Why aren't we Rangers?

[Remus Darkblight.1673]

10 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Assuming, but not without a basis for the assumption. Weapons generally share broad themes across professions - there are some that break the rules (particularly among revenant and mesmer weapons), but generally the same weapon across different professions will have similar behaviours, filtered through the theme of the profession. For instance, we have eight professions with mainhand swords: all are DPS-oriented, mostly power; they all have a gap-closer skill; and six out of eight have some kind of channeled multihit flurry-style attack (combined with the gap closer in revenant's case).

Mace mainhand's flavour is that, with the exception of revenant, it's defensive in nature. Warrior has a block and multiple CCs, guardian has a block and a healing symbol, engineer has a barrier generating skill and a CC. Odds are therefore fairly good that mace for ranger will be a more defensive or even supportive weapon, for much the same reason that we assume that rifle would be a projectile-based power weapon.

Offhand mace is a bit harder to predict since there only is one profession with that option (warrior) and you can't really establish a pattern from one data point. Blunt weapons in general are typically associated with CC, though, so expecting offhand mace to have a CC skill is probably reasonable.

You might also go by the patterns already existing within the profession and what niches are left to be filled. For example every ranger offhand weapon has a ranged and a melee component.

- Dagger - melee attack with evade and a 1,200 range throw.

- Torch - 1,200 range throw and a point blank AoE field.

- Warhorn - 1,200 range multi-hit attack and a point blank AoE daze and buff.

- Axe - 1,200 range throw and a point blank AoE channelled attack and reflect.

If mace doesn't have a  ranged and throw I will be surprised. Maybe some sort of thrown CC that dazes but stuns/knockdown while flanking or against a defiant foe? The other skill may be a melee block that flips into a modal CC skill, much like Greatsword block. Though I imagine they may do something different so it isn't just a copy/paste of Greatsword.

As for main hand, imagine if it's a ranged weapon like axe, with thrown hammers? Not entirely outside the realms of possibility. I wouldn't mind seeing a mid-range area denial type weapon around the 600 range. It would certainly help the ranger in niches where it doesn't do so well at the moment, like large group content in WvW.

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

The misconception that the term ranger is based off of range from their target drives me insane. Warriors aren't called melee'rs, they are warrior for a different reason.  Ranger is based off the territory they range, better to think of a park ranger in a more wilderness setting(why they have wilderness survival). 

These same people thinking rangers are only about range don't also think because we have pets we should be called zookeepers do they?

[Gotejjeken.1267]

12 hours ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

The misconception that the term ranger is based off of range from their target drives me insane. Warriors aren't called melee'rs, they are warrior for a different reason.  Ranger is based off the territory they range, better to think of a park ranger in a more wilderness setting(why they have wilderness survival). 

These same people thinking rangers are only about range don't also think because we have pets we should be called zookeepers do they?

Yeah, most other RPGs avoid this by calling the GW2 Ranger type of class Beastmaster instead of Ranger.  Because if the class is specifically at range, they usually are referred to as Archers and do not typically need pets (but can have them).

Swear the amount of random topics about guns on here the next e-spec should be called 'Gunman' and just allow the ability for us to use our pet as armed mounts.  

[Swagger.1459]

On 9/8/2023 at 12:26 AM, draxynnic.3719 said:

Assuming, but not without a basis for the assumption. Weapons generally share broad themes across professions - there are some that break the rules (particularly among revenant and mesmer weapons), but generally the same weapon across different professions will have similar behaviours, filtered through the theme of the profession. For instance, we have eight professions with mainhand swords: all are DPS-oriented, mostly power; they all have a gap-closer skill; and six out of eight have some kind of channeled multihit flurry-style attack (combined with the gap closer in revenant's case).

Mace mainhand's flavour is that, with the exception of revenant, it's defensive in nature. Warrior has a block and multiple CCs, guardian has a block and a healing symbol, engineer has a barrier generating skill and a CC. Odds are therefore fairly good that mace for ranger will be a more defensive or even supportive weapon, for much the same reason that we assume that rifle would be a projectile-based power weapon.

Offhand mace is a bit harder to predict since there only is one profession with that option (warrior) and you can't really establish a pattern from one data point. Blunt weapons in general are typically associated with CC, though, so expecting offhand mace to have a CC skill is probably reasonable.

An assumption is still, well, an assumption. Correct?

Edited October 5, 2023 by Swagger.1459

[draxynnic.3719]

1 hour ago, Swagger.1459 said:

An assumption is still, well, an assumption. Correct?

Weapons tend to carry themes across professions. There are exceptions, of course, but the probability of a profession's new weapon being similar in function to how other professions is higher than it being something entirely different. You could consider it an estimation instead - there's reasoning behind it rather than being a castle in the sky.

[Swagger.1459]

2 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Weapons tend to carry themes across professions. There are exceptions, of course, but the probability of a profession's new weapon being similar in function to how other professions is higher than it being something entirely different. You could consider it an estimation instead - there's reasoning behind it rather than being a castle in the sky.

