Is it high time for Rangers to receive a support class as an e-spec for them to be valuable in WvW zerging?

[God.2708]

13 hours ago, nerva.7940 said:

We're not using it like that here. Meta here means "most efficient at killing things in X context". Meaning, if a group is trying to minmax their comp, other specs bring more to the table. All that being said, I do believe Immobeast is fantastic. 

I wish we had a sticky post with several links to defining what META means.

META is a reference to 'outside'. If a group decided to meme and run 40 firebrands and 10 scourges because they discovered the typical group comp couldn't kill them but they could still kill others slowly, they might discover the enemy adapts and runs 40 spellbreakers and 10 firebrands. This revolving analysis of what people are doing and how to beat it is called META gaming.

The issue most people on these forums have is that, like a bad game of telephone, people say things like 'META here means the most efficient at killing things' and assume that the builds on something like metabattle are thus the 'best' builds. But that's a faulty paradigm, META is simply the game outside the game. The people playing that game could be selecting builds based on any number of factors, including diversity of use, ease of use, commonality with PvE builds, or any number of other things. And other groups might modify builds to fight that.

To that end, something like an immobbeast is 'META'. It has specific uses that people will bring to the table when it is needed. It is not the same 'META' that something like firebrand is, but balance isn't suppose to be a popularity contest.

Edited October 3, 2021 by God.2708

[subversiontwo.7501]

20 hours ago, nerva.7940 said:

We're not using it like that here. Meta here means "most efficient at killing things in X context". Meaning, if a group is trying to minmax their comp, other specs bring more to the table. All that being said, I do believe Immobeast is fantastic. 

I want to get in on this qoute too. Usually, I try to approach these things with more of a cursory explanation so pardon me if this comes off as a bit blunt but: Yes, I've seen some people put it like that before. However, that's usually the way highly mediocre players put it to make themselves feel good. There isn't a "we" to it and there isn't a solid logic to it. If meta was the most effective means to an end then the best would be playing it. Then we would have things like spinzerkers be meta because the best groups play them, it has some of the highest potential in the right hands but it isn't for everyone.

What the people wanting to feel good about themselves then retort is that "well that's smaller scale and big pickup scale is another reality" which in reality it isn't because if you took 50 players out of all those "best" groups they would continue to play the things they make work and not simplify their approach to befit average players.

_________________

So that interpretation of "meta" is not just wrong from a games discourse (where MMO's and Beat-em-ups have had different traditions behind the terminology and this is an MMO) but it is also wrong from a simple standpoint of logic and behaviour. In fact, many good players from good groups tend to play things that are not meta when they take part in larger scale and/or pickups. Their reputation usually earns them that favour over what some relatively unknown player may get away with but it is also because they deliver on it and can many times be more helpful to the squad killing things and winning fights on non-meta builds than simply getting into the fold to support others.

So while the meta may be the most effective at something it is not necessarily at killing things or winning fights. It is usually the most comfortable at herding cats or managing large average groups with little help or expectation.

That also ties into the larger discussion here because if you read my posts a couple of pages back you can see that I gave an example of how to play Ranger. That example mostly comes from leading subgrouped friends in pickups, however, it also got organically used on one (of the four) servers I was on at the time: The only server/pickup that actually "picked me up" expecting such a role was at the time regarded as the "best" in its region. The more casual servers were less likely to expect Rangers as ranged support. They were more likely to expect every Ranger as bad because they're not as used to players to expect more from.

Edited October 4, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[nerva.7940]

5 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

However, that's usually the way highly mediocre players put it to make themselves feel good.

That's the thing, it's not. "Meta" specs in the hands of good (competitive) players are extremely powerful. They make mediocre players feel "better", but in the hands of a mechanically competent player, meta specs will have the least weaknesses and most advantages, which is what makes them meta. I did competitive gvg'ing way back before HoT released (in the gvg golden age). We'd always start with the metaiest of the meta specs that ever meta'd, then fine-tune adjustments and make the meta comp something unique, our own. Long story short - you can't start with garbage builds, you'll get nowhere fast. But you can further customize the comp, for example some guilds running Immobeast (a niche role really). 

 

5 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

So while the meta may be the most effective at something it is not necessarily at killing things or winning fights. It is usually the most comfortable at herding cats or managing large average groups with little help or expectation.

 

This is just the way it ends up for low tier players, but meta builds are a product of an unwritten consensus from skilled players. Sheep will be sheep, but that doesnt change the fact that meta builds exist naturally and for a reason. 

