Curse

Randvek · Apr 03, 2008, 08:59 PM // 20:59

I have to /sign, sadly. Rangers can use a hammer better than a Warrior. Rangers can use a Scythe better than a Dervish. There's a good argument that a Ranger can use Daggers better than an Assassin.

That just doesn't seem right to me. Then again, it may just be a sign that Strength, Mysticism, and Critical Strikes just don't mesh with the weapons well enough. There's no synergy, but Expertise does have synergy.

Synergy > No Synergy, so the Ranger rules.

Pyro maniac · Apr 03, 2008, 09:00 PM // 21:00

/Sign, just put this in Gladiators Arena. At least the decent people react then, and not just the PvE'ers with a main ranger that like every buff and dislike every nerf to that class.

AshenX · Apr 03, 2008, 09:23 PM // 21:23

Can eles spend their energy on non ele skills ? Does a warriors strength attribute apply to non warrior weapons ? Can a necro use energy gained from soul reaping for non necro skills ? Can a sin use critical strikes with weapons other than daggers ?

Sorry I dont believe that a ranger with a sword is better than a warrior, I dont believe that a ranger with a scythe is better than a dervish. And so on. I believe that rangers do have a lot of versatility when it comes to secondary profession skill use but are not overpowered under such circumstances. In many ways I believe that ranger is a jack of all trades profession (sort of) but master of none.

If one has difficulty adjusting to an opponents versatility the problem is not with his versatility but rather with one's own ability to adapt and overcome.

Aldric · Apr 03, 2008, 09:24 PM // 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randvek

I have to /sign, sadly. Rangers can use a hammer better than a Warrior. Rangers can use a Scythe better than a Dervish. There's a good argument that a Ranger can use Daggers better than an Assassin.

That just doesn't seem right to me. Then again, it may just be a sign that Strength, Mysticism, and Critical Strikes just don't mesh with the weapons well enough. There's no synergy, but Expertise does have synergy.

Synergy > No Synergy, so the Ranger rules.

Sorry if this sounds really dense but since my pvp experience consists of cripshotting AB and watching Obs , why don't GvG battles consist of front line Rangers if they R/w and R/d better than primary W and D ?

Tyla · Apr 03, 2008, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshenX

Can eles spend their energy on non ele skills ? Does a warriors strength attribute apply to non warrior weapons ? Can a necro use energy gained from soul reaping for non necro skills ? Can a sin use critical strikes with weapons other than daggers ?

Sorry I dont believe that a ranger with a sword is better than a warrior, I dont believe that a ranger with a scythe is better than a dervish. And so on. I believe that rangers do have a lot of versatility when it comes to secondary profession skill use but are not overpowered under such circumstances. In many ways I believe that ranger is a jack of all trades profession (sort of) but master of none.

If one has difficulty adjusting to an opponents versatility the problem is not with his versatility but rather with one's own ability to adapt and overcome.

It's still degenerate. Versatility...in the form of degenerate builds is baed.

Bowstring Badass · Apr 03, 2008, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan-the-noob

Might get rid of some crap. R/D and thumpers need to be raped.

Thumpers are raped now it is all r/d.

Tyla · Apr 03, 2008, 09:36 PM // 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowstring Badass

Thumpers are raped now it is all r/d.

Kill R/D's and Thumpers come back. Why not get rid of both? Mind you, the power on Thumpers comes from RaO. Limiting RaO to Ranger skills should get rid of them degenerate creeps.

blakecraw · Apr 03, 2008, 10:13 PM // 22:13

imo make weapon attributes like primary attributes. Think about it, how many of those builds are non-retarded?

R/D => c-space-Lame
D/P blindbot => Lame
R/W => oldschool-Lame + daze-Lame + target-training-Lame... the trifecta!
A/D => like-a-dervish-but-better-Lame
E/A random-arenas-spike => lol-Lame
D/A dagger/lyssa => i-c-wut-u-did-thar-Lame
R/A => fang-of-melandru-Lame (<3 premade builds)
R/P => your-heroes-can't-kill-my-heroes-Lame
Rt/X spirits strength => IW-style-Lame

Sure, these builds offer "variety/versatility", but they're just plain stupid imo. Which of them makes this game better?

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I feel it is similar and not worth its own thread.

Please be nice and think of all the blood and sweat that went into this post

Sir Pandra Pierva · Apr 03, 2008, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itokaru

I was referring to the part of the quote that I bolded.

