Warrior Needs More Ranged Weapon Options

[Obtena.7952]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Yeah I think it's a little bit of fantasy to think rifle needs improvements because it's meh in a specific game mode. That's never been a reason to fix anything in this game, ESPECIALLY if there are already lots of options in that game mode to choose from to begin with.

Sure, things suck in PVE. That hasn't been a very significant reason in the past to improve things, so I don't see the why it would be different for rifle. It's not fine, but that's simply not a compelling reason to change it. Most of the changes we see are not rationalized by performance.

Its meh in every gamemode sans gunflaming people in WvW.

Sure ... we can't discount the idea that's intended. I don't think it's a stretch to that the Warrior concept is a melee-heavy class with some limited access to ranged weapons. I mean, do we actually come to the conclusion that more or better ranged options is what is going to maintain that concept? OP wants more ranged options for positioning utility. To me that doesn't maintain that concept of the class. Really, the concept of a class is just as much about the things it doesn't have as the things it has. If we just throw everything all every class that people regard as a gap in it's options, then the class concept gets continually degraded.

THIS is why I don't think you will ever see improvements to warrior ranged weapons outside of an espec that will really make the significant changes people desire. People don't think about class concept when they propose these ideas. This is just another example of that.

Now, that being said, Anet does some very random changes to classes and has been known to rework whole elements (see mesmer phantasms for example) so maybe they stumble on this change, but be assured, that kind of higher level impact on a class is conceptual, not performance.

TLDR: I think if we want to make more realistic suggestions that change how a class works, we need to be more considerate of the conceptual side of the class.

[Straegen.2938]

Just say no to more pirate ship spam skills.

[Sobx.1758]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:Increase Rifle AA damage by 50%, reduce baseline CD on Rifle 2 and rifle 3 by 2s each. Unroot Killshot. These three changes to Rifle would make it a viable range power DPS weapon for warriors of any flavor.

I don't see how these particular changes are needed or even reasonable.

Rifle damage sucks is why. Volley and Gunflame may be useful for plinking noobs in WvW, but beyond that Rifle is lackluster as a weapon. It very well could be a viable main weapon if they made some changes. Namely, increase AA damage by 50%, but this could be instead to reduce the cast from 3/4s to 1/4s, but as is the attack speed vs damage ratio makes the AA stink. After that reducing Rifle 2 and 3 baseline CD each by 2s would be sufficient to raise the dps of the weapon without further tweaks.

Ok, so I said I don't understand why these particular changes are needed and all you did was repeat them to me again, that's not even close to answering what you based these particular changes/numbers on. It seems you simply said "it needs to be stronger" and then randomized some dmg buffs and cd reductions for no good reason. It also seems your "go to buff" is "reduce cd of 2 skills by 2 seconds", because I'm pretty sure that's not the first weapon you propose that for.I think rifle is already an ok swap weapon and it shouldn't be a ""viable"" (

as in "one of the top picks"

, because pretty sure that's what most people on this forum mean when they say "viable") main weapon used by warrior. It seems what you -and other people that keep saying ranged options for warrior need buffing- want here is some kind of deadeye knock-off while remaining beefy, because you're still a warrior.Rifle AA already has the same dmg, range and cast time as DE, which is literally a designated squishy rifle e-spec, so again I don't really understand why 50% dmg buff is something you think is deserved here. 2 second cd reduction on 2 skills (which already have decently short cooldowns when traited in the first place)? Again, why? Unrooting killshot? Why? I'm not asking you to repeat the same buffs "because you think rifle needs buffs", I'm asking you why you propose these particular buffs and numbers. "Reducing cd on 2 skills by 2 seconds would raise dps", well removing CD on every skill OR doing as little as reducing CD of "5" by half a second would buff dps too, it's not much of an answer. What I want to know is: did you run some numbers here or are you just shooting random buffs because yes?

Anyways, I still think it shouldn't be buffed, it's good enough as a situational ranged swap as it is.

