Guild Wars 2

I have just finished getting 100% on Brisban Wildlands and Kessex Hills (Silvari character following Personal Story). I have 200+ Wool, Leather, Wood and Iron; a pile of Silver too, but I do not use that. In fact, I have Wool and Iron maxed out at 250! I would expect I am sitting pretty to craft through Tier Two at this point, but Tier Two Fine Materials were not dropping! While I got the occasional one, I only have 1-10 of each material. Instead, I was mostly getting Tier One Fine Materials. My character is almost level 40, so I am already beginning to get Tier Three Common Materials from Salvaging and am ready to move onto Gendarran Fields (where I anticipate Tier Three materials drop).

Is my observation correct and those two zones are poor for Tier Two Fine Materials? If so, that seems a pretty silly oversight that probably needs fixing. If I am wrong, how did I fail so badly after exploring and completing two whole maps?

I just recently started trying out the Jumping Puzzles in the game, but several of them have already stood out as unnecessarily frustrating.

The first was Spekks’ Laboratory. The way that, at certain points, you need to cling to a cliff and wait for someone else to activate the platforms before you can continue is the very definition of frustrating. You do not give the players the resources they need to progress! I just had to sit there, twiddling my fingers, until another player came along. This is simply poor design, no two ways about it. Those cannons that fire on you as you progress were a little over-the-top too. I lost 60-70% health getting blind-sided while focusing on trying to land on already difficult platforms. Canons + Robots + Lasers = instant kill before I knew what hit me. Perhaps a little less damage on the canons?

The other frustrating one is Dark Reverie. Sorry, I am not one of the so-called `elite’ players, so I have to admit I found this way too hard! Kept dying the moment I reached the bottom because I had absolutely no way of taking out multiple turrets, two archers and three hounds, at once. Even if I run away from them, the hulk and two Veterans are just over-kill. I made three attempts at this, dying at the bottom every time. Having to re-do Morgan’s Run again every time I fail is just salt in the wound (there should be a return to entrance option, like Spekks’ Laboratory). Having to complete two jumping puzzles in one is over-the-top (surely, after having completed Morgan’s Run, there could be something that lets you skip it?), and I cannot see any way I could possibly survive the encounters inside. It boggles the mind how stupid the design here is! I will not even bother trying again.

A smaller issue was with Spelunker’s Delve. I often found I could not see where I was going because the roof-foliage blocks out the camera on every angle. Perhaps a little pruning would not go astray?

Traps are viable for ranged players without the trait. I have used Shortbow with Axe/Warhorn since very early on, and have used traps since level 5. A ranged player strongly benefits from traps, even when they are only placed at your feet. The increased size is the real benefit of that trait; the ground targeting is an odd addition.

Shortbow and Axe may have maximum ranges far further away, but their optimum range is closer to that 600, or less. Sword and Greatsword probably gain very little from the ground-targeting, as they have no hesitation toward entering melee as it is :P Longbow is probably the only weapon truly unable to effectively use this.

nerva.7940:

Stice.5204:

I stand by my assessment that Sic ’Em sucks.

have you tried it with Quickening Zephyr and skirmishing traits that improve pet critical damage? when my jag jumps out of stealth with Sick em and QZ, he can maul someone’s face off.

I would argue that demonstrates how obscenely powerful Quickening Zephyr is, not Sick ’Em.

I also consider Sick ’Em, and all Shouts, highly underwhelming. Compare them with the Shouts used by other classes and you will see what I mean. Shouts should, at a minimum, boost the Pet AND the Ranger, at the same time. Sick ’Em only provides a minor boost to half the class, Protect Me provides a minor benefit to half the class but potentially cripples the other half… the others are not even worth mentioning.

Probably the biggest issue with Ranger utilities is that, if you max out a trait line and pick all the relevant traits, they become quite good (eg Signets), but are 100% useless the rest of the time. Ideally, they should be good normally and great when traited. Using Shouts as an example, Warrior Shouts start off really solid. With Traits, their cooldowns are reduced and they gain healing. Guardians, similarly, start with powerful shouts that gain reduced cooldowns and convert conditions to boons. We start with bad shouts and gain reduced cooldowns. The other two classes start with good utilities that get better; we have bad utilities that stay bad.

