Bunny thumper ranger yay or nay

[Axl.8924]

So i was wondering what you guys would say to return to GW1 hammer ranger

[Dadnir.5038]

The perspective to see yet more focus on hard CC in this game don't really excite me... So I'll vote "nay".

[Gotejjeken.1267]

It'd have to function similar to soulbeast to where you can stow the pet.  That or bake in small periods of pet invulnerability somehow.  

 

Would also need to give rangers access to wells for group play and preferably a teleport for gap closing (i.e. teleport to pet)...

 

What I would not want is healing support because that should be given back to Druid.  Also wouldn't want pure damage because that's what Soulbeast is for.  Also don't want trash because that's what Core ranger is for.  

[unlikeyou.8452]

Not only do I get bored out of my mind playing pure melee; not only am I still rooting for either a javelin thrower with proper aoe since my trowing traps were taken away long ago or more of the shaman that I would have liked druid to be; but I feel the role doesn't bring anything that new and is kind of just more of the same "plus knockdown".  Big no from me.  So much so that I'd very likely quit playing if that was the announcement I faced.

Edited June 24, 2021 by unlikeyou.8452

[Kodama.6453]

Bunny thumper with physical skills, bruiser playstyle with lots of CC and personal defense. Also more reliance on pet. This would be the best outcome for me as ranger elite spec. But as a name, I would pick "Stampede" instead, which works great with how I imagine the bunny thumper to get interpreted in GW2.

 

Ranger lacks a proper bruiser elite spec and both other elite specs so far reduced the reliance on the pet, I would like one which empowers the pet for a change. Maybe physical skills for ranger can have the twist that both, the ranger and the pet, are performing the physical attack at the same time (which could give the pet additional survivability, if one physical skill is a block for example).

 

It would feel similar like the pet attacks from GW1, which were skills you put on your bar for your pet to perform.

 

The class mechanic could be that whenever you swap pets, both pets are active for a short period of time, then the one you switched out disappears. Maybe both pets have a stat penalty as long as they are both active.

 

But the combination with the physical skill mechanic would be cool, imagine that you swap pets, so you have a short window in which the physical skills are performed by 3 units (yourself and both your pets).

 

Alternatively, a scepter as the weapon could be cool as well, if they make it behave like a magical whip (maybe with a green vine animation).

Edited June 27, 2021 by Kodama.6453

[Lazze.9870]

39 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Also more reliance on pet.

 

When people say more reliance on pet, they do understand that they want an elite spec to revolve entirely around the most unreliable profession mechanic in the game, right?

 

I just.. can't fathom why people want more reliance on it. From a thematic perspective, sure. But from a mechanical? Are we playing the same game?

Edited June 25, 2021 by Lazze.9870

[Axl.8924]

1 hour ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Bunny thumper with physical skills, bruiser playstyle with lots of CC and personal defense. Also more reliance on pet. This would be the best outcome for me as ranger elite spec. But as a name, I would pick "Stampede" instead, which works great with how I imagine the bunny thumper to get interpreted in GW2.

 

Ranger lacks a proper bruiser elite spec and both other elite specs so far reduced the reliance on the pet, I would like one which empowers the pet for a change. Maybe physical skills for ranger can have the twist that both, the ranger and the pet, are performing the physical attack at the same time (which could give the pet additional survivability, if one physical skill is a block for example).

 

It would feel similar like the pet attacks from GW1, which were skills you put on your bar for your pet to perform.

 

The class mechanic could be that whenever you swap pets, both pets are active for a short period of time, then the one you switched out disappears. Maybe both pets have a stat penalty as long as they are both active.

 

But the combination with the physical skill mechanic would be cool, imagine that you swap pets, so you have a short window in which the physical skills are performed by 3 units (yourself and both your pets).

 

Alternatively, a accepted as the weapon could be cool as well, if they make it behave like a magical whip (maybe with a green vine animation).

