Marksmanship Modification

I think Marksmanship needs to do more than it currently does. Currently it deals only with damage, but Marksmanship should be about more than damage. My idea is that as your Marksmanship attribute gets higher, you should be able to shoot arrows quicker and more accurately. True Marksmanship is more about speed and accuracy than anything else, so that should be true in Guild Wars as well.

hmmm. interesting, but one thing:
if this goes, the same goes for hamer, sword and axe?

No, why would it go for melee weapons? Melee weapons have no chance to miss unless altered by spell.

It'd be nice if the chances for stray and dodged shots would decrease up to 6%. It's rather odd to have a 13 in marks and have the shot miss because that stupid Grawl decides to do a hiccup in the patrol route.

I suppose that's a good point. However... to a lesser degree. When you're using a bow, speed increases very dramatically when you change from an intermediate level to an advanced level. While there's a big difference in swordsmanship from amateur to intermediate, after that point it's more about getting in hits and less about speed. As for hammers... you really don't swing hammers fast. Axes I don't really know anything about, so I can't speak for that. Anyways, I suppose warriors could possibly use something like this too but I think it's most needed with marksmanship.

Another thing... I think it would be worth it for low-level rangers to have relatively bad accuracy and speed to allow room for improvement (though it would have to improve beyond where it is now at upper levels, rangers as they are now fire way slower than they should in my opinion). In fact, I think low levels in general shouldn't be as accurate and fast as they are. I'd like to see a person today pick up a bow and hit the broad side of a barn. This might make it discouraging at first, but I think after a couple levels it should get to be decent and this would make people more encouraged.

Meaning giving the already tarnished Ranger name an even worse start off? No thanks. I think starting them off at a certain point (i.e. start normally) then improve every 3 or so levels of marks.

Not being able to hit *anything* with a Ranger will make everyone cry and say, "OMFG Rngrz sock1 Pet suk + no dmg! ROLZ!"

...solo-ing would arse up, too. In a really bad way.

Well I realize that, and I'm not saying you wouldn't be able to hit anything. Perhaps they could institute some kind of a training to start the game off with. I don't know, that part of the idea isn't the most important part, I just want higher level marksmanship to be rewarded with faster and more accurate firing.

Oh and also, as I said in my post, that wouldn't just be for rangers. I think all professions need somewhat of a nerf at the very beginning of the game. Warriors and rangers especially. Not something that would last long, just for a couple levels.

Don't get me wrong, Sholtar, I think it's a great idea. The only thing is, rangers already have that "relatively" bad accuracy concerning everything but an object that doesn't move around. Can't tell you how many times I've missed a HYDRA when he was just walking about, and my Marksmanship is at 13.

More to my point, it'd be nice if they started where they are now, and got a little better. Maybe just increase the ability of an archer to hit something moving. Hell, it'd be even better (and totally lopsided to everyone else) if a Ranger could throw out basic arrows (no skills, and preperations end) while strafing about. Of course, these arrows would be less accurate.

While I like that idea about Rangers and Warriors (makes more people learn how to play effectively, if anything else), they don't do much damage anyway from the start. I'd even agree completely to this if they were "pre-nerfed" for no more than THREE levels in marksmanship/sword/axe/hammer attributes.

Edit: Changed two to three because I realized you can get the second tier attribute after your first level up.

There are balancing issues to consider here though, especially if you're talking about modifying the refire rate. Do you want a Ranger to be able to hit as fast as an axe warrior? And if he can, how does that change his impact on the field? I understand the desire for a little more realism... but if we really wanted to get realistic, it takes YEARS for archers to learn their trade. And at first they're lucky to hit the side of a shed. I think we can forgive a little bit of un-reality.

I really think this one should be left alone. It is nice that elevation is included in this game where it is not in most. But a buff of this logic to the bow would need to be counter balence to the sword, axe, and hammer because you are saying that you increase your attribute level then you are more skilled with the weapon, this would apply to all weapons. This in turn would throw the other four profession out of wack because then they will be viewed as gimp where as right now all 6 stand a chance in a balance for PvP. This recomendation only comes to me with a dreaded smell of danger.

As an additional I run a warrior and a ranger so no bias there. Furthermore I use a ranger as my PvP character and my personal ability with warrior in PvP is poor.

Yeah, I'm kind of tired of missing things that are the size of a school bus just because they moved a foot. While the game has given rangers some really cool things, archery just isn't where it should be. I love playing a ranger but I get tired of watching my character wait a second before even starting to draw another arrow, not to mention missing ettins because they move half an inch.

