User talk:77.249.45.102

Inferior already?

→ moved from Talk:Ranger

It could just be me, but when I compare the vids of other professions with those of the ranger I become aware on the fact that the damage dealt is much lower. Anyone also noticed this? Perhaps you guys can share some opinions? :) (I am gonna play Ranger anyway though ^^) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.249.45.102 (talk).

Forgot to sign and yeah, I have noticed that. Although, it seems that in lots of the videos the people have their pets on passive and Rangers are most effective when their pets are fighting alongside them actively. Maybe that's why? 209.89.54.162 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

An observation I made while hunting for their biography icons is that literally no one at demos plays ranger for whatever reason. We have like...20 demo vids of elementalist gameplay, and two vids of ranger gameplay... I think the best thing to do would be to wait and see... Aqua (T|C) 05:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And NO necro footage! Check out here and you'll see rangers are not the ...poorest.Glastium | talk 05:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow cant believe they put necro at the bottem of the foodchain. I mean it has some quite good skills not to forget huge healths :O 77.249.45.102 07:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input so far guys (and ye forgot to sign, I am quite new to wiki and didnt make an account yet. I do hope that the "bird call skill" (dont know the exact name) will be available soon cause it looks pretty badass :) Hope more ppl will respond 77.249.45.102 05:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with aqua, I see some ranger not use pets, I mean how can u not use pets as a ranger (sure it gw 1 it took some slots but none in GW 2) Also I hope the black widow pet can spit poison or immobilize or something in that category. Im quite pumped I must say >< TheFreaker 05:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think you can possibly comment at this stage about the damage dealing capabilities of each profession. Personally the Ranger doesn't excite me as it's very similar to the original GW ranger. Some may like that if they loved the previous one, but for me, and I think alot of other people, from what Aqua said, would rather try other professions first. Kaloce 08:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, Kaloce. But I do have to disagree with you saying that the Ranger in GW 2 is similar to the one in GW 1. Because: Now u can also have ur pet out (at the expense of nothing I might add), furthermore the ranger has become more flexible (true every proffession has become more "flexible" in a sort of way), last but not least: I think the ranger wont have that much of an energy problem as in GW 1 (with the exception of marksmans wager rangers *kuchs*). So to summuarise: I do think the Ranger has changed, but so has every profession. I do thank you for your input though, because I agree it's to early to give a (final) verdict on any of the professions :) I hope more comments will follow ^^ TheFreaker 08:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

inb4 being called innumerable insulting names, but; if you would like to continue a general discussion about the ranger, we should move this topic (when it gets much longer) where it is more appropriately place (someone's userspace) as talk pages are fine for shorter discussions, but not for long-winded ones. They exist to discuss edits made to the article, not the subject. A link will remain here for easy navigation. :) - Infinite - talk 09:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

An energy problem as in GW 1? Sounds like you weren't playing the ranger right, since the ranger manages energy so well. --Riddle 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha ofcourse I did use expertise, but when i compared it to other profs, the ranger seemed to have more problems managing energy (with the exception of the war), but I do have to agree that it depends on your playstyle and its true I havent played the ranger THAT much :)

I also agree with Infinite. We should move this discussion (just by measuring the amount of reponse I got in one day (A) and thats a good thing! Problem is I don't exactly know how to "move" the subject to another page (wiki newb here) so would anyone be so kind and leave the link on this page? And again I would like to thank you guys for your input so far :)

I moved it to the opening comment's IP's talk (a bit rare and stuff but yea) and aside from the occasional monitoring for personal attacks and whatnot, it's a free and open discussion here. Enjoy! :) - Infinite - talk 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A that would be my IP XD, hope some staff of NCsoft will respond to this page :)

Thanks for moving this Infinite, I would have but I am still getting used to the wiki. To return to my earlier point, I understand there are actually quite a few changes to the ranger and others (such as the warrior/elementalist) have perhaps changed less. However I feel a little dissapointed that other professions can use bows. This was something quite individual in the GW1 ranger but I feel the ranger is covered by the warrior and other professions so might not be as fun or varied to play? Kaloce 17:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I also found it rather disappointing that wars and thiefs can use bows, what will be the added value of the ranger then?77.249.45.102 17:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, in GW1 (and almost all other RPG games) if you wanted to use bows, you played the ranger. Now I feel the warrior seems to be much more versatile. The only truely unique thing that the ranger seems to have is a pet. Kaloce 13:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The versatility of weapons makes this game interesting (thus far). I believe that the pets haven't really been given enough credit. Firstly, they can be used as tanks. Traits such as nature's Care should ensure that they stay alive much longer. In GW1 I generally used my ranger to harass, never really as a powerhouse. I suspect that I would be playing the ranger in GW2 much in the same way. "[I]n GW1...if you wanted to use bows, you played the ranger", ever play with a sin barrager before? In GW1 you had the option to use bows on any character, just make a */R and you've got access to bow skills. There used to be a pain in the ass E/R build way back. Can't remember what it used, perhaps a lightning stringed bow and invoke lightning?Hopefully at the next showing, someone can truly open up with the pets, I have a good feeling that they will be quite a wonderful asset. Venom20 13:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The ranger in GW1 is considered the weakest profession to play as a main character. Whilst I disagree that primary rangers are considered weak, I do consider primary rangers with bows and pets extremely weak. In PvP rangers are slightly more dominant but most usually only for harrassing a target with interrupts and conditions. Since their initial big nerf, waaaay back in 2006 or something, rangers have fallen into the under-used tier. In GW2 it does start to appear as though this trend will carry on but don't forget that skill videos are not in any way indication of their potential. We have no access to the full game at this point, so drawing conclusions now is a little prejudice-biased. That said, if the pets are more durable as well as more of a powerhouse, I am sure that the utility of a ranger will always be appreciated in GW2. It is one of the professions I am most curious towards (again, given their bad and justified reputation in GW1 these days).