I am sure they are doing something for the Ranger. Either those other bugs were considered higher priority, or the ones they prioritised for the Ranger are taking longer than originally expected. You may be surprised how many hours it takes to take a bug-fix from the client’s initial report to the final patch. It involves a lot of people and a lot of work for every single bug.

Quickening Zephyr is almost worth using? It is extremely powerful, even with the long (default) cooldown!

That said, I also find the Utilities very underwhelming. Shouts are garbage, Signets are quite poor, Spirits are awful. Traps… well, I only like Flame Trap and find the others underwhelming. I personally think only the Survival skills are well-rounded, and even then they have their flaws (eg Lightning Reflexes not breaking movement-hindering conditions). They all feel very unfinished and untested, so hopefully will get some love once the major bugs are sorted out.

Patch notes? More like good job on the patch. That is a fairly solid amount of work in there, and there are clear patterns making it clear as to what their priorities were in that patch. A lot of those were really annoying bugs, so they make a notable improvement to the game.

I have 100% in every starting area multiple times.

A tip for getting the last heart (trust me, there is ALWAYS one missing heart at the end of every area :P ) is to look for the Scout icon on your map. Scouts only appear on the map when you have not done/found the hearts they tell you about. If there is one missing heart, there must be a Scout who can point you in the right direction.

Crit-fishing has always been a popular way to build characters in RPGs. Well, ever since ways to increase the odds in your favour appeared. Some people like it; others do not. You do not have to build for it if you personally do not like it.

@Stice, those players could be talking PvE rather than PvP. In PvE, the mobs tend to stand still too, making the pet far more effective. I could easily see builds where the pet does 40%+ in PvE.

When you read the class boards, it seems like everyone is unhappy. Lets see if I can summarise things

Elementalist: Half the posters feel that the class is intended to be used only by the elite of the elite and everyone else should play Warriors. The other half feel the class is overly complicated and under-rewarding their efforts.

Engineer: The implementation of kits is problematic and elixirs too random, resulting in a difficult and unreliable experience.

Guardian: The lack of an effective ranged option cripples the class, especially in WvWvW.

Mesmer: The class design is awful and it is unworthy of the name Mesmer (too different from GW1 Mesmer), but there is an effective class here just screaming to be released from confused mechanics.

Necromancer: The class mechanic is awful unless you focus your build around it, which then makes other builds under-powered in their lack of an effective class mechanic. Half the players consider the basic class design boring.

Ranger: Some players do like having a pet for a class feature, some want more/less/different weapons, some consider the basic class design boring, and almost all want the pets dramatically improved.

Thief: Generally happy, other than spammy noobs reflecting badly on all players of the class.

Warrior: Generally happy.

I have intentionally skipped `bugs’, because I believe all classes share that issue. I also skipped the downed skill, because every class (apparently) has the worst downed skill and (apparently) every other class has one that is better, but only our class (apparently) does not :P

Can we have a happy thread? I am a little down from all the constant negativity. What makes you happy about your class(es) of choice?

Nah, Lockey, they are not THAT bad.

Necromancer has a lot of bugs. A lot. The class functions perfectly fine at the moment, outside a minion-based build. I do not play it myself, but I know others who do and they are perfectly happy (since they never wanted to run minions in the first place).

Mesmer has a high learning curve and is very weak at low levels. Some of the design is a little confused and many aspects are clearly unfinished. Despite that, the class is quite functional. Jump into sPvP and a good Mesmer is highly effective. In PvE, once you get to lvl20-30, the class really comes into its own and is excellent.

Elementalist… I would prefer to not comment either way. No matter whether I say it is great or awful, half the forum will flame me for it.

When it comes to undead/risen, my observation is that they clearly prioritise the player(s) over pets or NPCs. Their behaviour is clearly completely different to the overwhelming majority of enemy types in the game.

Could not be bothered wasting my time to look. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant to anyone other than yourself. Check the dev tracker if you want proof.

Amnon.4769:

Elric of Grans.7684:

Amnon, serious questions.