I don-t know why i didn't think of that, but thats a great idea actually, a actual bruiser spec for rangers.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Axl.8924

[Axl.8924]

1 hour ago, Lazze.9870 said:

 

When people say more reliance on pet, they do understand that they want an elite spec to revolve entirely around the most unreliable profession mechanic in the game, right?

 

I just.. can't fathom why people want more reliance on it. From a thematic perspective, sure. But from a mechanical? Are we playing the same game?

 

Maybe it can be something in between or something, and i dunno about relying on pet, since core and druid already use pet a lot.

[Abyssisis.3971]

Sounds stupid, so no.

[Kodama.6453]

2 hours ago, Lazze.9870 said:

 

When people say more reliance on pet, they do understand that they want an elite spec to revolve entirely around the most unreliable profession mechanic in the game, right?

 

I just.. can't fathom why people want more reliance on it. From a thematic perspective, sure. But from a mechanical? Are we playing the same game?

I think it is ok to have one elite spec focusing more on the pet mechanic and rely on it. There are already 2 elite specs which rely less on the pet (druid pets have reduced stats, so they aren't that strong anyway and soulbeast can merge with the pet, removing it from the fight but get stronger personally).

 

There are people who enjoy the pet mechanic, both mechanically and gameplaywise. I know it is controversial, but since the other 2 specs already moved away from the pet, I would like to give an option to give more strength to the pet mechanic this time.

 

Oh, and the spec could actually even make the pet more reliable. I mentioned that they could give the mechanic to let both, ranger and pet, use the new physical skills. If there are CC, gap closer, blocks, etc. among them, then this would make the pet more reliable (helping it survive and also help it stick to the target).

 

Also I really enjoy the idea of physical skills being some kind of "combo attack" for pet and ranger. Gives it a nice twist in my opinion, making it different from the other physical skills. And gives me back some of the feeling from GW1.

My second main in GW1 was a beast mastery ranger and I really enjoyed that you had so many different beast attacks you could put on your bar.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Kodama.6453

[Lazze.9870]

2 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

And gives me back some of the feeling from GW1.

My second main in GW1 was a beast mastery ranger and I really enjoyed that you had so many different beast attacks you could put on your bar.

 

 

I enjoyed playing those builds once in a while as well, but a part of that is because using a pet was relatively reliable in GW1. It's not in GW2, and as cool as it might be to have skills that actively ports your pet with you to your target, it's still the same kitten AI in the background, trying to maneuver in the same game it always had trouble maneuvering in.

 

Playing around with an AI in GW2 will never be exciting to me. I liked druid before all the nerfs, and soulbeast gave me enough breadcrumbs to keep going. But if EoD doesn't bring anything different to the table, I'm probably done maining ranger, at least in competetive modes. I dread the valkyrie core ranger sidenode build in pvp at the moment, I don't want more of that. Nor do I want a 3rd, or 4th depending I guess, spec that isn't wanted in wvw.

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Lazze.9870

[Gotejjeken.1267]

7 hours ago, Lazze.9870 said:

 

When people say more reliance on pet, they do understand that they want an elite spec to revolve entirely around the most unreliable profession mechanic in the game, right?

 

I just.. can't fathom why people want more reliance on it. From a thematic perspective, sure. But from a mechanical? Are we playing the same game?

 

They are not. 

 

It's obvious anytime these suggestions are brought up because core ranger is exactly that--a spec literally reliant on the pet for half its productivity output.  One look at the beastmastery line tells you this, not to mention the myriad of other traits that had the pet eating CC's or soaking up condis, etc.  

 

So if you want something reliant on the pet, buff core back to what it was before the PvP forums got ahold of it.  

 

Let's face it though, the type people that post here can't even play around downstate--buffing personal CC and making the pet more powerful would last I'd say three days before it's nerfed into something unusable.  

[DeanBB.4268]

No hammer because I simply prefer ranged. So I guess I'm hoping for rifle or dual pistols.

