I would say that arenanet would never over look a balance issue like that but many companies have been very disappointing lately. 

However, arenanet seems (and I stress) seems to be putting a lot of thought into every part of this game that I would be shocked if they over looked it.

The other thing is as a community MMO gamers have been wanting to change...some of that may be in an area that we love.  I always enjoyed playing the healer....I am losing that in GW2.  At first I was upset and then I realized that this change could be good for the mmo community and so I started thinking how else I would like to play.  I'm not saying that the OP shouldn't be upset.  What I'm saying is, that we should wait it out for more information.

I read that article as the ranger is at its best with a pet in GW2 and if you don't want a pet they didn't see the point in playing that class.  Not necessarily that a warrior is going to do so much more damage with a bow than a ranger with a bow absent a pet. 

Originally posted by DeadlyGhost

In GW warrior/rangers could use bows and even deal more dmg then Rangers per shot because they have a primary stat that gave them some natural armor penetration BUT they didn't had the enough energy to use bow skills as effectively as a ranger, its was logical and it made sense because overall Rangers were better with a bow.

@OP

I think thisis still the case. Even though Warriors with bow can deal more ranged damage or have ranged AoE, I believe they will be restricted via resources.

I can see the use of Kick; a warrior kicking a mob away from the Elementalist then engaging it in melee.

As far as I'm concern, Warrior has the brute Ranged skills, while Rangers has the more tactical ranged skills.

In GW1, Rangers are better in melee than a warrior sometimes due to their natural armor vs elements and their physical armor is almost as good as warriors, plus the wide range of Dodge skills. And with warrior skills, you don't use up a lot of energy due to adrenaline skills.

A Ranger with Axe in GW2 is simply a R/W compare to GW1. While a Warrior with bow in GW2 is a W/R in GW1, like you said.

Originally posted by jvxmtg

Originally posted by DeadlyGhost

In GW warrior/rangers could use bows and even deal more dmg then Rangers per shot because they have a primary stat that gave them some natural armor penetration BUT they didn't had the enough energy to use bow skills as effectively as a ranger, its was logical and it made sense because overall Rangers were better with a bow.

@OP

 

I think thisis still the case. Even though Warriors with bow can deal more ranged damage or have ranged AoE, I believe they will be restricted via resources.

 

I can see the use of Kick; a warrior kicking a mob away from the Elementalist then engaging it in melee.

 

As far as I'm concern, Warrior has the brute Ranged skills, while Rangers has the more tactical ranged skills.

 

In GW1, Rangers are better in melee than a warrior sometimes due to their natural armor vs elements and their physical armor is almost as good as warriors, plus the wide range of Dodge skills. And with warrior skills, you don't use up a lot of energy due to adrenaline skills.

 

A Ranger with Axe in GW2 is simply a R/W compare to GW1. While a Warrior with bow in GW2 is a W/R in GW1, like you said.

This view of the different ways that the warriors and rangers use bows/axes/swords is overly simplistic.  Rescourses aren't a factor for weapon skills for any profession (unless they change something from the demo).  The utility skills and dodging is where all the energy goes. 

OP: The warriors using ranged attacks will be very effective, but not more so than rangers can be.  Its just that if you want to forsake using a pet, then a lot of the ranger's skills wouldn't be effective.  That would make trying not to use a pet pretty stupid.

Originally posted by Loke666

I agree with OP. I play a ranger in GW and I rarely uses the pet myself, it is fine that they made the pet better but a Ranger should be able to be equal to a warrior at range combat even without the pet.

Why do Warriors have the ability to use muskets but not rangers? One would think that rangers should be the true master of range combat while warriors are the master of melee.

I am really looking forward to the game but I am not so sure that I will play a ranger as main this time. I didn't really like the warrior in GW but the chances are that it will be my main class in GW2, unless they reveal a musketeer.

There are 8 classes, do you really think there are going to be any weapons only usable by one class?  I'm sure there will be more classes using guns.  I wouldn't be surprised if every weapon had 3 classes at least that could use it.

Anyhow, Rangers in GW2 are the Nature-oriented class.  That's the best way to think of them.  Warriors are the "I can use tons of weapons" class.  Both have aspects that use ranged weapons.  Anyhow, I doubt any class is going to be all about ranged weapons.  Heck, even the Elementalist can go with point blank spells from their weapons.  We're not going to have any classes that only do melee either.  So you can expect to see more ranged weapon users.

