Curse

Manticus · May 14, 2005, 04:33 PM // 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etang

I have already put 100+ hours into this game and I have yet to see a good ranger. I have had a ton of one on ones with rangers and they all end up running away. And I the only one that thinks rangers are broken?

FYI I am a monk/ele.

You know what 1vs.1 means in this game? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Makkert · May 14, 2005, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manticus

You know what 1vs.1 means in this game? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

quoted for thruthery.

anyone that thinks that rangers stink are the ones with limited view.

the point is that many ranger players think: let's do damage! (assumed). a powershot or double shot isn't going to save the day.
conditions can disrupt. a caster who is dazzed/disrupted? a fighter that is crippled/blinded?
Just how effective are those?
And running as a fighter after a ranger...how effective is that? who wins?
yeah, the warrior probably wins the battle...but that at timecost wasted that could loose the war.

Cheers,
Makk.

crow_killer · May 14, 2005, 06:00 PM // 18:00

i must admitt it can be rather annoying when 1 on 1 against warriors but rangers have there good points too

I have a ranger/elementalist and i nuke like hell

Ravyn · May 14, 2005, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Big is right. Too many rangers try for either the paper uber damage or the R/flavor of the month.

Think support/annoyance and you will kill many.

Ben Locke

Silvanus · May 14, 2005, 10:50 PM // 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrodoFraggins

I've met alot of bad rangers. It's a popular class. I've also met rangers that know what skills to bring to the table, and completely own me.

This quote is right on. I have a R/M and I its not that rangers suck, its that they are a lot harder to master and be effective then other classes. But a player with a ranger who knows what their doing can own.

-Silvanus

Zarconis · May 15, 2005, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by crow_killer

i must admitt it can be rather annoying when 1 on 1 against warriors but rangers have there good points too

I have a ranger/elementalist and i nuke like hell

Rangers own anything they are designed to, just like to a lesser extent other classes can totally own whatever they are designed to. It all depends on the goal of the build. Your outcome is how focused you are. For warriors I like Throw Dirt for starters after they are missing for 90% of the time, you can have any number of choices, one of which is running.

Ensign · May 15, 2005, 02:13 AM // 02:13

It's simply an extremely equipment dependant, top heavy class. Do low level Rangers suck? Hell yeah. They're absolutely terrible - all of their skills are underpowered and overcosted, you're choking on energy already, and you absolutely need a good bow to do any damage at all, which can be a nightmare in and of itself.

Now, once you start leveling, get to the point where Expertise starts to be actually useful (8-10), get access to a good bow - the Ranger starts to be respectable. Once you start tricking him out (Superior Expertise, Zealous strings) he turns into a monster - not quite on par with an Elementalist in terms of damage, but a whole lot more disruptive and efficient - who can argue with 2 energy Barrages?

I would assume that your observations are based on early in the game, where they are absolutely correct - Rangers are a junk class. But like the AD&D mage, they simply need time to grow into their power - by level 20 they're easily on par with everyone else.

Peace,
-CxE

Friar Tuck · May 15, 2005, 10:58 AM // 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkmagnolia

IMO, I think rangers are the worst at soloing. They're better off as a party member because they need more than just a pet to tank while they snipe.

But afterall, GW is a team weighted game so I don't think it's fair to base it on a "one on one". :/

Exactly. Even in PvE - most of the time - you have to either go with a group on missions or gather up a few henchmen.

Defafnyr · May 15, 2005, 03:45 PM // 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

It's simply an extremely equipment dependant, top heavy class.

Ya know, I just realized, that's one of the things I like about the class. I've played many mmorpg's and I always find myself gravitating to equipment dependant. I enjoy hunting down or crafting the best equipment I can get in game rather than seeking out spells and mana-power.

I like melee, either toe-to-toe or ranged, and I don't enjoy playing finger-waggers. I really like gathering up and finding new equipment. Maybe it's cuz I'm a female-gamer and instead of having to find the right high-heels I'm happy showing off my newest fur-lined leathers. My toon isn't driving a new mustang, but look at that shortbow! *wolf whistles*

