Rifle needs a buff

[RedShark.9548]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > > > > @"Hoodie.1045" said:

> > > > > The warriors' rifle skill 3 Volley pierces targets, the F1 skill Kill Shot pierces targets and both of those skills deal more damage than the engineers' rifle auto attack, the only skill that pierces targets. The only profession with access to the rifle weapon that needs a buff is the engineer, not the warrior.

> > > > >

> > > > > Plus the warrior is meant to be a melee brawler, not a ranged profession like the engineer or ranger. You can still use the rifle if you want, as it deals a really good amount of damage, but in my opinion warriors benefit the most in melee combat.

> > > >

> > > > just because the class is meant to be a melee brawler doesnt mean to simply make a weapon useless so nobody plays it...that is just plain stupid

> > >

> > > Actually that IS what that means. Why would Anet buff a ranged weapon if the intention of the class is to be melee brawler?

> >

> > Because there are fights where being mele is only going to get you killed, and if your range damage sucks you'll die anyways.

>

> Hold on ... sounds to me like if you have fights like that, you have solutions to them that don't require Anet to buff Rifle. This seems more like a L2P issue. What exactly are these fights you refer to, because I haven't encountered many places like that at all. Rifle, while it's not the best DPS weapons (nor should it be) can be used with as good effect as any other weapon in the correct situation; anyone selling rifle as the weapon you use to 'die in ranged situations anyways' is just being ridiculous. If you're only strategy to stay alive is to hit the big damage button, you die anyways, regardless of the weapons you using. HoT and PoF already prove that.

>

> > @"Hoodie.1045" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > Actually that IS what that means. Why would Anet buff a ranged weapon if the intention of the class is to be melee brawler?

> >

> > I never said that the warrior is meant to be a melee brawler, I just said that it benefits the most in melee combat rather than ranged combat.

>

> No, that's not what you said at all. You said that just because Warrior is a melee brawler, it doesn't mean to simply make a weapon useless so nobody plays it. That sounds like lots of sensational rhetoric to me. If people don't play it, maybe it's because they don't need to. Maybe Warrior has all the tools it needs EVEN in melee to survive encounters where ranged is preferred? You see, my big problem with this thread is that you identified already why Rifle isn't some amazing weapon on the warrior to begin with; it's concept is highly melee focused and it DOES have all the tools it needs to handle situations as a melee class ... EVEN ranged ones with 'weapons that no one uses'.

>

>

 

i was the one who said that with the brawling stuff, anyways, its pretty much fact that rifle is in a bad state right now and no one really uses it, even in situations where ranged would be alot better they stick to melee, because rifle is that much of a bad choice...and still, when warruir is only a melee brawler, why bother giving him a ranged weapon thats basically useless, remove it or rework it, its that simple

[Obtena.7952]

it's not pretty much a fact ... you don't know how many people use rifle. You're basically affirming what I've said. Ranged weapons are second rate and the intention is a heavily focused melee class to play in melee range. That is likely why the ranged options aren't great and likely why they won't get much better.

 

There is no need to remove a weapon if you feel it's useless; it's even simpler than you say; Anet just doesn't need to do anything, no rework or removal.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

 

I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

[RedShark.9548]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

>

> I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

 

have you tried rifle in pvp or wvw ? its awful

[Solori.6025]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

>

> I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

 

Deimos is one, if your group is not good enough for the melee strat ( and most groups are not that good)

Some of the new bounties that force you to go to the outside ring or you deal no damage is another.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

>

> I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

 

As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

[Shining One.1635]

I'd like the rifle brought up to current standards. Many warriors justify their incredible survivability options as necessary due to being a melee-only spec. By buffing rifle, they are no longer melee-only and that survivability can be justifiably nerfed.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Shining One.1635" said:

> I'd like the rifle brought up to current standards. Many warriors justify their incredible survivability options as necessary due to being a melee-only spec. By buffing rifle, they are no longer melee-only and that survivability can be justifiably nerfed.

 

That approach makes no sense .... this is just a thinly veiled call for nerfing Warrior survivability based on a mediocre buff to a ranged weapon that the warrior concept doesn't really support well in the first place.

