wariors are to powerfull!!! - Page 3 - Guild Wars Forums

DrSLUGFly · Jun 28, 2005, 03:10 AM // 03:10

Okay... if everyone's done fighting over who's right and wrong and why rangers suck and don't suck, I'd like to address the opening poster.

Starwarsjedi... okay here's your first problem straight off, drop the jedi. Sith are the only way that can lead to power

. Second, don't sweat getting owned. How much faith would you have in the game if you could jump into a game and beat people who have been playing for 2 months or longer? The first few posts hit it pretty smack on, the rest you could probably ignore since it's just squabbling. A ranger isn't meant to take direct dmg, a warrior is meant to eat you at close range. All the classes are meant to support each other so if you're going one on one, you have to really think about your skill sets and what you're doing.

My advice (apart from the jedi/sith thing) is to play PvE for a while, get used to the controls and hotkeys, get used to your class, get used to using your skills in both normal and critical situations. People often say that levels 1-20 is like a tutorial. I don't exactly see it that way, but it's a beautiful analogy. By the time you get to level 20 on PvE you will understand your character enough to at least put up a fight in PvP. It may not help you to win, since human players behave vastly different from computer AI, but it will help you to know your own class and skill sets. And by the time you get through the game you'll have made enough online friends and been able to ask enough questions that you'll have better ideas about tactics and strategies in general.

Don't sweat it dude, getting owned is part of becoming the ninja you were born to be!

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

sith rock!

pearhk · Jun 28, 2005, 03:24 AM // 03:24

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

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

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

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

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

Eonwe · Jun 28, 2005, 03:29 AM // 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by pearhk

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

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

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

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

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

Every Class is Anti Other Class if played correctly.

Ristaron · Jun 28, 2005, 04:00 AM // 04:00

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

Too low attack speed? Tiger's fury! Or even use STORM CHASER, you can move up to 25% faster for up to 18 seconds. AND you GAIN energy when taking elemental damage!

Run out of energy too fast? Expertise!
No shield? Well neither do any of the other classes except warrior - are you suggesting that all of them suck as well? Oh, hey, guess what: hammers are two handed, are you suggesting that warriors who use hammers are stupid, or that they suck?
Too low damage? BLEEDING, POISONED, FLAME TRAPS! DAMAGE OVER TIME YOU NARROW-MINDED HACK-AND-SLASH DIABLO II WORSHIPPER!

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

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

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

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

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

sino-soviet · Jun 28, 2005, 04:09 AM // 04:09

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

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

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

Xeuro · Jun 28, 2005, 04:22 AM // 04:22

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

Sholtar · Jun 28, 2005, 04:43 AM // 04:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackace

Nope, there are strategies that are always better than others. Just because it's an RPS system doesn't mean every build and every strategy has an equal chance of winning.

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

derrtyboy69 · Jun 28, 2005, 05:40 AM // 05:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paine

My two cents:

( ALL RANGERS SUCK, YES ALL )

Rangers suck overall.

You may call me a "n00b" but everyone in my guild agrees with me.
A little advertisement:
Clan Takeda
Rank: 112

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

Psycological Dragoons
Rank: 90 (what now noob)

Broken181 · Jun 28, 2005, 08:08 AM // 08:08

Though I may not be into PvP as much and don't have ANY GvG experience, I have to agree with everyone who says rangers are good. I've played with my monk/ranger, ever since I got GW and even though I don't get the expertise bonus (that would be awesome

) I deal nice amounts of damage with the skills I DO have, and I'm not even trying to make my build based around ranger skills. I use mostly smiting spells (yes I know alot of people KNOW they suck

) but smite isn't a bad monk skill when combined with ranger skills that make you attack faster, because it will make you fire an arrow as soon as you let the string go that does holy damage, and then MORE holy damage if I'm being attacked. Add that plus some fire and poison damage, and it really isn't so bad to be a smiter

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

EmperorTippy · Jun 28, 2005, 08:39 AM // 08:39

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

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

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

mystical bane · Jun 28, 2005, 09:01 AM // 09:01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kashrlyyk · Jun 28, 2005, 09:22 AM // 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnisac

We have plenty of skills at our disposal to increase attack speed, and arrow flight time.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by drowningfish999

I guarantee any class in this game can be defeated by any other class if they know what they're doing.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholtar

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

Care to give an example?

Asrial · Jun 28, 2005, 10:33 AM // 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paine

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.