The answer is either a "yes" or "no". Either we clearly know the mace skills and their capabilities, or we don't and are left to assume. The rest is meaningless. 

 

[draxynnic.3719]

10 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

The answer is either a "yes" or "no". Either we clearly know the mace skills and their capabilities, or we don't and are left to assume. The rest is meaningless. 

 

We can make educated guesses based on what has been done in the past. Those trends hold fairly well.

Those guesses might turn out to be wrong, I know, but if we consider, say, the EoD weapons, more than half followed trends established by the weapon as used by other professions. So it's a reasonable conclusion that a new weapon will be more likely to follow those trends than not.

And even outside of that, just basic reasoning would suggest that mace is most likely to be a melee weapon (particularly on a relatively low-magic profession, ranger might end up throwing them but won't be pulling mesmer shenanigans), while rifle is most likely to be a ranged projectile-based weapon, likely with a single-target focus. Heck, this entire thread is predicated on there being some things that can be concluded as being more likely than not based on the nature of the weapon - after all, if people thought that ranger mace was going to behave like the Firemace from Heretic or something like that, we wouldn't have a thread bemoaning rangers not getting a ranged weapon based on the wrongful assertion that "ranger" means "uses ranged weapons". 

Edited October 6, 2023 by draxynnic.3719

[Swagger.1459]

11 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

We can make educated guesses based on what has been done in the past. Those trends hold fairly well.

Those guesses might turn out to be wrong, I know, but if we consider, say, the EoD weapons, more than half followed trends established by the weapon as used by other professions. So it's a reasonable conclusion that a new weapon will be more likely to follow those trends than not.

And even outside of that, just basic reasoning would suggest that mace is most likely to be a melee weapon (particularly on a relatively low-magic profession, ranger might end up throwing them but won't be pulling mesmer shenanigans), while rifle is most likely to be a ranged projectile-based weapon, likely with a single-target focus. Heck, this entire thread is predicated on there being some things that can be concluded as being more likely than not based on the nature of the weapon - after all, if people thought that ranger mace was going to behave like the Firemace from Heretic or something like that, we wouldn't have a thread bemoaning rangers not getting a ranged weapon based on the wrongful assertion that "ranger" means "uses ranged weapons". 

Guesses/assumptions and facts are 2 different things. Am I correct?

Actual quote that I responded to from poster- "Double maces will be good defensive choince for zerg Play.".

That is a statement that leads one to believe it is a fact. "will be".

This is a guess/assumption. "may be". 

That's why I asked to clarify if this was assumption or fact.

As of now, we don't know what maces will do. They could be ranged weapons, melee weapons, offensive weapons, defensive weapons, shoot magic beams, summon dragons... like we don't know. So we need to avoid factual statements like "will be". Correct?   

[Axelteas.7192]

yeah it's like Anet from the beginning hates all ranged damage and force us to melee to achieve great DPS.

[Ashantara.8731]

Yeah, well... First they turned Ranger into a healer spec (Druid), then a spec that feels as half-baked as the core spec (Soulbeast) with a fart shroud, and then we got a hammer spec (Untamed) with a bad green rash and only "fun" in hommage to GW1's bunny thumper build.

I am still waiting for a proper complete rework of Longbow, Sword and Utility Skills to make it a cool profession, but alas, I don't see it happen. The profession plays weirdly (clunky and too melee-focused) for a Ranger class and always will.
 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Ashantara.8731

[kharmin.7683]

I still maintain that druid came about because of raids, soulbeast was to be a wvw spec and untamed a pvp spec.

[Swagger.1459]

No, sorry, that's not how it works. Someone clearly stated maces WILL be X, and I asked for clarification. Of course there is nothing with assumptions or theory crafting, but stating something as fact isn't an assumption discussion. 

Go ahead and look back, should take you a minute to read, perhaps it will give you a better understanding of the discussion. Good plan, right?    

[draxynnic.3719]

In terms of 'will be' - yes, the person who said that was probably being overly succinct and thus implied greater certainty than is warranted.

Adjust the statement to 'will most likely be', however, and it is completely accurate. You could add 'based on how mace has been implemented in the past' if you want the reasoning behind it.

Jumping on the semantics of the statement does nothing to support the implied alternative, however. We assume that ranger getting pistol and/or rifle would be supporting a ranged playstyle. Warrior players assumed exactly that about getting pistol.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

Op should rename this thread to why do we have a ranger class instead of a archer class. Gw2 is one of the very few and best representations of a ranger class in any mmo being 50/50 range and melee attacks, as a ranger should be. Op u need to actually research what the ranger archetype entails lol.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Psycoprophet.8107

[Gotejjeken.1267]

19 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

No, sorry, that's not how it works. Someone clearly stated maces WILL be X, and I asked for clarification. Of course there is nothing with assumptions or theory crafting, but stating something as fact isn't an assumption discussion. 

Go ahead and look back, should take you a minute to read, perhaps it will give you a better understanding of the discussion. Good plan, right?    

I mean, we could get a ranged rainbow mace that is condi and shoots laser beams....

