On Build Diversity as a Ranger

[extremexhero.9178]

Fellow Rangers! Do you find yourselves sticking to meta builds or playing around with the diversity of them? Sure there are traits and skills that are obviously better than others, but do you take the time to play with different setups and finding some way to make bad skills and traits work? I like to think that there is a hidden gem of a combination that we cannot see because we are so focused on getting out maximum damage on golems that we are blinded from the incredibly diverse building capabilities we have. I have been theory crafting and testing a bunch of builds lately in an effort to get away from the normal bow ranged combat that seems to dominate our profession. It is understandable from a PvE perspective to not change around too much as armor sets can take so much time, and in PvE the focus is less on survivability and more on damage output in the sense of "offense is the best defense", however I find that the magic of this game and the progression after hitting level 80 comes from our own build diversity. Thoughts? How have you all been going about this? Do you use your own builds and take hours playing around with combinations? Also if you do not know about the skill builder in common use, here is a link: http://en.gw2skills.net/

 

Feel free to share your build findings, go crazy with focuses!

[Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582]

There are literally thousands of possible combinations, but only so many are any good. But, Ranger has probably the best build diversity in the game.

[rabidsmiles.5926]

I like the ranged combat, means I don't have to fight for a spot near the boss in a T4 fractal in melee. I still stand near my party to give them buffs but I don't have to be near the boss for damage. I love the shortbow, but that's mostly because I own Dreamer and it's my favorite legendary. I am not a fan of Quick Draw and trying to keep track of it between the weapon swap and the CA mechanic of the Druid, so my condi druid build is a lazy one that stays on shortbow and keeps a staff on weapon swap for emergency healing. I may not do the max meta DPS but I can upkeep Grace of the Land easier and it's harder for me to lose dps because of a rotation malfunction. I like that Ranger can tinker with builds and produce ones that are perfectly useable; I am used to the one build only allowed with Chrono.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> Ranger has probably the best build diversity in the game.

 

It's entirely possible that I'm biased but this is how I feel too.

 

I never really look up builds for the professions I feel I know well, and the few times I have I always come away thinking "I prefer my flavour of (in this case) ranger". It helps that my true love in this game is WvW, and from that point of view I do love to hear other people's builds, especially if they feel personalised to them or optimised for their own tastes. (The one that always stuck with me was someone's cleric double melee build that utilised water fields and leap finishers, which I absolutely loved the sound of).

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

I'm still pretty new. When I started checking out what stats I should use for Ranger, everyone said condi was best, go with Viper or Berzerker. But...I DON'T LIKE DYING. So a lot of my skills involve healing, rallying, losing conditions. And then when I started making ascended armor, I couldn't decide whether to go with the condi crowd, boost my healing power for druid, or go for power. (Plus, I still don't like dying!) So I ended up going with mostly celestial. I have a staff with Cleric stats, and double axes (very fun to use) with Crusader stats.

So, I am not typical, and probably not optimal, but I don't die too often, do enough damage for decent PvE, have good heals and a lot of fun.

[Nuka Cola.8520]

I main a cele SB/Torch/Sword for roaming. Far from meta. I just want SB to be buffed already, come on anet. After 5 years it is time, guys.

[Sandzibar.5134]

> @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> There are literally thousands of possible combinations, but only so many are any good. But, Ranger has probably the best build diversity in the game.

 

as long as you always take wilderness survival :D

[Spartyr.6795]

I’ve been kind of a build addict since PoF launched. It seems like ANet really thinks SoulBeast is a power/condi hybrid but I just can’t seem to make it work.

[Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582]

> @Sandzibar.5134 said:

> > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > There are literally thousands of possible combinations, but only so many are any good. But, Ranger has probably the best build diversity in the game.

>

> as long as you always take wilderness survival :D

 

While WS is somewhat mandatory for sPvP or condi PvE, there are plenty of builds that do not use it outside of those, but yeah I get what you are saying :D

[LughLongArm.5460]

WS became our "almost always go to" trait line, like defense for warriors, which really shouts down build diversity in PVP/WvW. Once upon a time, EB used to remove condies and EB and WK were on separate trait lines(NM/WS). With the druid release in mind, they put both traits as GM WS traits, so you couldn't take both anymore(they didn't want druid to have that much condi remoe). Lots of changes been made since, the most important one is that EB is no longer condi remove, it's duration reduce which means it doesn't stack in effectiveness with WK, if anything the traits diminish each other's effectiveness(you remove "shorter" condies).