How about you go use Rifle for something other than gunflame lolz vs noobs in PvP and WvW. Outside of that rifle

is

meh. I mentioned AA, Rifle 2, and Rifle 3 because that is where the damage is. AA either needs more damage on it, or to cast quicker. Although @"Ambrosius Custard.8137" has a good recommendation.

Why do you think I've never used rifle? As I said: I don't think it needs to be buffed to the 'main weapon choice', because imo that wouldn't be a healthy change considering warrior's kit. Wow, you mentioned AA rigle 2 and 3 because that's where the damage is, who would have thought. I literally asked about these particular changes, but I guess you just throw something like this on any weapon you want buffed "just because" (still pretty sure that's not the first weapon type you propose this particular -or very similar- set of buffs for).

As to WHY I mentioned CD reduction instead of adding on MOAR damage onto Rifle 2 and Rifle 3, that is because it avoids any issues with damage modifiers stacking the damage too high, if that is too complicated to grasp then go read the QQ threads on the old "Sic'em!". A cool down reduction on those skills effectively increases the dps of the weapon kit without breaking the raw damage numbers. So, no I am not spouting off random numbers.

Decreasing any cooldown for any skill for any amount of time increases dps, it's not a rocket science. I was asking about these particular changes. Are they based on anything or more of a "eeeeeeh lets slap 2 here, and 50 there"? I don't need an explanation that "a buff buffs" or that using skill more often increses the damage output, pretty sure that was never the question I asked.

I did not even get into Kill Shot, which as @"Ambrosius Custard.8137" stated was a high risk/high reward skill at launch, but now is just all risk/no reward with how the game has evolved. It needs to either be unrooted, or to have a shorter cast time. Since you do not seem to understand why Kill Shot is an all risk/no reward F1 at the moment, if you use it you are sitting still, you will get aoe'd, cc'd, or just dps'd until the last frame where the enemy will simply dodge. If you choose to move out of or dodge any of the aforementioned aoe, cc, or dps then Kill Shot goes on CD. You may be able to land it in a zerg fight or keep fight in WvW, but beyond that there is little chance you will land it, unlike Gunflame which is superior in every way.

Maybe it could use a slightly reduced cast time, but I don't think it deserves getting unrooted.

Perhaps instead of naysaying you should instead offer up as to WHY you perceive everything to be fine with Rifle eh?

I'm not "naysaying" just because I don't blindly hop on any and all "BUFF IT!!1" thread in existance on any class' subforum. I also already wrote why I don't think rifle should be buffed.

---

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Yeah I think it's a little bit of fantasy to think rifle needs improvements because it's meh in a specific game mode. That's never been a reason to fix anything in this game, ESPECIALLY if there are already lots of options in that game mode to choose from to begin with.

Sure, things suck in PVE. That hasn't been a very significant reason in the past to improve things, so I don't see the why it would be different for rifle. It's not fine, but that's simply not a compelling reason to change it. Most of the changes we see are not rationalized by performance.

Its meh in every gamemode sans gunflaming people in WvW.

Sure ... we can't discount the idea that's intended. I don't think it's a stretch to that the Warrior concept is a melee-heavy class with some limited access to ranged weapons. I mean, do we actually come to the conclusion that more or better ranged options is what is going to maintain that concept? OP wants more ranged options for positioning utility. To me that doesn't maintain that concept of the class. Really, the concept of a class is just as much about the things it doesn't have as the things it has.

If we just throw everything all every class that people regard as a gap in it's options, then the class concept gets continually degraded

.

Exactly

[thaniretouni.4762]

Warrior needs to be able to handle trident out of the water too, changing its skills to spear like skills and give it 900 range. As for the hammer discussion above, I disagree but it could work. In this fantasy world, the warrior could be so strong that when he smashes the ground with such destructive force he can literally create shock waves and cracks on the terrain. If he is masterful enough, he can even direct them and concentrate them :D