Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Something that disturbed me in GW2!
Sive0n
Member UncommonPosts: 28
After reading this interview with GW2 Lead designer from IGN( http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/110/1106052p1.html) i was very shocked and i shall explain why.
I've always like to play as a ranger/hunter/etc in all games because i like the idea of being a long ranged fighter that puts more emphasis in agility and reflexes other then brute strength. Rangers are known for their traps, bow skills, speed and pets in Guild Wars we had lots of options to play with we could interrupt we could have pets we could have traps, we could spread conditions such as fire, poison and bleeding, we could have crippling shots or even running skills to help us keep our distance.
In the end we where a good utility class and lets face it in pvp rangers with pets where doable but they where rare, and we accepted it.
in that interview GW2 Lead designer said and i quote:
When we were looking at how we wanted the Ranger to look and feel we decided quite early on that we wanted to emphasize the Ranger's bond with nature." The Ranger's ranged weapon of choice include the longbow (for when you need that extra distance or damage), the shortbow (for when you need a little more mobility), and the…axe? Yep, Rangers can wield and throw axes...
Ok it makes perfect sense so far doesn't it? then i read this other line:
Pets are so central to the role of the Ranger that Flannum even suggests "players who want range without a pet are better off playing another profession, such as a Warrior, and taking ranged weapons."
What the hell?! So now in GW2 a Warrior will be better at range then a Ranger who's weapon's of choice are mostly ranged and obviously they will also beat the living Jesus out of you in melee.
And if you take a look at the LongBow skill set for the warrior these include Pin Down to cripple/immobilize/stun, Arcing Shot and Rain of Fire which are an explosive AOE, Incendiary Shot to burning your enemy and even Kick to regain some distance from the target... why in hell would a full plated Warrior want/need distance...
I would expect the Warriors to have some ranged skills to complement/help him when the target is fleeing and some average dmg until he can get up close and personal.
I completely fail to see the purpose here.
Rangers can still use traps but it requires you to be in Close-Quarters with the enemy, we have a pet but since he has to reach the opponent means we again need to me in Close-Quarters, yet warriors who excel in Close-Quarters with their high armor and dmg are better at long ranged fighting then a Ranger...
In GW warrior/rangers could use bows and even deal more dmg then Rangers per shot because they have a primary stat that gave them some natural armor penetration BUT they didn't had the enough energy to use bow skills as effectively as a ranger, its was logical and it made sense because overall Rangers were better with a bow.
Its fine that ArenaNet made the pet a great feature but it shouldn't be forced because it forces all Ranger to the same playstyle.
Well i had to vent about this because this concerns me greatly.
Comments
I remember reading that and I think it was a responce to a comment concerning the micro management of having a pet, since someone was asking if they could play ranger w/o a pet. In that regaurd I think he was sayen its better to roll a warrior and use a bow if you wanted to play the distance game. I don't think it was an indication that warriors would be better with bows than rangers. then again it is still too early, and there isn't any information to put that to rest so it is all speculation.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
One word should probably assuage your fears: traits.
The trait mechanics will balance out the level of power at ranged between the warrior and the ranger. Now this is just speculation, but given the knowledge we have of traits: each class will have the roughly the same number of traits, and there are traits for each weapon, we can make some conclusions. Because the warrior has so many weapon choices(12 trait lines), he has fewer traits overall for the bow, while the ranger may have more bow/ranged related traits because of the fewer number of weapons (9 trait lines). Now these are just the the weapon traits; we can probably also assume that the ranger's general traits will further enhance ranged combat, pet and trap skills, whereas the warrior's general traits will help with survival, cc, and damage.
Also, its important to note that having a pet in GW2 is not a limitation like it was in GW1. Pets have their own skill bar and command controls, so its always going to be an advantage to have one. So, you could lay some traps, then send out your pet to bring enemies into your traps without getting into range.
1. The Ranger is actually a Pet Class now. That's the change from GW. Every profession has a special mechanic (Adrenaline for Warriors, Pets for Rangers).