1) Would fixing the bugs make the class less enjoyable?
2) Would improving underperforming skills (eg Arc Lightning) make the class less enjoyable?
3) Would some animation tweaks (eg Dragon’s Tooth dropping quicker) make the class less enjoyable?
4) Would replacing bad/never used Traits with more interesting options make the class less enjoyable?
5) Would making all weapon options equally appealing make the class less enjoyable?

No sarcasm, not intent to troll or anything like that. These are the points most of those dissatisfied are asking for change in. Do you honestly believe these changes would make the class worse/less enjoyable?

Of course not, but I just don’t want Elementalist to turn into an overpowered spam-fest, leave-your-brain-at-the-door class like a thief spamming HS.

You do realise, then, that most of your militant personal attacks are against people asking for one or more of the things I listed above, right? You are repeatedly bashing people asking for tweaks. This is making you look like, well, a not-very-nice-person

People, look at the reality in a rational manner, not the thinly-veiled-insult manner prevalent in this forum. How many of you are programmers? From the sounds of the discussion, few. Do you have any idea how much time and money would be required to completely remove the current implementation of the Elementalist, back off from the original design brief of the class, redesign, reimplement and release a patch of a spam-happy, low-learning-curve Elementalist? It is absolutely impossible to justify this expense. It will not happen. Now, an expansion that includes an easy-mode cloth class? Sure, definitely possible, but it would be a completely different class that sits beside the Elementalist, not replaces it. You do not need to worry and you really aught to stop filling this forum with hate posts in your irrational fear of it happening.

Bug fixes can be tricky, but if we provide good, detailed bug reports they will be addressed in good time. Minor balancing tweaks are, from a development perspective, very quick and easy. Getting them right takes time, but the changes are easy. If an individual skill is under-performing (eg cooldown too long) this is very easily adjusted and costs ($$) relatively little. If you look at things from a development perspective, fixing the class is easy, whereas redesigning the class is not. If you then consider management’s perspective, fixing is cheaper than redesigning and makes a larger percentage of players happy. From a rational perspective, there is no reason for this fear that the class will be turned into something completely different.

If this forum were less hate-filled, perhaps developers would post here. Look at the other classes. Developers are coming in and discussing particular issues with the players. No developer in his right mind would post on this forum because anything he says is guaranteed to have a dozen players leaping at his throat and calling for a public execution. We have countless threads which devolve into exactly the same `1337 vs baddies’ argument. We do not need a single one of these, and every post along these lines harms the community rather than helping it.

Please, I implore every person who posts on this board to stop and actually think.

Amnon, serious questions.

1) Would fixing the bugs make the class less enjoyable?
2) Would improving underperforming skills (eg Arc Lightning) make the class less enjoyable?
3) Would some animation tweaks (eg Dragon’s Tooth dropping quicker) make the class less enjoyable?
4) Would replacing bad/never used Traits with more interesting options make the class less enjoyable?
5) Would making all weapon options equally appealing make the class less enjoyable?

No sarcasm, not intent to troll or anything like that. These are the points most of those dissatisfied are asking for change in. Do you honestly believe these changes would make the class worse/less enjoyable?

I agree, it seems a massive oversight to me. I seriously doubt it will stay when comparable skills on other classes break roots. Sometime down the track, those skills will surely get the buff they deserve.

Yes, the Pigs seem lazy. If they all had different F2 abilities, their inclusion would feel more justified. Who cares if they all forage different things? Most Ranger players do not seem to like Forage as a concept even, so give us better variety (eg Pigs get all forage options, then the others get all-new F2 options).

I am personally horrified by the lack of Raptor pets. Seriously, how was this not blindingly obvious? Who does not want a Raptor pet? It would be sweet!

In terms of what we do have, however, I feel there is a good selection. I do think some pet families need further differentiation (eg birds at the moment just feel like weak felines), but largely it seems a good selection. Once you have a family you like, there are then dramatic variations within from the F2. I love the Fern Hound. It has all the juicy all-roundedness of the canine, but with better survivability.

Nick Danger.9821:

Elric of Grans.7684:

…I am not sure that many players are calling for the Elementalist to be dumbed down…

I see a distressing number of posters saying the ele is either broken (no amount of effort/skill lets an ele match an ‘easy’ class) or that it takes significantly more effort to achieve the same effect as some other classes.