 

I think it's finally time to replace EB with IB, change EB to reduce condition duration(can be splitted with pet, I don't care) based on number of boons on you(10% reduction for each boon, up to 50% reduction in all game modes). This change will make the trait well themed to NM line, useful yet counterable by enemies and will open up very needed build diversity. PW will still be in direct competition with EB and PW got very effective synergy with "Rugged Growth" &"second skin".

 

Regarding IB, just make it work on activation and separate cool downs for this trait between F2 pet skills and F3 soulbeast skills(As I think they should do with all beast abilities related traits) and maybe add 2-3 sec aoe protection. Now you have very nice optional defensive trait to compete with WK.

[jcbroe.4329]

"Build diversity" is an illusion. There will ALWAYS be an "optimized" or "most effective" build for a specific purpose.

 

When people ask for build diversity, assuming good game design and relatively close balance, what they're really asking for is content diversity.

 

Content is solely responsible for dictating build effectiveness, and therefore more diverse content or content that differentiates itself will create more opportunities for different builds to be effective.

 

Then, spreading that content throughout multiple areas of the game, you eliminate the concept of a build being a "niche build" and have in turn created build diversity.

 

As an good example, that's part of the reason why the PvP and PvE builds are so different from each other; PvP has different demands than PvE. And from PvE, different builds are more or less optimal depending on the length of the fight and the mechanics of the encounter (does the enemy move alot, can you only damage it during a specific timeframe, etc).

 

I think what ANet designers struggle with if we end up ultimately deciding that build diversity is a problem is that they have much too closely tied the concept of thematic design to combat design.

It seems like, generally speaking, there are times when ANet says "this function doesn't fit the theme of this class," when in reality every function should be available in some form to every class, and then the question should actually be "how can this class perform this function in a way that fits its theme."

 

But anyhow, 2c time; I hope the upcoming balance patch changes up the meta. Maybe the PvE meta by making spirits affect 10 targets, maybe in PvP by tuning the power and effectiveness of certain classes and newly introduced elites. That would be nice :)

[Rashagar.8349]

> @jcbroe.4329 said:

> "Build diversity" is an illusion. There will ALWAYS be an "optimized" or "most effective" build for a specific purpose.

>

> When people ask for build diversity, assuming good game design and relatively close balance, what they're really asking for is content diversity.

>

> Content is solely responsible for dictating build effectiveness, and therefore more diverse content or content that differentiates itself will create more opportunities for different builds to be effective.

>

> Then, spreading that content throughout multiple areas of the game, you eliminate the concept of a build being a "niche build" and have in turn created build diversity.

>

> As an good example, that's part of the reason why the PvP and PvE builds are so different from each other; PvP has different demands than PvE. And from PvE, different builds are more or less optimal depending on the length of the fight and the mechanics of the encounter (does the enemy move alot, can you only damage it during a specific timeframe, etc).

>

> I think what ANet designers struggle with if we end up ultimately deciding that build diversity is a problem is that they have much too closely tied the concept of thematic design to combat design.

> It seems like, generally speaking, there are times when ANet says "this function doesn't fit the theme of this class," when in reality every function should be available in some form to every class, and then the question should actually be "how can this class perform this function in a way that fits its theme."

>

> But anyhow, 2c time; I hope the upcoming balance patch changes up the meta. Maybe the PvE meta by making spirits affect 10 targets, maybe in PvP by tuning the power and effectiveness of certain classes and newly introduced elites. That would be nice :)

 

I understand what you're saying but this isn't necessarily the full picture.

I don't believe that the existence of an optimal build for a given situation precludes build diversity.

You have to keep in mind that not every person or every person's situation are the exact same, a lot of "optimised builds" aren't optimal in everybody's hands, and so a truly optimised character is using a build that is tailored to the individual player's capabilities. Which means that, as long as there are different options that cater to a varying level of player skill, build diversity exists even in the context of optimising for only one specific situation.

