspective rather than a conceptual one. This leads to excessive restrictions in the way each class can be played. A good example is how Hunters literally can’t melee and Warriors and Rogues can’t use ranged weapons, which doesn’t make any thematic sense and is a total waste of the talent system.

Customization is king in an MMO, which is why Anet is trying to improve build diversity rather than restrict it. To what degree they are achieving that can be debated, but that was the purpose for a lot of the changes that have occurred recently.

Also, the Shortbow was originally designed as a 900 range weapon and then increased for some unknown reason, but it is still a good skirmishing weapon and Rangers are still better than other classes with a bow. The problem with the Ranger is that they are too dependent on their pet for DPS, and end up being extremely kitten in situations where their pet can’t contribute adequately.

Mastruq.2463:

Maybe you should view the living story as elaborate monthly commercials for the latest gem store additions. That surely fits them better.

sigh- it is kind of sad how transparent it is.

The whole living story notion is a neat idea, but temporary content in general (other than holiday events or minor things) is rather ill-conceived. Putting in content only to yank it out a couple of weeks later is bad for the game. It results in tons of wasted development time and frustrates more players than it appeals to. It’s often so rushed too that the quality is hit or miss. Moreover, it’s internally inconsistent – all of the original dungeons have specifically themed stories surrounding them, yet none of them have been removed, why should any of the LS stuff?

What’s worse is that it gets the whole development of the game behind. After a full year of living story content, what does the game have to show for it? Existing and returning players will be put off by the fact that not much has changed and there isn’t much more in the game for them to play around with.

It was a pretty bad idea from the get go.

The whole living story notion is a neat idea, but temporary content in general is rather ill-conceived. Putting in content only to yank it out a couple of weeks later is bad for the game. It results in tons of wasted development time and frustrates more players than it appeals to. It’s often so rushed too that the quality is hit or miss. Moreover, it’s internally inconsistent – all of the original dungeons have specifically themed stories surrounding them, yet none of them have been removed, why should any of the LS stuff?

What’s worse is that it gets the whole development of the game behind. After a full year of living story content, what does the game have to show for it? Existing and returning players will be put off by the fact that not much has changed and there isn’t much more in the game for them to play around with.

It was a pretty bad idea from the get go.

Catisa.6507:

Devs have stated repeatedly they do not want people fighting in town clothes. They are not going to change it.

And I say they’re wrong and need to change their minds.

Acaelus.2138:

Actually the same happens after an opponent immobilizes me and I go to hit mystunbreaker; 1-2 sec delay. so it can’t be stealth nerf.

No, I meant stealth as in not documented, not stealth as in the ability, hah.

I don’t see why they couldn’t sell a gem store item that reset your personal story and one that was a total race change + story reset. It’d just be 2 tiers of the same item like the makeover kits.

This person is obviously trolling to QQ about the recent nerf. Nothing to see here.

edit: Confirmed, just reviewed post history.

Khayoss.2019:

Shortbow: Thief pistol 1 has the same range, cast time and base damage, but applies bleed from any direction and for 1 second longer than ranger shortbow (4s thief vs 3s ranger).

I just want to point out that this is very, very inaccurate. Thief Pistol #1 has a much slower attack rate than Crossfire does and is one of the gimpiest autoattacks in the game. Crossfire is perhaps slightly weaker if you’re prevented from applying any bleeds, but significantly stronger if you can, even occasionally. Just to give you an idea of the difference in cast speed, Crossfire can maintain 8 stacks at baseline while Vital Shot can only hit 5. This also means it does considerably less direct damage.

Khayoss.2019:

-Long Ranged Shot (1 skill) is the only weapon skill that has minimum range restrictions. In PvE encounters where a mobs focus can be controlled either by proper use of a pet or by a partner, range restrictions can be accommodated. In PvP settings, this limitation pigeon holes the longbow into situational use.

Mesmer Greatsword has the same mechanic. It’s meant as an abstraction for how Longbows are meant for long distance and therefore awkward at close range, and I sort of like it.

I’m not raining on your parade, your post was well written and well thought out, just trying to be informative.

Probably stealth nerfs to some aftercast delays, tbh.

Sandpit.3467:

CETheLucid.3964:

XelNigma.6315:

There are different ways to interpret the title.

Nope.

Says one of the people who just likes to argue

Hah, point made.

Yes, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it and trying to be as objective as possible, and I’ve arrived at the conclusion that the whole notion is rather ill-conceived. I’m posting what I put on the Living Story board here:

I have to say, they keep defending it but it really doesn’t make much sense. Apart from the logistical concerns it is also internally inconsistent. None of the dungeons that were in the game at launch, which all involved specifically themed stories, were removed after a few weeks, why would any subsequent dungeon/story be? I don’t want to see some chopped up versions of them as fractals, either – Molten Weapons facility and Aetherblade retreat, in their original forms, should just be added to the current lineup of dungeons with their own rewards; and they don’t even need to have their stories axed.