I see these folks then call for ‘fixes’ for the ele (ie make eles easier). I can’t remember seeing any of these folks calling for ‘fixes’ for the ‘easier’ classes (ie make the ‘easier’ classes ‘harder’) as their preferred method for achieving balance. Have I missed these, and if so, do they outnumber the ‘make eles easier’ posters?

When challenged, folks can respond in several ways, including expending the effort to buckle down and improve their game, or expending the same effort to complain to have the game made easier. Bringing the ‘easier’ classes up to eles level is the former, advocating bringing the ele down is the latter.

Sorry, I honestly do not understand your post. No, I have not seen anyone calling for the other classes to be nerfed, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that I do not believe the majority of Elementalist players want the class dumbed down. Changed? Yes, but change is not dumbed down. Fixing bugs does not dumb the class down. Improving synergy does not dumb the class down. Boosting underpowered skills does not dumb the class down. The majority of complaints about the class are asking for it to be improved, but retain all the complexity of it. I think I have see two or three posts asking for it to be dumbed down, in amongst hundreds of posts suggesting changes.

My reply was 99% sarcasm, 1% fat. I know what a build is, but there is far more focus among Elementalist players on the weapons than the rest of the choices.

I read a post somewhere here where a dev said there was a patch coming tomorrow.

Conncept.7638:

Two builds? What two builds? I count one.

Staff
Sceptre/Dagger
Dagger/Dagger

I could three builds

I would disagree that all players should be able to play equally. Even Pong allows for a difference in player skill. All classes should be accessible to all players, but equally all classes should have a degree of mastery available for those who develop their skills and understanding of the class/game. I do not believe the Elementalist does this. It has a large learning curve, then also requires a high degree of player skill just to be playable. Honestly, those players who find the Elementalist `fine’ clearly have the skill that they should be far more dominant.

I am not sure that many players are calling for the Elementalist to be dumbed down. There are many calling for it to be improved, but it seems to be a minority who want attunements completely removed. The main complaint is that, as someone else said, it takes the Elementalist 20 skills to do what other classes can do in 3. If an Elementalist player uses 20 skills intelligently, they should be wrecking a player who only uses 3! As has been discussed to death in many other threads, the Elementalist suffers from buggy skills, overly-long animations, pitiful auto-attacks and poor trait design/synergy. The class does not need dramatic change, but it does need change.

Another major issue in this discussion is that there are a variety of VERY different ways to play the game. World PvE, Dungeons, sPvP, tPvP, WvWvW. Everyone is discussing from the basis on one of these, but not always the same one. When you have, say, a Dungeon player complaining about survivability and a WvWvW player just goes `lol, stand back and nuke, noob’, it does nothing for the betterment of this class.

Yes, ArenaNet have confirmed this is working as intended. They have never allocated resources to save the names, because they were never designed to be saved.

Try playing on Sea of Sorrows (US, but mostly Aussies). I keep to guild chat, because the public chat is all racist, misogynistic and extremely immature. The last thing I want to do is read the garbage spewed by middle-class, white, male teenagers.

God, I wish we could get an official response on the Elementalist. This has to be the only class where the devs are completely silent, and the forum is turning into a kitty-cat-crazy-ball-of-string! Seriously, almost every post in this thread makes the poster look like a complete idiot. Someone needs to lock this thread and make an official comment to shut-up one side of the argument or the other, because the current situation is unhealthy for the players and bad for the game in general.

If I remember correctly, ANet said they planned the classes to have differing learning curves and mastery ceilings. I believe the Warrior was supposed to be the easiest to learn yet the hardest to master, while the Elementalist would be difficult to learn but average difficulty to master. I am going off my memory here, so I am afraid I cannot cite or provide the correct quote.

I read the post the same way Sharpe did. Your argument is essentially: the Elementalist is only playable by the natural-born elite, therefore it is working as intended. No, seriously, no. If the average player cannot get over the learning curve, it is too steep. If the average player can get over the learning curve, but still cannot play well, the class is underpowered. If the class is only successful when played by the elite players, there is a serious problem.