 

For example, 1h sword may be optimal for pve dps in the hands of a generic player, but it's certainly not optimal in the hands of my character haha!

(Note that whether or not 1h sword is actually currently optimal for pve dps is not relevant here)

Scholar runes are another simple example.

[extremexhero.9178]

Yeah I see that there can definetly be pvp diversity but maybe they make pve not punishing enough, the hardest boss I ever faced was slime because of the reflect but after you know what to watch for it never was a problem. Granted I have not done any raiding but the meta seems to be the same for all classes, you are either dps or hybrid support. Survivability is too easy and there are very specific skills and traits that will build damage. It's unfortunate because the combat mechanics are there but PvE mobs probably just too dumb or don't have enough crowd control to make you worry.

[HeadCrowned.6834]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > @jcbroe.4329 said:

> > "Build diversity" is an illusion. There will ALWAYS be an "optimized" or "most effective" build for a specific purpose.

> >

> > When people ask for build diversity, assuming good game design and relatively close balance, what they're really asking for is content diversity.

> >

> > Content is solely responsible for dictating build effectiveness, and therefore more diverse content or content that differentiates itself will create more opportunities for different builds to be effective.

> >

> > Then, spreading that content throughout multiple areas of the game, you eliminate the concept of a build being a "niche build" and have in turn created build diversity.

> >

> > As an good example, that's part of the reason why the PvP and PvE builds are so different from each other; PvP has different demands than PvE. And from PvE, different builds are more or less optimal depending on the length of the fight and the mechanics of the encounter (does the enemy move alot, can you only damage it during a specific timeframe, etc).

> >

> > I think what ANet designers struggle with if we end up ultimately deciding that build diversity is a problem is that they have much too closely tied the concept of thematic design to combat design.

> > It seems like, generally speaking, there are times when ANet says "this function doesn't fit the theme of this class," when in reality every function should be available in some form to every class, and then the question should actually be "how can this class perform this function in a way that fits its theme."

> >

> > But anyhow, 2c time; I hope the upcoming balance patch changes up the meta. Maybe the PvE meta by making spirits affect 10 targets, maybe in PvP by tuning the power and effectiveness of certain classes and newly introduced elites. That would be nice :)

>

> I understand what you're saying but this isn't necessarily the full picture.

> I don't believe that the existence of an optimal build for a given situation precludes build diversity.

> You have to keep in mind that not every person or every person's situation are the exact same, a lot of "optimised builds" aren't optimal in everybody's hands, and so a truly optimised character is using a build that is tailored to the individual player's capabilities. Which means that, as long as there are different options that cater to a varying level of player skill, build diversity exists even in the context of optimising for only one specific situation.

>

> For example, 1h sword may be optimal for pve dps in the hands of a generic player, but it's certainly not optimal in the hands of my character haha!

> (Note that whether or not 1h sword is actually currently optimal for pve dps is not relevant here)

> Scholar runes are another simple example.

 

Nah. It is the way like jcbroe says: there is always one most optimal build. People that do not get the most efficiency out of that build are either not putting enough effort into it or too stubborn to learn that most optimal build. This is especially true from a PvP perspective. Although I disagree on jcbroe's statement that build diversity is an illusion. The main balancing that has been done through the years is nerfing/buffing certain professions in comparison to other professions. They should also nerf or buff professions in comparison to their own skills/traits/utilities/etc. The Druid traitline has basically been mandatory for rangers since HoT launch, because its more powerful than the other traitlines. In that way the ranger class got narrowed down so easily to one or two viable builds (also because you rely on a specific amulet), so it limits build diversity in every way. Still you will get a most optimal build, but that gap with other builds can be a lot smaller than it is now.

[Spartyr.6795]

> @HeadCrowned.6834 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > @jcbroe.4329 said:

> > > "Build diversity" is an illusion. There will ALWAYS be an "optimized" or "most effective" build for a specific purpose.

> > >

> > > When people ask for build diversity, assuming good game design and relatively close balance, what they're really asking for is content diversity.