Bwahahahahahaha

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

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

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

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

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

Asrial · Jun 28, 2005, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystical bane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yukito Kunisaki · Jun 28, 2005, 12:13 PM // 12:13

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

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

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

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

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

good game... *not*...

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

mystical bane · Jun 28, 2005, 12:33 PM // 12:33

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

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

Swarnt Brightstar · Jun 28, 2005, 12:57 PM // 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholtar

I'm not so sure that you can really say that some strategies and tactics are better, though you also can't say it's personal preference. This game is like rock, paper, scissors with thousands of options. Some of them beat more of them than others, but they can all be beaten. So while some are better than others most of the time, I don't believe that there are any that are anywhere near always better. Of course, when you combine a team of perfectly corresponding builds... then your chances improve exponetially.

Just my two cents.

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

so on and so forth

Nash · Jun 28, 2005, 02:21 PM // 14:21

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

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

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

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

drowningfish999 · Jun 28, 2005, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

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

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

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

Calimar · Jun 28, 2005, 02:30 PM // 14:30

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

Jun 28, 2005, 04:00 AM // 04:00	#44
Ristaron Desert Nomad Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Canada, eh? Guild: Legion Of Valhalla Profession: E/	I have three characters. A Ranger/Mesmer, a Warrior/Monk, and a Monk/Warrior. My Ranger/Mesmer was a Ranger/Warrior throughout most of the game, then when he ascended I changed him to Mesmer because I was getting really bored of Warriors. Of all my characters, though, I like my Ranger the best. The sheer power he packs is completely amazing. You say you own rangers in competitive arenas. Good for you. Were they level 15 and you level 20? I own level 20 warriors with my level 20 Ranger. Simply because he is fast and efficient. I don't remember who said it, but a ranger WILL laugh at the burning, bleeding, crippled, poisoned warrior trying to chase him with an axe. Too low attack speed? Tiger's fury! Or even use STORM CHASER, you can move up to 25% faster for up to 18 seconds. AND you GAIN energy when taking elemental damage! Run out of energy too fast? Expertise! No shield? Well neither do any of the other classes except warrior - are you suggesting that all of them suck as well? Oh, hey, guess what: hammers are two handed, are you suggesting that warriors who use hammers are stupid, or that they suck? Too low damage? BLEEDING, POISONED, FLAME TRAPS! DAMAGE OVER TIME YOU NARROW-MINDED HACK-AND-SLASH DIABLO II WORSHIPPER! Hell a ranger can even throw dirt, blinding all six warriors attacking him at once while he sets a flame trap, a dust trap, and a barbed trap before kicking the crap out of all of them with Barrage! Oh look, no more warriors. And even look at Troll Unguent, arguably THE best self-healing spell in the game. You can have +9 or more hp regen for 10 seconds! That's 90 hp right there! If you do that while the six warriors are blind, bleeding, crippled, and on fire you're set to take them on again when they recover! By the way, I take my Monk/Warrior into pvp once in a while. I can hold my own very well against two warriors beating on me while my team races to 'save the healer'. That's without a shield, by the way. I've got a 15-22 gladius and an icon that gives me more energy and health while enchanted (and I always have divine boon (an enchantment in case you didn't ever play a monk - which I'm sure of because you're convinced warrior, and warrior alone is the way to go) on me). Just wait until I get a life-stealing or energy-boosting upgrade on my sword... I can hold out against those warriors twice as long. The only decent thing with warriors is their ability to tank. They have armour that reduces damage recieved, even though it's expensive as hell with the fur required. It's barely worth it. Though, at the same time, monk armour is highly expensive... it's dipped into my savings greatly to get my monk amnoon armour... he has yet to ascend. Back to warriors tanking, an elementalist can kick a warrior's ass with Lightning and other armour-ignoring spells. And if a ranger is beside that elementalist he can cripple the warrior, and then poison him and a myriad of other stuff. The fact that your measure of a class is their 1 on 1 capability says undeniably that you understand very little about the game. Where in the game do you find 1 vs 1? Aside from the rare occasion in arenas... if your idea of a good class is what will win 95% of the time in a situation like that, I reiterate, you understand very little about the game. You're the n00b, go have fun with your 112 rank - it really means nothing. Last edited by Ristaron; Jun 28, 2005 at 04:03 AM // 04:03..

