Guild Wars 2

I always felt that throwing axes is kind of thematically stupid. If you were using an axe, you might throw it in rare circumstances but generally you’d be actually fighting with it. You’d also have no way of carrying around dozens to throw around randomly at targets.

They need to just redesign axes to be a melee weapon and replace their current role with something new like a boomerang/chakram type weapon.

Tuluum.9638:

Einlanzer.1627:

Was this sarcasm? 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.

Also, the Shortbow #1 skill was somewhat overbuffed way back around launch so it operates perfectly as a 900 range skill and the other shortbow skills were buffed pretty substantially to compensate for their reduced range.

It’s pretty much working the way it was always intended to, and I’m honestly glad for the change.

I have no idea what sarcasm is, but thank you for educating me on your opinion of the changes.

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

I actually think what’s really stupid is being able to throw your axe 900 yards. Honestly, axes should just be redesigned as a melee weapon and they need to add something like a Chakram/Boomerang to take its place, which could be a medium range high pressure weapon.

Tuluum.9638:

Einlanzer.1627:

Not exactly, to make LB more viable, it was buffed and given a more distinctive role. SB took a range hit to allow for this but also received some damage buffs.

Yeah, youre right.

I am loving the increased damage and control capability on the LB, and the damage buffs on the SB are absolutely game-changing.

:D

Was this sarcasm? 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.

Also, the Shortbow #1 skill was somewhat overbuffed way back around launch so it operates perfectly as a 900 range skill and the other shortbow skills were buffed pretty substantially to compensate for their reduced range.

It’s pretty much working the way it was always intended to, and I’m honestly glad for the change.

Tuluum.9638:

McWolfy.5924:

not too loud buddy… GS nerf inc :p

I know this was put as a joke, and many will take it as a joke.. but consider this…

To make LB more viable, SB was nerfed. Dont like how LB and GS compare? How do you think they are going to handle that?

hides his ranger in a cave

Not exactly, to make LB more viable, it was buffed and given a more distinctive role. SB took a range hit to allow for this but also received some damage buffs.

A nuisance for people who really liked sniping with the Shortbow perhaps, but that was never whakittens intention was and this is really how it should have been from the beginning.

If you really want to be the game’s best archer- you are, you are the only class that can slot 2 different bows with different skills and swap between them based on tactical need.

Sandpit.3467:

Maybe rangers should have heavy armour then if they are meant to melee.

I don’t mean to sound crass, but this is dumb. All classes can melee to some extent, including Elementalists. Rangers, like Thieves, don’t have heavy armor because their skillset focuses more on evasion and trickery. In place of stealth, they have pets and better health. In place of heavy armor, they have good mobility and lots of evasion and range versatility.

Stooperdale.3560:

It would be wrong in design terms if we always did more damage with the bows than the melee weapons. We would then never use the melee weapons. They might as well be taken out of the class. Would anyone prefer that or do you just want swords to brandish for screenshots?

The correct design decision for game play is for melee weapons to do more damage than ranged weapons. It’s right. Players still use melee and ranged.

This is correct. People always fail to consider uptime. Melee weapons will always be supererior in very quick/fights, and even it doesn’t matter since they’re quick and easy (and you can start from a distance), but in more difficult or prolonged fights ranged weapons start looking like a good option.

This is really the way it should be, to be honest. Honestly, who would try using a bow in a short range skirmish anyway?

Melee is stronger than ranged for all professions because of risk vs. reward. The thing is that in prolonged or difficult fights you won’t have as much uptime with your greatsword as you will with your longbow, meaning the latter will be stronger. Plus, Ranger Longbow is now substantially better than before and probably out damages most if not all other long-range weapons in the game.

This is the way it should be.

Sandpit.3467:

Ranger doesn’t just mean archer, but it doesn’t just mean melee either. Clearly bow use is a major design aspect central to what a ranger is meant to be. That is why rangers can use both bows and has a Marksmanship trait.

The problem is that the implementation of the ranger is now at complete odds to the design of the ranger in that while bow use is central to the design and vision of a ranger, they are now the weakest archers in the game. And pretty much the weakest melee profession too, especially when you consider the defensive capabilities and armour they use.

