Some suggestions for Rangers

Blackbird. I have answered all your questions in each one of my posts. You are just ignoring my responses. The twit remark was to express my exasperation with your ability to ignore everything that is keeping this game balanced for the sake of realism. And if you read beyaond beyond the twit remark it explains the reason.
If tigers fury is omething that doesn't have much to do with the bow then MAYBE THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THE BEAST MASTERY TREE! You stated earlier you would like it linked to marksmanship! Make up your mind.
If you still belive I'm not answering your questions then I'm obviously wasting my time. Explain to me how my posts have not covered your questions.

Ninja?


Seriously though, I'm still not convinced Tiger's Fury is in an appropriate place. Now you'll come and say "Oh but you have lightning reflexes which is much better!" It's just too bad that the duration vs recharge is quite disproportionate. Granted, it's a GREAT skill when I use it. I just rarely use it because I find myself saving it for when a REALLY need it due to slow recharge.

Pets? Oh man. While I believe beastmasters are their own niche and can do quite well, it certainly isn't a world I plan on living in EVER with my ranger due to the weakness of pets. Apparently they get a max AL of 60? WHA?!?! These things that are supposed to be on the front lines of battle get less armor than an Ele. Weak sauce.

To all other readers of this post, I apologize in advance for getting a little sidetracked, but I feel this needs to be addressed.

Once again you have excelled at completely missing anything I said, I never said that tigers fury had nothing to do with a bow, I said it had nothing to do with knowledge of animals. I made up my mind in the beginning, now lower your voice or go home.

You have an uncanny knack for completely avoiding the matter at the heart of the argument. For example, when I claim that Tiger's Fury shouldn't be in Beast Mastery because it has nothing to do with control of animals, instead of replying to this, you say that it should be in Beast Mastery because it affects weapons other than bows- how does this address the issue that it has nothing to do with animals? If anything, your argument reinforces my position. This is the same type of disconnected argument you make in all your posts. That's how you never answered my questions, you made up reasons that don't stand up to any test and have nothing to do with the original proposal, and when they are challenged, your only defense is to ignore the challenge, throw reason out the window, and say whatever you want and expect it to be accepted as fact, that or throw out childish insults in an attempt to distract others from the weakness of your position. If you really want to answer my questions, here they are plain and simple:

Explain why a ranger has three attributes that affect a single type of attack when every other profession uses only one. My complaint is that rangers play by different rules than all the others, there is a lack of consistency. The question is not whether or not you can make a successful ranger build using only two of those attributes, or what bonus items would make a certain skill useable, but rather why is a bow attack not linked to a bow attribute? It breaks the mold and pattern that holds true in five other professions, and it hinders the ranger's ability to combine effectively with other classes, which in a game that requires every character to have two classes just doesn't make sense.

If you think you can respond to that in a calm and logical manner, without ignoring my arguments but actually countering them, please feel free to do so. If not, then goodbye, please go bother someone else's thread.

From answers.com
Dictionary
ti·ger (tī'gər)
n.

A large carnivorous feline mammal (Panthera tigris) of Asia, having a tawny coat with transverse black stripes.
Any of various similar wild felines, such as the jaguar, mountain lion, or lynx.
A person regarded as aggressive, audacious, or fierce.

From answers.com
Dictionary
beast (bēst)
n.

An animal other than a human, especially a large four-footed mammal.
New England & Southern U.S. A large domestic animal, especially a horse or bull.
Animal nature as opposed to intellect or spirit: “So far the beast in us has insisted upon having its full say” (William Dean Howells).
A brutal, contemptible person.

From answers.com
Dictionary
fu·ry (fyʊr'ē)
n., pl. -ries.
Violent anger; rage. See synonyms at anger.
Violent, uncontrolled action; turbulence.
Furies Greek & Roman Mythology. The three terrible winged goddesses with serpentine hair, Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, who pursue and punish doers of unavenged crimes.
A woman regarded as angry or spiteful.
[Middle English furie, from Old French, from Latin furia

Here's another way of looking at it if it's not clear from here. Your mastery over beasts have given you access to the fury of the beasts themsleves. You invoke the fury of the tiger and all your non-attack skills are disabled for 5 secconds. For 5-11 secconds you attack 33% faster then normal.
No other skill has such an explination for itself so I'm still not sure why you are arguing about the tree in which it is in unless it is due to game mechanics.

And in which case it is there because of game balance. A similar argument would be why are the energy drains in the mesmer tree in the inspirational magic atribute. Surley the drains are yet anotehr way of dominating your foe. These skills are in a differnt tree because of their power and putting them in the domination tree instead of the inspiration magic tree would make the domination tree too powerful and the inpriational tree too weak. The same applies for your proposal to change tigers fury from the beast mastery tree to the marksmanship, wilderness survival or expertise tree. That's any angle you care to attack that argument from. Keep your mind made up if you like. And don't accuse me of avioding the issue or your questions.

See above. I don't belive I've been throwing reason out the window. Pardon me for not suppling the dictionary refereances earlier but I assumed you were talking on a mechanical level (game mechanics) because the link between Tigers' Fury and beast mastery in the english language would be obvious.

How was that not fact, and not answering your question? How is this not standing up to any "test." It seems to me that you are the one ignoring the information put before you.
One Twit comment and you accuse me of ignoring logic, being immature, ignoring your arguments and not calm. I'm quite calm. And I will answer your above post as best as I can. I'd like to stress that the manner in which i am responding to this post is the same as all previous posts (Minus the Twit comment because that seems to have REALLY offended you.)

First up the the consistancy. I can only see one bow atatck in the wilderness survial atribute line. It's posion arrow. The rest are preperations. Now before you get up my nose about that I'd like to point out that warriros are alot more similar to the rangers then you might think.
Warriors have Stregth, Rangers have expertise. Both classes have attacks that effect their weapon of choice, and both recive a passive bonus.
Warriors have 3 weapon lines to choose from, rangers have 1. I can't argue with that. The warrior has 3 diffent kinds of weapons to choose from with differnt attacks linked to each one. The only similarity to the ranger would be differnt kinds of bows.but these are all linked to the same ability. Though wouldn't this mean that the ranger could specialise in several differnt weapons under the same atribute (Even if they are fairly similar) while the warrior (Without having to specalise in differnt atributes) has to choose one atribute and stick with it?
Rangers have Wilderness Survival, Warriors have Tactics. Warriors have another support line just like rangers do. their are attacks here that are linked to their current wepon of choice that increase their effectivness. Much like the ranger has acces to extra attacks in the wilderness survival tree.
Just so we're on english tearms here I'll make a comparison. Warriors use tactics to supliment their abilites with their Axe/Hammer/Sword. Rangers use Wilderness Survival to supliment their abilities with thier Bow.

I can't really make comparisons to other profesions though because they don't have attacks with any kind of weapon linked to their class. They don't sem to fit into the same "mold" as the warrior and ranger who are primaly physical atatckers. If you could define what you mean by mold then I'll happily answer your question.
A quick note though. While they don't have attacks directly linked to one another they can choose two differnt classes of "magic" to compliment one another ala the Rangers and Warriors. Unless you are thinking along the lines of Enchantment spell, hex spell etc. in which case i'd say that your argument that other classes don't have the same types of attacks linked to differnt atributes is rather flawed.

One final note on your mixing with other classes effecintly. You may know that many Warriros forsake their entire Tactics line so they can effectivly combine with another calss. they may even sacrifce some points in stregth or their primary weapon too. the samme holds true with the ranger class. Just think of Expetise = Stregth, Marksmanship = Sword/Axe/Hammer and Wilderness Survival = Tactics.