[Axl.8924]

1 hour ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

No hammer because I simply prefer ranged. So I guess I'm hoping for rifle or dual pistols.

I was trying to see what peeps thought of non ranged, then again we do have gs already.

I dunno about another longer range spec on ranger, since rangers already got LB and for mid range they got axe.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Axl.8924

[Kodama.6453]

18 minutes ago, Axl.8924 said:

I was trying to see what peeps thought of non ranged, then again we do have gs already.

I dunno about another longer range spec on ranger, since rangers already got LB and for mid range they got axe.

 

 

At least for me and my best friend (who is ranger main since launch of the game almost), rifle and pistol are some of the poorest choices for ranger elite spec weapons.

 

Mostly because we care about thematics and such, roleplaying to some degree. And rifle and pistol kinda go against the entire philosophy of ranger, which is about being in harmony with nature and it's creatures.

 

Rifles and pistols are oftenly seen as a symbol of industrialisation (and therefore, destruction of nature). Did anyone see Princess Mononoke? This is one classic example, the movie showcases how the invention of muskets lead to exploiting nature to get the needed materials. Or the fact that many bullets back then were made out of lead, which is poisonous.

 

Then in addition the fact that rifles tend to scare animals away, since they are pretty kitten loud and such. I just can't see ranger using a rifle or pistols.

[Infusion.7149]

I'm not sure why someone would want a rifle or pistol. There really isn't anything either weapon would be able to offer it in PVE or competitive modes as axe and shortbow are 900 range and longbow is 1500 without arcing. Even if pistol were an offhand for example, warhorn already has some ranged damage and CC.

Mace, hammer, shield are more likely. If it's a shield it won't be that attractive because greatsword has a block that is perfectly serviceable and offhand axe has a projectile reflect so it comes down to hammer and mace.

Hammer might make a comeback as an ode to bunny thumpers but mace could function as more CC in melee range. I don't see a condi mainhand being likely seeing how dagger and axe are both condi-oriented in some fashion.

If you think about GW1 , Rampage as One. Rampage as One was in GW2 at launch but was changed to "Strength of the Pack" elite skill. Bunny thumper overall wasn't focused on high damage but more on CC from hammer bash. To strengthen its efficacy it could have targeted boon removal/boon hate such as more damage against targets with protection. Some of rangers' strongest builds in GW1 were not because of damage but from CC (distracting shot, magebane shot, savage shot, etc).

If the pet is to be made more influential, then it should take reduced damage from AoE and also for the new spec it should track more closely with the owner. For PVE/PVP it would be usable but for WvW I doubt a pet spec would ever be used.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Infusion.7149

[Axl.8924]

5 minutes ago, Infusion.7149 said:

I'm not sure why someone would want a rifle or pistol. There really isn't anything either weapon would be able to offer it in PVE or competitive modes as axe and shortbow are 900 range and longbow is 1500 without arcing. Even if pistol were an offhand for example, warhorn already has some ranged damage and CC.

Mace, hammer, shield are more likely. If it's a shield it won't be that attractive because greatsword has a block that is perfectly serviceable and offhand axe has a projectile reflect so it comes down to hammer and mace.

Hammer might make a comeback as an ode to bunny thumpers but mace could function as more CC in melee range. I don't see a condi mainhand being likely seeing how dagger and axe are both condi-oriented in some fashion.

If you think about GW1 , Rampage as One. Rampage as One was in GW2 at launch but was changed to "Strength of the Pack" elite skill. Bunny thumper overall wasn't focused on high damage but more on CC from hammer bash. To strengthen its efficacy it could have targeted boon removal/boon hate such as more damage against targets with protection. Some of rangers' strongest builds in GW1 were not because of damage but from CC (distracting shot, magebane shot, savage shot, etc).

If the pet is to be made more influential, then it should take reduced damage from AoE and also for the new spec it should track more closely with the owner. For PVE/PVP it would be usable but for WvW I doubt a pet spec would ever be used.

