Guns ?

[Fenris.8563]

5 minutes ago, Frozey.8513 said:

If you read the whole article you will find out that;

"At one point in development, according to The Making of Guild Wars 2 book, the ranger profession of the original Guild Wars was split into many different professions, notably the warden and the marksman. Eventually, with only marksman remaining, who only possessed the aspect of ranged weaponry, was combined with already scrapped elements of warden and beastmaster, and renamed the ranger for the sake of the original series."

Thus GW2 ranger is very much based on the ranged weaponry. 🙂

No.  Take the L and move on. This is embarrassing.  "At one point in development" doesn't mean anything.  What matters is what their END result of the job is.   Which I just shared in my last response to you.  So I won't spam it.  It's pretty clear though. It has absolutely nothing to do with ranged weapons.

Edited June 19 by Fenris.8563

[Frozey.8513]

Just now, Fenris.8563 said:

No.  Take the L and move on. This is embarrassing.  "At one point in development" doesn't mean anything.  What matters is what their END result of the job is.   Which I just shared in my last response to you.  So I won't spam it.  It's pretty clear though, it has absolutely nothing to do with ranged weapons.

As it reads there the whole GW2 Ranger is based around Marksman and Ranged Weaponry, everything else being added back into it from the originally removed elements of GW1 Ranger. Ranger is very deeply tied in with Ranged combat, and it's pure copium to state otherwise. 😅

[Fenris.8563]

2 minutes ago, Frozey.8513 said:

As it reads there the whole GW2 Ranger is based around Marksman and Ranged Weaponry, everything else being added back into it from the originally removed elements of GW1 Ranger. Ranger is very deeply tied in with Ranged combat, and it's pure copium to state otherwise. 😅

Wrong.  It's based around nature. 

 

Quote

Unparalleled survivalists with traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation. Ranger is a profession of defenders of nature who tame and train animal companions, pets, as their profession mechanic.

 

[frazazel.7501]

36 minutes ago, Fenris.8563 said:

No.  Take the L and move on. This is embarrassing.  "At one point in development" doesn't mean anything.  What matters is what their END result of the job is.   Which I just shared in my last response to you.  So I won't spam it.  It's pretty clear though. It has absolutely nothing to do with ranged weapons.

I don't think it's fair to say that Ranger has nothing to do with ranged weapons. Clearly, bow use is part of the class's fantasy. They're the only class that can use both longbow and shortbow, they get longer longbow range than other classes, new players start with a longbow, and much of the ranger artwork features a bow. But that doesn't mean that it's the only part of their identity. It also isn't even clear that it extends beyond bows at all.

Rangers could get rifle or pistol, and it would be fine. Were maces a better thematic weapon than the guns? Not especially. But they gave them a good feeling kit with the right flavour. They could do the same for rifle or pistol.

[Fenris.8563]

24 minutes ago, frazazel.7501 said:

I don't think it's fair to say that Ranger has nothing to do with ranged weapons. Clearly, bow use is part of the class's fantasy. They're the only class that can use both longbow and shortbow, they get longer longbow range than other classes, new players start with a longbow, and much of the ranger artwork features a bow. But that doesn't mean that it's the only part of their identity. It also isn't even clear that it extends beyond bows at all.

Rangers could get rifle or pistol, and it would be fine. Were maces a better thematic weapon than the guns? Not especially. But they gave them a good feeling kit with the right flavour. They could do the same for rifle or pistol.

Right but I was speaking on what the class is based on.  Not what it is capable of.  I was simply going off of how Anet defines Ranger themselves since this guy was breaking out books. What they define the class as, is clearly based around nature.  Not any specific weapons (besides traps if you want to be specific).   

I think the reason we get bows is simply because bows are often looked at as a natural like weapon.  It fits the part. I doubt we ever get rifles/pistols unless they get to the point to where all classes can use all weapons (which I think is the direction they may be going). But then what we can use would have nothing to do with what the class was built around anyway.  

 

[Lazze.9870]

On 6/12/2024 at 4:24 PM, Frozey.8513 said:

On Guild Wars it very much was. In GW2 however they've been taking Ranger away from Archer type and slowly more towards Druid or Shaman.