[Zikory.6871]

17 hours ago, nerva.7940 said:

That's the thing, it's not. "Meta" specs in the hands of good (competitive) players are extremely powerful. They make mediocre players feel "better", but in the hands of a mechanically competent player, meta specs will have the least weaknesses and most advantages, which is what makes them meta. I did competitive gvg'ing way back before HoT released (in the gvg golden age). We'd always start with the metaiest of the meta specs that ever meta'd, then fine-tune adjustments and make the meta comp something unique, our own. Long story short - you can't start with garbage builds, you'll get nowhere fast. But you can further customize the comp, for example some guilds running Immobeast (a niche role really). 

 

 

This is just the way it ends up for low tier players, but meta builds are a product of an unwritten consensus from skilled players. Sheep will be sheep, but that doesnt change the fact that meta builds exist naturally and for a reason. 

Everyone understands what you are trying to say. You just aren't listening to what people are telling you. The high end "minmax" meta is not relevant for a majority of players. Its why you see some people here saying they actively run Rangers while casual and pug players are consistently complaining about not being wanted in squads. 

When people say meta here, they are referring to the meta for more casual players. No competitive GvG guild is taking meta advice from these forums. 

[Littlekenny.4196]

21 hours ago, nerva.7940 said:

That's the thing, it's not. "Meta" specs in the hands of good (competitive) players are extremely powerful. They make mediocre players feel "better", but in the hands of a mechanically competent player, meta specs will have the least weaknesses and most advantages, which is what makes them meta. I did competitive gvg'ing way back before HoT released (in the gvg golden age). We'd always start with the metaiest of the meta specs that ever meta'd, then fine-tune adjustments and make the meta comp something unique, our own. Long story short - you can't start with garbage builds, you'll get nowhere fast. But you can further customize the comp, for example some guilds running Immobeast (a niche role really). 

 

 

This is just the way it ends up for low tier players, but meta builds are a product of an unwritten consensus from skilled players. Sheep will be sheep, but that doesnt change the fact that meta builds exist naturally and for a reason. 

My opinions.

Meta builds are the builds mediocre pugs can use and be more useful than they would if they played anything else.

Meta specs have the least weaknesses but definitely not the most advantages.

Better players add more weaknesses to their build which they can cover for with their skill to gain more advantages.

Organised groups add even more weaknesses which they can cover for with teamwork in exchange for more advantages.

Fine tuning and adjusting a meta build, making it your own, makes it no longer be a meta build.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

most effective tactic/technique available = meta

 

so yeah, most regular meta builds are just the best. this mainly is about the BUILD itself, as in stats + the skilltree choices u took. there's barely to none room to swap things out.

 

big differences u'll see at using other weapons (often worse, situationally better), sigils, runes, on some things even a few skill/ability choices.

 

the meta can shift and does every now and then, people may vary stuff to test it. if u only exchange one skill, it is still sort of meta.... like anything 90%ish similar to the meta build can be considered meta.

 

tiny changes that don't screw the whole build's intention and functionality do not make the thingy YOUR PERSONAL INVENTION, really that view'd be just bulls****

[nerva.7940]

On 10/3/2021 at 2:08 PM, God.2708 said:

'META here means the most efficient at killing things' and assume that the builds on something like metabattle are thus the 'best' builds.

This is what meta means in gaming, yes. 

[nerva.7940]

21 hours ago, Zikory.6871 said:

The high end "minmax" meta is not relevant for a majority of players.

It very much is. If you put a bunch of scrub pubs together in team A running off meta builds, and a group of scrubs in team B running your typical boonball comp, Team A gets crushed every time. And that's with players who are mechanically terrible.  Meta builds aren't just the most efficient, but a lot of them are very easy to play as well and very easy to gear up. Ease of access + efficacy is what makes them "meta". 

I think some of you guys have derailed this discussion enough. You're wrong and arguing in circles about nothing. Let's move on. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by nerva.7940

[Zikory.6871]

28 minutes ago, nerva.7940 said:

It very much is. If you put a bunch of scrub pubs together in team A running off meta builds, and a group of scrubs in team B running your typical boonball comp, Team A gets crushed every time. And that's with players who are mechanically terrible.  Meta builds aren't just the most efficient, but a lot of them are very easy to play as well and very easy to gear up. Ease of access + efficacy is what makes them "meta". 

The first thing you said to me was "We're not using it like that here. Meta here means "most efficient at killing things in X context". 

Now its about "but a lot of them are very easy to play as well and very easy to gear up. Ease of access + efficacy is what makes them "meta". "

So what is meta? Ease of of access? or most efficient at killing things? 

Remember when I said meta is about playability and you said nah? But now its about being easy to play and well as easy to gear? 

 

 

31 minutes ago, nerva.7940 said:

I think some of you guys have derailed this discussion enough. You're wrong and arguing in circles about nothing. Let's move on. 

