Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Is there a server that *likes* rangers?


Laurencius.9258

Recommended Posts

@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.

@LetoII.3782 said:@"Balthazzarr.1349" 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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 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.

@LetoII.3782 said:@"Balthazzarr.1349" 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

@LetoII.3782 said:@"Balthazzarr.1349" 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

sEoACjI.gif

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stand The Wall.6987 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.

sEoACjI.gif

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 crap class in wvw large scale and will always be until Anet does either massive reworks of it or literally every other class besides it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" 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 ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Voltekka.2375 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...