Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by thomasuwoo

In case you haven't noticed differnt skills are link to differnt atributes so that you have to creativly spend your skill points depending on what skills you bring along.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by KonohaFlash

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.

Originally Posted by KonohaFlash

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.

Originally Posted by Tellani Artini

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.

Originally Posted by KonohaFlash

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.)

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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?

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

I hope this has cleared things up.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

These are my experiences with the game, please let me know what you think, am I way off base or right on target? For any rangers out there, do you think these suggestions would enhance your game and give you more options, or would this unbalance the whole system? I'd love to hear what others have to say on this.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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!

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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

Originally Posted by Thoamsuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

Thank you for proving my point.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

Rangers should not use wilderness survival to supplement bow abilities, that's what expertise is for, as you made the comparison yourself.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

And expertise still does nothing for traps or pets, so the analogy is still flawed.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

The idea that rangers should have two supporting attributes like warriors doesn't work because rangers have four attributes and warriors have five...

Originally Posted by blackbird71

...any other profession with only four attributes only has one supporting attribute, and that attribute affects their other three equally.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

The elementalist then has a fifth attribute which will affect all the others, not just one.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

And there is no energy storage skill that will only affect one type of magic.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

And expertise, as the extra attribute, has no skills that affect pets or traps...

Originally Posted by blackbird71

...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...

Originally Posted by blackbird71

....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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

....The air attribute does not affect fire skills, and water won't help earth.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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?

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by blackbird71

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).

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

One another note what about well of blood and well of power? They require corpse. Shouldn't they be linked to death magic?

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

Games and Logic do not go hand in hand.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

One last thing, the universe of Guild Wars is hardly based on logic.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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?

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

On both: Wilderness Survival and Beast mastery are mainly support trees.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

The warriors actually only have 3 by my ananlogy, (see above.)

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

Just as experise effects all of the ranger skills (they all cost less.)

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

Just as Stregth also effects all of the warrior skills (More penertration on skill atatcks)

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

Just as Fast Casting will effect all of the Mesmer skills (They cast faster).

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

Just as Devine Favor will effect all of the Monk skills. (They'll heal a bit on top of thier usual effect.)

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

The Necro's Soul Reaping is a bit less direct. Supoose it doesn't fit this mold.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.)

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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?

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.)

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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?

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by Thomasuwoo

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.

Originally Posted by toastgodsupreme

Which is immensely useful when I need that energy for my arrow skills.