 

> @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> >

> > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

>

> As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

 

So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

 

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> > >

> > > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

> >

> > As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

>

> So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

 

We're not saying the rest of our tool-set isn't competitive, we're saying that rifle isn't competitive, it needs a buff. You're saying we're ok in other stuff so this part that's under performing doesn't need a boost.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

>

> > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> > > >

> > > > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

> > >

> > > As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

> >

> > So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

>

> We're not saying the rest of our tool-set isn't competitive, we're saying that rifle isn't competitive, it needs a buff. You're saying we're ok in other stuff so this part that's under performing doesn't need a boost.

 

Not being competitive is NOT a reason to buff something. There are lots of non-competitive gear in this game on every class. I AM saying we are OK in other stuff so this underperforming part doesn't need a boost because ... if you haven't noticed, that's how the game works for 6 years now. We DO have underperforming things. That's ... OK. There is nothing critically wrong with an underperforming anything in this game. It's the players choice to decide what weapon to use for whatever reason they want to use it. That's what makes rifle OK as is.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> >

> > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

> > > >

> > > > As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

> > >

> > > So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

> >

> > We're not saying the rest of our tool-set isn't competitive, we're saying that rifle isn't competitive, it needs a buff. You're saying we're ok in other stuff so this part that's under performing doesn't need a boost.

>

> Not being competitive is NOT a reason to buff something. There are lots of non-competitive gear in this game on every class. I AM saying we are OK in other stuff so this underperforming part doesn't need a boost because ... if you haven't noticed, that's how the game works for 6 years now. We DO have underperforming things. That's ... OK. There is nothing critically wrong with an underperforming anything in this game. It's the players choice to decide what weapon to use for whatever reason they want to use it. That's what makes rifle OK as is.

 

It's not ok when it's condition based alternative ranged weapon (longbow) does more damage as a power weapon than rifle which is supposed to be power based.

 

* **Rifle**

**Fierce Shot**

Damage: 255 (0.605)

Range: 1,200

* **Longbow**

**Dual Shot**

Damage (2x): 338 (0.88)

Range: 1,200

[Obtena.7952]

I like that cherry picked argument, but it's not very relevant.

 

The counter to that: if LBow is best for what you need, use it.

 

Look, I have no doubt Anet buffs things for reasons ... but we aren't talking about a few percent DPS increase here ... that's not going to incentive anyone to pick up a rifle. The right buffs for rifle are the things that set it apart from Lbow. The problem is that ranged weapons aren't well supported by a strong melee class, so the things that rifle does are not all that relevant to the class as a whole. Rifle is not saved by damage buffs; it's concept of range control is ... odd and doesn't work well with the whole class concept to begin with.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

How is it not relevant? It's condition based counterpart is better as a power weapon than the power weapon. This **IS** our argument that rifle is under performing.

[Obtena.7952]

Read my post ... I'm not saying rifle is not underperforming. Underperformance in this case is not saved with DPS buffs.

[serialkicker.5274]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > > @"Hoodie.1045" said:

> > > The warriors' rifle skill 3 Volley pierces targets, the F1 skill Kill Shot pierces targets and both of those skills deal more damage than the engineers' rifle auto attack, the only skill that pierces targets. The only profession with access to the rifle weapon that needs a buff is the engineer, not the warrior.

> > >

> > > Plus the warrior is meant to be a melee brawler, not a ranged profession like the engineer or ranger. You can still use the rifle if you want, as it deals a really good amount of damage, but in my opinion warriors benefit the most in melee combat.

> >

> > just because the class is meant to be a melee brawler doesnt mean to simply make a weapon useless so nobody plays it...that is just plain stupid

>

> Actually that IS what that means. Why would Anet buff a ranged weapon if the intention of the class is to be melee brawler?

 

I'll have to disagree that warriors intention is to be a melee brawler. Warriors are "fighters" who specialize is using weaponry in general, no matter what kind. The more, the better. There is a reason why warriors have most of the weapons at their disposal.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"serialkicker.5274" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > > > @"Hoodie.1045" said:

> > > > The warriors' rifle skill 3 Volley pierces targets, the F1 skill Kill Shot pierces targets and both of those skills deal more damage than the engineers' rifle auto attack, the only skill that pierces targets. The only profession with access to the rifle weapon that needs a buff is the engineer, not the warrior.

> > > >

> > > > Plus the warrior is meant to be a melee brawler, not a ranged profession like the engineer or ranger. You can still use the rifle if you want, as it deals a really good amount of damage, but in my opinion warriors benefit the most in melee combat.

