Is there a server that *likes* rangers? - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Is there a server that *likes* rangers?

13

Comments

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 15, 2019

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @SpellOfIniquity.1780 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    Gw2 tries to offer every role to every class. Maybe not especially well, yet the ability is there in the traits. This provides the novice buildsmith with an irresistible urge to diversify. This however is anathema to good group play, as any class trying to fulfill multiple roles will do all poorly. Individuals within the group maximize one role and rely on the composition to compensate for each other's weakness in a mutually beneficial way.

    A tremendous number of rangers do not understand that they bring only weaknesses to a group when they don't have the ability to deliver downstates reliably, with no excuses.

    Don’t have the ability to deliver down states reliably? Maybe that does go for most rangers but definitely not all. I down and finish tons. We have the ability. The problem is that way too many people just don’t take time to learn and play it right.

    I think that was his point.

    Maybe I worded it poorly, but yes.
    What ranger does best is delivering the killing blow. What a ranger requires to fulfill this role is damage stats. Where most fail is mission creep, trying to survive through stats rather than gameplay.

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    Gimmick builds such as having 10x of the same profession can yield results, based on amplifying effects that would otherwise be less useful when used individually... . ..Rangers don't have enough tools that can compete in a scale larger than 1v1. So a group of 10 scourges can beat a group of 10 rangers because scourges have more tools in a team fight scenario than rangers do.

    That's a terrible comparison, there would be 10 dead scourges given the right rangers. That's where so much forum banter fails, not in the class but the players of that class.

    Is it so far off from what we have now? Where all compositions are mostly scourges and Firebrands? It’s far from just an example.

    Yes, the firebrands are important. Super important.

    I’m sure it’s worth giving it a try. Get 10 scourges together and 10 rangers and try it out.

    Why not multiply by .1 and we can compare notes... . ... I'm done, scourge lost flawless victory. I mean, SlB is a textbook hard counter to scourge man. It's not even close.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • @LetoII.3782 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @SpellOfIniquity.1780 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    Gw2 tries to offer every role to every class. Maybe not especially well, yet the ability is there in the traits. This provides the novice buildsmith with an irresistible urge to diversify. This however is anathema to good group play, as any class trying to fulfill multiple roles will do all poorly. Individuals within the group maximize one role and rely on the composition to compensate for each other's weakness in a mutually beneficial way.

    A tremendous number of rangers do not understand that they bring only weaknesses to a group when they don't have the ability to deliver downstates reliably, with no excuses.

    Don’t have the ability to deliver down states reliably? Maybe that does go for most rangers but definitely not all. I down and finish tons. We have the ability. The problem is that way too many people just don’t take time to learn and play it right.

    I think that was his point.

    Maybe I worded it poorly, but yes.
    What ranger does best is delivering the killing blow. What a ranger requires to fulfill this role is damage stats. Where most fail is mission creep, trying to survive through stats rather than gameplay.

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    Gimmick builds such as having 10x of the same profession can yield results, based on amplifying effects that would otherwise be less useful when used individually... . ..Rangers don't have enough tools that can compete in a scale larger than 1v1. So a group of 10 scourges can beat a group of 10 rangers because scourges have more tools in a team fight scenario than rangers do.

    That's a terrible comparison, there would be 10 dead scourges given the right rangers. That's where so much forum banter fails, not in the class but the players of that class.

    Is it so far off from what we have now? Where all compositions are mostly scourges and Firebrands? It’s far from just an example.

    Yes, the firebrands are important. Super important.

    I’m sure it’s worth giving it a try. Get 10 scourges together and 10 rangers and try it out.

    Why not multiply by .1 and we can compare notes... . ... I'm done, scourge lost flawless victory

    Lol guess you didn’t actually read my comment.

    See ya.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    Lol guess you didn’t actually read my comment.

    I don't think you did either.
    1 soulbeast kills 1 scourge without the scourge ever closing to 900 range.
    100 soulbeasts kill 100 scourges without the scourges ever closing to 900 range.
    I must conduct this experiment at least 200 times a night.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 15, 2019

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    Lol guess you didn’t actually read my comment.