The only reason it can be seen that way was because the non-caster classes came with attributes directly tied to a specific weapon that could also be picked when running any of them as a secondary class. Ranger is obviously presented as an archer, but that's the result of how they designed the game with dual classes. Ranger always had viable melee options in GW1.

GW2 didn't "take away" the archer type. What they did do is take away the focus on efficient weapon and skill use through the Expertise attribute and dump all the points into Beastmastery. People that cry about how there is less focus on bows and the archer archtype should really complain about the pet mechanic. You're stuck with it at all times and it has directly influenced two out of three elite specs. A non-pet ranger would likely have had two more elite specs focusing on the ranger archtypes, like druid did. Archer, or a spec that makes the "archer" more effective (more so than just merging for some stats and camping LB) could easily have been one of those.

Edit: the fact that I'm getting the confused reaction spam just sums up this forum perfectly. 

Edited June 26 by Lazze.9870

[draxynnic.3719]

Like half a dozen people have said, GW1 was a different game, with a different system. GW1 allowed for melee ranger from the beginning... by taking a warrior (or, later, assassin or dervish) secondary profession. GW2 has this versatility built into the profession rather than having more specialised professions that are combined to make a more rounded character, though. Plus, GW1 ranger used bows, and GW2 ranger is already able to use every bow in GW2. If you're going to use GW1 to try to justify rangers using firearms, please first point out where GW1 rangers used firearms.

As for the development history - you note how 'marksman' was just one part of what was merged to become the ranger we have now? I suspect that this is a large part of why the bow skills feel pretty... un-rangery compared to the other weapon skills. Seriously, compared to the nature magic built into the other weapons, they could have moved either of the bows to warrior or thief, graphics included, and nobody would have batted an eyebrow. Sure, Barrage was an iconic ranger skill in GW1, but so was Ignite Arrows, but it's now the warrior longbow that has the fire arrow theme. What probably happened is that when they decided professions should have both melee and ranged weapon options, they combined the ranged-oriented Marksman with the nature-magic-oriented and probably melee-oriented Warden to create the ranger we have now.

If they had kept them as separate professions, then yeah, 'marksman' probably would have the gunpowder weapons... and probably wouldn't have the nature magic stuff. But that's not the decision they made. Ranger is the profession they actually made, and decisions are being made based on the profession being in tune with nature rather than the marksman concept that was discarded in the end.

Edited June 20 by draxynnic.3719

[latlat.4516]

Will we have this tread every week until anet announces discontinuation of service ? 

[Val.7826]

I actually always wanted a rifle on my human ranger, ya know, hunter style, besides, I see people saying that "ranger" doesn't mean "ranged" to support the idea of not giving guns to them, but I don't think it is the point. Thematically, especially on a human, an asura, or maybe a charr, a rifle would fit better then a bow thanks to the society they live in. I guess the main reasons of why rangers don't have guns is that LB and SB actually cover both ranged power and codition damage, and the ranger is considered a "a profession of defenders of nature". This fact of the defenders of nature is an "ok-ish" reason to don't give them guns, but I don't really think that rifles and pistols are actually against nature in this game, just like IRL, so yeah, it's somehow the ghost of the concept of "mechanic --> mother nature doesn't like that"; besides, I don't see why a ranger could not defend nature with a gun.

[latlat.4516]

1 hour ago, Val.7826 said:

I actually always wanted a rifle on my human ranger, ya know, hunter style, besides, I see people saying that "ranger" doesn't mean "ranged" to support the idea of not giving guns to them, but I don't think it is the point. Thematically, especially on a human, an asura, or maybe a charr, a rifle would fit better then a bow thanks to the society they live in. I guess the main reasons of why rangers don't have guns is that LB and SB actually cover both ranged power and codition damage, and the ranger is considered a "a profession of defenders of nature". This fact of the defenders of nature is an "ok-ish" reason to don't give them guns, but I don't really think that rifles and pistols are actually against nature in this game, just like IRL, so yeah, it's somehow the ghost of the concept of "mechanic --> mother nature doesn't like that"; besides, I don't see why a ranger could not defend nature with a gun.

Well the point was already made multiple times in other topics on this forum. 

But you have 2 reasons to want to add a "new weapon" :

- thematic hole 

- gameplay hole 

 

the riffle and pistol don't really help with gameplay coverage of ranger. They are both projectile-based weapons, and ranger already has plenty of projectile weapons. 