If you want to play a ranged character, you really don’t want a ranger.
If you want to play a melee character, you really don’t want a ranger.

Enjoy your pet collection, that you can no longer control.

I just fail to see how the situation is as dire as you make it out to be. Ranger is unquestionably very strong in the open world, and while they may be on the lower end for dungeons and PvP, this is almost entirely related to the flawed pet design.

However, what I’m trying to express is that people need to get out of the need to think of classes as “melee” or “ranged” and picking them based on that criteria. Games with good design philosophies do not use that as a basis for designing classes. Instead, you should thinking of classes as conceptual archetypes built around broad themes.

Sarision.6347:

I guess I’m the only one who actually mains a Ranger just so I can melee like Aragorn and Drizzt.

Nope, I prefer meleeing as well, which is why these threads really annoy me.

There’s an assumption that everyone who picked a ranger did so because they wanted to be good with a bow and only a bow. I picked it because I like the lore behind the class and like to feel like a versatile, rugged jack-of-all-trades with a primal flavor.

Dante.1508:

Sigh… Yes Ranger doesn’t = Range Apparently

But in Guildwars 2 the Profession Ranger DOES equal a ranged class, read all the descriptions for the class and yes in GW2 Ranger = Ranged class…

Here we go again. The description is that they are unparalleled archers. That description is accurate. That does not, however, mean that they are a “ranged class”. This designation does not exist in this (and many other games) like it does in WoW and people just need to get it out of their minds.

The classes have a lot more thought put behind them than “this is a ranged class” and “this is a melee class”. Welcome to a more cerebral game.

Xanthus.1278:

Faux Sheaux.6179:

Sandpit.3467:

So, to sum up this thread….

slingblade: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Aioros: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Raven: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Braveheartless: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Redjuice: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Paz Shadow: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Faux Sheaux: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Miiro: Let’s compromise
Einlanzer: I’m ignoring you
Burnfall: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Minute: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Sandpit: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Solrik: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
nagymbear: MODS HALP
Xanthus: yip yip yip yip yip yip
Azreell: Yes it does
Einlanzer: No it doesn’t
Azreell: YES IT DOES
Einlanzer: NO IT DOESN’T
Preecher: Yes it does
Exocet: Yes it does
stale: Yes it does
Zuer: Wtf gogo gadget
Einlanzer: NOOOOOOOO

Fix’d

You must admit, my comment is awesome.

I’m pretty sure that’s an oversimplification that leaves quite a few people and things out. Also, I’m pretty sure I never had a meltdown. That would be the other people screaming incessantly about the state of rangers since the patch.

Still, it’s kinda funny.

Simon.3106:

Just right after I agreed with you on the other post, Einlanzer.

If I want to play a class that shoots fire and creammate the body of my enemies, I’ll not go for a warrior, but an elementalist. If I want to have an army of zombies (inspired by M-Jackson – Thriller), I’ll roll with a necro. If I want to be Legolas… I’ll go for a ranger.

Understand for others. They don’t care about rangers being able to use melee weapons, but they do care that rangers sucks with bows incomparison with other classes (Warrior, thief). But honestly, I’m perfectly fine with the way it is. I like my LB =b

But all of the classes use whatever makes sense for them thematically, which is the way it should be. The idea of a class that only uses bows, especially whenever the class is not named archer and has a wilderness survivalist theme, was always kind of dumb. A scout or woodland ranger would use a variety of tools and would be competent in melee skirmishes.

As I’ve explained multiple times, the intent behind the designation of “unparalleled archer” was that rangers are the only class that uses both the longbow and the shortbow. This makes their bowmastery unparalleled in the sense that they have a lot more versatility with bows than other classes. This remains the case even if Rangers are in need of some buffs in general, so people are confusing the issue and focusing their ire in the wrong places.

Azreell.1568:

stale.9785:

This – again. Guys, remember that pretty much everyone who rolled a ranger expected it to be a RANGED kittening class. It says so on their website, on the character creation screen, and was how it was in GW1.

The simple fact that Anet decided to neuter all ranged damage notwithstanding, EVERY SINGLE DESCRIPTION of the kittening ranger in any media described them as a ranged class.

Deal with it – it’s not a “misconception”, it’s not “false hopes” it’s expecting what you were kittening told you were going to get.