Jun 28, 2005, 04:09 AM // 04:09	#45
sino-soviet Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Israel before, CA now. Profession: R/Me	I've seen several threads complaining about the uselessness of rangers, but this is going too far. Apparently, the general motivation to hate on rangers is low damage and low attackspeed, especially compared to elementalists. With a zealous bowstring, tiger's fury, and barrage, you can deal about 35 damage every ~1.3 seconds to a group of five enemies to gain energy. If you want to add to that, +20% armor penetration from Judge's Insight, which ends up at about ~45 damage to a group of 5 enemies for free every ~1.3 seconds. There is a common misconception about rangers and damage, and I believe a good ranger can OUTDAMAGE an elementalist easily with the right skills for free. "Look at their special attribute called "expertise". It decreases the mana cost for their skills. Seriously, lower mana cost on your skills won't help you kill any enemies." Yes, using skills wont help kill enemies. Its all about regular attacks baby! Last edited by sino-soviet; Jun 28, 2005 at 04:26 AM // 04:26..

Jun 28, 2005, 08:08 AM // 08:08	#49
Broken181 Ascalonian Squire Join Date: May 2005 Location: Illinois Guild: The Black Talon Profession: Mo/R	Though I may not be into PvP as much and don't have ANY GvG experience, I have to agree with everyone who says rangers are good. I've played with my monk/ranger, ever since I got GW and even though I don't get the expertise bonus (that would be awesome ) I deal nice amounts of damage with the skills I DO have, and I'm not even trying to make my build based around ranger skills. I use mostly smiting spells (yes I know alot of people KNOW they suck ) but smite isn't a bad monk skill when combined with ranger skills that make you attack faster, because it will make you fire an arrow as soon as you let the string go that does holy damage, and then MORE holy damage if I'm being attacked. Add that plus some fire and poison damage, and it really isn't so bad to be a smiter I DO have HoH experience so don't give me the PvE vs PvP stuff, I know there is a big difference, but, RANGERS DO NOT SUCK!!! Last edited by Broken181; Jun 28, 2005 at 08:13 AM // 08:13..

Jun 28, 2005, 09:01 AM // 09:01	#51
mystical bane Pre-Searing Cadet Join Date: Jun 2005	the jist of most of your posts in reply are "i know how use ranger you don't u n00b" and the worst thing is that most of you are contricting each other trying to defend the ranger. poor old xenogear says "if you know how to use a ranger right you can easily take out warrior" even though some one else says that warriors are "anti ranger" which would means even if you know how to use your ranger, if you fight another seasoned warrior then 8 out of 10 you will die and if you do win i doubt it would be easy, unless mr anti ranger is wrong. and ristaron with all praise for the ranger, if "The only decent thing with warriors is their ability to tank" then why do 2/3rd of your characters involve warriors but only one of them is a ranger? and to kishiin, why do you think 75% of all rangers are terrible, you are dissing alot of players there, could it be that may be there is a deep fault with the ranger if that many people are getting owned using one? and how come most of you are using your posts as an example to brag about yourself? what has not being able to kill your monk or saying your monk/warrior can take on two warriors (ristaron) got to do with rangers sucking? if rangers suck for 75 percent of the people then rangers suck because if they didn't they would be owning people. but as kishiin said they are not and has even likened killing a ranger to winning against a "one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest". when used correctly a ranger is good, but when another class is also used correctly, they are better. the only way you would win against most other classes is not because the ranger is better but because you would be smarter then the opponant, being more tactical makes up for it in GW. it is a fact and the king has said so himself that most warriors are immature teens who want instant power and front line hack slash so obviously any one with a bit of tactics can beat them regardless of class, even a ranger. fact is, if you let some one play GW for a day, at the end of it most would not chose a ranger as a top class and in polls on other forums the ranger ranked one of the lowest in most liked classes, so for some it hits the spot but for the rest they suck. Last edited by mystical bane; Jun 28, 2005 at 09:04 AM // 09:04..

Jun 28, 2005, 12:33 PM // 12:33	#56
mystical bane Pre-Searing Cadet Join Date: Jun 2005	lol, got carried away, did some work which involved the "all men are equal but some men are more equal then others" quote, tried to implement it there but i guess it isn't true. and since this topic popped up with trying to proclaim ranger uselessness there has been more sympethy, the polls show an increase in liking rangers which is suprising considering how many of them i see getting owned. Last edited by mystical bane; Jun 28, 2005 at 12:43 PM // 12:43..

