wariors are to powerfull!!!

Doesnt read all post, but most of 1st page
i dun see sum1 said the most important point, so i say it now


Warriors are anti ranger, the have badass armour and +armour vs phy.
with a shield, rangers only do like 5 dmg a hit

Therefore being a ranger, u should not stand still and letting a warrior attack u, unless u have some 75% evade/block skill or throw dirt (thats anti warrior build, Throw dirt, Whirling Def, Trap, Pin down... etc)

u should do hit and run, inflict some conditions on the warrior (posion, bleed, cripple)

The same logic, ranger are anti mage (E and Me)
due to mass interrupt and +30 armour vs ele.

Every Class is Anti Other Class if played correctly.

I have three characters.
A Ranger/Mesmer, a Warrior/Monk, and a Monk/Warrior. My Ranger/Mesmer was a Ranger/Warrior throughout most of the game, then when he ascended I changed him to Mesmer because I was getting really bored of Warriors.
Of all my characters, though, I like my Ranger the best.
The sheer power he packs is completely amazing. You say you own rangers in competitive arenas. Good for you. Were they level 15 and you level 20? I own level 20 warriors with my level 20 Ranger. Simply because he is fast and efficient. I don't remember who said it, but a ranger WILL laugh at the burning, bleeding, crippled, poisoned warrior trying to chase him with an axe.

Too low attack speed? Tiger's fury! Or even use STORM CHASER, you can move up to 25% faster for up to 18 seconds. AND you GAIN energy when taking elemental damage!
Run out of energy too fast? Expertise!
No shield? Well neither do any of the other classes except warrior - are you suggesting that all of them suck as well? Oh, hey, guess what: hammers are two handed, are you suggesting that warriors who use hammers are stupid, or that they suck?
Too low damage? BLEEDING, POISONED, FLAME TRAPS! DAMAGE OVER TIME YOU NARROW-MINDED HACK-AND-SLASH DIABLO II WORSHIPPER!

Hell a ranger can even throw dirt, blinding all six warriors attacking him at once while he sets a flame trap, a dust trap, and a barbed trap before kicking the crap out of all of them with Barrage! Oh look, no more warriors.

And even look at Troll Unguent, arguably THE best self-healing spell in the game. You can have +9 or more hp regen for 10 seconds! That's 90 hp right there! If you do that while the six warriors are blind, bleeding, crippled, and on fire you're set to take them on again when they recover!

By the way, I take my Monk/Warrior into pvp once in a while. I can hold my own very well against two warriors beating on me while my team races to 'save the healer'. That's without a shield, by the way. I've got a 15-22 gladius and an icon that gives me more energy and health while enchanted (and I always have divine boon (an enchantment in case you didn't ever play a monk - which I'm sure of because you're convinced warrior, and warrior alone is the way to go) on me).
Just wait until I get a life-stealing or energy-boosting upgrade on my sword... I can hold out against those warriors twice as long.

The only decent thing with warriors is their ability to tank. They have armour that reduces damage recieved, even though it's expensive as hell with the fur required. It's barely worth it. Though, at the same time, monk armour is highly expensive... it's dipped into my savings greatly to get my monk amnoon armour... he has yet to ascend.
Back to warriors tanking, an elementalist can kick a warrior's ass with Lightning and other armour-ignoring spells. And if a ranger is beside that elementalist he can cripple the warrior, and then poison him and a myriad of other stuff.

The fact that your measure of a class is their 1 on 1 capability says undeniably that you understand very little about the game. Where in the game do you find 1 vs 1? Aside from the rare occasion in arenas... if your idea of a good class is what will win 95% of the time in a situation like that, I reiterate, you understand very little about the game.
You're the n00b, go have fun with your 112 rank - it really means nothing.

I've seen several threads complaining about the uselessness of rangers, but this is going too far. Apparently, the general motivation to hate on rangers is low damage and low attackspeed, especially compared to elementalists. With a zealous bowstring, tiger's fury, and barrage, you can deal about 35 damage every ~1.3 seconds to a group of five enemies to gain energy. If you want to add to that, +20% armor penetration from Judge's Insight, which ends up at about ~45 damage to a group of 5 enemies for free every ~1.3 seconds. There is a common misconception about rangers and damage, and I believe a good ranger can OUTDAMAGE an elementalist easily with the right skills for free.