Keen eye, unrivaled archers. Ability to kill from range. Not second fiddle in ranged damage behind warriors and thieves – un-kittening-paralleled.

This is pretty much the way a lot of us feel.

I did not roll the ranger to be a melee class. I rolled the ranger to be well a ranged kiting pet class which is quite frankly how it was describe – with some melee options.

If i want to play melee – there are far better class options out there.

The problem is your insistence on labeling classes as ‘melee’ or ‘ranged’, which is not only not how classes are designed in this game, that’s not how they’re designed in most games.

It’s a mentality fostered by some of Blizzard’s shallow, gamist class design philosophies. The classes in this game revolve around simulationist themes rather than gamist ones. Do rangers needs more love? Probably. Do they need to be pigeonholed into ranged gameplay only? No.

Chokolata.1870:

there is no problem, its an l2p issue

No it isn’t. Your #1 skill should not require micromanagement. Ranger 1H sword is the only one that does. It’s a problem.

Both of these things need to happen.

OIIIIIO.7825:

DrixTrix.7168:

Thief’s use whatever they can get there hands on, if you ask me the whole arsenal should be available, except maybe scepter and focus as there centered around magic, a staff can be used as an offensive melee weapon.

Hey I just wanted to note that the Thief DOES use magic. I have compiled a list of some quotes for you

“Thieves use a sub-branch of the Denial School called “Shadow Arts.” It’s derived from Canthan practices. You can see some of the similarities it shares with mesmerism—stealth and instant teleportation being the two big ones.”

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/An_Empire_Divided
(From GW1, however it mentions shadowstepping)

“Ash Legion Necro Charr, and one of the Ash Legion NPCs said something like, “Don’t worry about those guards, we can get by them with my stealth magic.”

“So Thieves really do use magic to turn themselves invisible, it’s not just a gameplay mechanic to set up for a backstab.”

That’s actually very interesting. I had always assumed the stealth/shadowstep stuff was just a gameplay abstraction. I wonder if engies have any magical tricks in their aresnal. If so, that’d only leave warriors. It’d be kind of cool if they had some arcane cantrips and a single tree supporting them.

The Mexican Cookie.3690:

Nikaido.3457:

The problem with the ranger class goes beyond its own class mechanic, it attracts a certain type of player, that seeks it for the whole idea behind playing a ranged class in the first place.

That, I can agree with.

Thirded. Just check out the ranger forums – it’s a hotbed of dysfunction. It really is the mentality of the players that gravitate to the class more than it is the class itself.

Still, pets are a liability in dungeons and there’s nothing rangers particularly excel at.

did the article get removed?

All games have bugs, but it’s really absurd at this point that they don’t have better QA and a public test server.

I think Revealed in general is fine, but there are still some balance issues surrounding both it and Stealth in general, like Last Refuge and Smoke Bomb still being totally useless. How have they gone so many months without addressing that?

Of the weapon choices thieves don’t have, MH Axe is the one that makes the most sense as far as what they could have. I wouldn’t complain too loudly about OH Sword, but it’s not as appropriate by a long shot (people are just used to WoW).

There are lots of potential weapons though that would be awesome – whips, claws, boomerangs, martial staves, etc. I also kind of think there should be two types of shields- bucklers and large shields, and that Thieves should get bucklers.

Azreell.1568:

Einlanzer.1627:

solrik.6028:

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Ranger’

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Rangers in D&D are both archers and melee fighters, in fact you can specialize in either/or. Sorry, you lose.

We are terrible in both compared to other classes.

So your point was what again?

My point, when this started, was actually that IF the argument can be made that rangers are in fact bad at both, then the problem is not directly their archery skills, it’s the design of the pet system messing up their DPS potential.

nagymbear.5280:

Einlanzer.1627:

Sorry, you lose.

So this is what this thread is all about? If you want duels, get them in game.

It was a retort to the quoted poster’s snarky remark. Nice job screening out criticism of the post containing the opinion you agree with though.

This is problem affecting pretty much all ranged weapons in the game to various degrees and is the main reason why Longbow was so bad before this patch.

I still fail to see what the big deal about SB having 900 range is. The only thing that makes it feel weird is that axes also have 900 range when they really should just be a melee weapon.

solrik.6028:

There is nothing to argue about.