 

Thematically, the ranger is not only a "defender of nature", it's someone that decided to reject civilization and is one with nature. 

Now, the game is already front loaded gameplay-wise and anet will increasingly be mandated to do some redundant weapons if they want to continue to add weapons to the game, so it's not that impossible we will get one firearm in the future, with a roundabout lore explanation.  

 

But surely we'll get other things beforewards, for example we still don't have an OH weapon with a block. 

[Trejgon.9367]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:38 PM, Frozey.8513 said:

Anet themselves have formed their own definition of what Ranger is in the Gameplay manuals of previous titles,

Previous titles are irrelevant because gameplay mechanics are completely different and incompatible. And classes in franchises with more than one game, often tends to shift in their identity between entries.

On 6/19/2024 at 4:38 PM, Frozey.8513 said:

clearly indicating the class is heavily favouring ranged combat.

In those previous titles, in regard to mechanical differences I already noted, not in GW2.

On 6/19/2024 at 4:50 PM, Frozey.8513 said:

"At one point in development, according to The Making of Guild Wars 2 book, the ranger profession of the original Guild Wars was split into many different professions, notably the warden and the marksman. Eventually, with only marksman remaining, who only possessed the aspect of ranged weaponry, was combined with already scrapped elements of warden and beastmaster, and renamed the ranger for the sake of the original series."

Thus GW2 ranger is very much based on the ranged weaponry. 🙂

"actually" this exempt only means that at some point of development ranger was build around concept of marksman class, which we know very little about mind you, that got warden themes merged ontop of it. The claim that it was mostly ranged weaponry did hold some water at the time (with sword and greatsword being only melee weapons, axes being thrown, and bows being stacked ontop of that). But even very shortly after release, the best results in terms of dps you'd be getting from 1h sword - a melee weapon.

A decade has passed, and during that decade alot has changed. This is no longer relevant argument.

[Val.7826]

8 minutes ago, latlat.4516 said:

Well the point was already made multiple times in other topics on this forum. 

But you have 2 reasons to want to add a "new weapon" :

- thematic hole 

- gameplay hole 

 

the riffle and pistol don't really help with gameplay coverage of ranger. They are both projectile-based weapons, and ranger already has plenty of projectile weapons. 

 

Thematically, the ranger is not only a "defender of nature", it's someone that decided to reject civilization and is one with nature. 

Now, the game is already front loaded gameplay-wise and anet will increasingly be mandated to do some redundant weapons if they want to continue to add weapons to the game, so it's not that impossible we will get one firearm in the future, with a roundabout lore explanation.  

 

But surely we'll get other things beforewards, for example we still don't have an OH weapon with a block. 

I almost agree with everything you say and I don't expect to see any guns on ranger in the future, still, when you talk about ranger that is "someone that decided to reject civilization and is one with nature", I have to say that this trait is absolutely incoherent with the personal story of human, charr and asura, and even with norn and sylvari it becomes incoherent going forward with the story, so it's kind of useless to keep considering rangers like that, so, if in a future expansion devs want to add guns to rangers, considering that the expansions are new chapters of the story, it could be fair enough giving guns to rangers. Anyway, I repeat, I don't expect to see any guns on ranger in the future and I agree that the spec doesn't need that.

[Beddo.1907]

4 hours ago, latlat.4516 said:

Will we have this tread every week until anet announces discontinuation of service ? 

We will get it till Anet adds rifle to ranger weapons.
After that, we will get posts complaining it's not undisputable meta, until discontinuation.

[draxynnic.3719]

20 hours ago, latlat.4516 said:

Will we have this tread every week until anet announces discontinuation of service ? 

Probably. Or at least until they announce discontinuation of major development (GW1 is still being serviced but any additional content added to GW1 is a pleasant surprise rather than an expectation).

20 hours ago, Val.7826 said:

I actually always wanted a rifle on my human ranger, ya know, hunter style, besides, I see people saying that "ranger" doesn't mean "ranged" to support the idea of not giving guns to them, but I don't think it is the point. Thematically, especially on a human, an asura, or maybe a charr, a rifle would fit better then a bow thanks to the society they live in. I guess the main reasons of why rangers don't have guns is that LB and SB actually cover both ranged power and codition damage, and the ranger is considered a "a profession of defenders of nature". This fact of the defenders of nature is an "ok-ish" reason to don't give them guns, but I don't really think that rifles and pistols are actually against nature in this game, just like IRL, so yeah, it's somehow the ghost of the concept of "mechanic --> mother nature doesn't like that"; besides, I don't see why a ranger could not defend nature with a gun.

