wariors are to powerfull!!! - Page 4 - Guild Wars Forums

Auntie I · Jun 28, 2005, 03:39 PM // 15:39

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

blakk · Jun 28, 2005, 04:35 PM // 16:35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stumpy · Jun 28, 2005, 05:51 PM // 17:51

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

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

Arthur Eld · Jun 28, 2005, 06:18 PM // 18:18

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

People are stupid.
Paine is beyond stupid.

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

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

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

Ristaron · Jun 28, 2005, 06:54 PM // 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystical bane

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

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

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

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

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

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

).

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

Jun 28, 2005, 07:22 PM // 19:22

this topic turned into a moron fest. Especially with those of you claiming "omg wtf my ranger will wtfpwnz any Warrior!1!!shift+1!!!"-no one cares.

Kishin · Jun 28, 2005, 11:56 PM // 23:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystical bane

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ishamael Sedai · Jun 29, 2005, 12:09 AM // 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paine

Amnisac & Ensign, you still can't release the fact that rangers suck.
Why?
Because you're one of them. You may think and experiment with different kind of tactics but you can never kill someone in 1 vs 1, and if you can't survive in 1 vs 1 then you're weak. You'll probably get it when you get royaly owned one day and realise that you're not doing a shit to help your team. Your arguments don't make any sense.
Get yourself a monk and support your teammates orderly, that's much more better.

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

wgregory87 · Jun 29, 2005, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paine

Amnisac & Ensign, you still can't release the fact that rangers suck.
Why?
Because you're one of them. You may think and experiment with different kind of tactics but you can never kill someone in 1 vs 1, and if you can't survive in 1 vs 1 then you're weak. You'll probably get it when you get royaly owned one day and realise that you're not doing a shit to help your team. Your arguments don't make any sense.
Get yourself a monk and support your teammates orderly, that's much more better.

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

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

Ishamael Sedai · Jun 29, 2005, 12:24 AM // 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

But even beyond that, I'm making arguments based upon merit. The fact that I'm making them, or someone with no reputation whatsoever is making them, should be irrelevant.

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

Jun 28, 2005, 03:39 PM // 15:39	#61
Auntie I Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Apr 2005 Guild: Veritas Invictus Profession: E/Me	Fascinating! Absolutely fascinating! I gotta go with the majority and say that there is NO class that is better than any other. We all have personal favorites and ones we know how to play. I have mostly played an elementalist since release but in beta I played a ranger and I have one in the works now. I have to agree that early on in the game the skill selection is less than wonderful but it definitely gets better. Several of my guildmates run rangers and do a damn fine job of it too. 1V1 in this game is a waste of time, I think. There are too many variables to consider. If you plan your build to take down one type of character the others will hand you your butt in a sling. On the other hand I don't think there is a build for any profession that can stand up to all other professions. This is a team based game and you are supposed to work with your team. Paine talks about owning rangers, but really I wonder what is the rest of his team doing? There wouldn't be a mesmer or Protection monk standing behind him giving him that edge while he takes out 1 ranger would there? (That would be 3V1 wouldn't it) I very much enjoyed the discussion in this thread because it really does highlight one of the strengths of GW. "There is no one true answer." But isn't it fun trying to figure it out!

Jun 28, 2005, 04:35 PM // 16:35	#62
blakk Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: May 2005 Guild: The Marble Clan [KING] Profession: R/Mo	[QUOTE=Amnisac]Here is my comment to you post paine. ( ALL RANGERS SUCK, YES ALL ) Just by this I know you know nothing about rangers, and your following comments will be incorrect. Rangers suck overall. They're not even good as supporters. Interuption, traps, not to mention we can inflict EVERY kind of condition. * To low damage: We only deal low damage if you use the ranger incorrectly. I can kill enemies faster than most of my elementalist friends can. * Low attackspeed: We have plenty of skills at our disposal to increase attack speed, and arrow flight time. * No Shield: Plenty of other classes don't use shields, we have no disadvantage by not having one. * Getting out of mana fast: Expertise. Look at their special attribute called "expertise". It decreases the mana cost for their skills. Seriously, lower mana cost on your skills won't help you kill any enemies. Even if they had the warriors special attribute "Strength" with armor penetration they'd still suck.: Expertise allows us to use more skills in a shorter ammount of time than any other class. You may call me a "n00b" but everyone in my guild agrees with me. A little advertisement: Clan Takeda Rank: 112: >>>xIt is apperant now that rank has nothing to do with knowldge of the game.<<<x[/QUOTE] NICE perfect summation man. and your right aAn net has dont a fairly awesome job of balanceing the ranger. its a spectacular job concidering all of the possibilities avalaiable to a straight ranger. by using expertise you can not only cut you skill cost to half (12 points) you also have attack skills based on expertise, that are very effective. you can cripple bleed poison your target, interrupt, sap energy, shucks you can add poision and THEN use pindown WITh the poision and all from 100m away at a recycle rate of mod,....ooh i wanna go home and redo my skillz.. anyway its nonsensical for anyone to deem a proffesion in GW as weak or sucks , as soon as you do you will open an avalanche of opposition. what people seem to fail to realize is that everyone has different aptitude levels when playing any game. some people, just beacause of how they process things will not be able to use certain professions well. This is normally explained as "i just could not get the hang of..." the problem is is that the matruty of the user/player comes into play/judgement. the mature player will move on and try other things untill they find the set up that "fits". this process should cause one to get a practical respect for the proffessions they could not master, but unfortunatly as has been seen here, people take the stand that the road to success is more power, instead of lern to use it as it was meant to be.

Jun 28, 2005, 05:51 PM // 17:51	#63
stumpy Jungle Guide Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Canucklehead BC, Canada Guild: Advanced Necro Undead Society	what is this a noob thread? lol .... sorry damage wise rangers are quite powerful ... if your not or never have played a ranger to the end of the game and got all the necessary skills to compete ... then ya ... i can see how your ranger could get owned ... its like battling someone while your dancing naked. I've been a ranger since beta, learn how to play an effective 1vs1 ranger before responding in here. I joined a group of debilitating/interrupters and made it to the Hall of Heroes with 6 rangers. OMG no energy what? thats right, ... in arenas, I usually bring more self sufficent skills with 1 or 2 slots to aid an ally. Really do the research first please before calling out rangers as useless ...

Jun 28, 2005, 06:18 PM // 18:18	#64
Arthur Eld Ascalonian Squire Join Date: Jun 2005 Guild: The Heathenreel Profession: Me/E	As a complete outsider to this thread, and reading everything up until this post at the same time, I have only the following to say: People are stupid. Paine is beyond stupid. Allow me to show a simple demonstration of Paine's logic. Paine, omg, ur char is ghey and likes men and sucks. Thus, you have been defeated in a 1v1 battle of wits of your own choosing. In fact, after reading all of this, I'm going to put my three magic users on hold and make a ranger.

Jun 28, 2005, 07:22 PM // 19:22	#66
Blackace Guest	this topic turned into a moron fest. Especially with those of you claiming "omg wtf my ranger will wtfpwnz any Warrior!1!!shift+1!!!"-no one cares.