Ranger’s in MMOs are pictured as archers or is a class that is mainly focused on bows.

Take Call of Duty/Battlefield for example, a squad of 5 special whatever people with the objective to kill one special guy kills at least 100 and more enemies to get to the special guy while in reality, they would barely kill anyone compared to how many they kill in video games.

Search “Ranger (character class)” on wiki.

Rangers in D&D are both archers and melee fighters, in fact you can specialize in either/or. Sorry, you lose.

SafiMoyo.5130:

Additionally, when people argue that it’s a "SHORT"bow. It isn’t “short” distance, it’s “short” length. A short bow and longbow are meant to have the same firing distance, but the longbow has more kinetic energy transfer, therefore it can fire sturdier arrows that can pierce thicker armor. Short bows fire lighter arrows, are easier to man, and faster to use. There is no distance differentiation.

Really, people should look into word derivations before trying to make such silly cases.

ranger (n.)
late 14c., “gamekeeper,” agent noun from range (v.). Attested from 1660s in sense of “man (often mounted) who polices an area.”

I don’t think many people are refuting this, but the distance is an abstraction in much the same way as Long Range Shot’s damage mechanics are an abstraction. It’s not trying to imply that the arrow gains momentum and strikes harder the further it flies, it represents how a Longbow is fundamentally a sniping weapon and is much more awkward and difficult to use effectively at closer ranges.

In the same way, the Shortbow’s reduced distance is an abstraction for how the mechanics focus on speed and therefore carries less impact and less accuracy.

nagymbear.5280:

Warriors can use longbow and rifle. And don’t tell me rifle is not a bow, because I know it is not. Warriors have IMHO better utility on their ranged weapons than a ranger, and from what I’ve heard they deal more damage with it too.

Warrior longbow is specialized AOE with poor single target damage and less range than Ranger Longbow, and their Rifle is high specialized for single-target DPS and split between power and condition damage. It also doesn’t have amazing utility.

At best, warrior options rival Ranger options, but rangers are unquestionably better archers. Notice that’s specifically what the description states, not that they are better at all forms of ranged combat.

Rangers are not just archers, and that’s good, but they are still unparalleled archers- no other class has the ability to slot both longbow and a shortbow, effectively using bows only and have the full breadth of 10 weapon skills with different specialities to play with. Everyone’s acting like this patch somehow made the “ranger as archer” situation worse when it actually made it better by buffing damage and adjusting ranges to give you a reason to use both of them.

Damage is a matter of build, and if it’s a problem for Rangers it’s a problem across the board caused by the pet design, not a problem specifically with bows.

Also, axes really should have just been melee weapons. Throwing axes is kind of dumb.

Rangers are unparalleled archers- no other class has the ability to slot both longbow and a shortbow, effectively using bows only and have the full breadth of 10 weapon skills with different specialities to play with.

Damage is a matter of build, and if it’s a problem for Rangers it’s a problem across the board, not just with bows.

Also, axes really should have just been melee weapons.

One thing that’s driving me crazy about this topic is that this patch keeps getting talked about as if it hamstrung the notion of “rangers as archers” when, if anything it enhanced it.

Now, instead of having one good, fairly versatile bow and one mostly worthkitten w, you have two pretty good bows with different strengths and tactical applications. You can now play a true archer more than you could before by slotting both bow types and switching between them based on tactical need, unlike before, both are pretty well-functioning.

Rangers can now function better as true archers than they could before.

It’s an interesting idea, and I definitely like the idea of having greater melee/ranged synergy and interplay. It’s hard to say how well it would work in practice.

Faux Sheaux.6179:

You can’t separate pet design and weapon design. Our weapons are designed based on the assumption we are using our pets as intended. If we have faulty pets, then the weapons are just as faulty for complementing a broken element of our class.

Regardless, the pet system is the cause of the problem and should also be the solution for the problem.

Faux Sheaux.6179:

Having a lot of options in how to be mediocre doesn’t make the class an unparalleled archer. It makes us an unparalleled loot bag.

Again, the class is not ‘mediocre’ because they don’t totally specialize in archery. Every class has a broad range of things they can do. If they are truly mediocre, it’s due to the way pets are designed. It leads to the Ranger’s DPS being weaker than it should be across the board.