Frankly, the game will only be made better (as in more appealing to existing and returning players) by the addition of permanent content. Temporary content and one-time events can be cool but when they’re done they might as well have never been there. They should only act in a supplementary role and should never include full-scale dungeons that are only around for a couple of weeks- that’s a total waste of development that accomplishes virtually nothing but setting the game back, and because it’s so rushed it usually ends up being of middling quality at best.

In other words, these temporary events are cool in some ways, but they are not a replacement for permanent content. And anything that requires a lot of development work, other than maybe special holiday events (that can be recurring to some extent), should be permanent.

macuill.4623:

What exactly is the point in putting effort in creation of a dungeon you leave ingame for only 2 or 3 weeks and then remove it?
Why not just giving the fractal system a second “function”? Something like standard fractals and a “replay-ls-dungeon” mode?

I have to say, they keep defending it but it really doesn’t make much sense. My biggest problem actually is that it is internally inconsistent. None of the dungeons that were in the game at launch, which all involved specific stories, were removed after a few weeks, why would any subsequent dungeon/story be?

I don’t want to see some chopped up versions of them as fractals – Molten Weapons facility and Aetherblade retreat, in their original forms, should just be added to the current lineup of dungeons with their own rewards.

Frankly, the game will only be made better (as in more appealing to existing and returning players) by the addition of permanent content. Temporary content and one-time events are cool but should only act in a supplementary role and should never include full-scale dungeons that are only around for a couple of weeks- that’s a total waste of development.

Also, by focusing so much on temporary living story stuff, they’ve gotten behind (and will stay behind) on actual permanent content, so to anyone starting the game new or returning after months it feels like there’s not really anything new going on. The whole thing is just a bit ill-conceived.

In other words, these temporary events are cool in some ways, but they are not a replacement for permanent content, and dungeons should pretty much always be permanent content. Here is my shameless plug for the Maguuma Waste and the Crystal Desert!

This thread really contains a lot of dumb posts.

Rangers are archers, but they aren’t just archers, and the flavor text describing them as unparalleled archers is just that- flavor text. That said, they actually are unparalleled archers in the game (or are supposed to be at least) simply because they are the only class who is proficient with bow types and can use bows effectively in a greater variety of situations than any other class (yes, including warriors).

In broader terms, Rangers are a fantasy trope that primarily comes from D&D, where they are a primal, wilderness-flavored class that is keen with both bow and blade. The version of Ranger in this game is clearly reflecting the same trope, as well it should.

GW2 does not create classes as full-melee or full-range, which is good because that’s a horrible and pigeonholing class design paradigm. Therefore, Rangers are not meant to be exclusively ranged anymore than Thieves are meant to be exclusively melee, because in reality a Ranger would need to skirmish sometimes and a Thief might kill from a distance.

This is really nothing more than a semantic argument and there’s just a lot of going back and forth without anything of any substance being stated.

Ok, I’ll concede – maybe it’s not so much that I hate axe as a ranged weapon as it is that I want axe as a melee weapon. Plus, I think they can think of cooler actual ranged weapons.

rchu.8945:

Kain Francois.4328:

Here’s your opportunity for ANET to address 1h Sword!

Battosai will be questioning ANET during State of the Game. He will be taking questions from the Ranger forum.

If you want to see ANET address dodge on 1h Sword, show your support in this thread!
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/State-of-the-Game-suggestions-questions/first#post2308121

who cares about melee weapons? Anet need to re-instate SB or add more range weapsons.

This isn’t WoW’s hunter, lots of people care about melee weapons.

The game can’t be called a failure, even if it hemorrhaged a good number of players right after launch. It has beautiful graphics, great innovations, and fluid gameplay, and I got put in Queensdale overflow just yesterday so it still has a solid number of players.

I think the real issue with GW2 is that the setting and story sort of fell flatter than was expected. The story of GW1 felt a lot more gripping and epic than the story of GW2 , which engaged you and created a feeling of immersion. It’s hard to put a finger on why really (though the mediocre personal story certainly plays a role), but I think it’s responsible for the game feeling a bit more shallow than it should feel and that causes people to just lose interest easily.

I hope and think this is something that will be recovered over time if Anet takes the right approach.

The personal story was easily the most disappointing aspect of the game. I was hoping for something similar to the Mission structure from GW1. Instead, they were few and far between, had little impact on anything, very short and simple in scope, and weren’t particularly epic or interesting, and didn’t give you any real choice in how your character developed (they were just a generic supporting hero). Even the occasional interesting character was dropped off to limbo after a mission or two.