"Look at their special attribute called "expertise". It decreases the mana cost for their skills. Seriously, lower mana cost on your skills won't help you kill any enemies."

Yes, using skills wont help kill enemies. Its all about regular attacks baby!

There is no class in GW that "sucks"...that is what makes it a great game is that it is all BALANCED....a R/Me can take out a caster fast...however he may have a problem with a warrior..but guess what his teammate comes in to take out that warrior...so as you see it is a team effort....some classes were made to defeat other classes and so forth.

As I said, some of them are better in that they beat more builds than others, but no build beats anywhere near every other build. Every build has its weaknesses.

well now, rangers do not suck. when used correctly they can quickly deal a massive amount of dmg. however, damage isnt really what most rangers are about. Rangers set traps and use spirits to influence battle. ie: a spirit of frozen soil is any spike groups best friend, not letting the enemy ressurect their dead monks. also, spirit of extinction works so that if your team is dying, you can set of a chain reaction and kill your enemies as they kill you.

Psycological Dragoons
Rank: 90 (what now noob)

Though I may not be into PvP as much and don't have ANY GvG experience, I have to agree with everyone who says rangers are good. I've played with my monk/ranger, ever since I got GW and even though I don't get the expertise bonus (that would be awesome ) I deal nice amounts of damage with the skills I DO have, and I'm not even trying to make my build based around ranger skills. I use mostly smiting spells (yes I know alot of people KNOW they suck ) but smite isn't a bad monk skill when combined with ranger skills that make you attack faster, because it will make you fire an arrow as soon as you let the string go that does holy damage, and then MORE holy damage if I'm being attacked. Add that plus some fire and poison damage, and it really isn't so bad to be a smiter

I DO have HoH experience so don't give me the PvE vs PvP stuff, I know there is a big difference, but, RANGERS DO NOT SUCK!!!

I take it you play a warrior? Wail on my monk with 10 HP all day and you wont kill me (granted no one else will either).

A ranger can easily kill in 1v1 at later levels with the right skills. I need to own your warrior with my ranger just for kicks. Pin down + surround you with traps + add poision and burning to you + interup your Healing Signet + sit there and wail on you from out of your range. once you start coming at me reapeat all steps and I can stop you from ever landing a hit on me for the entire match.

Monks are over rated even though they can make the best tanks in the game. Don't beleive me, then I dare 8 W/anythings to try and kill me a team of 8 W/N or W/Me might stand a chance but nothing else will.

the jist of most of your posts in reply are "i know how use ranger you don't u n00b" and the worst thing is that most of you are contricting each other trying to defend the ranger.

poor old xenogear says "if you know how to use a ranger right you can easily take out warrior" even though some one else says that warriors are "anti ranger" which would means even if you know how to use your ranger, if you fight another seasoned warrior then 8 out of 10 you will die and if you do win i doubt it would be easy, unless mr anti ranger is wrong.

and ristaron with all praise for the ranger, if "The only decent thing with warriors is their ability to tank" then why do 2/3rd of your characters involve warriors but only one of them is a ranger?

and to kishiin, why do you think 75% of all rangers are terrible, you are dissing alot of players there, could it be that may be there is a deep fault with the ranger if that many people are getting owned using one?

and how come most of you are using your posts as an example to brag about yourself? what has not being able to kill your monk or saying your monk/warrior can take on two warriors (ristaron) got to do with rangers sucking?

if rangers suck for 75 percent of the people then rangers suck because if they didn't they would be owning people. but as kishiin said they are not and has even likened killing a ranger to winning against a "one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest".

when used correctly a ranger is good, but when another class is also used correctly, they are better.

the only way you would win against most other classes is not because the ranger is better but because you would be smarter then the opponant, being more tactical makes up for it in GW. it is a fact and the king has said so himself that most warriors are immature teens who want instant power and front line hack slash so obviously any one with a bit of tactics can beat them regardless of class, even a ranger.

fact is, if you let some one play GW for a day, at the end of it most would not chose a ranger as a top class and in polls on other forums the ranger ranked one of the lowest in most liked classes, so for some it hits the spot but for the rest they suck.

Just to get that: The ranger shoots an arrow and waits till it hits the enemy, before shooting again?