> > >

> > > just because the class is meant to be a melee brawler doesnt mean to simply make a weapon useless so nobody plays it...that is just plain stupid

> >

> > Actually that IS what that means. Why would Anet buff a ranged weapon if the intention of the class is to be melee brawler?

>

> I'll have to disagree that warriors intention is to be a melee brawler. Warriors are "fighters" who specialize is using weaponry in general, no matter what kind. The more, the better. There is a reason why warriors have most of the weapons at their disposal.

 

I also disagree with that sentiment; that 'melee brawler' argument was someone elses concoction to justify rifle buffs ... which was weird to start with and easy to argue against.

 

 

[Opopanax.1803]

Rifle needs to be fixed so we have a viable Longview option. I'm Getting tired of Longbow as my only ranged option... similar to guardians that only have sceptre as a ranged weapon for base....

[RedShark.9548]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> >

> > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> > > > >

> > > > > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

> > > >

> > > > As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

> > >

> > > So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

> >

> > We're not saying the rest of our tool-set isn't competitive, we're saying that rifle isn't competitive, it needs a buff. You're saying we're ok in other stuff so this part that's under performing doesn't need a boost.

>

> Not being competitive is NOT a reason to buff something. There are lots of non-competitive gear in this game on every class. I AM saying we are OK in other stuff so this underperforming part doesn't need a boost because ... if you haven't noticed, that's how the game works for 6 years now. We DO have underperforming things. That's ... OK. There is nothing critically wrong with an underperforming anything in this game. It's the players choice to decide what weapon to use for whatever reason they want to use it. That's what makes rifle OK as is.

 

in a well balanced game every weapon should be equally viable, ofc this will never happen, but it should be the aim of a balance team, you just try to talk that down

[EvilSardine.9635]

If they made the number 4 an instant dodge roll I'd be happy with just that.

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

Don't worry they buffed rifle:

* Brutal Shot: This skill has been renamed Puncture Shot. The tooltip for this skill has been updated to correctly reflect the existing immobilize-related effects.

 

...You know the funniest thing about this is that they buffed warrior harpoon gun AA...it already did more damage than rifle AA.

 

Edit: Just got home to log in it looks like they mixed something up because it says stuff about updating the tooltip for existing immobilize-related effects. Harpoon 2 does nothing with immobilize.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > >

> > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

> > > > >

> > > > > As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

> > > >

> > > > So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

> > >

> > > We're not saying the rest of our tool-set isn't competitive, we're saying that rifle isn't competitive, it needs a buff. You're saying we're ok in other stuff so this part that's under performing doesn't need a boost.

> >

> > Not being competitive is NOT a reason to buff something. There are lots of non-competitive gear in this game on every class. I AM saying we are OK in other stuff so this underperforming part doesn't need a boost because ... if you haven't noticed, that's how the game works for 6 years now. We DO have underperforming things. That's ... OK. There is nothing critically wrong with an underperforming anything in this game. It's the players choice to decide what weapon to use for whatever reason they want to use it. That's what makes rifle OK as is.

>

> in a well balanced game every weapon should be equally viable, ofc this will never happen, but it should be the aim of a balance team, you just try to talk that down

 

Sure .. but I got 6 years of evidence to suggest GW2 has never been and likely will never be that. I'm more interested in seeing good gameplay and options with interesting skills/weapons/etc ... than having equal balance on them (because that's not a reasonable goal anyways). Sorry, I'm just realistic when most people are just dreaming about what they think should happen that won't.

 

The buffs rifle should get are melee-range denial, because that's what it does. It's not a DPS weapon and there isn't a reason to change that flavour 'just because' it's not.

[Conncept.7638]

> @"Messor.9520" said:

> Maybe a shotgun makeup would do well. like a #1 buckshot, #2 flechette (bleeds or vulnerability), #3 flame burst, #4 daze or grenade or something, and keep #5 as is

 

You could also go for a rapid shot Wild Bill style of rework, increase its damage and efficacy by increasing attack speed and skill uptimes, there's no such rifle in the game, it'd differentiate it more, as the engineer already kind of has a shotgun.