In RA and AB, the difference is actually not easily seen. I can't go 10 minutes without being flamed at and bashed for running. Any good Rangersin doesn't rely on stupidity, they rely on the opponents ego. People will usually try to split up and surround a runner and try to get the kills for themselves rather than trying to work together, or even just group together and wait until time runs out. Or they offer to 1v1, which is the stupidest thing one can do versus a Rangersin unless you have blind or anti-melee hexes.

and that part was sarcasm. numbnuts.

R/A dagger users are just annoying but i have never seen them do much ever. also ego in guildwars=stupidity.

Skyy High · Apr 03, 2008, 10:51 PM // 22:51

God forbid people use their secondaries. Let's just perma-equip swords to warriors, staffs to casters, daggers to sins, scythes to dervishes, and bows to rangers. Will that make you feel better?

Kyrein · Apr 04, 2008, 12:33 AM // 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakecraw

imo make weapon attributes like primary attributes. Think about it, how many of those builds are non-retarded?

R/D => c-space-Lame
D/P blindbot => Lame
R/W => oldschool-Lame + daze-Lame + target-training-Lame... the trifecta!
A/D => like-a-dervish-but-better-Lame
E/A random-arenas-spike => lol-Lame
D/A dagger/lyssa => i-c-wut-u-did-thar-Lame
R/A => fang-of-melandru-Lame (<3 premade builds)
R/P => your-heroes-can't-kill-my-heroes-Lame
Rt/X spirits strength => IW-style-Lame

Sure, these builds offer "variety/versatility", but they're just plain stupid imo. Which of them makes this game better?

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I feel it is similar and not worth its own thread.

Please be nice and think of all the blood and sweat that went into this post

absolutely brilliant! let's break the secondary professions system!

/sarcasm off

yum · Apr 04, 2008, 12:34 AM // 00:34

/signed.

Expertise should only effect ranger skills.

And why is this in Sardelac? 90% of the posts I read in this topic fail badly.

Any1 wants to buy some clue?

Oh and R/D will invade GvG soon, trust me. The main reason as to why RaO fails in GvG is the pet.

Duke.07 · Apr 04, 2008, 12:53 AM // 00:53

I see three main arguments in this thread.

1: The expertise line is overused, therefore overpowered, therefore should be nerfed.
a.WRONG! You most commonly see Rangers using secondary skills in builds like Thumper and R/D. These are the most commons forms you will see, but they are IN NO WAY OVERPOWERED. R/W can indeed cause some considerable pressure, but harness almost no spike damage (DW+maybe 75 damage?). Any competent monk can counter these.
b. R/D usually rely on spirits to spam their powerful skills. While this may cause some problems in uncoordinated PUGs, any well prepared group can take these spirits down easily. These R/Ds indeed do have powerful damage, but you must realize that these teams are mostly PUGs looking for fast fame, and can rarely hold Halls, or even get to it. In this equation its not the Rangers that are the problem, it is the over-powered monstrous damage of the scythes.

2. This type of play involes little to no skill, therefore should be nerfed to promote good game-play.
a. "These noobs need to learn to play Rangers the RIGHT WAY!" These "noobs" also happen to be very effective if they harness their build's full potential, but the problems with this kind of thing is as I said before: most of these groups are PUGs and are no threat to any kind of well organized and prepared group. These builds do have a quality that makes it easy to pick up and play, but this is in no way "skilless"

3. The Ranger is Expertise, Expertise is the Ranger, therefore it should not be nerfed because the Expertise is what makes the ranger worthwhile playing.
a. YES! The main reasons these threads pop-up is because of QQers who predominantly HA, but the problem is that NO MATTER WHAT, HEROES ASCENT WILL BE PLAGUED BY CRAPPY FOTM BUILDS. It has been everpresent since bloodspike and Iway. The reason the Ranger is any good is because that is the Jack of all Trades. It can play nearly any build (discluding most caster builds), but it is in no way as effective as the original builds. Touchers can be defeated by and mediocre blood necro. Thumpers can be defeated by and smart warrior who knows how to target pets. R/Ds can be defeated by any dervish who knows how to stay alive.

Main sum of all my arguments: Stop QQing and L2P.

Last argument of my own: People should stop calling for nerfs on the meta. People should start realizing that by nerfing the meta, you will just create a vacuum for another crappy FOTM build. People should call for buffs on other skills that would create options for those who refuse to run the meta builds, and when they DO refuse, make it so that those options are viable.

Tyla · Apr 04, 2008, 01:02 AM // 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke.07

I see three main arguments in this thread.