That is off topic: But how does a good elementalist or monk, defeat a good mesmer? Or in a different way: How would you skill a profession, if you have to fight another profession in a 1vs1?
We have to assume that both players are equally good and equipped!

Care to give an example?

Bwahahahahahaha

1) I've seem MANY warriors turn tail and run after I put up Troll Unguent, Whirling Dervish, and Throw Dirt. This is the smart thing for them to do.

2) I've seen MANY warriors stay and attack me. This is an idiotic thing to do.

3) I've seen MANY warriors drop dead with ONLY me attacking them.

4) I've been in PLENTY of 4v4 fights where my ranger has been the decisive factor in a team winning or not.

5) It's very self gratifying seeing these numbers when I attack a level 20 elementalist/mesmer/monk/necromancer: -78 -78 -18 -18

Do you understand the concept of this game? You indicated you did, but then you made this comment.

Using your logic, there is one class that is 'the best'. That when played by the best player in the game, he/she will never lose because that class is simply the best. Why? ..because you've placed Rangers at the bottom of this list and so there must be someone at the top.

What class is that? Not 'flavor of the month' or 'most popular'. What class is the one that no one can beat if played by the best players?

The game is designed around player skill and the classes are very well balanced in regards to baseline side-by-side comparisons. It's when you start adding different skill combinations that things get mixed up. That's when the game becomes situational.

Can a Healing Monk kill a Warrior/Monk 1v1? Most likely not. Can a Smiting Monk kill a Warrior/Monk? Very good chance. ..but in each of those situations, would you label the losing class as 'sucking' across the board or would you say it was a bad matchup?

My take on why Ranger's aren't popular is because there is sooooo many options you have with them, that people get intimidated and just go play something more specific that doesn't require thinking beyond what skills to bring. With a ranger, you need to figure out what skills.. AND what role you want to fill.

Warriors are getting both over and underrated at the same time...

On one hand, you have the possibility of being ignored cause you're said to do too little dmg and recieve too little...

On the other hand, if everyone truely has the 'ignore warrior' mindset, then one warrior with the right dmg output skills [axe output] will chop you into tiny pieces very quickly with the help of his competent team. [he is on a team I hope...]

The idea of [ignore the warrior] is quite ridiculous in my opinion. Though I wish even the 'pros' would follow this rule. Everyone knows that you must target the warrior first to stop him through conditioning and hexes.

But for all you rangers who claim to own stupid warriors, I'd like to see an 8 ranger team fight 8 warriors with Shield's Up and Deflect Arrows...

good game... *not*...

Anyone can own anyone in the right circumstance... lol

lol, got carried away, did some work which involved the "all men are equal but some men are more equal then others" quote, tried to implement it there but i guess it isn't true.

and since this topic popped up with trying to proclaim ranger uselessness there has been more sympethy, the polls show an increase in liking rangers which is suprising considering how many of them i see getting owned.

rock,paper, scissors, guns, bows, swords, hammers, wands, staves, axes, hornbows, halfmoon bows, recurve bows, powershot, sprint, chain lightning, etheral burden, well of blood, barrage, vampiric gaze, conjure phantasm....


so on and so forth

Don't you just love it when people who nothing about the game come posting because they've played a few games in the arena and think that makes them experts?

No, Warriors are not overpowered. In fact, they are very limited and are often not run in builds due to their inherent issues; having to get in melee range to attack, and running into each other while doing so. On maps with varying terrain, elevation, and so, Warriors can be completely useless. Multiple Warriors on a target bodyblock each other and wastes a lot of time and thus DPS. Your target can also kite around.

So, if you're running Warriors, you'd want to do it on maps where they are viable, have them on different targets, and bring a snare.

Rangers are awesome. They have good DPS, high armor against elementalists, energy denial immunity almost with Expertise reducing costs to to 2 energy, the best primary attribute in the game, more utility than any other, the best skill interruption, rituals that allow you to mess around with game mechanics, and I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.

Just because a class is designed to take out another doesn't mean it will. An equally skilled mesmer vs. elementalist, the mesmer most likely will win. But it won't ALWAYS win. If an elementalist were to play a mesmer 100 times, I'll bet eventually the Ele would come up with a series of skill that could beat the mesmer.