Your argument seems to be heavily tPvP influenced. The game also includes PvE, Dungeons, WvWvW and sPvP: the class needs to be accessible in all forms of the game.

You need a FAR larger sample size. I can guarantee the Elementalist board is FAR unhappier than the Ranger board!

I have had people do this to me many, many times. I have become a far better player as a result. You seem me fighting two enemies? You drop an extra five on me? No problem, I will start using my cool-downs :P The only time I was killed by this was when soloing a champion and his veteran adds and someone brought a few more creatures from the wilderness in. That one pushed me way beyond my limits!

However, it is a really moronic thing to do to people, and every time I see it I just shake my head in disgust.

There could be a simple option: Wear Town Clothes in Town. If you are in town, you automatically switch and only switch back when you leave. I would use it!

I have completely cleared the Charr zone four times. I do not have a single Chilli. Since they took these out of vendors, they became absurdly rare.

I use a Devourer as my second pet, but I do not like it as much as my Fern Hound. It has great survivability, but is relatively dull. I have tried Spiders, but just did not like them. I felt the Spider AI needs a little work, but otherwise it seemed fine.

EDIT: Wow, I over-used the word `but’ there!

I think most players would balk at the idea of sharing a health pool with an AI. Heck, I have played games where I shared one with a human and felt like punching them :P A separate health bar seems fine, particularly with the pet-swap mechanic they have given us.

Immunity to AoE would be a perfect PvE solution, but I am sure there would be PvP complaints. Not taking damage from the same source would not address the issue at all; pets die quickly (or instantly) to attacks that do not hit the Ranger because the player was able to dodge them. An AI capable of dodging these telegraphed attacks would be the ideal solution, but I am not sure how difficult it would be (not an AI programmer, so it is easy for me to say).

They obviously save the four pet-slot names, because merely exiting and reloading the game does not reset it. There is no reason the name should be lost from the pet-slot when you change pets, even if they do not want to save the name of every pet for every player. Still, as others have said, it is an awfully low-priority issue. Annoying, yes, but I agree there are other things that need doing first.

And yet, ArenaNet have matched up with the classical Ranger perfectly. It seems pretty clear to me what their intention was. This thread was a response to players stating that ArenaNet were wrong and attempted to justify their decisions.

The Ranger, in my opinion, is heavily reliant on positional play. The Guardian is more `static’ in that he has one effective range (face it, Sceptre and Staff suck) and gains no particular advantage standing here compared to there. The Ranger has skills that are more effective when close/far away or when attacking from a flanking position.

The Ranger has more of a skirmisher play-style. By moving in and out, or moving around, you can optimise your damage. The Ranger is less about flashy all-purpose tools and more about getting to the optimal position for X, then move to the optimal position for Y.

Micromanaging your pet also adds an extra dimension that is unique to this class.

Kasama.8941:

If we are going to go into the discussion of what originally inspired the fantasy ranger, then there is a much higher chance that it was inspired by Robert Rogers, since a ton of fiction has been created based on his legend. Including several different books, a movie from 1940, and an NBC television series from 1958. The Lord of the Rings were written between 1937 and 1949.

The original fantasy Ranger was Strider in The Lord of the Rings. He used a sword. Clearly in no way influenced by Rogers’ Rangers. He was one of the Rangers of the North, a group who ranged the borderlands and were skilled in sword, bow and spear. There were also Rangers of the South, who were much the game. The first Ranger class in RPGs was in D&D and was also closely related to the medieval rangers, not Rogers’. They also ranged the wilderness, protecting it against any threat. In one optional ruleset, they were required to be skilled in bows, sword and spears, but standard rules made them legitimate options.

Terkov.4138:

I wonder why some ppl feel they are supposed to teach others what to think, lol…

This thread was a response to the many other threads of people telling us what to think. lol. Unlike the other threads, I supported my case with something more than ``just because’’ or ``it’s stupid.’’ It also gives those who have no idea what a Ranger is an idea of what was likely in the minds of the developers when they designed this class for the game, allowing them to then understand why it ended up the way it did.