    I don't think you did either.
    1 soulbeast kills 1 scourge without the scourge ever closing to 900 range.
    100 soulbeasts kill 100 scourges without the scourges ever closing to 900 range.
    I must conduct this experiment at least 200 times a night.

    but did you account for... sand swell!?!? dun dun dun...….

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    Lol guess you didn’t actually read my comment.

    I don't think you did either.
    1 soulbeast kills 1 scourge without the scourge ever closing to 900 range.
    100 soulbeasts kill 100 scourges without the scourges ever closing to 900 range.
    I must conduct this experiment at least 200 times a night.

    but did you account for... sand swell!?!? dun dun dun...….

    Yep! jus a lil boop an a swoop... Back to 2000 range.
    I'd have to think hard to contrive a greater mismatch..

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Celsith.2753Celsith.2753 Member ✭✭✭

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    Gw2 tries to offer every role to every class. Maybe not especially well, yet the ability is there in the traits. This provides the novice buildsmith with an irresistible urge to diversify. This however is anathema to good group play, as any class trying to fulfill multiple roles will do all poorly. Individuals within the group maximize one role and rely on the composition to compensate for each other's weakness in a mutually beneficial way.

    A tremendous number of rangers do not understand that they bring only weaknesses to a group when they don't have the ability to deliver downstates reliably, with no excuses.

    Don’t have the ability to deliver down states reliably? Maybe that does go for most rangers but definitely not all. I down and finish tons. We have the ability. The problem is that way too many people just don’t take time to learn and play it right.

    He knows some rangers can and do. He's talking about the 90% that.. don't. The amount of times I'm the only ranger that is destroying siege that no other class can reach while the other rangers auto attack the gate is uncountable. I play ranger and I hate rangers....

    Most of the problem I see is that 90% of rangers suck, they don't know how to build their class, they don't know what they should be doing to fulfill the niches we do have and they have the awareness of a dead hamster so just die on inc.
    The other problem is that commanders are so used to rangers being.. useless.. that they don't understand what they COULD utilize a few for and support them while they do their job. Running off to no mans land while I'm desieging really annoys me. Failing to realize I just downed the enemy pin and that spot should probably be bombed. Etc.

    I don't bother with joining squads for the main part, I find it much better to find friends that do understand and just group with them. It's often much better to have a group with you than be in a squad 2k range away that can't provide anything as you are out of range. Squads really only useful once a fight is taken inside something with close quarters such as the inner of a keep.

    Even with it's limited niche uses round a zerg you still don't need more than two or three rangers so most would be better off on the boring old meta classes anyway.

    I do find it hilarious that its the zerglings demanding no rangers on the map that are then raging in discord about dying to a ranger.

    950k+ WvW kills
    Diamond No Life
    [HUNT] Predatory Instinct

  • @Laurencius.9258 said:
    I've given up playing my ranger. No guild will accept someone who plays a ranger, anet refuses to make them balanced, and I'm tired of being badmouthed.

    Again if you play exclusively ranger yes maybe hard to find guild. The trick is you have to have meta classes Choose 1 among 5 (Firebrand, Scourge, Scrapper, Herald, Spellbreaker) the first 3 are most needed. When you are with guild then run meta classes but when you run by yourself just go with ranger.

  • Substance E.4852Substance E.4852 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 17, 2019

    @Celsith.2753 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    Gw2 tries to offer every role to every class. Maybe not especially well, yet the ability is there in the traits. This provides the novice buildsmith with an irresistible urge to diversify. This however is anathema to good group play, as any class trying to fulfill multiple roles will do all poorly. Individuals within the group maximize one role and rely on the composition to compensate for each other's weakness in a mutually beneficial way.

    A tremendous number of rangers do not understand that they bring only weaknesses to a group when they don't have the ability to deliver downstates reliably, with no excuses.

    Don’t have the ability to deliver down states reliably? Maybe that does go for most rangers but definitely not all. I down and finish tons. We have the ability. The problem is that way too many people just don’t take time to learn and play it right.

    He knows some rangers can and do. He's talking about the 90% that.. don't. The amount of times I'm the only ranger that is destroying siege that no other class can reach while the other rangers auto attack the gate is uncountable. I play ranger and I hate rangers....