You are derailed this thread by continuing this...You refused to listen to why Rangers aren't considered meta by most of the population and keep making irrelevant arguments that aren't even attempting to be on subject.  

[God.2708]

38 minutes ago, nerva.7940 said:

This is what meta means in gaming, yes. 

 

36 minutes ago, nerva.7940 said:

Ease of access + efficacy is what makes them "meta". 
 

...? Which is it? 

[Gotejjeken.1267]

For WvW...

 

This is simple, rangers are not meta--they  do not do well in large scale combat no matter how well you build.  This is not hard and does not require 40 pages of circle arguments to prove.

 

Druid is in a perilous state where most people have no idea how to build or play one, but anet does.  So they can't buff it or it'll become literally unkillable, but if they don't buff it then it is useless to what it was intended (group support). 

 

In that vein, Celestial Avatar generation is only a problem from 0 (i.e. if you do manage to die), otherwise it should always be available without thinking about it, if built properly.  If they'd change CA not to drain upon death it would be a nice QoL improvement to get to fights faster without having to fight random animals for a bit.

 

Soulbeast is fine, but suffers from pet selection--it's really smokeskale or nothing.  That and people only use meme builds for 'high dmg lulz' rendering them pretty useless outside picking off a stray target that a thief could have caught anyway.  It's like we get it, sic em burst can kill thieves caught out of stealth and some necros...congrats? 

[Zikory.6871]

37 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

they  do not do well in large scale combat no matter how well you build.  This is not hard and does not require 40 pages of circle arguments to prove.

No comment on the other stuff but Soulbeast...What determines not doing well in large scale? Would you say berserker doesn't do well in large scale? Since they can do basically the same damage in melee. Is the problem that Soulbeast can only keep up in damage if your group can stay in melee and most groups can't? 

What about immob? How are you determining effective immobs? Or is it just assumptions cuz scrapper cleanse things?

I suspect most people saying Soulbeast aren't good in large scale either have never played the right builds, didn't play it enough to get good or just aren't in the right environment for it. 

[Zyreva.1078]

3 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

For WvW...

 

This is simple, rangers are not meta--they  do not do well in large scale combat no matter how well you build. 

There is more to WvW than 50vs50 blob viesta. Ranger might not be meta for everything in WvW, but that does not mean it is "not meta" in general.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

13 hours ago, Zikory.6871 said:

No comment on the other stuff but Soulbeast...What determines not doing well in large scale? Would you say berserker doesn't do well in large scale? Since they can do basically the same damage in melee. Is the problem that Soulbeast can only keep up in damage if your group can stay in melee and most groups can't? 

What about immob? How are you determining effective immobs? Or is it just assumptions cuz scrapper cleanse things?

I suspect most people saying Soulbeast aren't good in large scale either have never played the right builds, didn't play it enough to get good or just aren't in the right environment for it. 

 

It literally has immob which it does worse than druid (and yes immob is pretty useless in blobs) and some minor stance share which caps at 5.  There is also zero AoE to speak of outside barrage (too high CD without specific build for it).  Sure you also have GS cleave (fine but not really AoE), and Axe (bounce limitations make this not great).  

 

I don't know about berserker, but I do know that ranger as a whole has very little to offer any group sizing over like 10.  

 

11 hours ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

There is more to WvW than 50vs50 blob viesta. Ranger might not be meta for everything in WvW, but that does not mean it is "not meta" in general.

 

In WvW, meta is pretty clearly defined as 'does well in large scale'.  I mean, ranger can be 'meta' in chasing thieves, ganking randos, harassing yaks, and flipping camps...but that doesn't amount to very much outside personal satisfaction.  

[Zikory.6871]

10 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

 

It literally has immob which it does worse than druid (and yes immob is pretty useless in blobs) and some minor stance share which caps at 5.  There is also zero AoE to speak of outside barrage (too high CD without specific build for it).  Sure you also have GS cleave (fine but not really AoE), and Axe (bounce limitations make this not great).  

 

I don't know about berserker, but I do know that ranger as a whole has very little to offer any group sizing over like 10.  

Hmm, well that's unfortunate. The only hard counter to Immob is resistance, which is generally not a high uptime boon. Even cleared, the immob'd player stops moving. Maybe its "useless" without coordination? 

Berserker, Weaver, Holosmith, Daredevil have very little to offer outside of high damage...Soulbeast can do the same damage. If I bring a class for melee damage and it does high melee damage, what's the issue?

[Zyreva.1078]

11 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

 

In WvW, meta is pretty clearly defined as 'does well in large scale'.  I mean, ranger can be 'meta' in chasing thieves, ganking randos, harassing yaks, and flipping camps...but that doesn't amount to very much outside personal satisfaction.  

