Curse

Darkpower Alchemist · Jul 15, 2007, 09:09 AM // 09:09

I have a comment...what???

The bow itself isn't the issue, but the skills that are useful,imo.

Evilsod · Jul 15, 2007, 02:52 PM // 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by RhanoctJocosa

GWO FAILS.

They (and anyone else who thinks bows need to be buffed) don't understand how rangers work.

<3

Way to jump on the bandwagon... idiot.

Amy Awien · Jul 15, 2007, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesterocks7

Anet did not create the ranger, just like they did not create the warrior or assassin, they chose how to integrate it into their game. they obviously based it on an already extensively used idea.

Idea's with room for interpretation, and in those backgrounds rangers commonly wield swords more then bows. No, a battle mage may not fit with the idea of rangers, but a swordfighter - with affinity to tracking and nature survival - certainly would.

Besides, they got away with turning monks into healers ...

Fishmonger · Jul 17, 2007, 03:45 PM // 15:45

Maybe increase range on bows? I don't care how strong you are, my shortbow can launch further than your spear. Or maybe increased speed (Legolas, anyone?)

Amy Awien · Jul 17, 2007, 05:38 PM // 17:38

Yesssss! That would be neat.

jesh · Jul 24, 2007, 09:50 PM // 21:50

If both Ensign and Epinephrine say it, it's 99% likely to be true. Whether Arena Net will do anything about it is another matter.

Killed u man · Jul 24, 2007, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Rspike is already overpowered in PvP, so adding range/dmg isn't an option, it would imbalance PvP even more... Rangers arn't underpowered in PvE, Ele's etc are just overpowered... Why run a ranger with some bleeding/posion skills, when u can have a fire ele with Arcane Echo => MS and SF? Making the ranger stronger isn't a solution...

Div · Jul 25, 2007, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Bows are underpowered in pure damage in a similar way wands are underpowered in pure damage. They have much more utility than other weapons and that makes up for the lesser damage. I feel like they're rightfully underpowered compared to others because they can serve many purposes (degen, interrupts, help with spikes).

With the introduction of spears and scythes, bows feel even weaker...

October Jade · Jul 25, 2007, 04:02 AM // 04:02

Does there exist a good explanation for why we have five different types of bows? I'm not one to be unappreciative of utility, but it just seems out of place within the context of other weapons.

My thought on the matter is that back when we only had Prophecies, ANet feared that rangers might become jealous of warriors. These classes were the only two options for non-spellcasting roles, and warriors had a choice of three different weapons in which to specialize. ANet then decided to offer slight variations in bow performance in order to quash potential whining from rangers.

As I said, it's nice to have options. However, it seems readily apparent that the mechanic was later deemed unnecessary. No similar variation was introduced with daggers, scythes, or spears...not to mention that one of the bow types turned out to be nigh useless.

In my opinion, it should be an all-or-nothing proposition. Either provide weapon tweaks for all classes, or make just a single form of each (in GW2, clearly...it's too late for this game). Given the de-emphasis upon equipment that GW boasts, I lean harshly toward the latter.

Larqh · Jul 25, 2007, 05:33 AM // 05:33

Maybe someone else has said this and I missed it, but...

Have anyone EVER played an RPG where a bow did the same damage as say a sword? I know I sure haven't.

Some Guru Named Kai · Jul 25, 2007, 05:42 AM // 05:42

Who uses a bow anyway on a Ranger

It's +5e sword + blood offhand, ftw!

moriz · Jul 25, 2007, 06:24 AM // 06:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larqh

Maybe someone else has said this and I missed it, but...

Have anyone EVER played an RPG where a bow did the same damage as say a sword? I know I sure haven't.

neither have i. however, in Lineage II, bows deal significantly more damage than swords.

Div · Jul 25, 2007, 11:40 AM // 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by October Jade

Does there exist a good explanation for why we have five different types of bows? I'm not one to be unappreciative of utility, but it just seems out of place within the context of other weapons.