> > >

> > > Content is solely responsible for dictating build effectiveness, and therefore more diverse content or content that differentiates itself will create more opportunities for different builds to be effective.

> > >

> > > Then, spreading that content throughout multiple areas of the game, you eliminate the concept of a build being a "niche build" and have in turn created build diversity.

> > >

> > > As an good example, that's part of the reason why the PvP and PvE builds are so different from each other; PvP has different demands than PvE. And from PvE, different builds are more or less optimal depending on the length of the fight and the mechanics of the encounter (does the enemy move alot, can you only damage it during a specific timeframe, etc).

> > >

> > > I think what ANet designers struggle with if we end up ultimately deciding that build diversity is a problem is that they have much too closely tied the concept of thematic design to combat design.

> > > It seems like, generally speaking, there are times when ANet says "this function doesn't fit the theme of this class," when in reality every function should be available in some form to every class, and then the question should actually be "how can this class perform this function in a way that fits its theme."

> > >

> > > But anyhow, 2c time; I hope the upcoming balance patch changes up the meta. Maybe the PvE meta by making spirits affect 10 targets, maybe in PvP by tuning the power and effectiveness of certain classes and newly introduced elites. That would be nice :)

> >

> > I understand what you're saying but this isn't necessarily the full picture.

> > I don't believe that the existence of an optimal build for a given situation precludes build diversity.

> > You have to keep in mind that not every person or every person's situation are the exact same, a lot of "optimised builds" aren't optimal in everybody's hands, and so a truly optimised character is using a build that is tailored to the individual player's capabilities. Which means that, as long as there are different options that cater to a varying level of player skill, build diversity exists even in the context of optimising for only one specific situation.

> >

> > For example, 1h sword may be optimal for pve dps in the hands of a generic player, but it's certainly not optimal in the hands of my character haha!

> > (Note that whether or not 1h sword is actually currently optimal for pve dps is not relevant here)

> > Scholar runes are another simple example.

>

> Nah. It is the way like jcbroe says: there is always one most optimal build. People that do not get the most efficiency out of that build are either not putting enough effort into it or too stubborn to learn that most optimal build....

 

How do you define optimal? I think optimal is situation and player dependent and therefore there is more than one optimal build depending on the person and on the situation. Open world PvE is somewhat diverse and I think individual players might look to different builds to allow them to maximize DPS while minimizing deaths/downtime.

 

 

[Fluffball.8307]

Even though raids and PvP require very good builds to work, there are still tons of minor variations that give a build your unique flair. I don't know anything about raids, but in PvP, even at the highests levels, some like a more offensive build and some like a more defensive build; both work. Even entire traitlines can be swapped around, or every season we wouldn't have discussions about what people are using.

 

Even when the pro league existed, there were people playing different kinds of druids.... decap druids, pure tanky druids, support druids and so on, with different weapons and utilities.

 

You can't run a complete crap build in high-end content, but you have a lot of liberty to do different things.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @HeadCrowned.6834 said:

> Nah. It is the way like jcbroe says: there is always one most optimal build. People that do not get the most efficiency out of that build are either not putting enough effort into it or too stubborn to learn that most optimal build. This is especially true from a PvP perspective.

 

The idea that those are the only two explanations for why the "one most optimal" build might not suit someone is... not accurate. Players could have varying amounts of manual dexterity in their fingers for any number of reasons (for example, age). They could have a less than ideal internet connection or be playing on an older machine. They could just have a different priority than you, and already their "optimal" is different from your's.

 

[jcbroe.4329]

> @HeadCrowned.6834 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > @jcbroe.4329 said:

> > > "Build diversity" is an illusion. There will ALWAYS be an "optimized" or "most effective" build for a specific purpose.

> > >

> > > When people ask for build diversity, assuming good game design and relatively close balance, what they're really asking for is content diversity.

> > >

> > > Content is solely responsible for dictating build effectiveness, and therefore more diverse content or content that differentiates itself will create more opportunities for different builds to be effective.

> > >

> > > Then, spreading that content throughout multiple areas of the game, you eliminate the concept of a build being a "niche build" and have in turn created build diversity.