Jun 28, 2005, 03:10 AM // 03:10	#41
DrSLUGFly Desert Nomad Join Date: May 2005 Location: European Server or International	Okay... if everyone's done fighting over who's right and wrong and why rangers suck and don't suck, I'd like to address the opening poster. Starwarsjedi... okay here's your first problem straight off, drop the jedi. Sith are the only way that can lead to power . Second, don't sweat getting owned. How much faith would you have in the game if you could jump into a game and beat people who have been playing for 2 months or longer? The first few posts hit it pretty smack on, the rest you could probably ignore since it's just squabbling. A ranger isn't meant to take direct dmg, a warrior is meant to eat you at close range. All the classes are meant to support each other so if you're going one on one, you have to really think about your skill sets and what you're doing. My advice (apart from the jedi/sith thing) is to play PvE for a while, get used to the controls and hotkeys, get used to your class, get used to using your skills in both normal and critical situations. People often say that levels 1-20 is like a tutorial. I don't exactly see it that way, but it's a beautiful analogy. By the time you get to level 20 on PvE you will understand your character enough to at least put up a fight in PvP. It may not help you to win, since human players behave vastly different from computer AI, but it will help you to know your own class and skill sets. And by the time you get through the game you'll have made enough online friends and been able to ask enough questions that you'll have better ideas about tactics and strategies in general. Don't sweat it dude, getting owned is part of becoming the ninja you were born to be! Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me. sith rock!

Jun 28, 2005, 03:24 AM // 03:24	#42
pearhk Jungle Guide Join Date: May 2005 Location: Asia	Doesnt read all post, but most of 1st page i dun see sum1 said the most important point, so i say it now Warriors are anti ranger, the have badass armour and +armour vs phy. with a shield, rangers only do like 5 dmg a hit Therefore being a ranger, u should not stand still and letting a warrior attack u, unless u have some 75% evade/block skill or throw dirt (thats anti warrior build, Throw dirt, Whirling Def, Trap, Pin down... etc) u should do hit and run, inflict some conditions on the warrior (posion, bleed, cripple) The same logic, ranger are anti mage (E and Me) due to mass interrupt and +30 armour vs ele.

Jun 28, 2005, 04:22 AM // 04:22	#46
Xeuro Academy Page Join Date: May 2005 Profession: Mo/N	There is no class in GW that "sucks"...that is what makes it a great game is that it is all BALANCED....a R/Me can take out a caster fast...however he may have a problem with a warrior..but guess what his teammate comes in to take out that warrior...so as you see it is a team effort....some classes were made to defeat other classes and so forth.

Jun 28, 2005, 12:13 PM // 12:13	#55
Yukito Kunisaki Forge Runner Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Profession: W/N	Warriors are getting both over and underrated at the same time... On one hand, you have the possibility of being ignored cause you're said to do too little dmg and recieve too little... On the other hand, if everyone truely has the 'ignore warrior' mindset, then one warrior with the right dmg output skills [axe output] will chop you into tiny pieces very quickly with the help of his competent team. [he is on a team I hope...] The idea of [ignore the warrior] is quite ridiculous in my opinion. Though I wish even the 'pros' would follow this rule. Everyone knows that you must target the warrior first to stop him through conditioning and hexes. But for all you rangers who claim to own stupid warriors, I'd like to see an 8 ranger team fight 8 warriors with Shield's Up and Deflect Arrows... good game... not... Anyone can own anyone in the right circumstance... lol

Jun 28, 2005, 02:21 PM // 14:21	#58
Nash Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sweden Guild: The Cornerstone	Don't you just love it when people who nothing about the game come posting because they've played a few games in the arena and think that makes them experts? No, Warriors are not overpowered. In fact, they are very limited and are often not run in builds due to their inherent issues; having to get in melee range to attack, and running into each other while doing so. On maps with varying terrain, elevation, and so, Warriors can be completely useless. Multiple Warriors on a target bodyblock each other and wastes a lot of time and thus DPS. Your target can also kite around. So, if you're running Warriors, you'd want to do it on maps where they are viable, have them on different targets, and bring a snare. Rangers are awesome. They have good DPS, high armor against elementalists, energy denial immunity almost with Expertise reducing costs to to 2 energy, the best primary attribute in the game, more utility than any other, the best skill interruption, rituals that allow you to mess around with game mechanics, and I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.

Jun 28, 2005, 02:30 PM // 14:30	#60
Calimar Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Jun 2005 Guild: Silver Limon Profession: E/Me	Men. You know, this guy - original poster - was a troll, looking for a flame. Guess he made one.