Brokadocious.8743:

During the napoleonic wars a british regiment, the royal corsican rangers, were equiped with the baker rifle. Therefore rangers have usedblack powder weaponry and your statement is false.

Anyone with a shred of reading comprehention would see that it was a post about the ranger archetype, not the word ranger. The Lone Ranger, for example, rides across the range, but he is in no way associated with the archetype. Same goes for all the military units who have had the `ranger’ title: they are using it for the word (one who ranges), not the archetype.

Go Raven! That is a really cool story. I am tempted to try it out myself now

From The Complete Ranger’s Handbook:
``A woodsman and tracker, as well as a dangerous fighter, he combines good combat skills with a few extra abilities that give him many options and decisions during play. He boasts the courage and strength of a warrior and the stealth and self-reliance of a thief. He combines the druid’s affinity for the outdoors with the devotion and magical aptitude of a priest. He’s a hunter, a tracker, and a survivalist. By temperament and by choice, he’s a loner, often preferring the company of animals to people. Without question, he’s one with nature, sworn to protect the inhabitants of the wilderness and preserve the integrity of the land.’’

In history, rangers were sort of like modern-day park rangers, in that they patrolled a wilderness. They were low-born peasantry in the middle ages who would be commissioned to range and protect the lands of the aristocracy against poachers and the like. They would use weapons that could be readily made, such as bows (swords were obviously a touch expensive for peasants).

In literature, popular rangers include Tolkien’s Aragorn/Strider, Chaucer’s Yeoman and the legendary Robin Hood. I believe the Roman goddess Diana was also said to be an inspiration behind the RPG archetype. In more recent literature, R.A. Salvatore’s Drizzt is also a famous ranger.

In computer RPGs, I have to mention Minsc from Baldur’s Gate, only because he has a genuine Miniature Giant Space Hamster (named Boo) as his animal companion In Final Fantasy and Maple Story, they are a specialised Archer class. In Nethack, they specialise in bows and thrown weapons.

YES: Rangers have often used swords, including two-handed sword, in the past.

NO: Ranger does not mean ranged-weapon user. It means one who ranges (look it up in the dictionary).

NO: Rangers have never used black powder weapons. You are thinking of Hunters from WoW, a completely different class to the Ranger (and I believe entirely unique to WoW).

YES: I am sure there will be a dozen more threads over the weekend asking the same questions over and over and over, but hopefully this thread will save us one or two.

Then why does not every class have every single weapon? It is not about whether or not they actually need them, it is about the choice.

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, F1-4 are awful to reach on my keyboard. I have to take the hand away from everything else (WASD, etc) to press them… or have unnaturally long fingers :P

I did not know I could use Shift+xxx for binds. I have put 6-0 on Shift+1-5 and F1-4 on Shift+QWER. This should be a little easier to reach. I checked, and you can also do Shift+mouse, which will add some more options. I will spend some time trying this out to see how I go.

There is no reason to claim that the Longbow is not going to be changed. The game is two weeks old and they have repeatedly stated that balance changes will be cautious and take a long time to appear. TheLongbow could be buffed in the future. There is also no reason to believe that, should the Rifle be given to the Ranger, that it would function in any way vaguely similar to how it does for the Warrior. In fact, you could guarantee 100% that it would not. Look at Engineer Rifle, or Warrior Longbow. Weapons function dramatically different from one class to the next. Any delusion otherwise is pure insanity.

FrozenLuv.6017:

Adding the rifle wouldn’t be game-breaking but it will attract more people the class, maybe even the game.

FrozenLuv.6017:

maybe even the game.

LOL

I doubt adding a rifle would attract many, if any, to the Ranger. The core mechanic of the class is the pet, not weapon selection (that is the Warrior you are thinking of, and they have Rifles: you may like them!). Whether or not you like having a pet is going to be a major determining factor to who does/does not play the class. Attract people to the game, however? Even hyperbole fails to describe that accurately!

I am not sure how difficult/easy this would be to implement, but it sure sounds cool.