Canook · May 15, 2005, 10:57 PM // 22:57

well i havent gone through all three pages, but i think i can post a pretty valid opinion. i just got my r/e to lvl 20 and have ascended and whatnot and i know im a force to be reckoned with on the playing field, even without all my elite skills. reason making any ranger dangerous is some of there spells. in pvp ive always gone after monks and defended monks. using bow attacks to disable their healing spells for 20 seconds? haha what a great manouever...also, when you monk is under attack and is trying to run from a warrior, why not use pin down? get ur monk away safely. also ive got high lvl fire magic and i can help weaken foes who are enclosed in an area to make the jobs easier on my warriors, to lend them, "a helping hand"

the way i see it is rangers can be incredibly helpful. they are like the middle person in any scenario. while they do not dish out the most damage at one time, they can do attacks that can be critical in saving/eliminating another characters life. rangers are a great class, and if you combo it right with another class, you can do some pretty hardcore damage out on the pvp battlefield.

bolvar · May 16, 2005, 10:37 AM // 10:37

ever played a hunter in wow? then you'll know that nothing is as useless or greedy as them

Last Gasp · May 16, 2005, 11:17 PM // 23:17

Anything a ranger does, some other class can do better, imho, except possibly personal evasion, which contributes approximately nothing to a group battle.

explode9339 · May 17, 2005, 04:20 AM // 04:20

Im not sure about that last gasp, I play a ranger sucessfully in PvP.

Usually we will focus on the healer to start. It begins with my call, then I cripple. Then as the healer starts to run, I bleed, then I poison him. Now you got a crippled, bleeding, poisoned healer - I believe thats total health degen of 9? And this 20 seconds on bleed, and 20+ on the poison, with instant re-apply on both.

Next, while my warriors beat on him, I disrupt his heals with savage shot interrupts. In between I shoot some +20 shots and repoison/cripple/bleed. Without my conditioning the healer usually escapes.
This is only one situation that demonstrates how to use a ranger.

Situation 2 - a WARRIOR rushes me... uh oh...
WHilring defense - for 18 seconds I have 75% to evade his attacks. Usually the warrior will sit there for those 18 seconds, whiffing on me, taking himself out of the game. During these 18 seconds I will cast a heal over time on myself, poison a few of their teammates, maybe bleed a few, then cripple the warrior and back off until my defense is recharged...

As for casters - The very fact that they are soft targets makes my hunter's shots, poinson, bleeding, and power shots hurt badly. I also carry some sort of disrupt for thsoe big spells.

IMHO Rangers are VERY useful for many sitatuations. It sucks when people give them a bad rap when they have no clue what they can offer.

Let me join your PvP party, see what you think.

-Ex

elorei · May 17, 2005, 04:40 AM // 04:40

my ranger cant "pwn" anyone in the arena.

however, i sure can make yer team hate me greatly.

rend enchantment. enfeebling blood. barbed trap. poison arrow. shadow of fear. and a bucket of skill interrupts.

sure, half of these things i listed were necro. but ranger comes with fairly beefy armor (damn beefy vs elements), ranged attacks, and enough energy and regen to run them all well.

can i take ppl one on one? not so often. can i shut down multiple warriors and stop the monk from getting off a heal? damn straight.

Kilguri · May 17, 2005, 06:49 AM // 06:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Last Gasp

Anything a ranger does, some other class can do better, imho, except possibly personal evasion, which contributes approximately nothing to a group battle.

Quoted for truth.

Yeah, I am the master of evasion, I can solo infuse runs all day long using 5 different evasions and still have health to boot. But other than that I have nothing new to bring to the table, not saying I have nothing, but rather nothing unique.

Why do you get a Monk in your group? to heal.
Why do you get a Warrior in your group? to tank.
An Elementalist? to deal damage.
A Ranger? to support... but, what exactly is the deffinition of support? deal damage? tank? snare? crowd control? a Ranger can do all these (well, not all at once, but any of the following), but has not one defined role that will earn him a place in group.
Or as a friend of mine said, "Rangers are nice filler for the 5th or 6th spot in the group, but I wouldn't hesitate to go on a mission without one".

In pvp Rangers suffer the same fate if they want to go well rounded, otherwise they relay heavily on their secondary. When I picked my secondary a Monk long ago, I did that in thought that I could provide support healing to myself and my group when needed -- you know, Rangers and Monks both being support roles, thought that'd go along nicely. Reality is that to be able to play a truly versatile support ranger, you need pretty much all your attribute points in Ranger skills and thus turning your secondary into dead weight. If I want to do any healing I have to drop points from either Marskmanship or Wilderness Survival, and by that either killing my dps and gimping my arrow attacks or rendering my traps and preparations useless, and while I do believe there should be *SOME* sacrifice made, after giving up any of these skills I end up with a second rate support class, since the little skills I still have left are still better performed by others. But then again, that's the problem with a healing Monk secondary, since I lack Divine Favor, most other classes making that trade would not suffer that much since they'd have their secondary to compensate for their primary.