Navzar.2938:

This is interesting, but if you do it again in the future you should probably also include a portion for which profession(s) they play most often, since that skews results, and like someone else said, a bit longer after a balance patch :p

That said, statistics like these really do tell us a lot about how players view the state of the game and are always nice to see. I wonder how this would look next to a “best” study as well, although that topic is kind of old.

As for ranger pets- I don’t think the option to stow them permanently removes something that makes them unique. I rather liked the way gw1 had them as optional things you could spec into. Rangers back then could mostly focused on, well, ranging things.

The pet undoubtedly should be more utilitarian and mostly optional, because the Ranger contains a lot more archetypes than just a beastmaster. Currently, the pet is far too intrinsically tied to the Ranger’s overall performance, which is annoying and results in a lot of the profession’s problems.

Azure Prower.8701:

I find it amusing people think Thieves are the worst open world PVE class.

Open world PvE is not terribly challenging and can be done adequately well by any class. But, between being very squishy, not having any real form of aggro deflection, and having a horrible downed state, Thieves are the weakest, especially at lower levels.

If you don’t think so, then the only explanation I can think of is that you don’t have enough experience with other classes.

Otherwise, I agree with most of the above patches that some of the explanations are based on knee-jerk reactions. Rangers need some help, especially for dungeons, but they most certainly not second worst at open world pve. If anything they’re substantially better than most classes.

Shortbow is unquestionably better in zergs even post-nerf. P/P still needs buffs to be good anywhere except against a single target in a prolonged fight.

Thief in open world PvE, Warrior in sPvP, Ranger in everything else.

A lot of skills got some badly needed and very appropriate aftercast reductions to make them feel less sluggish in the last patch, which is great.

In particular, this was an issue affecting ranged autoattacks and making them weaker than they should be. Ranger LB several Stakitten now feel a lot better than they did before. But, there were a few skills that needed similar reductions that were conspicuously missing or overlooked in the patch. The biggest offenders are:

Vital Shot (Thief Pistol)
Exploding Shot (Engi Pistol)
Dual Shot (Warrior Longbow)

All 3 of these skills seem to have rates of fire that are too slow for their damage specs, and it makes them very difficult to use outside of certain specific situations.

Aioros.4862:

Not really, considering that the damage is not even comparable to the damage of the other classes when we’re at max range in pve.

No, the idea is that the median damage is at mid range and that you get a damage penalty at short range and a damage bonus at long range. I don’t know exactly how it compares to other classes, but it’s on the high end as range weapons go, and again, it’s weaker than it would be otherwise because of the pet, which is what they need to change.

GUFF.5692:

Almost forgot. No new weapons until what we have are addressed and balanced. Adding something new without a solid foundation is always a recipe for disaster. That’s why I cannot support dagger as a main hand option until all ranger weapons are working optimally. We have some weapons still that need work.

The problem with this mentality is that balance is an iterative process and will never reach perfection. If this is the design philosophy, we’ll get nothing but back and forth tweaks from patch to patch without ever getting anything new.

Travlane.5948:

pretty much covers the roughest points.

forgot a few key ones i think are important:

distance on cluster bomb

stun break on shadow return

withdraw/RFI underwater distance (key to staying alive)

Also, I have mixed feelings about the PW “buff” that occurred last patch. It seems like a buff on the surface because the skill executes faster, but actually the delay was there for a reason- you stun the enemy for a second, then blur out afterwards so that their attacks miss you.

Now, the stun and evasion overlap considerably, which is weird and kind of pointless. I really sometimes feel like they have no idea what the hell they’re doing.

Aioros.4862:

I’ve never taken an arrow hit (thank God), but i’m pretty sure it’d hurt the same (if not more) at closer range than at a distance.

As I said, it’s an abstraction. It’s not that the arrow wouldn’t hurt as bad as close range, it’s that trying to use a longbow at close range in the middle of a fight would be extremely clumsy, slow, and inaccurate. That’s why they have the damage set up the way they do.

Dual Shot has to be the weakest autoattack in the game. I find it annoying because, while the Longbow can still be very powerful in certain situations (zergs/defense), if you’re trying to use it as a primary weapon or just generally it’s atrocious.

What confuses me is that this was a problem for the Ranger’s Longbow as well, but it was substantially buffed by having the aftercast reduced by a full 2.5 seconds in the latest patch. Why didn’t they do the same with Dual Shot?

achensherd.2735:

If melee > ranged, why does the LB decrease in damage the closer I get to a target? :C

Because it’s a Longbow. Tell me – would you engage in a melee skirmish using a Longbow? No, because it would be ridiculous and awkward. The increased damage over great range is an abstraction meant to represent that.