There are several story beats where a "nature versus technology" conflict is absolutely set up: asura technology being at odds with nature goes back to GW1 and recurs a few times early in GW2, most recently and notably in Draconis Mons; there's a prerelease story where the Pale Tree talks about the harm the charr way of life is doing to their environment; and the Echovald Wilds is basically a showcase of an "engineers versus wardens" conflict. There is a degree to which asura personal stories always involve some invention or another, as does the charr Iron Legion story, but I think this is a factor of ArenaNet taking the attitude that, unlike other MMOs, no class is restricted to specific races or backgrounds, even if lorewise certain combinations are quite rare. So yeah, you can play an asura ranger, even though asura ranger NPCs are fairly rare just as elementalist charr NPCs without ties to the Flame Legion are rare. You can play an Iron Legion ranger, even though charr rangers are much, much more likely to be with Blood or Ash, and those that are around are still using bows regardless of what their race as a whole is. Technically I guess you could use a charr racial skill or two to be a technology-using ranger, but from a mechanical perspective that's discouraged.

I don't know where your idea that humans fit with guns thematically better than bows is coming from: technology isn't nearly as universal in Kryta as it is with the asura or charr, and if you pay attention to Seraph NPCs, bows still appear to be the primary ranged weapon in Kryta. Heck, even when you bring bandits and White Mantle into the picture, bows still seem to be considerably more popular than firearms, although you do see a few - and the closer someone is to the White Mantle, the more likely they are to have rejected Melandru (who is still one of the bigger names in the pantheon).

[Val.7826]

On 6/22/2024 at 10:05 AM, draxynnic.3719 said:

There are several story beats where a "nature versus technology" conflict is absolutely set up: asura technology being at odds with nature goes back to GW1 and recurs a few times early in GW2, most recently and notably in Draconis Mons; there's a prerelease story where the Pale Tree talks about the harm the charr way of life is doing to their environment; and the Echovald Wilds is basically a showcase of an "engineers versus wardens" conflict. There is a degree to which asura personal stories always involve some invention or another, as does the charr Iron Legion story, but I think this is a factor of ArenaNet taking the attitude that, unlike other MMOs, no class is restricted to specific races or backgrounds, even if lorewise certain combinations are quite rare. So yeah, you can play an asura ranger, even though asura ranger NPCs are fairly rare just as elementalist charr NPCs without ties to the Flame Legion are rare. You can play an Iron Legion ranger, even though charr rangers are much, much more likely to be with Blood or Ash, and those that are around are still using bows regardless of what their race as a whole is. Technically I guess you could use a charr racial skill or two to be a technology-using ranger, but from a mechanical perspective that's discouraged.

I don't know where your idea that humans fit with guns thematically better than bows is coming from: technology isn't nearly as universal in Kryta as it is with the asura or charr, and if you pay attention to Seraph NPCs, bows still appear to be the primary ranged weapon in Kryta. Heck, even when you bring bandits and White Mantle into the picture, bows still seem to be considerably more popular than firearms, although you do see a few - and the closer someone is to the White Mantle, the more likely they are to have rejected Melandru (who is still one of the bigger names in the pantheon).

Everything you are saying is absolutely true, but my very point is not really about races in general, my point is about the Commander and the story so far. While going through the story, it's impossible for a player to keep faith in the dogma "no technology", since multiple times you find yourself using technology for a reason or another, cannons, asura's tech, charr stuff, no matter of what race you are. It's ok to start with the dogma, no problems at all, but more and more you go on with the story of GW2 as a Commander, less and less you can keep it up. Because of that, imho, it is fair enough that in an expansion, that is thematically and chronologically allocated further in the story where the technological level of the world is slowing becoming homogenized, at some point a ranger specialization could start using a gun, obviously nature-infused or something.