I guess i can semi understand why some were worried about hammer and mace, i'm just worried about another range when we already have enough on ranger.

 

Also  depending on the moveset maybe mace can be instead of hammer i dunno, i just thought peeps might be nostalgic for some old GW1 ranger

 

 

[DeanBB.4268]

1 hour ago, Infusion.7149 said:

I'm not sure why someone would want a rifle or pistol. 

 

* Shrug * Did a poll, asked for opinions. I prefer ranged. Throwing hammers works for me, too. Or shields, Captain America style!

[unlikeyou.8452]

As alluded to above, in order, my personal top three weapon choices would be:

 

1. New one-handed javelin/throwing spear (Hey, dragonblood spears were added to some PoF content, there are NPC and enemy Paragons chucking spears in the Domain of Istan, and the revenant's underwater spear has 4 ranged, throwing attacks, so it's not that farfetched, right?)

--Sticking to weapons already in the game, after that--

2. Scepter

3. Focus

 

You keep mentioning nostalgia for the GW1 ranger, but really, besides a pet attack skill or two, the bunny thumper just used warrior skills with reduced energy requirement due to the expertise stat.  A greatsword core ranger of GW2 feels close enough to that for me in functionality.

 

The same would be the case if the underwater spear was allowed for land-use as I've seen some call for, as to my mind, it's pretty much the same thing as the greatsword for the ranger apart from a short whirl and reflect on skill 2.

 

I also just greatly prefer more ranged combat, myself.  I'm with DeanBB in that the only hammer I'd want to see would be a thrown one.

[AlexndrTheGreat.8310]

Didn’t play GW1 so the nostalgia factor for Bunnythumper isn’t there for me.

 

Some concerns I have for a theme like that (close combat, bruiser-y, cc focused, pet focused) would be the implementation of it. I don’t see it working the way people want.

 

In regards to CC, it’s going to probably fall under the the same line as what was done from the WvW CC patch, where all those abilities get gutted except for the fact that it gets CC. Examples being things like warrior or guard hammer.

 

Also the fact being that it’s a bruiser-y spec. Looking at Scrapper as an example. It was advertised as a bruiser spec and never quite seemed to deliver on that. Currently in almost all situations Scrapper had to be reworked and get transitioned into a support role rather than bruiser. The bruiser aspect of it never really worked out.

 

I just don’t really see the appeal of it because I never played it in GW1, and I don’t really see Anet implementing it very well based on past implementation examples.

[Arheundel.6451]

20 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Bunny thumper with physical skills, bruiser playstyle with lots of CC and personal defense. Also more reliance on pet. This would be the best outcome for me as ranger elite spec. But as a name, I would pick "Stampede" instead, which works great with how I imagine the bunny thumper to get interpreted in GW2.

 

Ranger lacks a proper bruiser elite spec and both other elite specs so far reduced the reliance on the pet, I would like one which empowers the pet for a change. Maybe physical skills for ranger can have the twist that both, the ranger and the pet, are performing the physical attack at the same time (which could give the pet additional survivability, if one physical skill is a block for example).

 

It would feel similar like the pet attacks from GW1, which were skills you put on your bar for your pet to perform.

 

The class mechanic could be that whenever you swap pets, both pets are active for a short period of time, then the one you switched out disappears. Maybe both pets have a stat penalty as long as they are both active.

 

But the combination with the physical skill mechanic would be cool, imagine that you swap pets, so you have a short window in which the physical skills are performed by 3 units (yourself and both your pets).

 

Alternatively, a accepted as the weapon could be cool as well, if they make it behave like a magical whip (maybe with a green vine animation).