I would assume anet created the ranger with the thought that it'll be a good utility class in mind. They made it so bow damage isn't very high, but gave it a very wide class of skills. They made recurve bows for good interruption, longbows for pulling, flatbows for taking down long-range immobile enemies, hornbows for helping warriors with spikes (which turned out to be useful in rspike), and shortbows as an all purpose short ranged bow. No other class in the game is able to have so much utility in providing spike support, interrupts, conditions, etc. while having such great defense (with it's WS line).

haggus71 · Jul 26, 2007, 01:53 AM // 01:53

First of all, IMO bows are just fine for their purpose. From what I've seen, GW designs everything on a TEAM basis. the ranger is the part that drops interrupts and degen from a distance, slowing the opponent while the warrior/assassin/dervish goes in for the kill. Rangers have more options for these purposes than anyone.

Secondly, "a shot from a bow can knock down a person in real life"? So you are saying a bow can do what a 9mm hollow point can't. Interesting. IF you want to get into real world damage, a spear has enough heft and power in the trained arm to guarantee a KD. Read the Illiad sometime. it was based on what happened in actual combat in Greece, and all the heroes had SPEARS. The bow was meant for long range slowdown of bodies of troops, allowing the chariots and hoplites to close the gap. Once the warriors met, the archers' job was over. Bows are meant for accuracy which is gained through experience(Marksmanship and Experience?). Ask someone to poke you in the chest with a stick, then hit you with their fist, and tell me an arrow will do more than a spear.

Please....PLEASE don't argue with real life about a game; but if you do, at LEAST learn something about physics first.

There are plenty of us that have no problem with the ranger's bow damage and skills. Some people should just stick to the Warrior/Dervish if they want that "wow" effect, and leave the thinking to the big boys.

Epinephrine · Jul 27, 2007, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by haggus71

Please....PLEASE don't argue with real life about a game; but if you do, at LEAST learn something about physics first.

Advice you should probably follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haggus71

The bow was meant for long range slowdown of bodies of troops, allowing the chariots and hoplites to close the gap.

In ancient Greece perhaps, but read the battle of Agincourt for an example of the power of the longbow in later eras.

I did longbow archery for several years, dabbled in armoury, studied physics and actually tested arrow penetration on various materials including armours. I'll tell you straight up that an arrow is far more damaging than a spear, especially versus armour. I'd like to see you shove a spear through a steel sheet, a feat easily accomplished with a bodkin arrow.

One fact is that a longbowman can easily kill an armed and armoured opponent before they even reach melee range. In fact, he can kill several. Clearly this wouldn't be a good thing for an RPG, since your warrior would have an arrow through his chest at 100 yards away and would collapse, dying. But don't spout crap about the spear being more damaging - the spear was used largely because it took no skill.

If you want to discuss the real performance of the bow, I assure you that it was a far more lethal tool than any of the other weapons in the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis, Gerald of Wales

[…] in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.

—Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191)

Quote:

Originally Posted by haggus71

There are plenty of us that have no problem with the ranger's bow damage and skills. Some people should just stick to the Warrior/Dervish if they want that "wow" effect, and leave the thinking to the big boys.

Yeah, you clearly think things through.

To those bringing up the myriad conditions rangers can inflict, look at what the other weapons can do. Most weapons can inflict most conditions now, the situation has changed from when the first GW hit the shelves.

haggus71 · Jul 28, 2007, 04:41 AM // 04:41

Yes, and the English longbows that were capable of such feats were 6-7 feet in span, used by men trained from boyhood to handle a bow with a pull force of as much as a hundred and fifty pounds. (one was even pulled recently at 200 lbs.)They could fire at estimated ranges of 180-250 yards.(got that from the same wikipedia article you got your quote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

however, the range at which most attacks were made points out the kills were not due to the accuracy of the archers, but the massive amounts of arrows ("a cloud of arrows") in one volley. They tell how a good archer(which I assume you are) knows that accuracy and range are not the same thing. that shot you talked about came from the air in a volley, seeing as it penetrated "his thigh high up". I never argued an arrow can't be deadly. The argument was about an arrow having the KD ability of a spear. My point about the 9mm was it can penetrate very well, but a .45 is used for stopping power, Which is why the SEALS went to .45 HK USPs. They were safer inside ships, where there is a lot of stuff you don't want to penetrate, and they have stopping power that a nine doesn't. What you are arguing goes against physics to say a spear can't stop you in your tracks as well as an arrow. Force equals mass times acceleration, and an arrow would have to accelerate damn fast to equal a spear.