2. It's still early to say one way or the other but the quote needs careful interpretation: Rangers will be effective with the Longbow but Warriors have ranged skills with Longbow and Rifle (I think) also. The question is, as a ranger you MUST use your pet (and longbow for range) to be max effective. If you don't want a pet but do want range, then pick a warrior. If you don't mind a pet however or like pets and like range then a Ranger is still ok or very ok for for you. There is 2 things with pets: a) Potentially the pet will have a greater range to be sent to attack something that is beyond a longbow's max range so actually the ranger could still have the edge in max ranged distance (we'll have to see) but b) There does not appear to be a pet with a ranged attack yet and that would be a nice option for pets I think to add to the ranger's ranged attacks that I think is missing so far.
3) With a pet class the anticipation and choosing what, when to fight is much more important and this will feed into the traps deployment too, let your pet attack first is the best strategy to maximize both your damage and your defense and this means max your aversion until you have the upper-hand for mid-range (use traps) and then melee to finish off the weakened enemy. This is usually how I have found it to be with pets. Traps could be a real pain to use well however as they are a middle ground so this is a valid concern, I agree.
4) Pet AI is most important. The inability also to activate pet skills at will is another area to be concerned until we see it in action as again this reduces flexibility.
So I think in summary for ppl that like pet classes Ranger is the choice, for Ranged classes you have several options, especially given skills depend on weapons slotted and all classes/profs will have "some" ranged ability. The only major concern for the Ranger is the Pet AI and pet skill activation & no ranged attack pet, I'd say. The warrior on the other hand is another option for a ranged attacker is good (makes sense that soldiers are trained with the bow and sword eg samurai).
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
That's not what he said. He said "if you want to be ranged with no pet, then don't play a ranger." That doesn't mean other options are more powerful ranged attackers at all, it just means they don't have pets.
Similarly, if you want to do ranged magic without using attunement switching, then it is best to not play an Elementalist. You COULD play one, but you'd be ignoring major elements of the class and that would hurt you.
Some of you missed the point, i know there will be a pet but im not talking about the dmg of the pet+ranger vs warrior all though warrior will probably win since the warrior has more armor so he can just kill the pet in melee then grab a bow and kill the ranger, since the ranger will have to touch the pet in order to resurect him... but thats besides the point.
What i was talking about is the fact that it is pointless for a ranger class who by definition has less armor because its a class that is ment to avoid dmg by staying at a distance from the powerfull melee classes, however the advantage of distance will be nullified because a warrior will just kill him without the need to come close.
Most games around usually have some sort od way for a character to specialize in order to adapt the character to their playstyle however GW2 is doing the other way around by forcing a playstyle upon the players.
I mean lets be honest their forcing Ranger to be a close-mid range fighter while making the warrior melee and ranged expert fighter, this makes no sense from a RPG prespective, lets imagine a group fight will have warriors going melee in the battle front will have rangers and casters in the mid and warriors again in the back.
Again my point is Heavy armorded classes should not good at ranged combat, there is a point why mages use light armor and rangers used medium armor, so there is also a reason why warriors have heavy armor and clearly its NOT for keeping distance from the target.
You have no idea how much of a difference armor makes, how much ranged damage a warrior can do, how resistant a ranger is to ranged attacks (he could have things in addition to armor), etc, etc.
It's far to early to freak out about this when ArenaNet still has many ways to balance the game.
I think you're missing the point of what was said dude.
One of the big things about the Ranger is it's pet. If you don't want a pet, why play a ranger? Multiple classes can use ranged weapons to some degree now. What makes the Ranger special SO FAR is the pet. Do we have all of the facts about the ranger class yet? I doubt it. I mean we know few of it's skills. But if you don't want a pet, why play a ranger? That's like playing a certain race and not making use of their specialty abilities.
Besides, have you seen the Warrior? It has some seriously badarse ranged moves. The ranger does too, but I think the Ranger uses their pet as a wall so that they can ravage foes from range. If you don't want a pet, you'll need a buddy to be that wall, and hope they're a darn good wall.
Of course, the melee ranger looks pretty fun too
MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P
Tyroki that's exactly my point, i dont want to be forced to be a beastmaster, if you like it good for you but in the old GW i liked Ranger because it was the main bow character and in most occasions hardly anyone used the pet anyways.
I don't want my dmg to be dependent on a pet AI i would like the option of not having a pet and dedicate my self to my bow/traps/rituals, i dont know if there will be any taunting skills for PvE but in PvP the pet will actually be a bother because you have to be in touch range to resurrect him which means you have to be too close for comfort.