Phaedrus · May 17, 2005, 07:16 AM // 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilguri

A Ranger? to support... but, what exactly is the deffinition of support? deal damage? tank? snare? crowd control? a Ranger can do all these (well, not all at once, but any of the following), but has not one defined role that will earn him a place in group.
Or as a friend of mine said, "Rangers are nice filler for the 5th or 6th spot in the group, but I wouldn't hesitate to go on a mission without one".

In pvp Rangers suffer the same fate if they want to go well rounded, otherwise they relay heavily on their secondary.

Not necessarily true at all. There are excellent rangers out there who focus on ranger skills and manage to drop players faster than their caster or warrior counterparts. Most people get hung up on rangers being weak or incomplete because they try to chain slow non-ranger skills with fast ranger abilities. In PvP a ranger can be my worst nightmare...mesmers' interrupts I can probably deal with, necromancers' draining I can evade...but a good ranger will get you no matter where you try to hide; she'll splinter your attention and cause serious chaos and death.

[ ]

Kilguri · May 17, 2005, 09:11 AM // 09:11

What you say is true, however what you describe is not a good Ranger, but rather a good PvPer. I'm not saying Rangers are bad, just under par compared to their counterparts.

Also, keep in mind Rangers need a clear line of sight or point blank range to be able to use any of their offensive skills (traps excluded), while Mesmers and Necromancers can cast through obscuring objects, which is a very simple method to countering Rangers, it's just that most people don't even bother with the Rangers and always leave them as the last target.

Another thing is that the consensus among people is that Rangers are a last priority space filler, if someone wants an anti-caster 90% of the time they'd go for a backfire Mesmer.

Yantaal Silver Leaf · May 17, 2005, 10:20 AM // 10:20

Im a ranger/mesmer, i think im doing ok,like most people say,if it comes to melee then we are a little screwed, maybe, not always, but obvioulsy we are for long distance, its what we do. We are archers, and that is awlays going to be important in a battle, someone to stand back, help people out, resurect people if needs be, but without an archer, i think people would struggle, at the moment im using mostly ranger abilitues, my mesmer side doesnt impress me aver so much, but i do use a few of their abilities. But over all i think that rangers are an essential part to all good Guilds.

Tyil Thunder Arrow · May 17, 2005, 10:35 AM // 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilguri

What you say is true, however what you describe is not a good Ranger, but rather a good PvPer. I'm not saying Rangers are bad, just under par compared to their counterparts.

Also, keep in mind Rangers need a clear line of sight or point blank range to be able to use any of their offensive skills (traps excluded), while Mesmers and Necromancers can cast through obscuring objects, which is a very simple method to countering Rangers, it's just that most people don't even bother with the Rangers and always leave them as the last target.

Another thing is that the consensus among people is that Rangers are a last priority space filler, if someone wants an anti-caster 90% of the time they'd go for a backfire Mesmer.

not sure i agree there i play a R/Mo and am dealing 50 to 80 a hit with my specials. I drop es mes necs and monks like its cool. Now Ws give me trouble but hey nothing like a warrior to off a ranger that's how it's set up. But rangers are awesome for pvp. Most times i stand out of the way and destroy targets fast and don't get noticed. some really good teams tend to come for me rather quickly when they see me drop their spell casters in 4 to 5 shots

Sting · May 17, 2005, 11:17 AM // 11:17

Well many of you pro-rangers have stated that all you need to do is just bring all of your ranger skills with you and you can do as much as any other class. This sounds great but your already at a disadvantige because its limiting you to just 1 class where everyone else gets to enjoy the best of both worlds. Do rangers suck? No. the biggest issues with them are to get any kind of damage that competes with the other classes is it takes 2 or 3 other skills where it only takes 1 elementalist skill to dish out the same or more DPS(and in a game that limmits your skill slots that is HUGE). The second is the fact that GW has become nothing more than W/Mo and Mo/?? game and we are not as good at taking Warriors out becasue of their armor, that leaves us to monks wich we can disrupt the crap out of but most grps employ at LEAST 2 monks. And lets face it a Ranger as a secondary or Mesmer can do that. My main fun toon is a R/Me but since sitting around for 30minutes or longer waiting for a team that doesnt mind a "filler class" I made a Monk yesterday since out of the 2 only classes that seem to count in this game ATM it takes at least some skill LOL. A-NET has done with the Ranger what DAoC and EQ2 relegated the class to not the "jack of all trades" but more to "master of none". In 1v1 this is a decent trait but thier are no 1v1 that really matter.