I hope this has cleared things up.

hmmm... someone please correct me if im wrong.. but isn't it that 'Poison Arrow' is the only bow attack skill that is not included in the marksmanship skill tree?

anyway, blackbird71, it seems that you are missing out on one skill - read the wind. it is included in the marksmanship skill tree and it adds damage and arrow flight speed. the only problem is the short duration. perhaps ANET can change it so that the duration increases as marksmanship increases, say from 12-18 seconds and convert it from being a 'preparation' skill into a 'stance'.

about the other preparation skills, IMO, they are fine as they are to be included in the wilderness survival skill set.

Other bow attacks not in marksmanship:
Ex - Distracting Shot
Ex - Oath Shot {Elite}
Ex - Point Blank Shot
NA - Dual Shot
NA - Called Shot
NA - Debilitating Shot
NA - Quick Shot {Elite}

Please note that strength/tactics have a fair selection of good melee attacks.

Why would read the wind be anywhere but marksmanship? RTW is really nice when you're making a WS-less ranger that doesn't use barrage. It's just a cheap version of favorable winds and a starter skill, and I think it works just fine. Practiced stance will boost its time if that really bugs you.

I'm glad they've spread the bow-affecting skills out across the skill trees. This makes it possible to do decent bow damage as a pet ranger without WS.

I covered this earleir. You can overcome this problem but using the elite skill practiced stance. Thanks for the backup though.

Thanks for the list. I would belive that most dedicated archers (That are ranger primaries) Would have a fair few points in expertise as it makes all other ranger skills alot more affordable. Justas a warrior primary would have a fair few points in stretgh to increase the damage of his attacks. The unlinked ones an interesting lot. You can do alot with these. For all thoese who belive that quickshot is useless try it out. If you have the energy and expertise it's like having a machine gun, not a bow. You can use it with quickerning zepher or spam it with distracting shot for some trully amazing effects.

oh yeah, forgot about point-blank shot. but except for that, no other skills that increase damage belongs to any other skill trees. dual shot doesn't really count since it doesn't give a fixed increase in damage and depends on your normal attack damage.

about read the wind.. hmmm... practiced stance belongs to the expertise skill tree which doesn't really address blackbird71's concern so i suggested that it should be buffed to 12-18 seconds instead. this will solve blackbird's crisis of having to spread his attributes thinly to do some decent damage.

Re-read what I posted above. Any PURE archer would be a primary ranger. Just as any PURE tank would be a primary warrior. Why eitehr wouldn't put points into their primary atribute is a bit of a mystery. Yes practiced stance is an expertise skill but if you're going for a pure archer you'll want the energy to keep pumping out thoese attacks. Where else would you be putting your atributte points if you're not going to be putting them into wilderness survival?

Okay, one last try, here it goes

Dictionary definitions, cute. Still, they only back up my earlier comment that you have done nothing to show the link between tiger's fury and beast mastery beyond the name! Well, there is your 'primal rage' argument, but I've debunked that before and will do so again.

Nice theory on the reasoning behind the skill, but as I mentioned before (and you seem to have once again ignored) any 'primal rage' as you put it is going to hinder your use of a bow, not help it, therefore that can't be how this skill works since the skill actually does help bow use, there is no invoking of an 'inner beast' to enter such a rage as you describe. No, I'm definetely not arguing which tree it is in because of game mechanics, it has nothing to do with game mechanics, and it never has - it has to do with there being consistency and common sense in what the skills are, and what they do, not just how they work in terms of pure numbers. No other skill has such an explanation? Hmm, lets see, a skill that brings down a rain of fire on enemies, must be fire magic. A skill that lets you slice a gash all the way across your opponents body, must be a sword skill. A skill that raises undead? Death magic! If other skills lack specific explanations, it's because they are placed where common sense says they should be. A skill that improves attack speed but is linked to pet control, or a skill that affects a bow attack but is linked to wilderness survival, both require explanations because where they are defies common sense.

First off, those mesmer drains in the inspiration tree raise the mesmer's health and/or energy, that's why they are inspiration and not domination, so your analogy doesn't work. The argument that a skill is put in a particular location because of game balance doesn't work if the skill is completely and totally unrelated to the corresponding attribute. Go back and read my posts. I never once proposed that tiger's fury be placed in marksmanship, you're putting words in my mouth. I only said that it didn't belong in beast mastery because there was no connection between improving bow attacks and controlling animals, period. Actually, if I were to put the skill anywhere, it would probably be expertise, but that's my opinion and it's irrelevant to my point. Also, bear in mind that I'm not the only poster who agrees that the skill is out of place, but you seem to be the only one arguing to keep it where it is.



You assumed. Once again, it has nothing to do with game mechanics, it is logic. Knowledge of a bow should increase your ability with a bow. Knowledge of animals should increase your control over animals. Knowledge of fire magic increases your fire attacks. That just makes sense. Knowledge of animals improving your ability with a bow(or any other weapon for that matter)? That doesn't add up. I'm not talking about game mechanics, I'm not talking about balance, and I'm certainly not talking about the pathetic attempt to link the two by giving a skill a name that covers its actual function. I'm talking about common sense. I know there has to be a balance in the game. So satisfy both, dump tiger's fury, and put in a powerful beast skill, it's as simple as that!


It's not just the twit comment, you also have a habit of speaking in all caps, which in forum culture is interpreted as yelling, which is defintetley not a sign of calm behavior. But actually, no, the remark didn't offend me, it just made more obvious what kind of person you are. As myself and other posters observed, you just want to argue. You don't have substance to back your stance up, so you get frustrated, and resort to immature tactics to try to maintain your footing. Yes, you have ignored the basis and foundation of my arguments. Every claim I've made I've supported with evidence and reason. You choose to ignore these and instead offer your own reason. I manage to counter every reason you have, and instead of pointing out the flaws in my argument, you simply continue to repeat your same line of reasoning. This is not rational argument, this is hoping that repeating your position will make it true, despite the points brought up against it. And you have yet to explain why a single one of my points is not valid. You claim my overall argument is wrong, but you can't say why any of my reasons for my position are false.


While poison arrow is the only 'attack', there are still 5 other skills that directly affect bows. Keep reading for more explanation.

Thank you for proving my point.

I already explained in my original post why the different kind of bows argument doesn't work. It's one weapon, and three attributes affecting the same weapon. Actually four if you include tiger's fury, but that single skill is the least of my concerns. You can't say that the warrior has anything like that, it is one attribute for one weapon, with a supporting attribute that supports all weapons.

What if the ranger's weapon of choice is pets (and yes, I've known players with some very effective all-pet builds, I've known some with all-trap builds for that matter)? Then expertise skills and wilderness survival skills do nothing for his attacks, yet tactics and strength are effective for a warrior's attacks regardless of the chosen weapon. Rangers should not use wilderness survival to supplement bow abilities, that's what expertise is for, as you made the comparison yourself. And expertise still does nothing for traps or pets, so the analogy is still flawed. The idea that rangers should have two supporting attributes like warriors doesn't work because rangers have four attributes and warriors have five, any other profession with only four attributes only has one supporting attribute, and that attribute affects their other three equally.