This isn’t a QQ about the recent patch; most of the changes I was either happy or mostly neutral about. However, I want to point out there are still some elements of the class that are objectively off, and I have no idea why they haven’t been addressed yet. In no particular order, here they are:

1. Last Refuge cooldown reduction was pointless. The major problem with this trait is that it attempts to utilize Stealth in a defensive manner when that’s not really how Stealth works. It doesn’t even drop aggro anymore! So, all that really happens is that you get the revealed debuff at inopportune times. It’s a liability more than it’s a boon, and you don’t even have the choice of not taking it if you want to spec in Shadow Arts. It’s a neat idea, but at the very least it needs to be a 10-pointer that you can choose not to have if you’re, you know, good.

2. Speaking of that, Stealth needs to drop or at least reduce aggro. I have not once heard a single justification for this change that made even the tiniest amount of sense. Thieves are melee oriented and extremely squishy with no real forms of attrition or aggro deflection; they need away to escape dangerous situations in PvE.

3. The Downed State remains wretched in solo PvE, much worse than any other class I’ve played, and thieves are supposed to be slippery. What is the point of Smoke Bomb, exactly? Again, it’s the same problem as above – Stealth doesn’t really work as a defensive tool, it’s designed as an offensive one due to PvP. You need to find a way to make it work both ways. It could work more like Shadow Refuge, or it should drop aggro and give you enough time to escape the LoS of your enemies. The sneak attack on the #1 should also get buffed so that you get more offensive benefit from using it.

4. MH Pistol is still bad. The Ricochet buff was badly needed and helps, but the biggest problem, especially with P/P, is the weakness of Vital Shot causing excessive resource dependency for DPS and consequently ruining the utility of the set. At the very least, Vital Shot needs a .1-.2 sec aftercast reduction, which I’m surprised and disheartened it didn’t get in this patch. Sneak Attack should have had a bleed duration increase like the Ripper did. The Pistol matery trait should be brought back to 5% so it matches similar traits. That was a poor fix.

5. Venoms seem to be balanced around Venom Share, and are therefore way too weak without it. Venoms need to be buffed substantially, then Venom Share needs to be reworked to decrease their potency when shared across multiple people.

6. Support in general is lacking. One thing in particular I feel is bizarrely missing is something like a Party MF boost trait or utility. Thief support should include more than Venom sharing and the occasional SR.

Those are the biggest issues I can think of, but I’m sure there are smaller ones littered throughout that really should be addressed as well.

Tuluum.9638:

Einlanzer.1627:

People, the problem is one of asymmetry. Why should ranger 1h sword be the ONLY WEAPON IN THE ENTIRE GAME that has an autoattack skill that requires micromanagement?

I can see why it might be desirable if they didn’t have EVERY OTHER #1 SKILL IN THE GAME just autopilot with no issues, but currently, it just creates annoying asymmetry and needs to be addressed.

Plus, it’s a simple change- dodging should interrupt animations anyway, they do on most attacks. I don’t think anyone is requesting that they rework the skills entirely, like everyone seems to assume people that make this request are suggesting.

Its very simple, some people have zero issue with how it currently is. Beyond that, we are able to use it greatly to our advantage in its current form. Is it for everybody? No, it isnt. But, it does appeal to some of us who actually like to practice with their weapons to get good at even the basics.

I think a better solution, rather than satisfying one set of players at the expense of others, would be to implement MH dagger with the attributes that many are seeking with the 1h sword.

I’d like for someone to coherently explain to me how it would hurt you to simply be able to interrupt the attacks with a dodge. That’s what doesn’t make any sense about this argument.

darkace.8925:

Einlanzer.1627:

You realize the reduction to the aftercast and increase in arrow flight speed alone means Longbow is doing about 25% more DPS than it was before.

Which is immediately offset by the 50% damage reduction given to my pet.

Yeah, I really don’t know what their aim is with pets. I strongly feel like they just made some mistakes in the design of the pet system which is causing most of the problems with the Ranger class. Instead of making the ranger weak and giving so much damage to the pet, ranger weapon skills should roughly the same DPS as every other profession’s weapon skills, and the pet should be mostly utilitarian (with a permanent stow option), with the Beastmastery tree skewing damage more to the pet. That’s what they need to fix across the board.

People, the problem is one of asymmetry. Why should ranger 1h sword be the ONLY WEAPON IN THE ENTIRE GAME that has an autoattack skill that requires micromanagement?

I can see why it might be desirable if they didn’t have EVERY OTHER #1 SKILL IN THE GAME just autopilot with no issues, but currently, it just creates annoying asymmetry and needs to be addressed.

Plus, it’s a simple change- dodging should interrupt animations anyway, they do on most attacks. I don’t think anyone is requesting that they rework the skills entirely, like everyone seems to assume people that make this request are suggesting.

Tuluum.9638:

Einlanzer.1627:

Nah, I was educating you on the facts of the changes. Then I gave my opinion about it.

Oh, ok. Thank you so very much!

Its awesome you take all this so very seriously. You have me in a state of awe of your omniscience.

Good, I’m glad. It’s about time people started recognizing my omniscience!