Paz Shadow.9715:

All I am saying is I played gw1 and the ranger was a bow class. When I bought gw2 I expected ranger (hey, same name as gw1 class) to be similar: a class that has a pet and is focused on a bow. Not to mention any sort of pre-release art about the ranger was always a ranger with a bow and a pet. To be honest this thread is one of those “suck it up guys, if you thought ranger was xxx before then you are wrong” rants. So sorry it is “very annoying” to hear that people who play as a ranger want a good bow class, it is just I (and many other people who bought the game) were all expecting the ranger to be a good bow class.

Yes, the typical “ranger” does not mean archer, but the guild wars ranger has always been an archer and was designed to continue to be an archer. Just go to Google images, type in “gw2 ranger” and look at the photos there. Every single one is a ranger with a bow.

The Ranger is a good bow class, they can just do other things besides use a bow. The reason why is because there is no “bow” class. The class design philosophies are broader in scope than that, as well they should be. Archery is just one component of what the Ranger can do.

Terkov.4138:

Einlanzer.1627:

Aioros.4862:

Einlanzer.1627:

Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.

Don’t brag, you’re no Nostradamus, it’s only natural that when people are right they mention the one irrefutable evidence that they are right.

Oh, it’s totally refutable. Unparalleled means unmatched. And Rangers are unmatched in archery because they are the only class that uses both bow types, and each type has a different role and skill-set, giving rangers greater tactical options with bows than any other class has by far.

Ok, assuming I’ll follow your way of thinking. Ranger is the class with best options for ranged combat (best = most, nerf/buff can happen anytime). So why isn’t it THE archer class? It’s not like being dedicated marksman cripples your melee (outside of balance issues).

Because there is no such thing as an “archer” class. The classes are designed around broader themes than using a single weapon type. More than one class can use a bow, and any class that uses a bow can use other stuff as well. It’s called versatility, customization, and realism. It’s just how the classes are designed, and the game is better for it.

Aioros.4862:

Einlanzer.1627:

Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.

Don’t brag, you’re no Nostradamus, it’s only natural that when people are right they mention the one irrefutable evidence that they are right.

Oh, it’s totally refutable. Unparalleled means unmatched. And Rangers are unmatched in archery because they are the only class that uses both bow types, and each type has a different role and skill-set, giving rangers greater tactical options with bows than any other class has by far. Damage is a matter of build.

Lol at how my second post addressed the flood of loons citing the description and they’re just incapable of reading/processing it.

This game is designed in such a way that all classes have similar offensive potential at any range they have access to (all classes have access to 900 and all but Thief at 1200). This is because they intended your build to play a bigger role in your various offensive/defensive specs than your class. The difference between the classes in terms of specialization is in versatility, not power. And Rangers are the clear winner there as the only class that has access to both types of bows and 3 ranged weapons.

You people have no idea what you’re talking about.

Raven.9603:

You can say Ranger means master of fruitloops and cheerios for all anyone cares about the definition.

At the end of the day, the majority of the player base just wants to play an Archer Archtype. The ranger is that class in GW2. Or was, prior to SB nerf.

No, it still is.

Aioros.4862:

Einlanzer.1627:

slingblade.1437:

I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anets own description of the class opens with these words: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.”

See above.

And you should stop making stuff up.

For the love of God, stop saying “unparalleled archers” means we can use 3 ranged weapons. Archery is shooting arrows with bows (archery comes from the Latin word for bow, “Arcus”), it has nothing to do with throwing axes.

Yes, and Rangers are the only class that can use both bow types. Seriously, how do you people not realize how silly you sound?

Terkov.4138:

WTF AGAIN?!
GW2 is made by ppl who made GW1. In GW1 ranger was only class using bows. If GW player wants to play archer, he will roll ranger. Is it so kittening hard to understand?
Thieves SB shooting funny spirals or warriors napalm launcher aren’t interesting options.

Yes, again- We’ll try one more time. Rangers can be archers, but they can also be things besides archers, and other classes can also fight at range. The statement “unparalleled archers” refers to their flexibility at range, not their power.

slingblade.1437:

I agree that the word Ranger in-and-of itself does not mean archer. However, Anets own description of the class opens with these words: “Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows.”