So far as the 'mold' goes, this game follows a very simple and very definite pattern. True, other classes don't have weapon attributes, but each of their attributes is linked to a distinct set of skills. Do I really have to spell that out in detail? I suppose I must: an elementalist has four attributes, earth, fire, air, and water, of which each affect their ability with the respective element. The air attribute does not affect fire skills, and water won't help earth. The elementalist then has a fifth attribute which will affect all the others, not just one. Using Ether Renewal will work great with a fire spell, but it will do just the same thing with a water spell, air, or earth. Yes, the elementalist can use skills from different attributes in conjunction with each other, but those skills are still strictly related to their corresponding attribute. And there is no energy storage skill that will only affect one type of magic. Strength and Tactics skills affect all a warrior's weapons equally(with a small exception of about 3 skills between both attributes which are weapon specific, even so, they are evenly divided, although I would argue that these few skills are also out of place, at least they are in the minority). A monk's healing skills heal, smiting spells smite, and protection spells defend. This model fits every profession except one: the ranger. A ranger does not have only one weapon. There is only one which is held in his hand, true, but a pet is another weapon, and so are traps. Yet there are skills in the attributes for traps and pets that affect bows. This is the inconsistency. And expertise, as the extra attribute, has no skills that affect pets or traps, but a full 70% of the expertise skills directly affect bows. Even beyond this, ranger drastically departs from the pattern in that wilderness survival, the traps skill, has fully 6 skills that affect bows, and beast mastery, the pet skill, has another one skill which affects bow attacks (and has no bearing on pet attacks whatsoever). And yet, there are no expertise or wilderness survival (or for that matter, marksman) skills that have any affect whatsoever on pets, and no expertise, beast mastery, or marksman skills that affect traps. All the other professions have skills that fall into neat categories, the ranger skills are scattered through the profession's attributes in a completely random and illogical fashion. You are fond of citing game balance as the reason, and I belive you are right, my point is that you can't sacrifice logic and consistency for balance. If the skills don't balance in their proper locations, its time to scrap some of those and come up with some more appropriate skills. If five professions follow specific rules and one doesn't, that's unfair, regardless of what powers or abilities that profession has, or what compensations you can come up with. If there are set boundaries and guidelines for how the game functions, all professions have to have the ability to work equally well within those guidelines.


Once again, you miss my point. You are looking at this from a profession level, I am looking at it on an attribute level. A warrior who puts points into swords is not going to miss out on a sword attack he would otherwise have if he put points into axes. A monk who puts points in healing is not going to be a less effective healer than he could be because he didn't spend points in smiting. Yet a ranger who puts his points into marksmanship is missing attacks and bow effects that he can't get without putting points into 3 other attributes. I'm not arguing whether or not a ranger has enough effective attacks in the marksman line, I'm arguing that the bow skills linked to the other attributes (with the possible exception of expertise, although 70% in bows and none in the others is incredibly unbalanced) just don't belong. If putting them in an appropriate category would mess up the game balance too much, then get rid of them. Puting them in an unrelated category also unbalances the game when ranger is compared to others, and it's just cheating the system to try to squeeze them in where they don't belong.


I have addressed every single one of your points, and refuted each one. You have yet to explain why a single one of the reasons behind my position are wrong. You continue to say my conclusion is wrong, but you fail to consider the evidence behind it.

I think I begin to understand where we have our fundamental difference, and why we disagree. Your position is made entirely through the view of game balance, and game mechanics are all that concern you. If the game functions, you are content. I think this position shows what type of gamer you are. Correct me if I'm wrong, as this is pure speculation, but I would guess you probably don't play too many rpgs, you probably spend a lot of time on first person shooters, and I'd bet you've never picked up a "pen and paper" game. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just trying to understand your point of view. Now maybe I can help you understand mine.

While I agree that game balance is critical to the success of a game, and I feel that there are some items which are unbalanced, this is only part of my argument. My position is based on connecting the game to some level of reality and reasonability, and I'll explain why.

First, in real life, I am an archer, and I am an experienced woodsman. I know how to use a bow, and I know what will improve my shot, what will hinder it, and what will have no effect on it. I know what advantage a knowledge of my bow, my arrows, and my environment gives me. I know how to survive comfortably in the wild, I know which plants heal, and which plants kill. I am by no means an expert on animals, but I do know a great deal about a few particular groups of animals, raptors for one, and wolves for another. I know what it means when birds fly east in the evening. I know how to track an animal, and I know how to lay a trap for one. I understand where each of these skills are interrelated, and where there is no connection. So when I say that there is no logical reason for certain skills to be linked to certain attributes, I am not merely trying to upset your precious balance, but I am speaking from personal knowledge and experience. Some things about the game's skill distribution just feel instinctively wrong, and I've explained why. Now, I realize this is a game, but there has to be some foundation in reality, even the most fantastic myths have some element of truth behind them, and when the game is trying to emulate real-world skills, reality should have an even greater hold.

The feel of reality also motivates my second reasoning. I am a roleplayer. The enjoyment of a game comes in taking on a character, a personality, and in my imagination, becoming that character for a little while. That character has to be believable, at least on some level. It's really a lot like acting. If you've ever seen a movie where a character is completely unbelievable, you'll understand, because the movie fails to convince you and involve you in its story. If a normal man takes a hundred bullets to the chest and lives, the typical response is "oh right, like that would happen!" However, if some background is given, explaining why this person is no ordinary human, it makes sense, and the situation becomes acceptable to the audience. The same is true for rpgs and roleplayers. If the plot doesn't add up, the players lose interest. If the characters have powers or abilities with no rational explanation for where those abilities come from, the game loses cohesion, and the imaginary world is shattered.

I don't expect you to agree with what I and others think makes a game like this enjoyable, you go enjoy it in your own way. I just ask that you understand why I see these inconsistencies as flaws in the game, and while they may not affect your gaming experience, they do alter mine, not so significantly that I can't enjoy the game at all, on the contrary, I do enjoy it, otherwise I wouldn't bother suggesting improvements. However, I do feel that my gaming experience, and that of others who play the same way I do. You may not consider my reasoning to have any effect on the gameplay, but that doesn't mean they are not valid points that do affect the experience of others, and they can't be simply brushed aside or ignored just because they don't fit your idea of a good game.

I hope so to.

First up some allow me to apoligise for any misconceptions.


Looking back it doesn't seem I made myself clear. I don't belive you're right off target but I aslo don't belive your on the base either. I'm bringing forth my arguemnts because I belive that your proposed changes could be more of a hinderance then a help. I've been trying to explain why I feel that such changes are unnessary and how they might cause other problems elsewhere. My apoligies for not making this clear.

Pardon the caps but I use them to Emphasise a word. Not nessesarily to shout it. From here onwards I'll use italics instead.

I've stated this before but becuase you seem to insist that I am ignoring you I'll say it again. One the same logic so will Flurry, Frenzy, I will Avange you and beserkers stance. Just like tigers fury they work on all weapons. Wands and bows included. If you belive it's such a problem why not propose that while under the influanse of these skills you have more chance to miss with bow?

This 'inconsistance' in skills exsists elsewhere. What about Riposte? It's a skill that requires a sword but it's in tactics. Flourish is another skill that requires a sword but it's in strength. I will avenge you is a shout but it's not in tactics. Desperation blow and Thrill of victory are very powerfull attacks but are in tactics not stregth.
And whether you want it to be related to game mechinics or not it is. If you change the trees these abilities are in you are going to change the mechanics.

The explination is game mechanics and balance. The only bow attack that is in wilderness survival is Posion arrow. Which common sense should suggest that your character is using his knowledge of the wilderness to coat his arrows with posion. The other preparations belong here because they aren't bow attacks per say. They are quickly preparing arrows before they are fired. Your character even does a little animation while he does this.
One another note what about well of blood and well of power? They require corpse. Shouldn't they be linked to death magic?
Beast mastery isn't all about pet control. It is one of the major aspecs of it but where is it written that it must be linked only to pet control.