I think its unfair for Rangers to be forced into a pet class, while the warrior class gained a bigger range of choices and excels with a weapon that was mainly a Ranger weapon.
Rangers should be agility fighters with medium armor who excel at ranged combat with capable melee who's survivability depends on dodge and speed. since their survivability usually relies on keeping some distance that's why rangers have ranged abilities to cripple(crippling shot) and some to knock back foes(point blank shot), this was true in the first GW, made sense, was according to the lore and was balanced.
Warriors should be heavy armored fighters who excel in melee combat with capable mid-range dmg who's survivability depends on armor. However they now also excel at ranged combat and also have skills that cripple(pin down) and skills to know back foes(kick), this was NOT true in the first GW, this is NOT according to the lore, makes NO sense and its unfair for the other class which are mainly ranged.
So tell me what exactly is the Role of the ranger then when clearly a warrior with a bow can do about the same with more survivability.
It's true that we dont know how things will work and everything is proabably gonna game a bit until the game is launched, however what the lead designer said was straight and in my personal opinons it ruins the Ranger gameplay.
Ok, let's look at this in a hypothetical scenario:
1. It's not as black and white as this: Potentially while the warrior is "killing" the pet, the pet is attacking = draining energy and health from warrior &/or stopping the warrior attacking the ranger while the ranger may attack/control/support/damage and move around etc. If the ranger is able to manipulate the warrior with the best context ie pet attacks first or right combination of spec'd to deal with the warrior the fight is fair.
2. Incorrect: The ranger can heal the pet at range.
3. Now things are evened up maybe? Is the warrior able to max it's adrenaline while attacking/being attacked by the pet? Is the warrior traits max for range? Does the ranger have any ability to avoid damage at range other than just armour? Does the ranger change weapons when the warrior despatches the pet/inbetween rez'ing it? etc etc
4. Opposite: Players can use weapon sets to change their playstyle and traits to specialize: All professions have this eg Elementalists with Attunements.
5. The gradings of armour are only indicative atm. There is no solid info on what effect this will have and is not easy to compare what this means to other mmos, either.
So, I do not see what is to be worried about? Instead of worrying that the warrior is OP ranged, it's been said the ranger is effective melee also (as well as ranged or a combo of the two) someone else could easily start worrying that the ranger is too good at melee and should only be ranged (!).
The only concern I can see for the ranger is the Pet AI needs to very responsive and not let the ranger down is a box that needs ticking for sure. The ranged concern, I think is too premature to worry about just yet though?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
i think there is 2 choices for those of you who are worried about the no pet ranger!
either do as suggested and play a warrior,
or put you faith in the shortbow.
Its all about perspective.
You are complaining about the game having another playable ranged option called a warrior, just because you now are worried that a ranger would be off less value when behaving eksactly like a warrior. You realise, i hope, that many are actual happy that the warrior gets a playable ranged option.
The agility argument does not belong with the use of the longbow. Because you are standing still while using it. The warrior have his armour and the ranger his pet, to offset that he is a sitting duck while using it! If you want to play a no pet longbow user, play a warrior. Thats how the game is designed!
The shortbow is for the ranger using his agility, and that option does the warrior not have. Shooting while moving! Enjoy it. We are still to see how much a disadvantage a no pet setup will be, and what can be done with traits. But so far the move while shooting with a shortbow is only for the ranger! With or without a pet , that sounds like a ranger to me!
This hasn't been brought up much but I think the major advantage of the Ranger over the Warrior, is how agile the Ranger is compared to the Warrior. The when talking about the Warrior's ranged capabilities, they have the choice between the Longbow and the Rifle. Both weapons have skills that take a while to cooldown and the skills cannot be used on the move. On the other hand, sure the Ranger's Longbow is fairly weak compared to the Warrior's Longbow but the Ranger's Shortbow is where it's weapon advantage lies. The Shortbow allows the ranger to move whilst laying down the hurt, which also gives the Ranger the chance to inflict extra damage whilst attacking from behind the opponent. Let's no forget the dodge feature, which will easlily allow the Ranger to dodge most attacks from the Warrior's Longbow, whilst being able to attack on the move.
This video illustrates my point very well and the reason the pet dies a lot is because the owner never used the heal skill.
