Feedback talk:User/Etnys/Underpowered Proffesions

Erm.. no. Rangers are quite powerful in alot of areas, they're not just splinter barragers. They are more than that way more. And in that sense they are more like mesmers, interupting, single spike damage, trap, conditions, environmental spirits. They are extremely powerful if handled right and pretty weak if you're not that good. If you buff rangers then this game will be pointless. Warriors are very good tanks in my opinion. But they also deal quite alot of damage. and can provide support as well. Overall they don't need buffs, hell they just had buffs, maybe shadowform needs to get less tanking ability. But that's about it. They also are better tanks because they have lower armor. Enemies tend to go for lower armor and health. SOmething like protective spirit and lower base armor (like assassin have) are kinda making it easy. But then Warrior are the profession to run in first deal quite some melee damage and keep the monks under control. Dervishes, well yea they might be getting a little underpowered, though they are mostly AoE frontliners. Though they are kinda squishy I think. Might need a good buff. Paragons are maybe about the same, though they can add quite some effects to a battle that are not directly noticable. Have done enough Hardmode runs or NM runs on where ever and go through easily with a monk and a paragon. might need a slight buff as well. (Frizz 09:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

You didn't give any examples of how rangers are not a dead profession in end game group play? 58.106.158.34 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yea, as I said playing a ranger is easy as barrager, but something like interrupting can be pretty hard. Though with the new update it might actually be easier to do in HM. Then again most of the rangers tactics need a special kind of aggro, making it hard to get into regular groups, but an all ranger team can easily beat any HM area. I don't think the ranger is underpowered, just the endgame meta is really stiffy and boring to get into. I would just try to come up with something that can beat those areas in a whole different way than to stick with the normal nuke /tank setups most people are using.(Frizz 09:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

I understand that teams of 6 rangers and 2 monks is unrealistic to expect ofcourse :p (Frizz 09:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

You still give no examples of how rangers are good, you basically go on to say "rangers are good, it's hard to interrupt, and they'd do well in a team of 6 rangers 2 monks". The question is not if they would do well, but would they do GOOD ENOUGH to warrant waiting for/bringing SIX rangers. Lolwho 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

this good enough? Also, warriors are still good for tanking and AoE damage dealing (if you are smart enough to know how). Koda Kumi 09:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)