If you needed to skill a profession to fight another in 1v1, you would take either generic skills that would help out in any possible situation. Or take a certain strategy that may work excellently on one class while being OK against others. For example, if I were using a Ranger in 1v1 random arena. I would take my distracting and concussion shots, while covers interruption over all the classes. A self heal, troll ungent. Some sort of damaging shot such as penetrating, power, or dual. A few traps, most likely barbed or dust. Throw dirt, and Poison Arrow elite. This way I can cover a wide variety of fields. Blind and traps for warriors. Concussion and Distracting for spellcasters, plus posioning and damage shots for the kill.

Men.
You know, this guy - original poster - was a troll, looking for a flame. Guess he made one.

Fascinating! Absolutely fascinating!
I gotta go with the majority and say that there is NO class that is better than any other. We all have personal favorites and ones we know how to play. I have mostly played an elementalist since release but in beta I played a ranger and I have one in the works now. I have to agree that early on in the game the skill selection is less than wonderful but it definitely gets better. Several of my guildmates run rangers and do a damn fine job of it too.
1V1 in this game is a waste of time, I think. There are too many variables to consider. If you plan your build to take down one type of character the others will hand you your butt in a sling. On the other hand I don't think there is a build for any profession that can stand up to all other professions. This is a team based game and you are supposed to work with your team. Paine talks about owning rangers, but really I wonder what is the rest of his team doing? There wouldn't be a mesmer or Protection monk standing behind him giving him that edge while he takes out 1 ranger would there? (That would be 3V1 wouldn't it)
I very much enjoyed the discussion in this thread because it really does highlight one of the strengths of GW. "There is no one true answer." But isn't it fun trying to figure it out!

[QUOTE=Amnisac]Here is my comment to you post paine.

( ALL RANGERS SUCK, YES ALL )
Just by this I know you know nothing about rangers, and your following comments will be incorrect.

Rangers suck overall. They're not even good as supporters.
Interuption, traps, not to mention we can inflict EVERY kind of condition.

* To low damage:
We only deal low damage if you use the ranger incorrectly. I can kill enemies faster than most of my elementalist friends can.
* Low attackspeed:
We have plenty of skills at our disposal to increase attack speed, and arrow flight time.
* No Shield:
Plenty of other classes don't use shields, we have no disadvantage by not having one.
* Getting out of mana fast:
Expertise.

Look at their special attribute called "expertise". It decreases the mana cost for their skills. Seriously, lower mana cost on your skills won't help you kill any enemies. Even if they had the warriors special attribute "Strength" with armor penetration they'd still suck.:
Expertise allows us to use more skills in a shorter ammount of time than any other class.

You may call me a "n00b" but everyone in my guild agrees with me.
A little advertisement:
Clan Takeda
Rank: 112:
>>>xIt is apperant now that rank has nothing to do with knowldge of the game.<<<x[/QUOTE]
NICE perfect summation man.

and your right aAn net has dont a fairly awesome job of balanceing the ranger. its a spectacular job concidering all of the possibilities avalaiable to a straight ranger.
by using expertise you can not only cut you skill cost to half (12 points) you also have attack skills based on expertise, that are very effective.
you can cripple bleed poison your target, interrupt, sap energy,
shucks you can add poision and THEN use pindown WITh the poision
and all from 100m away at a recycle rate of mod,....ooh i wanna go home and redo my skillz.. anyway its nonsensical for anyone to deem a proffesion in GW as weak or sucks , as soon as you do you will open an avalanche of opposition.

what people seem to fail to realize is that everyone has different aptitude levels when playing any game. some people, just beacause of how they process things will not be able to use certain professions well. This is normally explained as "i just could not get the hang of..." the problem is is that the matruty of the user/player comes into play/judgement. the mature player will move on and try other things untill they find the set up that "fits". this process should cause one to get a practical respect for the proffessions they could not master, but unfortunatly as has been seen here, people take the stand that the road to success is more power, instead of lern to use it as it was meant to be.

what is this a noob thread? lol .... sorry damage wise rangers are quite powerful ... if your not or never have played a ranger to the end of the game and got all the necessary skills to compete ... then ya ... i can see how your ranger could get owned ... its like battling someone while your dancing naked.

I've been a ranger since beta, learn how to play an effective 1vs1 ranger before responding in here. I joined a group of debilitating/interrupters and made it to the Hall of Heroes with 6 rangers. OMG no energy what? thats right, ... in arenas, I usually bring more self sufficent skills with 1 or 2 slots to aid an ally. Really do the research first please before calling out rangers as useless ...