Then what about spirt shackles and spirt of failure. Shouldn't they be in the domination tree by that logic? Since they aren't we can safely say that they are in the same boat as tigers fury. Completely unrealted to that skill tree. Therefore by your proposed logic, the fact that moving them will weaken the inspiation tree and stretghen the domintation tree that is irralavent because they are completly and totaly unrelated to the corresponding atribute.
The problem with following this logic is that you wish to apply it only to the ranger tree. If you applied this to all classes they would suddenly become unblanced. I know I'm repeating myself but if you mess around with skills on the basic of logic you mess around with the game.
Games and Logic do not go hand in hand.

Oh shoot. Sorry blackbird you are dead right. I got this thread mixed up with another one. You never did state this.

Just a quick note though, whether Tiger's Fury is put into expertise, Wilderness survival, marksmenship or even unlinked, my opinion that it will unbalance the beast mastery tree and the tree it moves to will still stand.

So you think I should just drop my argument due to peer group pressure? Sorry but I'm not a child, and I won't abandon my stance on the sole reason that at present I'm outnumbered. Besides, there are plenty of people who feel the same way as I do about this. Just becuase they haven't posted yet doesn't mean they exsist. If you started a poll only on having Tigers Fury moved/replaced and you'll see there are thoese that oppose it too.

So should we drop all the spirits in the beast mastery tree as well? I still belive that having a close affiliation with beasts and using that to go into an animal rage is sugnificant excuse to speed up your attacks. I mentioned this earlier in the post but I will repeat it here Beserkers stance takes your brute streght and uses it to speed up your attacks. As does I will avenge you. Both skills are in the stregth tree and increase your attack speed with a bow (Or any onther weapon.) Flurry and Frenzy also do the same thing, but are unlinked.
Your idea to replace the skill holds some merit though. Personnaly I'd prefer it to stay but if it can be replaced by a skill that involes my pet and is equally powerful (Maybe charm animal and comfort animal in the one skill with say a 60 seccond recast time) then maybe I could agree with you.
As above you could ask anet to apply a penalty to bows while atatcking faster.
One last thing, the universe of Guild Wars is hardly based on logic.

So you accuse me of poor forum etiquite and then attack my person instead of the argument?

We are aguring with each other so we're both guilty to that. And without argument what would be the point of discussion? I have not been ignoring your arguments. I've been arguing with the foundations of your arguments. I've been offering information as to why things are the way they are. I have been trying to explain that the changes you supply would cuase more problems. I have not been simply ignoring your arguments and saying it's better that way. I've given reason for every one of my arguments.
I apologise again for not making this clearer in my inital post.

Because your counters haven't dismissed the flaw I pointed out in your argument. Which you then ignore and resume the same line of reasoning. Then you acusse me of doing this?

I have stasted why in every one of my posts. I have given an explination as to why I disagree with you in every one of my posts.

Bare with me here please. Imagine for a seccond that sword was the only option for warriors. Now the ranger profession (With the expetion of beast mastery) look almost identicle in structure. Expertise = Stregth, Sword = Marksmanship, Tactics = Wilderness survival.
Now if you belive the warrios are at an advantage because they can choose from three types of weapons let's set out an imaginary ranger that would look similar.
Expertise = Stregth, Longbow = Sword, Crossbow = axe, Knives = hammer. wilderness survival = tactics.
If this were the case the differnt current bow attacks would be spread out across 3 differnt atribute Diluting the ranger tree even further. You would have to choose one weapon and it's set of attacks and stick with it. Or spread your atributes over two weapons and switch between them.
I pointed this out before but there are 3 atributes effecting each of the warriors 3 weapons. The weapon skill (Sword, Axe or hammer,) Tactics and Stregth. Both have attacks and stances for the weapon you choose.

On pets: Expertise does alot for pet attacks. it drops the energy cost of the attacks. When you combine high beast mastery and expertise you can use your pets attacks over and over. This works especialy well when you use the pet attack Feriosuis strike.
On traps: Same deal. They have VERY high energy costs. Without expertise you can't do much else but palce traps because of lack of energy.
On both: Wilderness Survival and Beast mastery are mainly support trees. Such as earth and water magic on the elementalist. The both have ways of dealing direct damage but not as much as say the Marksmenship/fire magic trees. Pets and traps are mainly for support, not your sole offense. Also neither require you to equip an additional weapon. Unless in PvE in which you have to level up your chosen pet after capturing it.
When comparing the Warriors chosen weapon to the bow Wilderness Survival and Expertise are similar to Tactics and Stregth.

I did make the comparison. Stregth = Expertise, Weapon (Sword, Axe, Hammer) = Marksmanship. Tactics = Wilderness Survival. You don't have to use Wilderness Survival, Just as the Warrior doesn't have to use tactics.
It drops the energy cost allowing you to use them more often and therefore be more effective with them so my analogy still has merit.
The warriors actually only have 3 by my ananlogy, (see above.)Yes, but all the other professions are spellcasters. Also the one supporting atribute is their primary so It's not avilable if this class is your secondary. Wilderness Survival is avalible to ranger secondaries. Just as tactics is avalible to warrior secondaries. The two non-spellcasters have support trees avaible to secondaries.

On a similar line of logic Earth and Water magic could also be viewed as support trees, as can Insperational magic. So could Protection and Healing prayers making the necro the only class without a non-primary support tree.

Though each of his non-primary attributes have support abilities in them too.
Then again if you mean support as in "Complimenting your own attacks" and still not resorting to primaries, The elemntalists have their glyphs elemental attunement, The monks have thier smiting, The mesmers have their illusion and the necros have skills scattered across blood, death and curses. This also follows this line of logic.

Just as experise effects all of the ranger skills (they all cost less.)
Just as Stregth also effects all of the warrior skills (More penertration on skill atatcks)
Just as Fast Casting will effect all of the Mesmer skills (They cast faster).
Just as Devine Favor will effect all of the Monk skills. (They'll heal a bit on top of thier usual effect.)
The Necro's Soul Reaping is a bit less direct. Supoose it doesn't fit this mold.
Not all classes have this advantage. Necro's don't have a single skill linked to their primary atribute and Mesmers have only one (Which is elite.)

Pets and traps aren't primary attack skills as I mentioned before. They are more supporting weapons. Like the Water and Earth trees for the elementalists. You can specalise in them for atatcking but without comnbining them with some of the other non offensive skills in the tree you'd be better off with a differnt tree.

I mentioned before nither does soul reaping and the only fast casting skill that does is elite.Where does it say that this is a traps only skill?You said yourself earlier that there are no Fire skills that effect water. It's the same logic as to why Wilderness or Marksmanship effect pets. Expertise as a primary effects them but not with skills as you've already pointed out. I'm not ignoring the fact that you can use Beast Mastery chances with a bow. That is certinly try but it does point out a flaw in your argument that each class follows a set mold. They do as a base but must (If not all) have expections. These exceptions once again bring us to the issue of game mechanics. If we put these skills in their atribute according to mold we'd break the current mechanics structure of guild wars.

Unfortunatly Blackbird you can and in alot of cases you have to. It's the same with all games. You have to sacrfice some degree of logic to make them playable. The degree of logic that is sacrifced is left up to the developers. At present our characters don't eat, sleep, age (Beyond stats) and many other realastic fuctions are ignored. This is to make the game more playable.

From all I've already responed in the post (Not the thread) so far I'd like to think I have established that all classes follow a General mold but all have exceptions to the general mold/rules. And the ranger calss is no exception to these exceptions.