But any sane person would be we'd get a double melee set that's most likely power and good for support / CC.

[aetemes.2603]

I think rangers weapon set is very cool and "rangery"...I just think after dagger/hammer it was about time to get a "ranged/refined" feel back..rifle hunter is an obvious different good look and different vibe from the "nature savage primal weapons" vibe...so double mace was annoying to hear, but it's probably cause of how longbow and ranged skills in general was annoying for them to balance...but they could've easily made it some interesting "marking" mid ranged not really dps I dunno shotgun "reveal stealth" or something feel but....they are also so hell bent now on making classes have nothing *that* unique to them anymore, it's remix land. Just pretending to release new content at this point.

But agree with we don't know what mace will be playing wise..look at revenant's hammer it has some pretty weird vibe going for it. But given ranged weapons history, lol.

All I know is I am not that excited running around with a mace as a ranger, I don't care if they are ranged or not, but whatever. I guess with hammer can go for more of a primal caveman "beastmaster" look and just pretend it was another untamed weapon set...the whole "ball on a stick" is just not super interesting for a ranger to me. But it is what it is.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

Anat tries so hard sometimes to be different and sometimes it works but others it doesn't. Whoever thought giving ranger dual mace over a shield or off hand sword imo should make 0 class design issues going forward, like when u have shield or off hand sword as options and u choose dual mace instead u definitely have somthing off goin on in ur head lol. I'm not trying to be mean but it's just so strange.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Psycoprophet.8107

[Ehecatl.9172]

3 hours ago, aetemes.2603 said:

All I know is I am not that excited running around with a mace as a ranger, I don't care if they are ranged or not, but whatever. I guess with hammer can go for more of a primal caveman "beastmaster" look and just pretend it was another untamed weapon set...the whole "ball on a stick" is just not super interesting for a ranger to me. But it is what it is.

At least a few of the mace skins are more like clubs, which do fit into the more primal warrior aesthetic. Unfortunately, they all look like big, fat cudgels rather than the smaller, sleek clubs of many pre-iron civilizations that I like. I could see the Luxon's Hunter's Mace or the Maguuma's Mace skins looking solid though.

[draxynnic.3719]

3 hours ago, Ehecatl.9172 said:

At least a few of the mace skins are more like clubs, which do fit into the more primal warrior aesthetic. Unfortunately, they all look like big, fat cudgels rather than the smaller, sleek clubs of many pre-iron civilizations that I like. I could see the Luxon's Hunter's Mace or the Maguuma's Mace skins looking solid though.

I think that's a problem with ArenaNet's interpretation of blunt weapons in general. We don't have any bar maces - mace skins always need to have a clear head. (And don't get me started on the hammer heads, but that's the fantasy genre for you...)

[kharmin.7683]

That, and I think that they feel that they have to make them in such a manner so as to be seen; otherwise, who would buy skins for a weapon and not be able to show it off?

[WastedYears.8934]

How about Chakram as a weapon!! Can be used as a mid range weapon with some melee skills as well for close combat.

 

Or a vinewhips with mid range attack with whip lash consecutive attack and mini aoe spin attacks that does physical and confusion and immobile as cc ...

 

What if the dev changed "maces" and instead announce rangers will be getting a unique weapon called "tree barks" as weapons but same skill design as mace as intended...

 

Just a real lack of effort on the devs part really...

Edited October 11, 2023 by WastedYears.8934

[kharmin.7683]

1 hour ago, WastedYears.8934 said:

 

What if the dev changed "maces" and instead announce rangers will be getting a unique weapon called "tree barks" as weapons but same skill design as mace as intended...

 

 

Probably because there are many mace skins already available so the devs won't need to spend resources on creating a new weapon type/look.

[KeyOrion.9506]

I dunno, I'd rather have two shields to bang together.  Smash them together to make a sonic attack or fling them like Captain America.

[WastedYears.8934]

On 9/8/2023 at 10:49 PM, Remus Darkblight.1673 said:

You might also go by the patterns already existing within the profession and what niches are left to be filled. For example every ranger offhand weapon has a ranged and a melee component.

- Dagger - melee attack with evade and a 1,200 range throw. + AOE condi damage and some movement/stunt break skill with invul

- Torch - 1,200 range throw and a point blank AoE field. + AOE condi damage and some movement/stunt break skill with invul

- Warhorn - 1,200 range multi-hit attack and a point blank AoE daze and buff. + AOE condi damage and some movement/stunt break skill with invul

- Axe - 1,200 range throw and a point blank AoE channelled attack and reflect. + AOE condi damage and some movement/stunt break skill with invul

 

I edited in bold so it fits the current meta with most classes

[Psycoprophet.8107]

6 hours ago, RDBuck.6098 said:

The saddest thing about the Ranger is there main is to the LongBow and ShortBow and they are the weakest weapon for the Ranger. Just sad 

Swords and axes are just as "ranger" weapon as long and short bows, and lastly they are definitely not weak weapons on ranger, not by long shot.