    Most of the problem I see is that 90% of rangers suck, they don't know how to build their class, they don't know what they should be doing to fulfill the niches we do have and they have the awareness of a dead hamster so just die on inc.
    The other problem is that commanders are so used to rangers being.. useless.. that they don't understand what they COULD utilize a few for and support them while they do their job. Running off to no mans land while I'm desieging really annoys me. Failing to realize I just downed the enemy pin and that spot should probably be bombed. Etc.

    I don't bother with joining squads for the main part, I find it much better to find friends that do understand and just group with them. It's often much better to have a group with you than be in a squad 2k range away that can't provide anything as you are out of range. Squads really only useful once a fight is taken inside something with close quarters such as the inner of a keep.

    Even with it's limited niche uses round a zerg you still don't need more than two or three rangers so most would be better off on the boring old meta classes anyway.

    I do find it hilarious that its the zerglings demanding no rangers on the map that are then raging in discord about dying to a ranger.

    Rangers are useless because almost everything the class can do in a zerg can be done better by another class

    Combine that with virtually no statistically significant ranged damage output thanks to "muh projectile counters" and the class is demonstrably the worst in the game for large scale fights when squad, party, and even map limits are taken into account.

    The fact that we have an entire elite spec that does nothing but heal and it's the worst party healer by far is emblematic of the Ranger's problems. And this was long before Anet gutted the Druid.

    And I say all this as a person who's mained Ranger since launch. It's a kitten class in wvw large scale and will always be until Anet does either massive reworks of it or literally every other class besides it.

  • Celsith.2753Celsith.2753 Member ✭✭✭

    @Substance E.4852 said:
    Rangers are useless because almost everything the class can do in a zerg can be done better by another class

    Combine that with virtually no statistically significant ranged damage output thanks to "muh projectile counters" and the class is demonstrably the worst in the game for large scale fights when squad, party, and even map limits are taken into account.

    The fact that we have an entire elite spec that does nothing but heal and it's the worst party healer by far is emblematic of the Ranger's problems. And this was long before Anet gutted the Druid.

    And I say all this as a person who's mained Ranger since launch. It's a kitten class in wvw large scale and will always be until Anet does either massive reworks of it or literally every other class besides it.

    Can't disagree, if I really want to be part of the hive mind blob I'll hop on a diff class. Picks always had a small place though and always will, with a lot of caveats.

    950k+ WvW kills
    Diamond No Life
    [HUNT] Predatory Instinct

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭

    players jump into WvW
    run with a zerg from time to time
    are told to switch to scourge, its great
    don't even know what shades are
    do 30k damage and 10 boon corrupts
    Meta for life <3
    Rangers are useless :#

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Many groups love good rangers.

    Most aren't good though.

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 17, 2019

    People are still on about this?

    Celsith has the right of it. We (ranger mains) play one of the better roaming options, are absolutely stellar as part of a pick group, can sustain ourselves without a zerg and can down an arrow cart nobody else can touch in ~25ish seconds (two barrage volleys with might & sic 'em).
    Yeah, the fact that every player and their damned mother craps out reflection like its going out of style is kind of annoying, but you've got to work around it as best that you can.

    Just run away from warriors you can't kill. Its what I do! o7

    ~ Kovu

    Edit- Imagine how quick 2-3 competent rangers can de-siege even old-school-Yaks-Bend level of siege these days. We're substantially more relevant in the meta today than we used to be, even if that old bar was so low it was sitting on the ground.

    Ranger, Fort Aspenwood.

  • @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    conform, consume, obey =)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Looking for a good ranger in wvw is like searching for corn kernels in poop. Sure, theres some here and there, but not worth sorting them

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @FitzChevalerie.1035 said:
    Looking for a good ranger in wvw is like searching for corn kernels in poop. Sure, theres some here and there, but not worth sorting them

    wow @,..,@ what a description

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Good rangers bring a crapload of damage. I’m typically in the top 5 damage in the squad and down and finish a lot of enemy.

    In squads I am typically by myself in my own little party, maybe another ranger or thief in there. I don’t “use” the squad buffs etc but it’s a lot easier to position and track when you’re part of the set of dots 😏.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Good rangers bring a crapload of damage. I’m typically in the top 5 damage in the squad and down and finish a lot of enemy.