Also, if the Ranger is caught a melee confrontation it's not to difficult to swap out to a Sword and do Serpent Strike, follow by Hornet Sting and go back to the Shortbow. So it's not about how OP the Warrior is with a Longbow but how you decide to use your Ranger.
So.
Range + Mobility + Pet
That surely beats
Static ranged , warrior has
You're just making that up. You have no basis for saying the warrior has more survivability beyond armor, but that ignores the fact you don't know if armor makes much of a difference or what the differences in abilities for the two classes are. You don't know how the traits are different either. So you really don't have any idea how the damage dealing compares between the two OR the survivability. The Dev just said that if you don't want a pet...THEN DON'T PLAY A PET CLASS. That's pretty obvious, imho. There's no reason to think that a warrior going range is going to be superior to a ranger (differently, surely, but superior? There's way too little information to make that kind of declaration).
You mentioned taunting. That won't exist in GW2 (and didn't in GW1). There's NO Holy Trinity mechanic in this game. There's no tank/dps/healer split up with classes.
Now, you certainly can't play a ranger without a pet in GW2, not effectively anyhow. That's the class defining feature. They will surely have other people wearing light armor though, quite possibly one of them (perhaps the one loosely based off the assassin from GW1) will suit you for your ranged character.
Your fears are unfounded.
Pets will add buffs to you and your group, making them advantageous to have. In addition, pets offer the ranger something the warrior can only dream of... the ability to attack multiple targets at any range in any direction. Say you have a bad guy charging you from the right and another from the left. The warrior picks one, attacks and hopes he kills it before needing to switch weapons to attack the other as it's upon him. If he doesn't, then he has two enemies on him but goes into his strength... melee combat. The Ranger, on the other hand, sends the pet to attack and control one (damaging and affecting it's ability to focus the ranger) while using his superior ranged abilities to take down the other one. The Ranger will be more effective at killing the first target at range, his specialty, then can turn to the second target the pet has been damaging and controlling (cripples, etc.). The second target now goes down at range as well.
Both styles are effective... the warrior softens at least one up before letting his armor and superior melee come into play where the ranger kills them at range without needing to worry about weaker armor. The pet is a tool that gives ranged multi-directional control abilities to the ranger and incredible versatility.
Rangers will be effective at melee combat as well should the enemy indeed get close, just not as effective as the warrior. It's ultimately about playing to your strengths without being gimped by your weaknesses. You may be "weaker" than other professions at certain aspects, but you won't be ineffective by any means. It's the new balance.
Oderint, dum metuant.
I also think you are missing the boat on classes in GW2 in general.
Every class seems to be able to swap between 3-4 different modes. Take the mage for example, they can swap to water to heal, earth to tank, wind for crowd control I think, and fire for dps.
They then can swap between staves for long range single target, wands for short range aoe, and daggers for melee pbaoe.
So should we be wtf daggers are for scouts and mages shouldn't tank? Well, remember this is NOT a holy trinity game (DPS, Healing, Tanking). Every class can fill every role in thier own way with this game.
A warrior who wants to be a ranged dps will have the mechanics to do so just as well (when balanced) with any other typically ranged class. Your ranger will have a pet. It is your mechanic. Not using a pet is like not using adrenaline as a warrior. But you will still have range, you will still have short range, you will still have melee.
From what I've seen in the various blogs etc, warriors armed with a ranged weapon get very different special attacks from those used by a ranger. This difference is also seen when the ranger changes to melee weapons, and gets a very different choice of attacks to those of a warrior.
On balance warriors using melee weapons will do more damage than they would with their ranged weapon, and the ranger would be the opposite, doing more damage with his bow.
I think it's safe to say that Anet would not make such a basic, fundamental error as to confuse the two class's abilities in the way you think.
I'd assume that a warrior geared, skilled and traited for ranged effectiveness, wouldn't rip things up in melee too.
The system seems very flexible.
As long as they're *trying* to balance classes, it shouldn't be a problem.
I like the idea that you can completely change a classes playstyle by personalising the gear, skills and traits.
I don't think it's a fundamental error to have a warrior fully dedicated to range do more ranged damage than a ranger that is not dedicated to range. They're just different ways to do ranged.