As a complete outsider to this thread, and reading everything up until this post at the same time, I have only the following to say:

People are stupid.
Paine is beyond stupid.

Allow me to show a simple demonstration of Paine's logic.
Paine, omg, ur char is ghey and likes men and sucks.

Thus, you have been defeated in a 1v1 battle of wits of your own choosing.

In fact, after reading all of this, I'm going to put my three magic users on hold and make a ranger.

Well, concerning your first attack on me: I chose Warrior as the primary for my second character because of the armour and I wanted to try one out since I kept seeing overabundances of them. That, and later in the game alot of the time people want as many warriors and as many monks with as little other as can be pushed in a party. It has nothing to do with my believing they are the best class, or even ranking in the top classes.
And as for me having a monk/warrior, I thought it was obvious: a monk's wand is slow and deals less damage than a sword. I happen to be fond of swords, very fond of them, so I decided I wanted my monk to have one for better protection and because it looked cool.

Concerning your second attack on me: I was not bragging about myself, I was explaining how warriors are so overrated. I easily PLed my monk, he's in the crystal desert at level 12. And you know what? He could take on my warrior 1 on 1 any time. My Warrior, on the other hand, I only skipped all the maguuma because that area bored me to tears. She's not yet level 20, or ascended... actually my monk is right where she is, only several levels lower.
My ranger, even at the level of my monk, was easily one of the most useful players on the team (next to the monks, not the warriors ).

Concerning your arrogant last comment about 'playing guild wars for a day then voting'. Pardon me but you obviously have not been paying attention.
Half the people have stated (and correctly at that) that rangers DO take a while to get going. I happened to have played ranger in the betas so I knew a great build which got my ranger going at level 12/13. But rangers don't show their real colours until the later levels when it really matters.
Heard the phrase passed around here that levels 1-20 are a 'tutorial'? They're pretty much right. It takes you until level 20 to get a feel for your character and know how to play them. By the time you get to level 20 you should be ascended (unless you cheat and PL). And it's past ascension that it really matters.
So why don't you stop playing the competition arenas and play the one off Droknar's Forge where skilled players (and rangers) play. You'll see how pitiful your precious warrior really is, n00b.

Reading comprehension. Learn it. I likened winning in the competition arena to bragging about beating a one legged man at an ass kicking contest, not killing a Ranger to the same. The competition arena isn't exactly the pinnacle, of, well...competition. There are a lot of extremely bad players out there (Monks who panic at the first sign of a Warrior closing on them, causing themselves to run about the arena and not heal anyone, people who run through the lava in the Crag to get to the other team, people who cast Soothing Images on a non-Warrior)

Furthermore, my 75% of Rangers sucking referred to PvP Rangers in the Arena (And PUG Tombs, I'll even dare to include) because 90% of these people refuse to play to a Ranger's strength and concentrate on trying to be a Warrior with a bow, so they can have the glory of 'owning' people by the dozens. You need only to look at the number of Rangers who bring pets to the Arena without putting ANY points in Beastmastery to immediately spot a bad Ranger. It doesn't prove that there's a flaw with the Ranger. It just proves that the Ranger isn't a pure "I hit them with the big damage till they fall down" class, which a lot of people seem to have troule understanding.

The basicthought process of your average Tombs PUG/Arena Player goes like this: "Doing damage good, healing good, utility WTF?"

Bottom line being that there are no bad classes. Unfortunately, there is a boatload of bad players out there, more than there are good.

I'm not that great at pvp but what does 1vs1 have to do with anything...

Paine, shut up while you're ahead. You're a crappy debater and saying that a class sucks in this game makes you down right ignorant. Rangers can be the best class in the right hands, so can basically any class. Maybe you're a warrior or an ele and you just love spamming attacks on a guy. Not the way the game is won.

EDIT: To other posts: Noobs getting owned as rangers doesn't make the ranger a fault. It simply means that the ranger is a profession to be played by a skilled player. Is that bad? I see no reason why you can't have a class targetted at the skilled players that like a challenge rather than running into combat and hoping your monk can heal you well enough while pressing 1 2 3 4 5 in a sequence.

Such logic is refreshing to read. Thank you for pointing out that attacking the person and not the argument is nothing but rhetoric.