    In squads I am typically by myself in my own little party, maybe another ranger or thief in there. I don’t “use” the squad buffs etc but it’s a lot easier to position and track when you’re part of the set of dots 😏.

    I genuinely feel sorry for your revs, weavers and scourges

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yeah I'm not going to begin arguing their total damage contribution is all hat stellar, but they can hard focus single targets which can shift the fight if it goes on long enough. Basically they serve the same role as thieves in that regard, but are less squishy and can do it from over ----> there.

    People only hate rangers that kill them because they could tell it was the ranger that killed them -- whereas if you die in a zerg it was likely 20 different people contributing to your demise.

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger, Fort Aspenwood.

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Voltekka.2375 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Good rangers bring a crapload of damage. I’m typically in the top 5 damage in the squad and down and finish a lot of enemy.

    In squads I am typically by myself in my own little party, maybe another ranger or thief in there. I don’t “use” the squad buffs etc but it’s a lot easier to position and track when you’re part of the set of dots 😏.

    I genuinely feel sorry for your revs, weavers and scourges

    Sorry for them why? They’re not affected negatively by anything I do.. and I don’t suck up buffs etc from the squad... so I’m not sure what you mean here.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Nope, the only hugs rangers will get are the ones from their pets. :heartbreak:

  • @Sobx.1758 said:
    Nope, the only hugs rangers will get are the ones from their pets. :heartbreak:

    Then Just die...

    People Will give backrubs <3

  • The bandwagon severs would love rangers, especially the pew pew ones which comm focus.
    These servers claim to be in it for the fight, but they arent really.
    They just want loot bags and an easy win.

    So yeah they'd love a "rogue" comm focussing ranger to take down the other server comms so they can train through the zerg.
    And then they can claim they arent the ones telling you do comm focus and there is nothing they can do about it.
    Yet time after time, you see they only push you once they know the "rogue" ranger has downed the comm.

  • Mokk.2397Mokk.2397 Member ✭✭✭

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Curious. If elementalist and reverent deal more damage then why did Soulbeast end up with the nerfs to damage and counter to blocks . One side says Rangers are over powered but commanders say Rangers are under powered . Which is it ? I constantly hear that Soulbeast needs nerfing and it does get nerfed . But neither the complainers nor Anet can realistically explain why . The recent changes to Great sword and Long bow are perfect examples of unrealistic changes with less than adequate explanation as to why core weapons suddenly gets changed after seven years. The unblockable after entering Beast mode also Unrealistic considering the amount of projectile denial that currently exists. So by your explanation rangers have been and are now under powered yet Rangers were then as well as now uninvited to the squad . It simply boils down to the fact that people have gotten so used to expelling and hating rangers they simply can't come up with a realistic explanation as to why.Hated so much that Rangers are Set Up to Fail by receiving Zero support from the rest group.
    When included in the group and supported with the group, Rangers can do enormous amounts of damage as I can testify when monitored for DPS.The rangers are always in the top Five.

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Mokk.2397 said:

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Curious. If elementalist and reverent deal more damage then why did Soulbeast end up with the nerfs to damage and counter to blocks . One side says Rangers are over powered but commanders say Rangers are under powered . Which is it ? I constantly hear that Soulbeast needs nerfing and it does get nerfed . But neither the complainers nor Anet can realistically explain why . The recent changes to Great sword and Long bow are perfect examples of unrealistic changes with less than adequate explanation as to why core weapons suddenly gets changed after seven years. The unblockable after entering Beast mode also Unrealistic considering the amount of projectile denial that currently exists. So by your explanation rangers have been and are now under powered yet Rangers were then as well as now uninvited to the squad . It simply boils down to the fact that people have gotten so used to expelling and hating rangers they simply can't come up with a realistic explanation as to why.Hated so much that Rangers are Set Up to Fail by receiving Zero support from the rest group.
    When included in the group and supported with the group, Rangers can do enormous amounts of damage as I can testify when monitored for DPS.The rangers are always in the top Five.