Let's assume the primary point of a monk is to keep people alive. He doesn't put points into devine favor and Protection prayers. He would be less effective at keeping the team alive because he does not have points in Protection Prayers (Slowing down/Negating damage) and Devine Favor (His spells have an extra doese of healing attached to them.)
Let's assume the primary point of a ranger is to have powerful bow attacks. He doesn't put points into Expertise and Wilderness Survival. He would be less effective with his bow attacks because He didn't put points into Wilderness Survival (Increasing damage/Adding effects) and Expertise (therefore he wouldn't be able to use his attacks as often due to energy constraints.)
By this logic Beast Mastery would be Akin to Smiting. We've still got the problem of there being the choice of puting points into beast mastery too for tigers fury that would increase your attack speed and therefore make you more effective with a bow.
But then couldn't the monk put points into Smiting Prayers and use Balthazars Aura or Sheild of Judgement to keep foes off his target therefore keeping the alive longer?
The problem with doing this in either situation is spreading out your atributes and skill bars across too many differnt skills.

Can you clarify what you mean by cheating the system in your next post please. Is this refering to each classes mold again? If we got rid of them altogether wouldn't that unbalance the game more?

Where have I simply stated in my responses that "No, this is wrong." Quote me on one. I doubt you'll find one beacuse you are drawing the "No, this is wrong" from my explination as to why I belive it is wrong.

While I've only played PnP Dungeons and Dragons on very rare occations I used to run as Dungeon Master For Advanced Fighty Fantasy alot. So I have picked up a few PnP games before.

The previous game I spent most of my time on before this was Never Winter Nights. I played on an RP server know as Narfell. I stoped playing there because the number of players on the server during my hours has dropped from around 35 to 2. It's hard to roleplay in a arge world that is deviod of life so I started playing around on a few MMORPG's.
RPG's are my favorite type of game. in fact because of Guild Wars I've been negelcting them a bit latly.
My favorite RPG of all time is Planescape Torment. Now that was character immersion if you ever saw it. Never again has a game put you into a Role that played you as much as you played it.

I'll admit this: (and be proud of it) I play games too much. I've been playing them ever since I the NES days. The game that trully sealed my addiction was Battletoads on the NES. I haven't really stopped playing them since then. I do play the odd FPS but haven't stuck to any for any longer then I played Perfect Dark on the N64.

I consider myself a balanced gamer. I like to try many differnt types of gaming. As such I know there is a huge Gulf between the RPG and the MMORPG. The smallest I ever saw this Gulf was in Narfell. That was mainly because the DM's of the game kept exploits in check and brought the NPC's and monsters where the could to life.

I can agree with you there. Though once again changing where they are for whatever reason will upset the balance.
How about this as a solution?
Could there be a way to change the names of such skills without changing their effect? Maybe we could work out a way to change the descriptions of these skills without changing their effects? Then again this would confuse people already familiar with the game. Possibly.


Ah, and there is the reason we're at each others throats like this! I see the balance amoung the classes and their combinations of skills and atributes as crucial to my enjoyment of the game. Where as you see the immersion of your character and the belivability of the world as crucial to yours.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. I play other games as well as RPG's and I don't really consider Guild Wars an RPG. I don't consider any MMORPG's as RPG's (With the almost exception of Never Winter Nights:Narfell but that could only support 60 players so I dpoubt it counts.) The reason being the Role in RPG (Role Playing Game) should be one you play. The Mechanics of the game should be seccond to making your role a belivable and immersive one. Once again I'd like to take this chance to name Planescape Tourment as the greatest RPG of all time in that respect.
When I picked up my Guild Wars box I didn't expect much in the way of lore. This was a game trying to prove to the other MMORPG's out there that fees wern't nessesary to keep the game going. I assumed that it was the mechanics of the game that was going to be it's primary focus. I got alot more lore then I expected. I loved the lore behind the Hall of Hereos on page 71-72 of book 1. But when it came down to the crunch Guild Wars was a game about it's mechanics, It's stragey. Lore came in at a definte seccond.
I don't think compromising it's mechanics for the sake of immersion is something Anet would consider.
That's My two cents. Just so you know I've throughly enjoyed writing this post and I hope we can come to some understanding or middle ground in reguards to this topic.

Well, I'm glad to see we are at least beginning to understand in some respects.

I've never claimed that it wouldn't cause problems, I fully realize that a restructuring of the skills would require a great effort to rebalance the profession. However, I believe that where the skills are already unbalance the ranger in comparison to other professions, and I also feel that fairness and consistency can not be sacrificed for simplicity.


Because I've never felt the skill should be changed, I felt it should be placed in a different attribute or removed completely. To be honest, Tiger's Fury was not a skill I originally had in mind when I brought up my proposals, it was only after it had been brought up by other posters that I realized it too fit the situation I was describing. Anyway, having a skill in ranger at all that would influence a melee weapon positively and a range weapon negatively seems a bit counter to what a ranger is, at least in this game, and would only better justify removing the skill.



Granted, those few skills are an inconsistency, which I already acknowledged. However, I feel that having 3 out of 38 skills (riposte, deadly riposte, dwarven battle stance, according to descriptions I've seen, Flourish has nothing to do with swords) be out of place is less to be concerned about than 7 out of 10 expertise skills being related to bows, and 6 out of 24 wilderness survival skills. I'm not saying the warrior fits perfectly, I'm just saying that the ranger is more obviously out of the boudnaries than other professions.


This hasn't been about whether a skill is a shout, hex, enchantment, or stance, but about what the skill does. Who ever claimed that all shouts must be in tactics? Not me, "I will avenge you" seems to be perfectly suited for strength by virtue of what it does, a great and sudden exertion to increase attack speed and renew your energy.

Once again, I understand that changing skills changed game mechanics, I just don't feel that preserving game mechanics justifies ignoring logic on such a blatant level. The game loses something when you do that, and skills can be arranged to where they fit and mechanics can be preserved, it would just take some work and creativity.



Ok, the poison arrow argument does hold some merit, I can accept that. Still, in a game where in most cases, skills directly related to one attribute depend on that attribute, it feels out of place. Yes, there are tactics skills that affect swords, but they are not attacks, they are bonuses that can be active while using a sword. There are no sword, hammer, or axe attacks that are not connected to the respective skills. Ok, so the preparations could be argued in the same way, but then shouldn't they belong in the ranger's supporting attribute, expertise? Sorry, I still don't buy wilderness survival as a supporting attribute, two main attributes and two supporting attributes is spreading things a bit thin.

Of course they require a corpse, its a necromancer! You are so fond of definitions, necro=death. The point is, it doesn't have to do with raising dead, that is the focus of death magic. If the necromancer is using the blood of a fallen victim to create a health or power source, that makes perfect sense, all a necromancer's powers revolve around death.

Once again, you like breaking it down by words, Beast=animal, mastery=control. You can't maintain your favorite Tiger's Fury argument and not admit this, its one way or the other. But you're right, it's not all about animal control, but it is about enhancing your pet. With the exception of Tiger's Fury, any skill in beast mastery that does not directly and specifically affect your pet, instead affects animals in general(including your pet), which makes perfect sense. Where is it written? Try page 88 of the game manual:

"Beast Mastery improves your animal companion's basic attack damage, as well as skills that help to keep your companion from harm."

I don't think I could put it any plainer than that.

In the case of spirit of failure, the mesmer gains energy off of it, making it perfectly suited for inspiration. Spirit Shackles? Ok, I must have missed that one before, you're right, it does look more like domination. Once again, other professions may not fit perfectly, but one out of place skill in an entire profession is less glaring of an inconsistency than the complete ranger class.

And I'm repeating myself, I know it messes with the game, I just think it would be worth the effort to fix.