> > >

> > > As an good example, that's part of the reason why the PvP and PvE builds are so different from each other; PvP has different demands than PvE. And from PvE, different builds are more or less optimal depending on the length of the fight and the mechanics of the encounter (does the enemy move alot, can you only damage it during a specific timeframe, etc).

> > >

> > > I think what ANet designers struggle with if we end up ultimately deciding that build diversity is a problem is that they have much too closely tied the concept of thematic design to combat design.

> > > It seems like, generally speaking, there are times when ANet says "this function doesn't fit the theme of this class," when in reality every function should be available in some form to every class, and then the question should actually be "how can this class perform this function in a way that fits its theme."

> > >

> > > But anyhow, 2c time; I hope the upcoming balance patch changes up the meta. Maybe the PvE meta by making spirits affect 10 targets, maybe in PvP by tuning the power and effectiveness of certain classes and newly introduced elites. That would be nice :)

> >

> > I understand what you're saying but this isn't necessarily the full picture.

> > I don't believe that the existence of an optimal build for a given situation precludes build diversity.

> > You have to keep in mind that not every person or every person's situation are the exact same, a lot of "optimised builds" aren't optimal in everybody's hands, and so a truly optimised character is using a build that is tailored to the individual player's capabilities. Which means that, as long as there are different options that cater to a varying level of player skill, build diversity exists even in the context of optimising for only one specific situation.

> >

> > For example, 1h sword may be optimal for pve dps in the hands of a generic player, but it's certainly not optimal in the hands of my character haha!

> > (Note that whether or not 1h sword is actually currently optimal for pve dps is not relevant here)

> > Scholar runes are another simple example.

>

> Nah. It is the way like jcbroe says: there is always one most optimal build. People that do not get the most efficiency out of that build are either not putting enough effort into it or too stubborn to learn that most optimal build. This is especially true from a PvP perspective. Although I disagree on jcbroe's statement that build diversity is an illusion. The main balancing that has been done through the years is nerfing/buffing certain professions in comparison to other professions. They should also nerf or buff professions in comparison to their own skills/traits/utilities/etc. The Druid traitline has basically been mandatory for rangers since HoT launch, because its more powerful than the other traitlines. In that way the ranger class got narrowed down so easily to one or two viable builds (also because you rely on a specific amulet), so it limits build diversity in every way. Still you will get a most optimal build, but that gap with other builds can be a lot smaller than it is now.

 

I may have miscommunicated when I said that. What I'm meaning to say is that when people ask for build diversity, what they're really asking for is content diversity.

 

I think I need to illustrate what I mean with an example, I'm a hands on person lol:

In a situation where every variation, however minor, of a build has a different function, if there is only one type of content to focus on, then only 1 setup throughout those options can be optimal.

 

So more content means more things that can be tailored to the different functionalities that exist throughout the game which means more build diversity.

 

All I meant to say is that you don't get one without the other hahaha, I think my language was just a bit too cryptic and open to interpretation.

[jcbroe.4329]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > @HeadCrowned.6834 said:

> > Nah. It is the way like jcbroe says: there is always one most optimal build. People that do not get the most efficiency out of that build are either not putting enough effort into it or too stubborn to learn that most optimal build. This is especially true from a PvP perspective.

>

> The idea that those are the only two explanations for why the "one most optimal" build might not suit someone is... not accurate. Players could have varying amounts of manual dexterity in their fingers for any number of reasons (for example, age). They could have a less than ideal internet connection or be playing on an older machine. They could just have a different priority than you, and already their "optimal" is different from your's.

>

 

Optimal builds and optimal gameplay are entirely different discussions. Optimal builds are builds setup to perform a task or set of tasks with the highest achievable efficiency at that task or those tasks.

 

Optimal gameplay is ones ability to achieve the efficiency needed to play the optimized build.

 

A persons inability to achieve that gameplay for any number of reasons and therefore use/require a different build setup would be considered a specialized build, not optimized.

 

Optimization in gaming is always in reference to content completion, not in reference to a persons ability to complete content.