<Welcome to my world>
I agree with OP. I play a ranger in GW and I rarely uses the pet myself, it is fine that they made the pet better but a Ranger should be able to be equal to a warrior at range combat even without the pet.
Why do Warriors have the ability to use muskets but not rangers? One would think that rangers should be the true master of range combat while warriors are the master of melee.
I am really looking forward to the game but I am not so sure that I will play a ranger as main this time. I didn't really like the warrior in GW but the chances are that it will be my main class in GW2, unless they reveal a musketeer.
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/healing-death/
The trinity is gone, just because warriors are usally thought of as melee tank classes dosn't mean they will now be super tanks with wtf pwn ranged attacks.
Same goes with Rangers, just because they were the super ranged class dosn't mean they will be the only one anymore. You can complain about how you don't like the new system all you want but it's here.
Also rangers get short bows, movement + attacking at ranged how does that not perfectly fit with.
"i like the idea of being a long ranged fighter that puts more emphasis in agility and reflexes other then brute strength."
-------------------------------------------------
Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 86.67%, Killer 60.00%, Socializer 33.33%
EKSA
-------------------------------------------------
I would say that arenanet would never over look a balance issue like that but many companies have been very disappointing lately.
However, arenanet seems (and I stress) seems to be putting a lot of thought into every part of this game that I would be shocked if they over looked it.
The other thing is as a community MMO gamers have been wanting to change...some of that may be in an area that we love. I always enjoyed playing the healer....I am losing that in GW2. At first I was upset and then I realized that this change could be good for the mmo community and so I started thinking how else I would like to play. I'm not saying that the OP shouldn't be upset. What I'm saying is, that we should wait it out for more information.
I read that article as the ranger is at its best with a pet in GW2 and if you don't want a pet they didn't see the point in playing that class. Not necessarily that a warrior is going to do so much more damage with a bow than a ranger with a bow absent a pet.
Currently Playing: FFXIV:ARR
Looking Forward to: Wildstar
@OP
I think thisis still the case. Even though Warriors with bow can deal more ranged damage or have ranged AoE, I believe they will be restricted via resources.
I can see the use of Kick; a warrior kicking a mob away from the Elementalist then engaging it in melee.
As far as I'm concern, Warrior has the brute Ranged skills, while Rangers has the more tactical ranged skills.
In GW1, Rangers are better in melee than a warrior sometimes due to their natural armor vs elements and their physical armor is almost as good as warriors, plus the wide range of Dodge skills. And with warrior skills, you don't use up a lot of energy due to adrenaline skills.
A Ranger with Axe in GW2 is simply a R/W compare to GW1. While a Warrior with bow in GW2 is a W/R in GW1, like you said.
Ready for GW2!!!
This view of the different ways that the warriors and rangers use bows/axes/swords is overly simplistic. Rescourses aren't a factor for weapon skills for any profession (unless they change something from the demo). The utility skills and dodging is where all the energy goes.
OP: The warriors using ranged attacks will be very effective, but not more so than rangers can be. Its just that if you want to forsake using a pet, then a lot of the ranger's skills wouldn't be effective. That would make trying not to use a pet pretty stupid.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
There are 8 classes, do you really think there are going to be any weapons only usable by one class? I'm sure there will be more classes using guns. I wouldn't be surprised if every weapon had 3 classes at least that could use it.
Anyhow, Rangers in GW2 are the Nature-oriented class. That's the best way to think of them. Warriors are the "I can use tons of weapons" class. Both have aspects that use ranged weapons. Anyhow, I doubt any class is going to be all about ranged weapons. Heck, even the Elementalist can go with point blank spells from their weapons. We're not going to have any classes that only do melee either. So you can expect to see more ranged weapon users.
Personally, I've always felt it was redundant to split "warrior" and "ranger" into two separate classes in the first place… particularly so if you're hell bent on not using a pet. It's not quite the same, but it's almost akin to saying I want to play an Elementalist for the robes but don't want to use magic.
I think the quote was basically saying.
If you don't want to use your meatshield (pet) for extra dps and keeping things off you then play the warrior which has the armor to survive in close and dps that is less dependent on pet.
This makes perfect sense because if the Ranger didn't need his pet at all but had the extra dps and damage soaking it provided if they wanted then the rangers that used their pets would all be better than warriors.