I think this statement only holds true for the game "Calvinball," and I don't know if you've ever tried playing that, but it is practically impossible

Ok, joking aside, games require logic, they thrive on logic. One of the oldest games in history, chess, is nothing but logic. To put it in more modern terms, if you are playing a first person shooter, and you fire a bullet, you expect it to go straight to your target. If instead it flies out 10 feet, spins 180 degrees, and returns to strike your character in the chest, you're probably not going to enjoy that game very much. Why? It defies logic and reason. If the game world doesn't make sense, it's not as involving or believable. Now, imagine that while you fire your "boomerang bullets," everyone else has bullets that shoot perfectly straight, and they come at you! Rules have to apply across the board. If you design a game system that applies to 5/6 of players, but require the remainder to use a different set of rules within the same system, that doesn't work.

Ok, glad we got that cleared up, moving on...

Actually, I don't think Beast Mastery would miss Tiger's Fury that much, without it, it does exactly what it's supposed to, pet attacks and pet support. If you really think it's a problem, make a skill in its place to fill the hole.


No, I wouldn't expect anyone to drop an argument on basis of numbers alone. I would like you to stop and think though that if so many others agree it is out of place, there just might be a valid reason to their argument. Instead of constantly bashing us over the head with the same argument in favor of keeping it where it is, why not at least consider what others have said instead of instantly dismissing it. It's not peer pressure to admit that an argument that manages to convince a larger number of people has some weight to it.

Once again, the spirits in beast mastery affect animals, not bows. An animal rage will not speed up bow attacks under any circumstances, what speeds up how fast you can knock, draw, aim, and loose arrows is your skill and dexterity, and of course, control under pressure. You seem to think this means that the 'rage' should then not be applied to bows, I see it as proof that beyond the name, there is no 'rage' involved in the skill.

I could ask them, but then again, why have a ranger skill that penalizes bows without enhancing any other ranger ability? You want to change the mechanics of the skill, I want to change the name and associated attribute, or remove it all together. Differents solutions, similar result I suppose.

Guild Wars is definetley set in a world of fantasy, where magic is real, the dead walk, piles of rocks fight, and bizarre creatures roam the wilds. If that is what you mean, sure, I can agree with that. But within this magical world, is it logical for an elementalist who learns more of control over fire to cast better fire skills? Is it not logical for a necromancer who learns power over the dead to be able to raise better undead minions? There is logic in the world of guild wars. You're so fond of citing game mechanics, well, mechanics of any sort are based on logic. It's there, accept it.

I did not intend to attack your person, but rather your method of arguing, your tactics were poor and your reasoning flawed. These were not the tactics of someone secure in his position, or of someone open to other ideas. I was pointing out that if you maintained those tactics, the discussion would go nowhere, I'm glad we seem to have gotten past that.


There's a difference between arguing a point for the intention to exchange information and viewpoints, and arguing for the sake of arguing. You seemed to enjoy opposing someone more than convincing or listening. To some extent, you have ignored my arguments. For example, if I claim that a skill is not where it needs to be because it is unrelated to its attribute, you make the claim that it should stay where it is because game mechanics require it. That's a fine statement, if it holds up, but what have you done? You said my conclusion is wrong, that the skill should be moved, but you never once explained how the skill is not related to the attribute I feel it should be connected to. That is what I mean by ignoring my argument. You disregard my supporting evidence as if it were never there. When you offer such evidence, I make an effort to counter it and show where it is flawed, and if I can not, I concede the point. I address each of the supporting pieces of your argument, if mine are inconvenient, you pretend I never made them.

Yes, you've given reasons, but you haven't contested my reasons, which means they are still valid reasons and my points still bear consideration.



What 'flaw' in my argument have you pointed out that I haven't had an explanation for? I seem to point out plenty of flaws in yours, but that doesn't stop you from using them, despite being unable to resupport your claims or remove the flaws.

I think I've started to go in circles here, but ok, you have stated your reason for your position in every one of your posts, and it has been the same every time. You've given me your reasons for disagreeing, fine, but you've never said why my reasons are wrong, only my conclusions. I address your explanations and shown what I think is wrong with them, backed up with plenty of examples and evidence. If you are going to say I am wrong about something, you had better be able to go to the source, my supporting statements, not just offer an opposite view. That's only getting the job half done, you need both for a coherent argument.


But swords aren't the only option for warriors, that's the point. I don't see Wilderness Survival as being equal to tactics, I see it as axes or hammers due to the ability to use another weapon, traps. Warriors have three weapons, axes, swords, hammers. Rangers have three, bows, traps, pets. Warriors have two supporting attributes, strength and tactics, rangers have one, expertise. Come to think of it, warriors are the only class with two supporting attributes. In fact, the argument could be made that tactics is not a "supporting" attribute, but a "defensive" attribute, it doesn't enhance attacks as much as strength does, and a lot of its skills provide defense or boosts to armor or health.

Choose one weapon and stick with it? Isn't that what warrior does? Isn't that what other professions do? You're requiring something different of rangers than is required of others, and that is the core of my argument.


I never said the expertise attribute didn't affect pets, I said there were no expertise skills that affected pets.

Same deal as pets, there are no expertise skills that affect traps.

So now Beast Mastery is also a support tree? Do you realize that you've made ranger a profession with one primary attribute and three support trees, something no other profession has? Well, I can't say you did it, it was that way to begin with, and that's my point!

Earth and water magic are not support trees, they do not directly enhance the skills of other attributes. You seem to think that "support" means anything that is not a direct attack. I suppose you consider healing a "support" tree. Yes, it does support other characters, but it doesn't support other attributes of the same character, and that's what I mean when I talk about support. Yes, the skills in these attributes can be used in combination with the skills of other attributes for an enhanced effect, but that's different, there isn't an earth skill that says "gain 10 health for every fire spell you cast," The combinations are up to the players to determine and discover, they are not required to work in a single specific way.

Well, by that reasoning, all of an elementalist's skills, mesmer's, Necromancer's, and monk's skills must be support skills, because they don't require a weapon to be in your hand. Pets can be your primary offense, I've seen it done, they can be a very effective weapon. A bow in the hands of a ranger who uses all pet skills and has no marksmanship points is just as useful as a staff in the hands of an elementalist: the physical attacks are almost worthless, it's the enhancing attributes on the weapon you use to help your other skills.


Strength is mostly comprised of skills that affect all of a warriors other skills, not just one. Expertise is not. Wilderness survival and tactics are the same way. Even if the two attributes were truly "support" attributes as you claim, why do they then not support Beast Mastery? I'm sorry, but the analogy between ranger and warrior attributes has been stretched far beyond its limits.

Once again, skills not attributes.

That's not an analogy, that's a presumption, what's more, it's a presumption that isn't true. An analogy relates one situation to another, you created a nonexistent situation. Warriors have five attributes. Unless you want to change your precious game mechanics so that they have three, that doesn't work.


Hmm, one supporting attribute is their primary, funny, sounds like expertise! Wilderness Survival is not a supporting attribute, or should not be, it has it's own unique method of attack, the problem is that attack is underrepresented in the attribute, and instead of coming up with more related skills, someone ran out of ideas, but had a lot of extra ideas for bows and decided to supplement their shorcommings in wilderness survival with some of these. That's the problem with wilderness survival as it now stands, its not a supporting attribute, its not a major attribute, its an attribute with an identity crisis, it can't make up its mind which one it is!

Once again, you misuse "support." These attributes and their related skills do not have an equal enhancing effect on all their other skills!


Yes, but the expertise skills are unbalanced, they need to affect all other skills equally, or they need to have a similar number of skills that specifically affect the other attributes' skills.

And strength skills affect a warrior's other skills equally (with the already stated exception)

Agreed.