Personally, I've always felt it was redundant to split "warrior" and "ranger" into two separate classes in the first place… particularly so if you're hell bent on not using a pet. It's not quite the same, but it's almost akin to saying I want to play an Elementalist for the robes but don't want to use magic.

I think the quote was basically saying.

If you don't want to use your meatshield (pet) for extra dps and keeping things off you then play the warrior which has the armor to survive in close and dps that is less dependent on pet.  

This makes perfect sense because if the Ranger didn't need his pet at all but had the extra dps and damage soaking it provided if they wanted then the rangers that used their pets would all be better than warriors.

My point here is not to troll or anything, it's just a personal concern and some didn't seam to be getting the point so i will try to explain a bit better.

Point 1

I'm NOT saying that shortbow+pet wont be an effective combo, i just felt disappointed when i read what the Lead Designer said because coming from a game where having a pet was a hardly used commodity, where the Ranger class alone(no mixes) had 1 primary attribute expertise and 3 possible playstyles Marksmanship, Wilderness Survival and Beastmastery, we had a choice and in the overall game beastmastery was the least used/liked even though it was a viable option, but in GW2 instead of making the main mechanic something to suit several play styles they just forced us to be have a pet, and if we're not using a pet Point 2 happens.

Point 2

I'm NOT saying that Warriors will be Over Powered, it's just that IF a ranger would prefer different playstyle from what is being forced upon us, lets say i would prefer to be on the back with a longbow and few rituals, it wouldn't be as effective as a warrior doing it(and this was clear in the interview) and THAT for me is unfair since i feel that ranger should be better then any other class with either of the bows.

Hope it cleared my point a bit more.

OP you are using YOUR definition of a Ranger and FORCING it into this game.  GW2 has THEIR definition of a Ranger and it is NOT what your definition is!!!!

Ranger IS a pet class that can use ranged or melee to augment its damage.  It is that simple.  PET class, PET class, say after me, PET class.

I bet there is a ranged class and I bet it uses crossbows and guns or some combination of ranged weapons.  It will probably be some sort of engineer or who knows.  But what we do know is a Ranger IS a PET class....not Ranged DPS.

Once you accept the definition of GW2 Ranger, you might realize it is not the class for you.  THere are still 4 more classes to be revealed.  Again, I am sure one is a physical damage based Ranged DPS.

Regardless of what is what, I see more potential for this as it allows my wife to play a WOW type Hunter and it allows me to play a EQ type Beastlord...although I will probably roll a warrior and use a long bow, lol.

Originally posted by DeadlyGhost

My point here is not to troll or anything, it's just a personal concern and some didn't seam to be getting the point so i will try to explain a bit better.

Point 1

I'm NOT saying that shortbow+pet wont be an effective combo, i just felt disappointed when i read what the Lead Designer said because coming from a game where having a pet was a hardly used commodity, where the Ranger class alone(no mixes) had 1 primary attribute expertise and 3 possible playstyles Marksmanship, Wilderness Survival and Beastmastery, we had a choice and in the overall game beastmastery was the least used/liked even though it was a viable option, but in GW2 instead of making the main mechanic something to suit several play styles they just forced us to be have a pet, and if we're not using a pet Point 2 happens.

Point 2

I'm NOT saying that Warriors will be Over Powered, it's just that IF a ranger would prefer different playstyle from what is being forced upon us, lets say i would prefer to be on the back with a longbow and few rituals, it wouldn't be as effective as a warrior doing it(and this was clear in the interview) and THAT for me is unfair since i feel that ranger should be better then any other class with either of the bows.

Hope it cleared my point a bit more.

Point 1: Is a new point. Your original statements were along the lines that Warrior > Ranger at range and a pet was a weak substitute. Now you are backing down this statement and just saying you are venting... which is it? It seems like vent because:

GW1 =/= GW2

In fact people can speculate some GW players will have a harder time (albeit moderately) to adapt or get over the idea here.

Point 2:  Is similar to Point 1 in terms of your analysis Warrior > Ranger. Or Ranger is no good because of pet. But you have to understand Ranger GW =/= Ranger GW2 because of the above.

Next, you say ArenaNet forces a playstyle on you...

Here's the official quote from the horse's mouth:

<blockquote>Q: I want to play a ranger without a pet. Are pets mandatory for the profession to be effective? Can you have a non-pet ranger like in GW1 and not sacrifice a lot of your effectiveness?

Q: Do pets become “downed” or do they go straight to “defeated?” Do pets have “downed” skills or finishing moves?

So your question has been answered and a playstyle is not forced on you.