 

Yes, you can use the word "optimal" in both instances of what the subject is and have it be an accurate sentiment. But at some point we're just nitpicking and failing to understand common gaming and theorycrafting conventions.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @jcbroe.4329 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > @HeadCrowned.6834 said:

> > > Nah. It is the way like jcbroe says: there is always one most optimal build. People that do not get the most efficiency out of that build are either not putting enough effort into it or too stubborn to learn that most optimal build. This is especially true from a PvP perspective.

> >

> > The idea that those are the only two explanations for why the "one most optimal" build might not suit someone is... not accurate. Players could have varying amounts of manual dexterity in their fingers for any number of reasons (for example, age). They could have a less than ideal internet connection or be playing on an older machine. They could just have a different priority than you, and already their "optimal" is different from your's.

> >

>

> Optimal builds and optimal gameplay are entirely different discussions. Optimal builds are builds setup to perform a task or set of tasks with the highest achievable efficiency at that task or those tasks.

>

> Optimal gameplay is ones ability to achieve the efficiency needed to play the optimized build.

>

> A persons inability to achieve that gameplay for any number of reasons and therefore use/require a different build setup would be considered a specialized build, not optimized.

>

> Optimization in gaming is always in reference to content completion, not in reference to a persons ability to complete content.

>

> Yes, you can use the word "optimal" in both instances of what the subject is and have it be an accurate sentiment. But at some point we're just nitpicking and failing to understand common gaming and theorycrafting conventions.

 

Optimal builds and optimal gameplay are both sides of optimising performance. If everyone was the exact same robot there would only be one optimal build for a given situation. But individual variations exist and you always optimise from the point of view of the individual. There's no point in having an optimised build that only a small percentage of the population can achieve the optimum result with, and then saying that the rest of the population just aren't trying (I know you personally haven't said this).

[Rashagar.8349]

Maybe it'll be better explained with an analogy.

 

Do you know the story of when they were designing seats for fighter pilots, and they decided that the best way to do it would be to design it to perfectly fit the "average man". So they took the measurements of every pilot and found the average measurement for all the different components to comfortably fit the "average man". And when it came time to test it, the seat wasn't comfortable for anyone.

 

The optimised build that you're talking about is like that seat. It's a good starting point, and a handy tool. But it's not necessarily the best final result for everyone.

 

*Edit to try explain what I mean more accurately*

 

Your assertion was that the existence of the "optimised build" meant that build diversity is an illusion.

My assertion is that it's like... having a fighter pilot seat that's adjustable....

Yeah I'm sure it's more clear now haha!

[jcbroe.4329]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > @jcbroe.4329 said:

> > > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > > @HeadCrowned.6834 said:

> > > > Nah. It is the way like jcbroe says: there is always one most optimal build. People that do not get the most efficiency out of that build are either not putting enough effort into it or too stubborn to learn that most optimal build. This is especially true from a PvP perspective.

> > >

> > > The idea that those are the only two explanations for why the "one most optimal" build might not suit someone is... not accurate. Players could have varying amounts of manual dexterity in their fingers for any number of reasons (for example, age). They could have a less than ideal internet connection or be playing on an older machine. They could just have a different priority than you, and already their "optimal" is different from your's.

> > >

> >

> > Optimal builds and optimal gameplay are entirely different discussions. Optimal builds are builds setup to perform a task or set of tasks with the highest achievable efficiency at that task or those tasks.

> >

> > Optimal gameplay is ones ability to achieve the efficiency needed to play the optimized build.

> >

> > A persons inability to achieve that gameplay for any number of reasons and therefore use/require a different build setup would be considered a specialized build, not optimized.

> >

> > Optimization in gaming is always in reference to content completion, not in reference to a persons ability to complete content.

> >

> > Yes, you can use the word "optimal" in both instances of what the subject is and have it be an accurate sentiment. But at some point we're just nitpicking and failing to understand common gaming and theorycrafting conventions.

>

> Optimal builds and optimal gameplay are both sides of optimising performance. If everyone was the exact same robot there would only be one optimal build for a given situation. But individual variations exist and you always optimise from the point of view of the individual. There's no point in having an optimised build that only a small percentage of the population can achieve the optimum result with, and then saying that the rest of the population just aren't trying (I know you personally haven't said this).