See above.

Yes, it is very annoying reading that over and over again on the forums. It’s not like it’s even an esoteric term; people should know that it has nothing to do with fighting at range.

Furthermore, people keep referring to the designation of “unparalleled archers” as if it backs up their claim. That merely means they are adaptable at range, which they are. No other classes uses both bow types and 3 different long range weapons. That neither implies that they aren’t good in melee combat nor that other classes aren’t good at ranged combat.

I said for months that the extremely sluggish rate of fire on Long Range Shot due to an overly long aftercast delay was the major problem with Longbows. I’m glad they finally fixed it along with some of the Staff ones, but I’m curious why they didn’t also fix it on the Warrior’s Dual Shot.

It also seems a little bit off for the Thief and Engi’s Pistol, both of which seem to have a slower rate of fire than they should for their damage specs. Whether they realize it or not, the aftercast on the #1 skill is/was the main reason all of these sets are complained about feeling weak so much in the forums.

TooBz.3065:

To me, what seems really odd about the ranger is that appears that any build that crosses the “viable” threshold also crosses the “OP” threshold.

I haven’t been able to figure out why but I have two theories. The first is that because pets are not reliable, they don’t make an unviable build feel viable. That is, the extra damage for the pet fails too often, is too random. However, if you find a build that’s viable without the pet, then the random pet damage makes it OMG OP.

My second theory, is that the addition of the pet is much more significant in PvP than it is in WvW or PvE. Take a 5 on 5 match. The addition of the Ranger pet makes if more like 5 on 6. Therefore, if the Ranger is effective at all, it seems OP. For example, the pet is in the enemies face, while the Ranger is kiting. Suddenly your opponent has to deal with two threats instead of one.

I actually think both of those assessments are accurate, which ties into what I said in my post about the pet design causing most of the problems of the ranger class.

If the pet is going to be a major source of DPS, then it needs to be able to supply that DPS very reliably and consistently in a way that the Ranger can balanced around, which is not the case currently. If the pet’s contribution to a fight is going to be somewhat random and inconsistent, then it needs to play a smaller, more utilitarian role. Personally, I actually think the latter makes more sense and I think that Anet simply made a mistake in deciding that the pet should carry so much of the weight for the ranger’s combat capabilities.

I get tired of how vitriolic this forum is. First I want to address the question – is the ranger a good class? It’s difficult to say. I don’t think class balance is too horribly off in this game, and I feel like rangers can do most of what other professions do. They might need damage increases in certain areas, but that’s about it. They certainly are not horribly broken suddenly because Shortbow range was nerfed by 300 yards. I think the biggest problem with the ranger is the pet design. They comprise too much of a ranger’s damage and either go down or miss targets too easily. Some pet damage needs to be shifted to the Ranger so that the pet can be more utilitarian, and that would fix a lot of ranger issues, even though those issues are blown out of proportion.

My bigger point in this post is this – I think A LOT of people who are on here screaming about rangers simply have a misconception about both the ranger class itself and class design in general in this game. They constantly bring up the “unparalleled archers” thing acting like it basically means that this class is equivalent to WoW’s hunter (a terribly designed class within a terribly designed class philosophy), but it isn’t.

In this game, there is no real distinction of “melee class” or “ranged class”. The classes just aren’t designed that way, and it’s good that they aren’t because it’s stupid and pigeonholing. You should not pick a Ranger expecting it to play exactly the way WoW’s hunter plays, never doing anything but planting yourself at a safe distance and sniping targets for massive damage. The designation of “unparalleled archers” does not mean they are more powerful at range than every other class, merely that they have greater versatility at range than other classes, which they do. No other class uses both shortbows and longbows, and they have the axe as well. The Shortbow is intended as a skirmishing weapon, not a sniping weapon, and it was being used as the latter so they changed it. It’s that simple. The Longbow is also much better than it was.

Like every other class, rangers are designed to fit a variety of play-styles, and to make the most of them you have to gasp mix it up a little bit, move around, and alter builds and skills based on tactical needs.