I agree. There seems to be a `sweet spot’ with Dynamic Events at the moment. Not enough players could be extremely tough, but too many and it becomes `try to get a hit before the entire wave evaporates’. If there were more of a change that challenged players to mix tactics (therefore, splitting the players up) would be far more interesting and hopefully scale better

I have tried Spiders a few times, but I am not a fan. I prefer Devourers. Less attack abilities, but their AI seems to be a little smarter. They stay back and fight from their maximum range, whereas Spiders seem to get a lot closer than they need to.

My favourite is definitely my Fern Hound, however. It makes for a nice all-round pet, with above-average attack AND defense AND an F2 ability that boosts the survivability of both of us. It is not going to do the damage of a Lynx, or take the brutalisation a Brown Bear can, or provide the constant support of a Moa, but it does a little of everything in a nice, rounded, plant-y package. Plus my Ranger is Sylvari and that gets bonus points for style

Knote.2904:

Don’t see druids coming out of the forest in their plant armor whipping out a shotgun to blow heads off lol.

Depends. Is it a Zombie Apocalypse? If so, shotgun. If not, pointy stick. Rotting berries optional

SaboD.7290:

First off all please fix the 1st sword skill slot. In pvp you can’t get out of the rotation very effectivly to finish off a player, and to be honest trying to kick someone between sword swings is kind of stupid.

All three attacks are buggy and I sorely wish they would fix them. It is such a fun weapon to use!

SaboD.7290:

I find the Ranger is a good skirmish fighter and I’ve seen a variety of ways to do it. I personaly like to use traps, sword with dagger, and short bow along with good condition damage to bleed and poison my targets to death.

Whoah! Someone uses the dagger? Seriously? I thought it was the one weapon the class had that lacked any kind of purpose. The synergy with Sword seems terrible too. I initially played Sword/Dagger too, but quickly dropped the Dagger because it was so bad.

SaboD.7290:

Last would someone explain the use of a long sword? I mean I understand the usefullness it has with the tallents you gain from it, but couldn’t these tallents be used elsewere in other weapons? I have never seen a huntsman, Ranger or otherwise use a great sword. They are hunters not warriors. Has anyone known of a Ranger using a Long bow and Great Sword together? Its always been short swords, or daggers that way they have room to carry their bow. Their bow is their strength not the sword.

Is the question about longswords or greatswords, or both? Either way, they have been associated with Rangers since the birth of the fantasy genre. They are just as common as longbows. Rangers have never been the longbow-only class. Famous Rangers have used swords as much, or to the complete exclusion of, longbows (eg Aragorn, Drizzt). Most certainly, there have been many melee Rangers in RPGs over the years (sword, axe, spear, quarterstaff; less often, club). Even Robin Hood, who was best noted for being the greatest master of the longbow, often used a quaterstaff or a sword.

Groans.

The term `ranger’ predates 1755 too, you know. I have already linked the dictionary definition in another thread where yet another person butchered the meaning: I cannot be bothered doing it again. I am sure you have your own, or the ability to fine one, so do it yourself.

Rangers in RPGs originate from D&D, where the initial inspiration was Aragorn from Lord of the Rings. Robin Hood was also cited as an inspiration (a few others, but I cannot recall off the top of my head: they are listed in the old, old, old Player’s Handbook). They were characters who ranged across the wilderness. Every RPG that has come since has been influenced by D&D in some way, and the Ranger has always been derived from that original class. Feel free to throw whatever arguments you want: I can just pick up the original Rangers Handbook and point out that it does not fit the classic definition of the class.

At the end of the day, however, this is Guild Wars. Just as Blizzard went with their own interpretations of classes, the same is equally possible here. The Ranger has not used rifles in the history of Guild Wars and still does not to this day. It seems pretty clear that ArenaNet do not consider it a Ranger weapon. In addition, the way they have presented the class is as typical of the classic Ranger as you can get, which suggests they are strongly hanging to the roots of the class. Not a bad idea, and most people who traditionally play a Ranger will want to, you know, play a Ranger, not something completely different that has `Ranger’ as the name. It would be like a Thief with no Stealing: they would be an Assassin, not a Thief.

Could we please put this issue to rest and not start three or four threads on it every single day? Could we get a Mod in here to start locking these things, as there is more discussion on meaningless garbage like this than there is on actually playing the game!