[RedShark.9548]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > >

> > > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

> > > > >

> > > > > So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

> > > >

> > > > We're not saying the rest of our tool-set isn't competitive, we're saying that rifle isn't competitive, it needs a buff. You're saying we're ok in other stuff so this part that's under performing doesn't need a boost.

> > >

> > > Not being competitive is NOT a reason to buff something. There are lots of non-competitive gear in this game on every class. I AM saying we are OK in other stuff so this underperforming part doesn't need a boost because ... if you haven't noticed, that's how the game works for 6 years now. We DO have underperforming things. That's ... OK. There is nothing critically wrong with an underperforming anything in this game. It's the players choice to decide what weapon to use for whatever reason they want to use it. That's what makes rifle OK as is.

> >

> > in a well balanced game every weapon should be equally viable, ofc this will never happen, but it should be the aim of a balance team, you just try to talk that down

>

> Sure .. but I got 6 years of evidence to suggest GW2 has never been and likely will never be that. I'm more interested in seeing good gameplay and options with interesting skills/weapons/etc ... than having equal balance on them (because that's not a reasonable goal anyways). Sorry, I'm just realistic when most people are just dreaming about what they think should happen that won't.

>

> The buffs rifle should get are melee-range denial, because that's what it does. It's not a DPS weapon and there isn't a reason to change that flavour 'just because' it's not.

 

if you actually read what ive wrote in this thread than you'd know that i never asked for a dps buff, i even said that id like a rework to a midrange shotgun type weapon...and ofc its a dreamworld but the goal should still be an equal balancing

[Obtena.7952]

> @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"RedShark.9548" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Red Haired Savage.5430" said:

> > > > > > > > > And there are lots of places where playing mele is only going to get you killed. Also it's in such a sad shape that longbow pew pews allot harder and its meant to be our condi weapon.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I'd still like to know where these places are because I don't see any shortage of warriors being wanted in instanced content; they certainly aren't being excluded because they aren't good at ranged content.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As RedShark said rifle in the competitive scene is just plain horrible and will see you killed. I've literally seen people kicked out of a WvW guild for using rifle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So warriors get killing in the competitive scene because Rifle is so bad? I'm going to let you think about why that makes no sense. Hint: the warrior concept SUPPORTS melee ranged interactions. In otherwords, warriors aren't left high and dry when they go into melee range. Another hint ... warriors haven't exactly been bottom of the heap in the 'competitive scene', even WITH rifle in its current state. I'm going to counter that argument by saying ... you're just using the wrong part of your toolset for the 'competitive scene'.

> > > > >

> > > > > We're not saying the rest of our tool-set isn't competitive, we're saying that rifle isn't competitive, it needs a buff. You're saying we're ok in other stuff so this part that's under performing doesn't need a boost.

> > > >

> > > > Not being competitive is NOT a reason to buff something. There are lots of non-competitive gear in this game on every class. I AM saying we are OK in other stuff so this underperforming part doesn't need a boost because ... if you haven't noticed, that's how the game works for 6 years now. We DO have underperforming things. That's ... OK. There is nothing critically wrong with an underperforming anything in this game. It's the players choice to decide what weapon to use for whatever reason they want to use it. That's what makes rifle OK as is.

> > >

> > > in a well balanced game every weapon should be equally viable, ofc this will never happen, but it should be the aim of a balance team, you just try to talk that down

> >

> > Sure .. but I got 6 years of evidence to suggest GW2 has never been and likely will never be that. I'm more interested in seeing good gameplay and options with interesting skills/weapons/etc ... than having equal balance on them (because that's not a reasonable goal anyways). Sorry, I'm just realistic when most people are just dreaming about what they think should happen that won't.

> >

> > The buffs rifle should get are melee-range denial, because that's what it does. It's not a DPS weapon and there isn't a reason to change that flavour 'just because' it's not.

>

> if you actually read what ive wrote in this thread than you'd know that i never asked for a dps buff, i even said that id like a rework to a midrange shotgun type weapon...and ofc its a dreamworld but the goal should still be an equal balancing

 

I don't get what that fixes. The OP certainly thinks the answer is more DPS. To be fair to you, I care little for any idea that doesn't address a problem, so my answer doesn't really change, whether it's about giving rifle more DPS ... or making it some shotgun, med ranged kind of thing. That's just fluff. You're going to turn it into a med range whatever and it's still going to be a 'so what' ranged weapon that controls range ... just with a much shorter range.