Oh, and if you use the argument of its decent in an arc, I can use the same with a Javelin, which the Zulu used effectively as recent as the 19th century against the British.

Yes, I think things clearly through.

Epinephrine · Jul 28, 2007, 04:52 PM // 16:52

What you are interested in is momentum (mv) and impulse (change in momentum over time). In a sense impulse is related to the F=ma equation, in that the deceleration of the arrow/spear is the rate of change on momentum.

I agree that when it comes to pure momentum a spear has the edge, I mistook your statement "Ask someone to poke you in the chest with a stick, then hit you with their fist, and tell me an arrow will do more than a spear." to be about damage, which is the subject of the thread really, rather than specific to knockdowns.

As to accuracy/range, I can lob an arrow a huge distance in a cloud, sure, and score kills that way at a range far outside my actual accuracy. I own a 50 pound, a 70 pound and a 102 pound longbow; I am out of practice and can't pull the 102 pound bow, but I can still handle a 70 pound bow well enough, and it has plenty of acceleration. When I was shooting I wasn't by any stretch the best in the area, but could relatively consistently hit a playing card at ~100 feet. And I wasn't that good.

The english longbowmen had to be able to hit a man sized target at 100 paces (roughly yards) 12 times in a minute. One could assume that that represents a certain degree of accuracy.

Anyway, real world physics agrees that a KD from the momentum alone would be unlikely with an arrow - but it would also be virtually impossible to "concuss" a target with an arrow. More likely you'd drive it through their head. Likewise, you can KD with a sword or dagger... Bull's strike?

The only real way to examine it is in the game world; realistically an archer would simply kill a foot target before he got anywhere near him. That makes no sense in GW.

To balance the weapons requires looking at how they work in game, and it's not easy. I have to confess I'm not sure what exactly is needed, but the fact that bows have a very narrow range of use in PvP, and that it is continually being supplanted by other weapons for these roles suggests something is amiss. Bow attacks that are actually worth using would be a step in the right direction.

Lord Feathers · Jul 28, 2007, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Rangers are best used for interupts and applying conditions and their bow attacks represent that. Does everything have to be a cookie cutter build ?

Warskull · Jul 28, 2007, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Yes, bows are underpowered. The only reason Burning Arrow is the elite of choice on a Ranger is because it's the one skill that enables a Ranger to actually kill things. Otherwise you're a couple of good interrupts on a hard target but not much else.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Bow output less auto-attack DPS than pretty much everything except wands. We have all known this forever. However, the bow's role isn't attack pressure.

Bows have 3 strong elite choices (crip shot, burning arrow, BHA.) The interrupts aren't just good, they are great.

Bows do damage via degen pressure. Burning does add up to be a lot of damage over time. Apply adds up also (really not too viable on a non-ranger primary.)

Bows can also output nasty damage in short bursts with glass arrows+conjur in a spike like format. Push their DPS up too much and their spiking ability gets too dangerous.

The ranger as a whole is nothing to be scoffed at, they have some extremely strong utility and versatility. Heck, rangers are a big part of the reason people are running such hyper defensive runners at the moment. A Burning Arrow ranger is very strong as a soloist character.

Sure Bow DPS is lacking, but that isn't what bows are about anymore.

Tegato · Jul 28, 2007, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Well, if you look at the bow only, it is weak compared to other weapons used. But then again, if everything was meant for DPS, then what's the point in having variety? Like others, the bow is very powerful in it's ability to spread conditions, quick recharging interrupts, and overall, very versatile.

Now let's see, if you look at the ranger as a whole, they are very powerful, and possible on par with other professions in terms of damage. Thumpers do a massive amount of DPS and pressure, as well as pack hunters. Trappers can spread massive conditions, snares, and even be used to defensively, or offensively. And yes, there's the Burning Arrow and the Broad Head Arrow, such powerful skills. And you have the touch ranger, although considered noobish, it is a very creative design which offers high DPS with incredibly healing.

I don't play a ranger for damage. I play it for it's ability to screw people over.