As for the low-level nerfing... I think that instead of having them do lower damage they should do slightly more damage but hit less often, because that would be more true to reality. If you see someone pick up a sword for the first time, they'll likely chop someone's head off just as readily as an expert... it'll just take them about five tries.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that rangers are already insanely fast and accurate compared to how you can expect an actual person with a bow to perform. I'd say its probably fairly average that someone who's had some practice but not real training with a bow could fire about 6-8 shots with some measure of accuracy in 30 seconds time. (A lot of my experience in archery falls into 30 second time limits, so I'm using that for comparison.) Look at the fire rate of the Half Moon/Shortbow/Flatbow, and you've got 15 shots in 30 seconds. That is definitely something that I would call un-freaking-believable if I saw someone do it on the range. Even if they didn't hit the target. To be able to get an arrow out of your quiver, nock it, draw it, and even try to aim and loose in 2 seconds? That's quite a feat. Then add the fact that one way or another, you're probably hitting at least 60% of the time from up to 20 yards away, like I said, its no small feat. I think that if anything should increase, its the range of the weapons. And maybe implement something to simulate the time you'd have to take aiming your shot, like put in a higher max range for each weapon, but fire rates are slower the farther away you are and higher as you get in closer. I know I can hit a man-sized target from a good 40-50 yards with some measure of accuracy with my longbow, and I know a couple of people who can hit targets significantly smaller than man sized from 100 yards with a longbow. I saw a man hit a paper plate at 150 yards with a recurve with 3 out of 6 shots. This is something that I don't think I could do if I practiced with my bow for a couple years, but we're talking about rangers, people who use bows all the time, their lives depend on their ablility to do so, and a good portion of their lives is given over to training with a bow. Sooo..... I guess I sorta rambled on where I didn't mean too, but yeah, that's my two (four?) cents.

Edit: One other thing, about missing something that moves a foot. If you're a hundred, or 80, or even 40 feet away from something that isn't moving, and the second you shoot it moves over a foot, you're going to miss unless you get a lucky gust of wind. Saying that an arrow hits a target just becaues it was there when you shot is more than a little silly.

Rig we're not saying that it should hit because it was there when you shot. We're saying that Rangers should know how to lead. That's a sports term but it applies here too I guess. They should be able to estimate where the creature's going to be, since it's walking on a patrol. As for how fast they shoot... I think a person who spends their entire life as a ranger, especially in medieval times where that's really all they do, should be able to shoot extremely fast if they're in a battle scenario. I think you're right about aiming at long distances, but at the moderately short distances that rangers usually find themselves firing at, I think that they would be able to put out arrows pretty darn quick. While two seconds is extremely fast, sure, I think that experienced rangers should be able to shoot even faster. Considering that taking the arrow out of the quiver should take no more time than the movement of your arm behind you and in front of you again, considering that the quiver is well made, and also considering that after that much training they would be able to put it to the bow instantly in the right spot every time from pure muscle memory... I can imagine a well-trained ranger in a battle scenario shooting off arrows damn near every second, though more realistic is probably a second and a half.

It all boils down to this, "I WANT TO BE LEGOLAS!"

I mean, c'mon, Peter Jackson made him a mad-monkey powerhouse of pain! Look how fast *he* shot arrows at close range!

In a more thought-oriented post, yes, it is LESS realistic for an arrow to be dodged...but why would a Ranger, who could SURVIVE out in the wild (or, is supposed to), have an aggro circle as big as any one else's? The game feels inherently unfair and biased towards a Ranger. The one melee advantage of being able to lead and/or *slightly* improve accuracy...it wouldn't be a game shifting thing. Rangers wouldn't suddenly be the be-all-end-all class.

...I still think a slight 6% increase in accuracy would be an amazing boon to us Rangers who feel that an Ettin should be EASY to hit for someone who hunts wild animals as a JOB; that's while the Ettin would be moving away. ...stupid Ranger... =P

Edit: Forgive that Aggro rant. Anet designed rangers to be pullers. Well, most of the PvE baddies in the game seem to be uphill...which makes pulling via arrows seem inherently redundant.

If you want to miss less, take a bow with less arrow flight time and with as low an arc as possible. Then use Nature Rituals such as Favorable Winds to increase your arrow speed. If you want to be absolutely sure your arrow connects, use Called Shot.

Changing Marksmanship to increase accuracy would effectively remove the purpose of every Ranger skill that affects arrow speed, and for that reason alone I believe it's a bad idea.

I wouldnt mind taking a hit to my damage/accuracy if I could shoot as fast as a 7fps(3.5 attacks per second) zon in D2 could. Theres just something about shooting a bow at insanely fast rates thats really fun.. and it would make interrupting people in pvp alot easyer =)

And therein lies the inbalance. Fun aside, there are plenty of skills that trigger on hit - imagine taking such a machine-gun bow on a Ranger/Necromancer, cast Mark of Pain on a target and fire away. Anything that stands nearby is blown away within seconds due to the waves of shadow damage. The fire rate of bows is carefully chosen to fit the greater balance picture.

The game already does lead shots.. it just can't hit targets that change their path during the shot. That's why people move left and right quickly to avoid arrows as it throws off the inherent leading of shots.

Silmor my main issue is less with accuracy and more with speed. I personally just think it'd be good for Rangers to shoot arrows faster. The accuracy was an afterthought, but I think it's reasonable too, though I like the idea about making it depend on range. As for it affecting balance because of intterupts, the flight time wouldn't be shorter, and also I'm sure they could make some way to make it even out. And Mygo... I know that, but when a gargantuan ettin the size of a large building changes it's path slightly, the arrow should still hit.