 

I agree, I responded robotically a bit as well sorry, I tend to do that when I'm organizing my thoughts and trying to make sure I'm presenting information with clarity.

 

I was just referencing the general way people tend to have conversations regarding optimization.

 

Personally, I've never even had an "optimal" build EVER on my character lol, at least not by Raid/Fractal standards. Since I don't tend to do that content all that often I don't tend to care enough to make this mathematically perfect build at doing this thing if I play it like this etc etc etc.

 

Ultimately this has just strayed away from my original sentiment which I'll restate in different wording and even more concise; having options doesn't mean anything if the content doesn't support the use of those options.

 

Luckily the viability of GW2 builds is through the roof. I've played many korean MMOs in the past and I don't miss at all having only 1 stat distribution and 1 way to play or "you've ruined your character."

[extremexhero.9178]

I feel as though some people will go through great lengths through calculating dps charts, time tables, and 20 step rotations. I always thought guild wars 2 was moving away from that and it should be more reactive play, hence the utility skills and dodge mechanic. Maybe it is a simple matter of gameplay. But still in the world of pvp you are always going to be going against 9 other classes, which can have elite specs, so at least in pvp there should be diversity. Has anyone ever ran some kind of a group build for that? I made this post less so to discuss why and more so to see if people were coming up with ludicrous builds that actually work out well, or really anything not meta maybe built around a single mechanic for fun if they wanted to share it.

[kiwituatara.6053]

I'm at a point where I don't care if my build is effective or not (in wvw) after 5 yrs and 9 asc geared rangers.

Just play what is interesting for you and try not to care too much if you get stomped.

 

The current build I've played most with is quite bad:

[gw2skills.net/editor/?vNAQJATRnE8CtCiFsAWsActgl9giZgD4efpJCgEIHncapeD-j1BBABYt/o8LPdBB8AAA4KAwwhA4MlgVq+TAgDgzPPzPPw5nf+5nfeN/8zP/8zP/8zPvUARM0C-w](http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vNAQJATRnE8CtCiFsAWsActgl9giZgD4efpJCgEIHncapeD-j1BBABYt/o8LPdBB8AAA4KAwwhA4MlgVq+TAgDgzPPzPPw5nf+5nfeN/8zP/8zP/8zPvUARM0C-w "gw2skills.net/editor/?vNAQJATRnE8CtCiFsAWsActgl9giZgD4efpJCgEIHncapeD-j1BBABYt/o8LPdBB8AAA4KAwwhA4MlgVq+TAgDgzPPzPPw5nf+5nfeN/8zP/8zP/8zPvUARM0C-w")

[Spartyr.6795]

Lol yeah, if we're kind of in bad build posting mode, I have one I've been playing with. Here's my thoughts:

 

* I wanted something for open world where I didn't have to switch traits/weapons a lot. So it had to be flexible enough to counter a lot of different types of mobs.

* I really like Axes and whirling defense

* I like the modifiers that you get as Soulbeast with the Beastmastery line so I wanted to include that if I could.

 

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vNAQRAoX3fnUqA1Cid8CO8CctglCBL/6udDvMDgSXq7pLEtCAn8qwtC-jBSBQBe4BAEgjAA1U+1Q1fyx+DyUJYzOIAA4EAIIgTB-e

 

I have a high fury uptime with this build. With Vicious Quarry and Honed Axes both in this build, that's +500 Ferocity plus the 7% bonus damage from Furious Strength SoulBeast minor. With food and Fury I hover around 70% critical chance. My Whirling defense regularly gets to 12k damage, and Worldly Impacts are around 5k. If I swap Sic 'Em for Protect Me, I see much bigger numbers there obviously. And this is in Viper's gear where my Torch and bleed ticks still hurt.

 

The major weaknesses are that I don't have good Breakbar damage, and my condition clear is minimal. On condition clear though, I find that with Second Skin, plus the regen from the traited shouts, I can usually outlast conditions long enough to get my Brown Bear out, and once I get merged with it, I'm good. Another downside is it's fairly complex to play and may not actually be more effective than some other builds, but I was enjoying it.