    That is because in general, revs and weavers do much more dmg - SHOULD do much more dmg - on a similarly skilled player to a ranger in a blob. The fact that a ranger does more is cause 1. Your revs and other dps suck, and/or 2. That is a highly skilled ranger who knows the hows and whens of his class, and doesnt just spam lb attacks that get permareflected 95% of the time, thus being a liability. In my server, i know 2 rangers that can pull good dps off, from the... 100+ that play ranger. That should explain things.

    You also dont get that roaming/small scale is a thing as well, where ranger outclasses almost everything. Thats why dmg was nerfed .

  • @Mokk.2397 said:

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Curious. If elementalist and reverent deal more damage then why did Soulbeast end up with the nerfs to damage and counter to blocks . One side says Rangers are over powered but commanders say Rangers are under powered . Which is it ?

    easy: soulbeast does way too much damage on smallscale/1v1 engagement. There its dps is totally over the top. Especially with the stupid long range, easy access to stealth, high survivability AND a pet to tank for him.

    In a decent sized squad on the other hand, ranger damage is nothing to be proud off.

  • @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Good rangers bring a crapload of damage. I’m typically in the top 5 damage in the squad and down and finish a lot of enemy.

    yeah, on your single target or when people do not pop their reflects. But it is hard to reflect an MS back to the enemy - and for killing downed players, the necros do that very well. While corrupting boons.

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:

    @VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Dont give up playing what you want. Rangers can be very useful when not being in squads (you can easily follow the tag outside the squad) and pewpew stray/overextending scourges or weavers, you can barrage aoe spots weavers or revs cant, you can CC people so others can pick em off easier.
    You dont need a squad for that. Just learn how to move along the tag, anticipate enemy movement, and the rest is easy.

    But here's where the trap inherently lays with Commanders disliking Ranger in a zerg. Your not accepted into a zerg. So you don't get the buffs you would get from say being part of the squad. Because you don't get those uptime boons from the other players in your squad, your less likely to survive in a head on engagement with enemy forces. When the smoke clears, the commander looks around, sees the dead Ranger and goes, "Oh, I see the Ranger's sucked again and can't survive...." Are we not surviving because we WERE not part of the squad, and would have received some sort of healing/BOONS, which we didn't. Or did we not survive because we didn't have the "Right Build". Either way, the commander goes, "This is the reason why I don't like Ranger's. They can't survive. They don't give anything to the group....their useless." AGAIN...I blame Anet.

    I haven't seen A THING from ONE OF YOU in nearly the last three years that came close to committing to creating a Ranger Build that stands head and shoulders ABOVE the rest of the classes, for a complete and total acceptance of a Ranger into a zerg. I have yet to see a Commander go, "kitten, we need more Rangers in our group if we're going to win this...." NO, have you seen that? Has Arenanet DEVS seen that? No, they have not. I have not. You have not.

    So whose to blame? The Ranger. Or the people that made all the mechanics for Ranger. Whose the more foolish. The fool that plays the class, or the eggheads that created the class.

    so what? with many coms eles don't get any support and we are trying to flank all the time. Without boons, heals, support. And we are still welcome. Because when two weavers put their MS on a zerg the enemy's firebrands are suddenly very busy.

    And rangers don't put down that kind of damage. Even if there were rangers in the squad, they were always outdamaged by the elementalists and revs. Always.

    So rangers bring nothing to the squad when it comes to boons, they do not bring anything to the squad when it comes to damage. The only thing they are good for is pew pewing siege where LoS is an issue. Rangers do not need to be in the squad to do that.

    Good rangers bring a crapload of damage. I’m typically in the top 5 damage in the squad and down and finish a lot of enemy.

    yeah, on your single target or when people do not pop their reflects. But it is hard to reflect an MS back to the enemy - and for killing downed players, the necros do that very well. While corrupting boons.

    I typically and consistently hit multiple targets at once. l2p ranger then tell me I’m not doing what I’m doing. 😏

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • Straegen.2938Straegen.2938 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 20, 2019

    Rangers and thieves are titts on a bull in a large scale fight. They are the most selfish builds to run in large scale. They contribute little to the health of the zerg, their AoE damage is anemic compared to other classes and when a map is queued having them weakens the zerg as a whole. Their best uses are scouting and flipping.