Edited June 24 by Val.7826

[draxynnic.3719]

On 6/24/2024 at 10:16 PM, Val.7826 said:

Everything you are saying is absolutely true, but my very point is not really about races in general, my point is about the Commander and the story so far. While going through the story, it's impossible for a player to keep faith in the dogma "no technology", since multiple times you find yourself using technology for a reason or another, cannons, asura's tech, charr stuff, no matter of what race you are. It's ok to start with the dogma, no problems at all, but more and more you go on with the story of GW2 as a Commander, less and less you can keep it up. Because of that, imho, it is fair enough that in an expansion, that is thematically and chronologically allocated further in the story where the technological level of the world is slowing becoming homogenized, at some point a ranger specialization could start using a gun, obviously nature-infused or something.

There's a degree of truth in that - however, I think there's also a distinction between using a technological device (possibly with some distaste) when needed for a specific mission, and having it be as a favoured personal weapon.

Consider that the theme of ranger weapons is that at some level they're calling on nature spirits to empower their weapons. This isn't as visible with the bows as it is with other weapons, but ranger in GW1 had the theme of calling upon spirits to improve their marksmanship in various ways, so we can probably presume that's happening under the proverbial hood in GW2 as well. Now, consider the possibility that those spirits cannot or will not improve firearms in the same way. Bows then become objectively superior for a ranger.

Now, I do think there's space for something different using rifle skins - the common thing I cite is having the theme of a sylvari mortar but portable. Not a gunpowder weapon, but something that contains a plant or animal that generates some form of ranged attack (Tyranid bioweapons, if you're familiar with 40K, would probably be a good source of inspiration, and we see a little of this with things like the harpoon gun piranha-summoning skill). However, an important distinction here is that it's a uniquely nature-oriented weapon that happens to use rifle skins rather than just being a case of "give ranger a gun" - the result would probably be very different to the rifle of warrior, engineer, and thief (which would be a good thing for gameplay reasons as well since longbow already fills that role).

[Val.7826]

4 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

However, an important distinction here is that it's a uniquely nature-oriented weapon that happens to use rifle skins rather than just being a case of "give ranger a gun" - the result would probably be very different to the rifle of warrior, engineer, and thief (which would be a good thing for gameplay reasons as well since longbow already fills that role).

Ah it should be absolutely like that, that's what I thought in the first place

[Bunny.9834]

On 6/11/2024 at 7:05 PM, Kastagir.2146 said:

I just don't get why Rangers don't use guns. Why are the devs so hung up on giving the range class in the game the best range weapon.? Have the devs ever said why Rangers won't get guns? I feel like they are sitting back laughing about this.

I support this.  I was wishing the 3rd E-Spec was gonna be a Hunter Type Spec. 

Rifle would be a Long Range Single Target Condition Weapon that focuses on bleeding, cripple, and immobilize.  

 

[China.5268]

Gun, glorious gun!!!

 

[Batalix.2873]

On 6/25/2024 at 10:31 PM, draxynnic.3719 said:

There's a degree of truth in that - however, I think there's also a distinction between using a technological device (possibly with some distaste) when needed for a specific mission, and having it be as a favoured personal weapon.

Consider that the theme of ranger weapons is that at some level they're calling on nature spirits to empower their weapons. This isn't as visible with the bows as it is with other weapons, but ranger in GW1 had the theme of calling upon spirits to improve their marksmanship in various ways, so we can probably presume that's happening under the proverbial hood in GW2 as well. Now, consider the possibility that those spirits cannot or will not improve firearms in the same way. Bows then become objectively superior for a ranger.

Now, I do think there's space for something different using rifle skins - the common thing I cite is having the theme of a sylvari mortar but portable. Not a gunpowder weapon, but something that contains a plant or animal that generates some form of ranged attack (Tyranid bioweapons, if you're familiar with 40K, would probably be a good source of inspiration, and we see a little of this with things like the harpoon gun piranha-summoning skill). However, an important distinction here is that it's a uniquely nature-oriented weapon that happens to use rifle skins rather than just being a case of "give ranger a gun" - the result would probably be very different to the rifle of warrior, engineer, and thief (which would be a good thing for gameplay reasons as well since longbow already fills that role).

I would be find with a seed-bullet kind of nature gun. Problem is, that's not what the libertarian gamergate bros want.

But I hope ANet does implement this at some point, make rifle do nothing but shoot flowers. A literal peacekeeper hehehehe. That'll show them to stop asking for guns on every class.