I do not wish to offend ranger fans, but you have to admit that this profession is not very popular in GW1 anymore. At least not as popular as they used to be (and maybe even should be). - Infinite - talk 14:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I do agree that with skills being linked to weapons, and weapon swapping being a much bigger part of GW2, different combinations and variety in weapons is a good thing. There's something so quintessentially ranger about using a bow though. With the original guild wars having secondary professions you could use a bow, but not be a primary ranger however it was still linked to marksmanship meaning you were forced to take it as a secondary. From the looks of it you could happily use a thief or warrior with a bow now. It does seem that pets will play a much bigger role in GW2 which is exciting, as you will always have your pet with you rather than having to make a decision between bow or pet. Kaloce 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A heads up, you can use the template {{ri}} to have that special (Reset indent) as you do this.

That aside, I believe that GW1 rangers with a bow aren't anything special (many primary attributes of the other professions can actually improve the efficiency of using a bow, expertise can not). If they'd rework expertise to give some form of bonus to bow attacks in GW1, then quite possibly bows could be viable again, at least on rangers. I wonder if the ranger will be properly reworked in the future for GW1.

As for GW2; we have a lot less ranger information compared to the other professions. Maybe the ranger wasn't as done as it was supposed to be but did they release it early due to a schedule back then. It would explain why the frequency of reveals dropped severely after the necromancer, the second profession that wasn't as perfect as the first 2 (necro is being reworked already). - Infinite - talk 15:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with infinite, I think the ranger is still being modded, so is the necro. Thanks for all the replies btw, makes me quite happy face :)

Bow ranger NOT inferior to bow warrior

Lately I was worried about the position of the bowranger, because the war and thief can also equip bows. I last saw a video about a bow warrior, and it made me believe the ranger is superior with bows in three ways, namely:

1. Rangers can use shortbows, wars cannot which make them more static 2. Most of the wars (long)bow skills are static AOE attacks, these are easily dodged (with exception of some skills) 3. (MOST IMPORTANT) the war burns up ALOT of energy when using bowskills and while dodging (old war energy cure lol?) makes kinda sense because shooting arrows and dodging in heavy armor would make me quite fatigued.[EDIT: especially the dodging seems energy costly]

I wonder what you guys think of this all, peace. (BTW here is the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ_88M3mAFQ)TheFreaker 05:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think the ranger will be inferior to a warrior using a bow - if it is then that's a serious flaw. However just the fact that the warrior can use a longbow will make him/her arguably more versatile and adaptable. The video is great by the way, and I see what you mean about the longbow skills being mainly AOE. The thief can use a shortbow though. I feel they could maybe add in a few more types of bow, just for the ranger, maybe a hornbow type bow could be interesting? Rather than giving the ranger access to things such as a greatsword, as it is at the moment, which I presume the warrior will be overall 'better' at using (i.e. higher armor/damage?). This is all just speculation I must add. Kaloce 09:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The GW2 ranger may have access to both bows but that never implied it must use a bow. The aim in GW2 is that not a single profession is inferior to another. Traits and unique mechanics are clear indications of this.

That said, the warrior has access to a longbow which has a massive range (if the skill videos weren't tweaking range as well as recharge and power), but that is it. A warrior with a longbow should know when it is more pressing to start using a melee weapon (or at least a rifle, for serious ranged damage). It is the ranger's versatility that makes it stand out as a profession, not its bows. A bow ranger is one of the many options. - Infinite - talk 10:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I know there are more sorts of rangers then "bow rangers" but I find it hard to imagine using a ranger without a bow, still I agree with a ranger not being inferior to a war of whatever. It just felt like that when I compared the dmg with other professions. But as mentioned earlier it is still to early to tell what the exact dmg numbers will be (for any profession) 77.249.45.102 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)