    Add on that most Rangers are cowards that prefer to fight from walls and most won't roam beyond their ability to run into a group or structure safely despite being a roaming built class. They are the go-to class for players that want to "win" fights but don't want to actually risk anything or improve their overall skill. Not all rangers fit that description but nobody can argue that playing one lumps them together with the others.

    I main a non-stealth thief and have to live with similar objections to my preferred class.

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    Good rangers bring a crapload of damage. I’m typically in the top 5 damage in the squad and down and finish a lot of enemy.

    Whatever squad you are running with must be horrible. If Barrage/Rapid Fire is doing anything every decent Rev, Scourge and Staff Ele should drop significantly more damage in comparison. A Rev and Scourge isn't even rooted while they are dishing out the AoE, corrupting boons, etc.

  • Balthazzarr.1349Balthazzarr.1349 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Straegen.2938 said:
    Rangers and thieves are titts on a bull in a large scale fight. They are the most selfish builds to run in large scale. They contribute little to the health of the zerg, their AoE damage is anemic compared to other classes and when a map is queued having them weakens the zerg as a whole. Their best uses are scouting and flipping.

    Add on that most Rangers are cowards that prefer to fight from walls and most won't roam beyond their ability to run into a group or structure safely despite being a roaming built class. They are the go-to class for players that want to "win" fights but don't want to actually risk anything or improve their overall skill. Not all rangers fit that description but nobody can argue that playing one lumps them together with the others.

    I main a non-stealth thief and have to live with similar objections to my preferred class.

    @Balthazzarr.1349 said:
    Good rangers bring a crapload of damage. I’m typically in the top 5 damage in the squad and down and finish a lot of enemy.

    Whatever squad you are running with must be horrible. If Barrage/Rapid Fire is doing anything every decent Rev, Scourge and Staff Ele should drop significantly more damage in comparison. A Rev and Scourge isn't even rooted while they are dishing out the AoE, corrupting boons, etc.

    As stated earlier.. you just don’t know me.

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    So considering the rangers are bad threads and the rangers are OP threads, and the rangers aren't wanted in a squad and rangers don't need a squad bits, does that mean they are balanced? To me, it kind of does. Now to be fair I roam/havoc on all classes and most elites/cores, and that includes rangers. I have no problem attacking rangers when I roam since I know their playstyle. When I run as a ranger I hunt necro's and when I run on my necro I hunt rangers. It's how it works.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 20, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    So considering the rangers are bad threads and the rangers are OP threads, and the rangers aren't wanted in a squad and rangers don't need a squad bits, does that mean they are balanced? To me, it kind of does. Now to be fair I roam/havoc on all classes and most elites/cores, and that includes rangers. I have no problem attacking rangers when I roam since I know their playstyle. When I run as a ranger I hunt necro's and when I run on my necro I hunt rangers. It's how it works.

    If balance was something compensatory, sure.

    But, balance isn't compensatory.

    However, Rangers are not doing either as well or as poorly as people suggest. Are they a class that needs looking at then? Yes. However, it's more a question of making certain aspects of them fitting better into the content of WvW. It's mainly a question of looking at some spec-specific abilities, like spirits, glyphs, stance sharing and celestial form mechanics. The traits and even the weapons are better balanced than people give them credit.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 20, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    So considering the rangers are bad threads and the rangers are OP threads, and the rangers aren't wanted in a squad and rangers don't need a squad bits, does that mean they are balanced? To me, it kind of does. Now to be fair I roam/havoc on all classes and most elites/cores, and that includes rangers. I have no problem attacking rangers when I roam since I know their playstyle. When I run as a ranger I hunt necro's and when I run on my necro I hunt rangers. It's how it works.

    No it just means people are terrible at the game and are prone to knee jerk reactions. Like that thread about 20 people losing to 5 rangers. Note that this is true regardless of the actual state of the ranger. Even if rangers are OP, they're not dying because rangers are OP. They're dying because they don't understand concepts like standing still and eating punches to the face is not a good idea. (I see this daily). We fought a really good weaver that killed a bunch of people on his own (including me). Was my first thought "wow, pls nerf weaver" or maybe "Maybe I should actually learn what they're doing, and maybe if it's that OP try it myself." Probably the former right?