1: The expertise line is overused, therefore overpowered, therefore should be nerfed.
a.WRONG! You most commonly see Rangers using secondary skills in builds like Thumper and R/D. These are the most commons forms you will see, but they are IN NO WAY OVERPOWERED. R/W can indeed cause some considerable pressure, but harness almost no spike damage (DW+maybe 75 damage?). Any competent monk can counter these.
b. R/D usually rely on spirits to spam their powerful skills. While this may cause some problems in uncoordinated PUGs, any well prepared group can take these spirits down easily. These R/Ds indeed do have powerful damage, but you must realize that these teams are mostly PUGs looking for fast fame, and can rarely hold Halls, or even get to it. In this equation its not the Rangers that are the problem, it is the over-powered monstrous damage of the scythes.

Once again, I say -- It's not how powerful it is. It's the fact it's degenerate. Degenerate builds should be degenerated.

Quote:

2. This type of play involes little to no skill, therefore should be nerfed to promote good game-play.
a. "These noobs need to learn to play Rangers the RIGHT WAY!" These "noobs" also happen to be very effective if they harness their build's full potential, but the problems with this kind of thing is as I said before: most of these groups are PUGs and are no threat to any kind of well organized and prepared group. These builds do have a quality that makes it easy to pick up and play, but this is in no way "skilless"

These builds are mainly skillless, as the people who play them. C-Space then mash the 12345678 keys.

Quote:

3. The Ranger is Expertise, Expertise is the Ranger, therefore it should not be nerfed because the Expertise is what makes the ranger worthwhile playing.
a. YES! The main reasons these threads pop-up is because of QQers who predominantly HA, but the problem is that NO MATTER WHAT, HEROES ASCENT WILL BE PLAGUED BY CRAPPY FOTM BUILDS. It has been everpresent since bloodspike and Iway. The reason the Ranger is any good is because that is the Jack of all Trades. It can play nearly any build (discluding most caster builds), but it is in no way as effective as the original builds. Touchers can be defeated by and mediocre blood necro. Thumpers can be defeated by and smart warrior who knows how to target pets. R/Ds can be defeated by any dervish who knows how to stay alive.

Not really. It's the cheap application to conditions that makes the Ranger worthwhile playing. Expertise just allows spammability, which means yes, you're right in a sense.

But how will nerfing Expertise to Ranger-only skills affect anyone who knows how to play a proper Ranger and not these crappy, degenerate gimmicks? Not much. And besides, changing Expertise to this will get rid of the majority of R/X degenerate builds.

Quote:

Main sum of all my arguments: Stop QQing and L2P.

Last argument of my own: People should stop calling for nerfs on the meta. People should start realizing that by nerfing the meta, you will just create a vacuum for another crappy FOTM build. People should call for buffs on other skills that would create options for those who refuse to run the meta builds, and when they DO refuse, make it so that those options are viable.

I would rather face a new gimmick than face the same one over and over. If I don't? The game gets stagnant. In your case, I would say "Degenerate builds deserve to get nerfed, so gtfo."

yum · Apr 04, 2008, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Expertise is a disaster of an attribute. Virtually every Ranger skill is grossly overcosted because of how Expertise had to go into the design. Similarly to prevent the inevitable secondary abuse the breadth of its effect had to be narrowed significantly, further limiting the profession. Now you have this mess of a class design where you have to spend a huge chunk of your attributes on a line that does nothing other than make your character work at all; it is virtually always your highest attribute, and you're limited to skills that work at only moderate specs if you want to dual attribute at all.

/thread .

Skyy High · Apr 04, 2008, 01:18 AM // 01:18

Quote:

Once again, I say -- It's not how powerful it is. It's the fact it's degenerate. Degenerate builds should be degenerated.

And it's degenerate because....? This is clearly according to ANet's design philosophy; they even redid the wording on expertise to very specifically state what it did and did not effect, including giving the A-OK to touchers and thumpers and the like.

You're basically saying, "It's degenerate because I say so!" I mean, what makes it degenerate (thumpers, not sway)? It's really no less skill-less on its own than a standard warrior; it just sacrifices both the spike-ability and some of the pressure for more spammable kds and dazed. Why is a ranger using a secondary weapon so awful; are assassins using secondary weapons that disruptive to the game? They're clearly designed to do that (look at "melee attacks" under crit strikes, and enchs that give +xx% crit chance not just to daggers), so who are you to say that they shouldn't?

You want to nerf sway, fine, but don't take all of the diversity of rangers with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yum

/thread .

How is that the end of the thread? Ensign didn't say anything on the actual topic, he just commented that the entire idea of expertise is broken. It's an energy-management primary, just like most every other one; the fact that it does what it does exceedingly well (and that all of the class's skills are based around it) has no relation to whether or not rangers should be able to use r/x builds effectively because of it.

Tyla · Apr 04, 2008, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

And it's degenerate because....? This is clearly according to ANet's design philosophy; they even redid the wording on expertise to very specifically state what it did and did not effect, including giving the A-OK to touchers and thumpers and the like.