Exocet.7306:

What would you expect from a Ranger? A balance between strong ranged skills and low survive at melee right? Why can´t you keep it as simple as that? Have you ever seen, in the whole history of humanity (or fantasy), an archer with a greatsword at his back and no range? I know its a fantasy game but there are limits to be respected for consistency. At the moment we have rangers with greatswords, low dps, and no range. We relly half of our dps in a pet that can´t hit moving targets, can´t dodge, and dies in seconds.
It should be a hard class to master rather than a warrior. I don´t expect to resist a hammer blow. If i am in that situation i am dead and its ok, blame me! but make me deadly from afar.

I´ve been a dev for about a decade now and i know how frustrating can be to get this kind of feedback from the ppl you want to satisfy. But honestly, what is a ranger in GW2? A warrior in medium armor shooting unicorns and rainbows? Come on, just tell us you don´t like them so we can pick another class or choose another game.

Actually, this post is extremely wrong on several levels.

a.) Rangers are "unparalleled archers’ simply because they use both shortbows and longbows (as well as axes) and consequently have greater versatility at range than other classes.

b.) Being good at ranged is almost never balanced by being bad at melee, it’s balanced by having weaker defense and requiring more mobility. Being a “ranged class” typically means being proficient at range as well as in melee, not being proficient at range at the expense of melee. WoW is virtually the only game to feature the ‘archer’ class that can’t melee their way out of a paper bag AND they have poor attrition; this is why they were always terrible in pvp. I despise the way the hunter is designed in that game.

c.) In actual use, ranged weapons have a different role than melee weapons. Throughout history, most people with skill in one have some skill in the other because they have different tactical applications. It’s actually far less common for soldiers, warriors, scouts, etc. to be highly specialized in one over the other rather than being competent with both. The ranger in GW2, as well as the Warrior, represent this perfectly.

rchu.8945:

Stormleaf.1769:

Exocet.7306:

What would you expect from a Ranger? A balance between strong ranged skills and low survive at melee right? Why can´t you keep it as simple as that? Have you ever seen, in the hole history of humanity (or fantasy), an archer with a greatsword at his back and no range? I know its a fantasy game but there are limits to be respected for consistency. At the moment we have rangers with greatswords, low dps, and no range. We relly half of our dps in a pet that can´t hit moving targets, can´t dodge, and dies in seconds.
It should be a hard class to master rather than a warrior. I don´t expect to resist a hammer blow. If i am in that situation i am dead and its ok, blame me! but make me deadly from afar.

I´ve been a dev for about a decade now and i know how frustrating can be to get this kind of feedback from the ppl you want to satisfy. But honestly, what is a ranger in GW2? A warrior in medium armor shooting unicorns and rainbows? Come on, just tell us you don´t like them so we can pick another class or choose another game.

The class is called ‘Ranger’, not ‘Archer’. What you’re describing is an archer (which you admit to in your own post), making your entire ‘point’ moot. One of the accepted definitions of a ranger (as in, what’s in an actual dictionary): “A person who ranges or roves”. Going by that, a highly mobile, melee build—which is accessible to us—is more in the spirit of a ‘Ranger’ than a stationary bow-wielding build.

I am getting really tired of this ridiculous “It’s ’range’r not ’melee’r!” argument. It is laughable.

if you really want to argue about “ranger” or “archer” is more correct, please check this out:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ranger/

Lemme copy and paste the description for those lazy to click to the page:

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.
UNPARALLELED ARCHERS.

Thanks for the debate!

Yes, being able to use both Shortbows and Longbows (unique to Rangers) makes them unparalleled archers. However, that’s not all they can do. They can also skirmish, command pets, fight with a sword, lay traps, etc. Ranger means ‘versatility’ more than it means ‘archer’.

You’re wrong. The word ranger has nothing to do with using ranged weapons. The only reason they are “unparalleled archers” is because they are often scouts and huntsmen. Being good at archery carries no implication whatsoever that you are bad at everything else. The “it’s a ranged class” argument is dumb on multiple levels, period.

I used to complain about this too, but the more I thought about it the more it made sense. It’s comparable to the Order armor, just priced much higher to be more prestigious as skins go.

What I feel like they should do is add a system that lets you increase the rarity on armor pieces. I don’t really care what it is or what kind of currency it involves, but it should be an option to buy rare armor and improve it to exotic in some way without having to transmute it over something else.