    Pew Pew Rangers are only broken when they +1 you (but what class isn't?) or you're a necro.

  • Bigpapasmurf.5623Bigpapasmurf.5623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Playing Druid (funny ikr) 2 days ago, I got invited to a couple squads. Used to main it a long time ago (staff/lb) so I was quite surprised. ALso received soooo much salt from those who looked at me on their backs.

    Red = Dead...or someone runs away. Either way it's gone.
    twitch.tv/TRMC
    Lover of Jumping puzzles, Squirrels, WvW, and Taimi
    Co-Leader of SOmething inAPpropriate {SOAP}

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:
    Playing Druid (funny ikr) 2 days ago, I got invited to a couple squads. Used to main it a long time ago (staff/lb) so I was quite surprised. ALso received soooo much salt from those who looked at me on their backs.

    Let’s be real though: you are well known on your server.

    And you have a solid understanding of how to play the class.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Stance-share Soulbeast would be an interesting party addition to a push comp if they had decent cleave weapons. Greatsword is slow, low targets, and low damage, unfortunately. There's potential in the group condi clear, group stab, and a unique buff in the form of 'One Wolf Pack'. That's why we lost druid too, because no matter how much the numbers are buffed they lost their unique buff 'Grace of the Land', so there's no reason to bring them over scrappers or tempest, who bring a certain uniqueness.

    Ship Captain of the H.M.C.S Galatis.

  • Bigpapasmurf.5623Bigpapasmurf.5623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:
    Playing Druid (funny ikr) 2 days ago, I got invited to a couple squads. Used to main it a long time ago (staff/lb) so I was quite surprised. ALso received soooo much salt from those who looked at me on their backs.

    Let’s be real though: you are well known on your server.

    And you have a solid understanding of how to play the class.

    Actually I'm not well known at all. I understand how to play, however doesnt mean I apply said knowledge. When I mained Druid, I was on a diff server tbh.

    Also havent picked it up in....probably a couple years too.

    Cant use those excuses....what else ya got?

    Red = Dead...or someone runs away. Either way it's gone.
    twitch.tv/TRMC
    Lover of Jumping puzzles, Squirrels, WvW, and Taimi
    Co-Leader of SOmething inAPpropriate {SOAP}

  • Straegen.2938Straegen.2938 Member ✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    So considering the rangers are bad threads and the rangers are OP threads, and the rangers aren't wanted in a squad and rangers don't need a squad bits, does that mean they are balanced? To me, it kind of does. Now to be fair I roam/havoc on all classes and most elites/cores, and that includes rangers. I have no problem attacking rangers when I roam since I know their playstyle. When I run as a ranger I hunt necro's and when I run on my necro I hunt rangers. It's how it works.

    Balance is when a class/build lives and performs in the meta for its purpose but doesn't define it. Rangers and Thieves aren't designed to be large scale efficient (well maybe the Druid but that is a misfire like most HoT classes) so nobody should expect them to be. If those builds on those two classes over perform in small scale, that is a balance issue.

    Boon Beast Ranger in small scale has a ridiculous range that hits hard on a near absurd cooldown with excellent escape, high durability and auto knockdowns. Addon that the build requires minimal skill to operate. The problem is that no class/build should hit hard (much less at range) without having to give up durability and straight forward counters. This is why condi-mirage is also OP and several DE variants are a problem as well. Dolyak Stance is basically a giant FU to counters because it stacks with protection and makes a Ranger immune to control condi. Warriors are about the only class that has similar defensive access but most of its damage is up close and they have to sacrifice damage to access that level of survival. If any other class had Dolyak Stance, they would run it because it is that good.