Unfortunately, there is one downside and that is if you don't like the pet mechanic but do like the naturalist flavor you are in need of a new home, alas, this it may not be catered to. But in terms of gameplay alone, you will be more than fine for ranged options. And even if you bite the bullet, the ranger can still be used with pet use to a minimum and be useful at ranged <> ranger needs more ranged ability.

Hope this helps.

And do take note, that your question was addressed already by ArenaNet and seems to be acceptable to most people's way of thinking at the present time, though there will be room for some to be disappointed, still.
 

Everyone is wrong accept for me.

There, now that I have your attention, :-)

What's happening in GW2 is professions are being created have different advantages in the new combat system. It's not so cut and dried anymore... ranged dps over there, melee over here, tanks there, healers here. Now, with the damage/control/support model you find that everyone can do some of everything, but different professions do certain things a little better. Look at the warrior, elementalist and ranger for starters.

Warriors - Specialize in the ability to damage and control single targets in melee range. Good at damage and control of multiple targets in melee range, good at damaging multiple targets at range in a limited area. (Limited area = AoE from a central, remote point)

Elementalists - Specialize in the ability to do high damage to multiple targets at range in an expanded, limited area (this includes a cone in front of the caster). Specialize in controlling targets at range in a limited area . Good at damage and control in melee range.

Rangers. Specialize in the ability to damage and control targets at range in a limited, expanded area in addition to being able to control and damage a target in any area (by use of the pet). By this, they can attack effectively an AoE area at range or a conical front area in addition to having their pet damage and control a target in any direction. Good at damaging and controlling single targets in melee range (with an additional target being affected by the pet).

Of course, this breaks down even further as you change weapons, attunements, etc. But untimately you need to consider each profession on what they can do to whom and at what range. How many targets can they effect, and where? How effective are they against what numbers at what ranges? Necromancers have their strengths at range, and control skills that work to keep the enemy at range for example, but you still don't want one sitting on your shoulders.

I guess ultimately we need to think of the roles they have in completely  different terms than we're used to. It's a different style of combat, without set roles or positionings, and when you look at the professions as a whole they will overlap and suppliment each other in ways we really can't imagine until we not only start playing, but have been playing long enough to truly learn all the facets they present us.

TL;DR:  Don't follow bunnies you can't target. It's probably a trap.

I'd say MumboJumbo summed it up nicely.  At this point with only half the classes revealed it's safe to say Anet is not forcing any playstyle on anyone unless you chose to be a Ranger because of the name of the class.  In which case it is you who is trying to force a playstyle on yourself.

Originally posted by Volkon

Everyone is wrong accept for me.

 

There, now that I have your attention, :-)

What's happening in GW2 is professions are being created have different advantages in the new combat system. It's not so cut and dried anymore... ranged dps over there, melee over here, tanks there, healers here. Now, with the damage/control/support model you find that everyone can do some of everything, but different professions do certain things a little better. Look at the warrior, elementalist and ranger for starters.

 

Warriors - Specialize in the ability to damage and control single targets in melee range. Good at damage and control of multiple targets in melee range, good at damaging multiple targets at range in a limited area. (Limited area = AoE from a central, remote point)

Elementalists - Specialize in the ability to do high damage to multiple targets at range in an expanded, limited area (this includes a cone in front of the caster). Specialize in controlling targets at range in a limited area . Good at damage and control in melee range.

Rangers. Specialize in the ability to damage and control targets at range in a limited, expanded area in addition to being able to control and damage a target in any area (by use of the pet). By this, they can attack effectively an AoE area at range or a conical front area in addition to having their pet damage and control a target in any direction. Good at damaging and controlling single targets in melee range (with an additional target being affected by the pet).

 

Of course, this breaks down even further as you change weapons, attunements, etc. But untimately you need to consider each profession on what they can do to whom and at what range. How many targets can they effect, and where? How effective are they against what numbers at what ranges? Necromancers have their strengths at range, and control skills that work to keep the enemy at range for example, but you still don't want one sitting on your shoulders.

I guess ultimately we need to think of the roles they have in completely  different terms than we're used to. It's a different style of combat, without set roles or positionings, and when you look at the professions as a whole they will overlap and suppliment each other in ways we really can't imagine until we not only start playing, but have been playing long enough to truly learn all the facets they present us.

 

TL;DR:  Don't follow bunnies you can't target. It's probably a trap.

QFT +1 *that was a very painfull experience*

but ya dont worry no set roles realy each class will be different but not in the way were used to them being different from eachother in an MMO