Agreed, although I've played a monk and never quite understood divine favor....Great! You're getting me sidetracked again, stop that!

Soul Reaping is every bit as direct as expertise, it provides energy which is used by all other skills.

At least the attributes still have a balanced effect on other skills. Or, maybe this is something else for the game to look into, how about some skills for those primaries? Anyway, another topic, another thread....


Do we have to go through this again? Pets are not supporting, they are a unique attack. Traps are not supporting, they are another unique attack/hindering action. Water is not supporting, it's defensive/hindering. Earth is not supporting, it's defensive. Sure you can specialize in them for attacking, that doesn't mean they would be your only skills! That's why there are supporitng attributes (except that expertise skills won't support these!), and that's why every character has a second profession!

But you ignore the fact that expertise does have skills that affect marksmanship, it either has to affect all the attributes or none of them, otherwise it's unbalanced and doesn't qualify as supporting, but rather as an extension of marksmanship.

So which is it? Fire and water can't affect each other, but wilderness and marksmanship can, but wilderness and beasts can't? That's hypocritical, you can't have it both ways!

Yes, there are exceptions! Very few exceptons though, one or two skills per class. The problem is that with a ranger, exceptions are the rule, not the rarity. Other professions may not be an absolute perfect fit in the mold, and they may need some changes as well, but they follow very closely. Rangers break the mold entirely. Changing these wouldn't break anything, it would make the game more true to its original intentions, choose a handful of attributes and choose carefully, because they each have very specific effects, and can be combined in thousands of ways. Oh wait, there is that pesky ranger, you don't have to choose from his attributes, because they all do the same thing! Oh, and to do one thing, you have to have all three! (ok, slight exaggeration, but you get the point)



I'm not arguing that every game has to be an exact replica of real life, if I wanted that, I'd go buy "Sims" or something like that. Sure, you have to sacrifice a degree of logic. One of the things I enjoy most about guild wars is its simplicity. But the things you list aren't sacrificing logic, they are sacrificing realism. That's fine, it's a game, too much realism will bog it down, I agree. But you can't throw logic completely out the window, and that happens when a single class of character is held to a totally different standard than the others. I'm asking for the preservation of logic so far as it promotes consistency and fairness in the game, along with a reasonable degree of believability, and that can't be ignored.


Well, we agree there is a general mold, I think where we disagree is on how well the ranger fits that mold compared to the other classes. You see exceptions in one class and figure that makes any exceptions in other classes ok. I'm not denying there are exceptions, I'm saying that the exceptions in the ranger class add up to a lot more than those in other classes, and that is unbalanced.



The monk has a choice of three main objectives, to heal, to protect, or to deal direct damage. Keeping people alive is a fine objective for the class as a whole, or even for a character's combination of both classes, but each attribute has it's own objective. The objective of healing is to restore health. The objective of protection is to prevent damage or to discourage attacks on yourself or teammates. The purpose of smiting is to deal damage. The purpose of marksmanship is to make you more effective in how you shoot a bow. While raising protection will make you more effective at keeping people alive, it won't enhance your healing. By the same reasoning, raising wilderness survival should not improve your use of the bow. It should not increase the damage of the bow, that's what marksmanship is for, hit your target more accurately with more force for more damage!


Still confusing attribute goals with overall character goals.


By cheating the system, I mean that puting the skills in an unrelated attribute is avoiding the issue of having skills that actually do what the attribute is supposed to do. It's avoiding the task of creating believable skills related to believable attributes. Instead of carefully considering what attribute related skills should be designed to make a balanced profession that works the same way as the other five, it feels like the ranger was the last profession worked on, deadlines were approaching, the game developers brainstormed a whole bunch of skills for the ranger, then realized, "hey, we've got waaaay to many bow attacks/enhancements to put them all in a marksmanship category. Should we scrap some and come up with more skills appropriate for the other attributes? Nah, no time, the game hits stores at the end of the month, just split the skills up into other attributes, no one will care." That's what I mean by cheating the system, it feels like the devs ignored their own system for the sake of convenience, not for enhancing game play. If this really happened, I have no idea, It's just what it feels like, and I have seen similar circumstances before when other games get pushed to the deadlines.



I've claimed certain skills belong in different attributes, you say they don't, as far as I can tell, that's saying I'm wrong. If I'm drawing it from your explanation as to why you belive it is wrong, doesn't the very fact that you have such an explanation indicate that you believe it is wrong? The problem is you don't often say why my explanation is not right.



Well, I'm glad to hear you are an experienced rpg'er, personally, NWN has always been one of my favorites, can't wait to try D&D online. Play games too much? Guilty. Although, this ongoing discussion has managed to seriously cut down my play time lol, not that it's much better I guess, still not exactly doing much productive in that little place we call reality. Oh well, I guess I'll catch up later.


Confuse people already familiar with the game? Lol, you obviously never played Star Wars Galaxies, they had a habit of frequently changing the way the game worked, and yes, it was confusing, but people adapted and learned, and when the changes brought an actual improvement to either the feel of the game world or the play of the game mechanics, people welcomed the changes.

Of course any changes will upset the balance (although I argue that it's already unbalanced), any change has repercussions that should be dealt with. I'm not expecting an instant fix, I'd prefer it not to be, too often I've seen patches pushed before being completely thought out and tested, it turns the whole game into a massive beta test, not fun!

Change descriptions without changing effects? Might work in some cases, but whatever the description, if a skill improves bow effectiveness, isn't it still primarily a bow-related skill? Would not a rose by any other name smell as sweet? (agh, I can't believe I just quoted Shakespeare!) Try this, if you move all the bow skills to marksman, add a few more traps to wilderness survival, add a few different skills to expertise, and possibly replace Tiger's Fury with a similar pet related skill, have you really put that much out of balance? I think as long as the new skills aren't any more powerful than the ones they replace, it would pretty much be ok. The very nature of the game dictates that more skills in the game doesn't mean more skills for the character, he's still only bringing eight into battle, he just has more options, giving him the same flexibility in attribute combinations that other professsions have. It's really not a question of the number of skills available to the profession. As it is now, every profession and each attribute have vastly different numbers of associated skills, there is no standard of X skills per attribute or Y skills per profession, so what's a few more skills? I mean, right now wilderness survival has 24 skills and marksman has 13, tell me that's not unbalanced! If the six bow skills were moved and it were 19 and 18, would it really upset the game that much? I don't think so, it seems that it would actually work better than the present situation. Maybe I'm wrong, I have no way of testing it atm, but I think it's worth some thought.




Yep, that must be it. Any time I create a character, in any game, the wheels in my head start turning and my imagination takes off - who is this person? where are they from, what are they like, how do they act? I know mmorpg's aren't as character immersive as true rpgs, but in my immagination it works, whether I'm picking a color for my armor or squared off against four hydras and a contingent of charr, I'm acting as I think my character would react. Are they the type to stay in a hopeless fight to give companions a chance to escape? Or will they take the first opportunity to escape, rest, and come back again? I play each character differently, and that's where I find the fun in the game. Sure, it's fun to come up with tactics and strategies, don't get me wrong, 'Axis and Allies' and 'StarCraft' have always been among my favorites. But in a game like this, I temper my strategies and choose my skills according to the character's personality. Which is probably also why I don't really care for PvP in rpgs, I'm unwilling to sacrifice who my character is for that one, perfect build that everyone uses to death lol (to this day, I have not made a warrior monk, and I have no intention of doing so!).