You're basically saying, "It's degenerate because I say so!" I mean, what makes it degenerate (thumpers, not sway)? It's really no less skill-less on its own than a standard warrior; it just sacrifices both the spike-ability and some of the pressure for more spammable kds and dazed. Why is a ranger using a secondary weapon so awful; are assassins using secondary weapons that disruptive to the game? They're clearly designed to do that (look at "melee attacks" under crit strikes, and enchs that give +xx% crit chance not just to daggers), so who are you to say that they shouldn't?

You want to nerf sway, fine, but don't take all of the diversity of rangers with it.

Actually, no. I'm saying it's degenerate, because Rangers weren't ment to do that role.

Warriors were ment to run around smacking stuff with a Hammer, rip things to shreads with Swords and Axes.

Dervish's were supposed to go around swinging a Scythe.

Rangers are ment to disrupt and create havok on the enemies side of things by developing strong pressure via conditions, and have survivability for splitting abilities.

Degenerate as in not ment for that role --

Like Bloodspike. Necro's were mainly designed as a Shutdown / Support profession, just like Mesmer and Ranger. Bloodspike comes along, and there's your degenerate spike.

Like Enchanter's Conundrum -> Shatter Delusions spike. Mesmers weren't ment to spike. They were ment to create havok on the enemies side of things like a Ranger does but in a different manner.

If I have to go through with this any more I can only say this -- you are extremely stubborn.

yum · Apr 04, 2008, 01:39 AM // 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

How is that the end of the thread? Ensign didn't say anything on the actual topic, he just commented that the entire idea of expertise is broken. It's an energy-management primary, just like most every other one; the fact that it does what it does exceedingly well (and that all of the class's skills are based around it) has no relation to whether or not rangers should be able to use r/x builds effectively because of it.

He implied that the design of expertise was originally for ranger's usages only as their skills are grossly overcost. And that design has nothing to do with other professions' skills.

1)The reason why ranger skills are overcost is expertise.

2)The reason why other professions' skills are expensive is the power of those skills. They are expensive because and only because their effects are powerful.

Obviously, those are 2 different things. Now if you mix 1 and 2, you will get powerful skills with very low cost which would make those originally fine skills become overpowered.
Therefore, the design of expertise now is not good for the game. Surely, you can nerf a couple of skills, but in the ling run, nothing would stop the abuse of expertise.

blakecraw · Apr 04, 2008, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyrein

absolutely brilliant! let's break the secondary professions system!

/sarcasm off

That wouldn't break the system, it would just prevent people from taking their secondary and pretending it's their primary profession, then reaping the benefits of their primary attribute.

A weapon that does 9-41 damage was not balanced around a near 100% crit rate, for example.

shru · Apr 04, 2008, 02:11 AM // 02:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyla salanari

Actually, no. I'm saying it's degenerate, because Rangers weren't ment to do that role.

Warriors were ment to run around smacking stuff with a Hammer, rip things to shreads with Swords and Axes.

Dervish's were supposed to go around swinging a Scythe.

Rangers are ment to disrupt and create havok on the enemies side of things by developing strong pressure via conditions, and have survivability for splitting abilities.

Degenerate as in not ment for that role --

Like Bloodspike. Necro's were mainly designed as a Shutdown / Support profession, just like Mesmer and Ranger. Bloodspike comes along, and there's your degenerate spike.

Like Enchanter's Conundrum -> Shatter Delusions spike. Mesmers weren't ment to spike. They were ment to create havok on the enemies side of things like a Ranger does but in a different manner.

If I have to go through with this any more I can only say this -- you are extremely stubborn.

I'm glad we should be taking narrow minded advice like yours and not try to push forward with gameplay, or are overly used stereotypes suddenly a good thing? Anet gave us the ability to use secondaries for a reason, why do you want to completely trash this idea? Why are you the one to say what a profession should and should not do?
I agree with a nerf to R/D's because they are overpowered (just like Enchanter's Conundrum spike), not because they don't fit the role I feel a ranger should play. To do so is completely uncalled for, and, like I stated before, extreamely narrow minded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakecraw

That wouldn't break the system, it would just prevent people from taking their secondary and pretending it's their primary profession, then reaping the benefits of their primary attribute.

A weapon that does 9-41 damage was not balanced around a near 100% crit rate, for example.

Scythes were slightly imbalanced to begin with, but if Anet never pushed forward with the "bigger badder" mentality (the biggest culprit for the power creep), they might have actualy had to try to mix up gameplay a little to get players interested in a new game, instead of just adding game breaking skills and professions to each new campaign.