One random "does well at large scale class" more or less within a blob doesn't amount to a whole lot more than that either.

And considering that WvW is not a very competitive game mode, meta - in terms of "the best" or "most efficient" - is certainly not very relevant nor clearly defined as a whole. Also "does well at large scale" is such a loose description, it doesn't even exclude ranger (or any class for that matter). The very narrow view of a lot of players does not change that.

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[RisenHowl.2419]

6 hours ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

One random "does well at large scale class" more or less within a blob doesn't amount to a whole lot more than that either.

And considering that WvW is not a very competitive game mode, meta - in terms of "the best" or "most efficient" - is certainly not very relevant nor clearly defined as a whole. Also "does well at large scale" is such a loose description, it doesn't even exclude ranger (or any class for that matter). The very narrow view of a lot of players does not change that.

 

for real, i'll take a lb slb that's coming in 10th for damage over a weaver/dps guard/berserker/dps scrapper that's coming in 15th every time

[Kovu.7560]

Eh, a full glass soulbeast popping OWP and barraging into an enemy group from 1,500 range might be higher on the dps table, but its the ones that lock down enemy groups with entangle, prelude lash, signet of the wild, muddy terrain etc that really win it for their team. Breaking up an enemy group into smaller chunks by locking a number of them in your team's bubble and allowing your dps to go ham on them is where rangers truly shine in a larger-scale scenario IMO.

Is it meta? Well, I'm kind of scared to use that word for fear of being kitten on by some of the posters earlier in this thread, but I'd argue it to be at least viable. I hear folks use roots to great effect in gvgs. It is a cleanse-heavy meta (kitten, there's that word again), so it won't always work.

~ Kovu

Edited October 7, 2021 by Kovu.7560

[Magnuzone.8395]

On 9/23/2021 at 9:45 PM, PrinceValentine.9320 said:

Is it high time for Rangers to receive a support class as an e-spec for them to be valuable in WvW zerging?

Easy to answer: No. 

[DeceiverX.8361]

I swear to god the "most effective tactic available" people need to use real words.

Call it what it is - OPTIMAL.

A metagame/something in the metagame/a metastrategy is a real thing and term in game theory and means something very different.

[RisenHowl.2419]

 

[ArchonWing.9480]

On 10/6/2021 at 9:58 PM, Kovu.7560 said:

Eh, a full glass soulbeast popping OWP and barraging into an enemy group from 1,500 range might be higher on the dps table, but its the ones that lock down enemy groups with entangle, prelude lash, signet of the wild, muddy terrain etc that really win it for their team. Breaking up an enemy group into smaller chunks by locking a number of them in your team's bubble and allowing your dps to go ham on them is where rangers truly shine in a larger-scale scenario IMO.

Is it meta? Well, I'm kind of scared to use that word for fear of being kitten on by some of the posters earlier in this thread, but I'd argue it to be at least viable. I hear folks use roots to great effect in gvgs. It is a cleanse-heavy meta (kitten, there's that word again), so it won't always work.

~ Kovu

Well, taking Quick Draw for 2 barrages is pretty effective. Though vs organized groups that stay tight it starts to lose its effectiveness on open ground. But useful in structures since you ignore LOS.

[Kovu.7560]

5 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Well, taking Quick Draw for 2 barrages is pretty effective. Though vs organized groups that stay tight it starts to lose its effectiveness on open ground. But useful in structures since you ignore LOS.

Of course. Excellent for de-sieging utility. That's the nice thing about build tabs, you can swap to quick draw barrage (heck, pull out a second longbow if that's your gameplan for that build) and clean out the interior of a place real well. You can sic 'em that piece of siege, too. Siege-humpers hate it.  😃

I wouldn't take it into a fight though, the dps boost from vicious quarry is just too godly to pass up. Probably the single biggest dps boost ranger has, though I haven't run the math. (I used to use quick draw on condi builds for double bonfire in pvp, but it was gutted to the point where folks just stand in it on point and don't care.)

~ Kovu

[nerva.7940]

On 10/10/2021 at 11:02 AM, RisenHowl.2419 said:

 

Hey I was thinking maxing out immob duration and healing. Bringers stats mostly??

Edited October 13, 2021 by nerva.7940

[Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582]

On 10/3/2021 at 11:15 PM, Hannelore.8153 said:

The nerf to Spirits early on to remove their movement destroyed support Ranger in competitive. Spirits are the most unique and useful part of the Ranger in groups, and their original implementations with movement and passive boon generation were very strong, especially in Core, but thanks to PvE that got completely ruined...

I think that happened to make space for Herald, since a Spirit Ranger is close to that functionality.