  • ITT: a lot of people clueless about rangers, wow. Rangers don't just use pewpew longbow.

    stanceshare axe/axe + GS soulbeast is actually a perfectly fine zerg spec. I have hundreds of hours on one, as well as on scourge, rev, and glass weaver, and I'd rate my SB just as high as any of them. SB in fact brings good group utility as well: group stab, group soft CC immunity, group condi clear & heal, a unique group damage buff (OWP), AOE pull & immob, another 1200 range pull in addition to good AOE damage through axe #3, axe #4, axe #5, GS #2.

    http://gw2skills.net/editor/?POwAceFlRw0YPsQmJOSX7PzBkA-zVZYBRHIGu8jgMGkeJQ0QoSFo+kitten9xE4aEwrF-w

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:
    Playing Druid (funny ikr) 2 days ago, I got invited to a couple squads. Used to main it a long time ago (staff/lb) so I was quite surprised. ALso received soooo much salt from those who looked at me on their backs.

    Let’s be real though: you are well known on your server.

    And you have a solid understanding of how to play the class.

    Actually I'm not well known at all. I understand how to play, however doesnt mean I apply said knowledge. When I mained Druid, I was on a diff server tbh.

    Also havent picked it up in....probably a couple years too.

    Cant use those excuses....what else ya got?

    I got nuthin..

    🤐

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Laurencius.9258Laurencius.9258 Member ✭✭
    edited November 30, 2019

    Again, I've abandoned playing the Ranger, but it did teach me self reliance, since I could never join a party, squad, or zerg. Had to learn to do everything myself. That has served me well, since now I'm playing a Reaper and I'm killing it, including having my own solo guild (something I'd never have even attempted if I hadn't been ostracized while playing as a ranger.)

  • @Laurencius.9258 said:
    Again, I've abandoned playing the Ranger, but it did teach me self reliance, since I could never join a party, squad, or zerg. Had to learn to do everything myself. That has served me well, since now I'm playing a Reaper and I'm killing it, including having my own solo guild (something I'd never have even attempted if I hadn't been ostracized while playing as a ranger.)

    It looks like you learnt very little from the help that was written to you in thread though, since you have been unable to form your own guild with friends who would enable you to play Ranger in a party and be effective as a group.

  • Brother.1504Brother.1504 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Rangers are to GW2 what Hawkeye is to the Avengers. He’s got some tricks but let’s be real you want Thor or the Hulk in the fights.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    tc seems to have a lot. we've killed a lot yesterday

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Leo.5829Leo.5829 Member ✭✭

    No and with good reason. Ranger is the worst class you can take into WvW. They have no reliable damage in Zergs, have no boon strip, can't apply anywhere near enough boons to be even remotely interesting and are worse than any other support overall. Even in roaming you are better off with with something like a mesmer or thief. Unless you like loosing and gifting enemy servers free points you don't pick ranger. Having allied rangers on a full wvw map is essentially a handicap to your server.

  • Mokk.2397Mokk.2397 Member ✭✭✭

    This is what I've been looking for though out this thread.
    Rangers are weak
    So non of you have any realistic reason why the nerfs that have been done to ranger /soulbeast in the past year shouldn't be completely reversed. Saying that it would effect 1v1 isn't a valid excuse because any class can be built specifically to be very successful 1v1. Also 1v1 is not a dominant factor in WvW. This isn't PvP
    Long bow damage must also be reversed because it breaks an already weak core class.
    Since these nerfs became an additional impediment to an already weak class nobody can have any reason why they shouldn't be reversed to bring ranger and soulbeast to an exceptable level for WvW.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    rangers are good in packs of cloud. spread and hits resets and hits. they are independent.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Try Maguuma. There are seem to be lots of rangers hanging around SMC.

  • Slick.7164Slick.7164 Member ✭✭✭

    Go to BG, they love blob rangers. But do it it disguised on an alt account and join BP until next relink.

  • no idea what u're all about. the easy answer is, rangers lack on self sustain in blobs.

    but most blobs and zergs have rangers in them, because so many people have a ranger simply. we're a t1 server of EU and you see rangers everywhere. easily spottable due to the pewpew and still solid snipers. for siege defenses they're like movable arrow carts :P

    closed tags and "figthing tags" are may some times be not accepting them, but we really take everything we can get. had some good smallscale zergs with rangers inside and some of our veterans that carry are indeed rangers.

    rangers can be great add, but it's also one of the biggest noobclass, numberwise. likely that is why people are sceptical on them. and theres a huge gap between "buff buff pew pew" and a good ranger.