Anyway, I think that at least on some level, we have reached somewhat of a middle ground on the issues. We still have a few other disagreements, but we may work them out. I just hope I don't end up writing another post this long, or I'll never get back in that game, and what happens with the rangers won't really matter then, will it? Ah well, I suppose it has been fun, I guess we'll see how things play out from here. Until next time.

arrows fly way too slow. if u get the best bow, your projectile speed should increase.

& lower the arch. its like a hail mary the way it is now.

I use it for trapping

I'll agree on how much play time I've lost to this particular post Blackbird. In terms of why rangers skills aren't as they are while DISCARDING any refernce to the mechanics of the game I'll admit I don't have much in the way of argument.
We're running in circles now with our explinations and I doubt another massive post like our last Two will shed any further light on the subject.
I'll keep an eye on the thread mainly because it's one I've kept such a close eye on the past couple of weeks and offer the odd bit of my mind but I think We've covered each others major views and established why we are so against each other.
Should you wish to debate on a FEW major points of our argument I'd be more then happy to but I don't want to write anotehr encyclopedia of a post.
I've got a pet build to get into the tombs .

BeastMaster
necro can hav minions. why cant a ranger have a spider & a lynx...

damn, Thomas and Blackbird, i can't imagine the amount of valuable game-play time you guys wasted over what is essentially the name the devs chose to attach to this particular skill.
no i just kidding. look i understand the problem, why is an attack skill in the Beastmastery line? should it stay there, or should it be moved to Expertise or Survival. i don't know about the second question, but as for the first one, well all i bring is my experience from WoW to GWs. A pet focused ranger was a big thing in WoW but in GWs, pouring all your points into Beastmastery would leave you a little lacking in terms of your own fighting prowess.
so in terms of game balance, its great. your points in Beastmastery throw you a fantastic advantage, no matter if you use your pet as the tank to your archer, or if you fight side-by-side with it.
in terms of the background or story of the game, ok maybe it might be better if it were named something like "Mimic Snake" in that you strike faster, but no less accurately, but hey, it that any reason for a massive war of words between two players who both have such obvious passion for rangers? i'd like to think not.

I've been a Ranger since I started, still am. I'm largely happy with the class, and haven't found another class that I like better (though I'm a big fan of Necromancers ). The only significant change I would personally like to see is an end to is how your skills are disabled for 8 seconds after your pet dies. Not only after it dies, but after it's resurrected as well! 8 seconds is an eternity in a PvE battle, let alone a PvP one. I would like to see it lowered significantly, at least halved.

Other than that I think they're well balanced. For the most part. I wouldn't change anything else about them anyway.

Hey all, I think the main thing that distinguishes Ranger attributes from other class attributes is that Rangers need expertise and marksmanship to use their primary class skills effectively. Warriors, if they need to, can just use swordsmanship and they will be good with a sword, mesmers can use just inspiration and they will drain mana efficiently.

I know some are gonna disagree with this but a ranger who uses bow skills without any expertise is severly lacking. They will run out of mana, period. Marksman's Wager will not work because it is expertise.

This all seems like I'm complaining about the the way rangers are set up. I'm not, I love rangers and they can stay the way they are but they are the worst class to mix with. We can argue that it is possible to mix them but try and argue that any of the other 5 mix worse.

My ranger uses Expertise, Marksmanship and he switches between Beast Mastery for TF and Wilderness Survival for traps. I don't have a lot of points to throw into other classes. Also, there aren't many skills a ranger has that are that helpful to other classes. Drydar's Defenses, Troll Unguent, and energizing winds (I also came up with throw dirt, whirling defense and oath shot but they are expertise ) are some good ones but I find other classes much more useful when mixing.

Also, I think they are the worst secondary class, ever, unless you use them for beast mastery. Elementalists are the only primary that could keep up with the rampaging energy costs for ranger bow/trap skills. So, if you use defensive skills, Rangers can slightly augment your primary but they will never truly mix, in my opinion.

Nobody's gonna agree or disagree?

My opinion:

There is no real beast master build that is effective.
Either your beast is uber but you die after two hits or the damage your beast puts out is negligible and easily ignored altogether.
This should somehow change.
Symbiotic reliationship ~ ranger and beast pull from same health pool.
(just one crazy idea)

Rangers are the undisputed (*waits for dispute) mage shut-down artists.
With the range of interrupts available to a ranger, they can stop each spell-casting the hapless necro/ele/monk wishes to make.
This should be nerfed! Like all other classes, these skill sets should have recharge times that make it impossible to cycle through them all and be ready to cycle through them all again once the last DS is fired.

Rangers are not weak. For all of you that are crying about how weak the class is, you would cry just as much if they gave you everything you want.

Infernal

If tigers fury went into the expertise line it would need a serious nerf to go with it.
Personally, Id love to see tigers fury effect pet attack speed along with bow attack speed while staying as is.

As far as ranger balance.

-A ranger that wants to use ranger attributes always gets a lot out of his primary attribute.
-No other class can jump into a ranger attribute and be better at it than a ranger.

I wish every other class played this way.
I think the way the ranger is balanced is almost perfect and that all other classes should follow suit.
A ranger can choose to make good use of his secondary, but to be a good archer a ranger is forced into 3 attributes.
I think if you wanted to be a good smiter, along with any of the other monk attributes, youd be forced into divine healing.
But as of right now, energy storage is a far better attribute to link with smitting.

Also, most in not almost any skills that help with energy should be linked to the primary attribute.
Mesmers make much more milage with Inspirations than with Fast Casting.
Its almost like a mes is typically inspirations and whatever else and only into fastcasting when they "specialize".

I would love for rangers to have more types of weapon options to link to the other attributes. But I dont think bows for wilderness or expertise would to much good. Youd still have a crappy bow without points in marksmanship.

I do think short dual daggers for wilderness and expertise would be..ok.
Beastmasters should problably get a foci and look to another attrubute to get a weapon to fight with, ..they already have thier beast.
That way a beastmaster could at least wield one dagger and a beastmaster foci.

And lastly for people that dont know yet, rangers are on there way to the top.
Cripple Shot, Punishing Shot, and oh my god! Savage Shot have all been buffed.
Interupting rangers are putting out more dps than your average warrior these days.
I can remember when people where upset that everyclass could do what rangers do, but better. And that mesmers where 100% better at disrupting casters. And that warriors where better at doing physical damage. (still debatable)
Well, well, well. How the tables have turned.
I dont like it personally, because its becoming so common. Where as before, I was unique as an interupt heavy ranger. Now I can expect in the next few days or weeks that interupt counters will be very common too.

But yeah, rangers are commonly starting to piss people off. That usually means that class is got good potentual to win with easy.

Weapons

Rangers cant handle everything with a bow. sometimes that bear sneaks up on you. and the ranger pulls out his -knife

- short sword

- axe

Armor

shield on back? like achilles in Troy. i think of that more as a warior skill...

but bucklers, small shields worn on wrist

Skills
Skinning: bear pelt. a bear dies, but you need a ranger to skin it. otherwise you have to drag the whole carcass to a town.

- charr hides

- garg skulls

monks are important cause they heal. why not make rangers integral to GWs also?

right now, rangers are boring. make them the rugged woodsmen they really are.

I second that, I switched to War because of that, I barely ever play my Ranger anymore, just so boring, I never get into groups because of the dang idiots... *goes and grumbles* I like the idea of a knife, or dual knives, they're the woodsman, but they cant use a knife? Kinda stupid if you ask me... *grumblemumble*

I agree that the ranger class needs at least one more weapon to work with. The ranger is limited in that his only weapon option is a bow (which is 2-handed). All other classes have 2-handed weapons available, but also have one-handed alternatives, leaving a hand free for an artifact or shield. Why not create a one-handed weapon for rangers (like a sling or throwing daggers for example)?