This game was never designed to have elite specializations, core and soulbeast would get nerfed to hell to support a bruiser elite...like druid was nerfed to force people into playing soulbeast. At launch people were still opting for druid over soulbeast, better sustain and disengage,  especially with the stunbreak on CA usage, so Anet went and removed almost everything that made druid worth playing over soulbeast. If Anet adds a bruiser with Eod , ranger would find itself with 2 semi useless elites ...not really a great scenario so that people can role play with a hammer in queensdale

[Kodama.6453]

2 hours ago, Arheundel.6451 said:

This game was never designed to have elite specializations, core and soulbeast would get nerfed to hell to support a bruiser elite...like druid was nerfed to force people into playing soulbeast. At launch people were still opting for druid over soulbeast, better sustain and disengage,  especially with the stunbreak on CA usage, so Anet went and removed almost everything that made druid worth playing over soulbeast. If Anet adds a bruiser with Eod , ranger would find itself with 2 semi useless elites ...not really a great scenario so that people can role play with a hammer in queensdale

So your argument is that ranger should not get an elite spec at all to keep soulbeast playable? It is already confirmed that new elite specs are coming.

[Aamu.3952]

I'll vote nay. I've always wanted a tribal/hunter themed ranger which sacrifices its pet and uses a spear (or focus, rifle or some such). Too many weapons and themes that make way more sense over hammer.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Aamu.3952

[Arheundel.6451]

3 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

So your argument is that ranger should not get an elite spec at all to keep soulbeast playable? It is already confirmed that new elite specs are coming.

I believe it was self-explanatory that next elite should not be some sort of bruiser, to safeguard the playability of all other specs. Main reason why professions like necro, guardian and engi get to play with everything and not just 1 or 2/3 of the class, it's because each elite covers a specific role and more or less gets balanced around it. Whether some people accept it or not, soulbeast is currently being played as bruiser on top of meme one shot. Druid was harshly nerfed because it was being used as duellist due to broken AS( something I specifically suggested to remove in order to safeguard the whole druid concept, made a thread where literally every ranger attacked me calling me names etc, but I know Anet how it operates....ele gave me enough experience and I knew what was coming for druid....shame people were too busy launching insults to see the inc nerf crusade) . All I am saying is that another duellist/bruiser spec would spell the end for core ranger and possibly soulbeast, Anet would inevitably nerf what's left of core ranger sustain to "nerf" the newest bruiser spec, the class has been played as side duellist for 9 years and some people ask for yet another duellist/ bruiser...what the class need is access to AoE/cc with some decent dmg...and some well deserved buffs to support druid....where they finally remove AS, stop using it as an excuse to keep druid where it is now

[Kodama.6453]

1 hour ago, Arheundel.6451 said:

what the class need is access to AoE/cc with some decent dmg..

That is literally what a bruiser spec brings to the table.....

Look at other bruiser elite specs which got designed so far: daredevil, scrapper, spellbreaker

 

• Daredevil: provides AoE (staff), CC (literally every physical skill they get with the exception of the healing skill is CC related), decent damage (damage modifiers in trait line, good damage on staff, decent dps options)
• Scrapper: provides AoE (hammer, shredder gyro, blast gyro), CC (hammer, shredder gyro toolbelt, blast gyro, traits which add CC or reward CCing the enemy like system shocker), decent damage (hammer hits quite hard, shredder gyro is a good dps skill, some decent dps traits in the traitline)
• Spellbreaker: CC (dagger, traits, full counter, etc.), decent damage (dps traits, can be used as a decent dps spec), doesn't get as much new AoE capabilities, but many attacks from warrior are already hitting multiple targets anyway

 

Also I don't think that you can say that core engineers sustain got killed just for getting a bruiser elite spec in scrapper. Sustain is still pretty strong in core engineer in my opinion as an engineer main.

 

Soulbeast might be played as a bruiser, but in my opinion, it isn't designed as one. I see it as a dps spec primarily, like holosmith is for engineer. If you want to go for pure dps, holosmith is superior to scrapper and seeing that soulbeast can easily compete with holosmith when it comes to dps, I would consider dps to be it's primary role. Holosmith still is also played in bruiser builds, tho.

 

So just because soulbeast can be played as a bruiser, it shouldn't forbid ranger to receive an elite spec designed with bruiser being it's primary role.