Guild Wars 2

Allie Murdock.8152:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

I think it’s a good idea to have a buff while pets are stowed.
It’s something that has good counterplay, and lots of interesting build opportunities.
For people who like pets, they are unaffected, and for thous who don’t, they now have a viable alternative.

The only question is how would Pet Attribute Bonus factor into it?
Because without your pet out it’s a dead stat.

If it has a scaling effect on the buff, maybe that would do it.

thefantasticg.3984:

Allie Murdock.8152:

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

Some? No. Many many people. Just have a gander at how many threads have been created in the subforum about replacing them with something. If perma-stowing during combat = aura buff I am so hard for it that if I was anymore I would explode with infinite unicorn rainbows from every orifice.

Yes, but as someone with actual Graphics/particle creation experience, I just cringe at the “Resource-Creep” attached to it. Yes there absolutely needs to be UI indicators associated with it. Yes I get that they have 40-80 artists on-hand to help. But….. the real timesink there is just usability testing & graphics driver nuances. It’s a technical mess TBH unless it just re-used assets that are already “polished”

I’d rather see the pet fixed or shifted into a gameplay role that is suited to it’s limitations, then be eliminated.

Make no mistake, if you make it stowable, it will be stowed. The pet will all but vanish.

Even so, it’s a much better option then what we have now. If cutting the pet off at the knees is the price of becoming a competitive class, I’ll gladly take it.

Forzani.2584:

Allie Murdock.8152:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

I like your musings. I can’t see how anyone would complain if given the option (yea, I know some still would but you will never please those types)

The only reason I personally would complain about this is that it takes dev time to implement, when that time could be spent fixing the ‘gimmick’ of the class and keeping the theme alive.

Anyway, that’s my two cents and I’m bowing out for now to let others contribute!

I, for one, have not said anything about eliminating them completely. I haven’t read that either. What I have read a lot of is giving the option to opt out of the pet for something else that capable of working as intended.

It’s already been stated in other CDI’s that fixing the pet to work as intended is just too big of a project to be taken on by Anet for the foreseeable future (again go look in the Dec 10th Ranger CDI for reference).

Allie Murdock.8152:

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

First off, glad to hear you take this approach into consideration.

Instead of simply stowing your pet, you could turn your pet into a ghost (or phase shift it, if you don’t like the ghost thingie), which would set your pet on passive mode and makes it immune to damage. You could still use the F2 skill but no other skill bound to the pet.

However I’m concerned about your understanding of the buff the ranger would get.
Would it give the ranger back his lost damage?
Or would it give the ranger additional stats based on the pet you’ve “stowed”?

Allie Murdock.8152:

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

If the [“Aspect of the Pet”] would change appereance, it would be really cool. That would also indicate players what is happening and would give us an awesome visual overhaul, which I already highly enjoy on the ranger (for example #2 GS or #3 Sword just look so cool)

Still, I think the whole, “Aspect” thing should be a new kind of infight bridge mechanic. So people that still want their pets to be partly active, have the aspect bonus sometimes.
For example when using F4 instead of changing pet, you stow it and thereby get the “Aspect”. Then you can press F4 another time to put out the second pet.

Why?
This would give the Ranger the possibility to wait out extremely dangerous occurences, where the pet normally would instantly die. But instead of having to leave the other pet dead, you would be able to receive a buff or active skill, depending on what the “Aspect” actually is, while waiting for an opening where you can let out your second pet, without it instantly dieing.

Though if this would happen, I think the F4 stow should actually have a 1 second cast time with some kind of bridge animation for the “Aspect”. That would also make it not that the ranger could just change to the “Aspect” while stunned.

Also a good thing, this would please WvW rangers alot, since they have a second option, that is reliable.
Still I think having the pet outside should always be stronger than having the “Aspect”. I think that is just how the rangers roll, because I could feel the descrimination of those that would choose to roll a pet instead of an aspect…

I don’t post on this forum much, but the idea of a perma-stow for pets in exchange for an aura of some sort would make me actually play a ranger. Right now they are the only class I refuse to play. I absolutely love this idea.

Anyone remember the Nightwolf character from the old Mortal Kombat cartoon? He had a pet wolf that he’d fight with, and then occasionally “merge” with him to become a single fighting machine. I’m picturing this implemented in a similar fashion.

Atherakhia.4086:

I’m all for removing the pet (or keeping it…), but I’m very concerned with trying to find simple solutions to removing it like the often suggested ‘give Rangers +XX% more damage while the pet is stowed’ solution. Even in their horribly crippled state, the pet can provide a lot of utility. 2 wolf pets left on passive for example provides a ton of single target utility with their leap (which is always the first move used if in range of an enemy when told to attack when passive) leading to a howl, leading to a pet swap, leading to another leap, leading to another howl.

That’s the downside of stowing your pet. As I’ve stated before, you should still gain a bonus if you’re using the pet.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Atherakhia.4086:

I’m all for removing the pet (or keeping it…), but I’m very concerned with trying to find simple solutions to removing it like the often suggested ‘give Rangers +XX% more damage while the pet is stowed’ solution. Even in their horribly crippled state, the pet can provide a lot of utility. 2 wolf pets left on passive for example provides a ton of single target utility with their leap (which is always the first move used if in range of an enemy when told to attack when passive) leading to a howl, leading to a pet swap, leading to another leap, leading to another howl.

That’s the downside of stowing your pet. As I’ve stated before, you should still gain a bonus if you’re usng the pet.

Right there should be some benefit for losing it, and I’m fine with losing it… I’m just not the biggest fan of simply giving us a passive damage increase and things of that nature. Since I almost exclusively play a (long)bow ranger, a great deal of my time is circle strafing with auto attack on while I wait to see which of us dies of boredom first. Something needs to be done to make the class exciting to play and removing one of the few interactive things we have in favor of a passive damage buff is a little underwhelming.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Gotejjeken.1267:

The only reason I personally would complain about this is that it takes dev time to implement, when that time could be spent fixing the ‘gimmick’ of the class and keeping the theme alive.

Anyway, that’s my two cents and I’m bowing out for now to let others contribute!

For sure! Thanks for the feedback!

My 2 cents are that I want an arrow class, but no pet. It sucks to be forced to play warrior, when a leather armored ranger using both bow types is what I want to play, minus the pet.

I would love this as an option, whether tied into a trait tree (survival?) or as a class mechanic.

Gotejjeken.1267:

An opt out for the pet totally breaks the spirit of the class. There are other classes (see: warrior) if you want to do big damage with no pet reliance.

Pet needs to be out, and there needs to be good reason to use more than a select few. They all have unique abilities, but they are so unresponsive that the utilities are useless. If you redistribute power and make the pet a sole utility provider then you get the best of both worlds. If it dies, the most you lose is the F2 ability.

The ranger is not only about his pet. Hell the ranger is unique in his design and the pet is just a small part of that. I have 2 lvl80 warriors and if I would feel like the warrior beeing the true archer, I would roll warrior all the way. Yet I don’t feel like that. The ranger is my archer and the pet is annoying and reducing my damage.

Allie Murdock.8152:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

Permastowing a pet really shouldn’t be the “solution” to clunky pet mechanics. The people who would prefer this over having the pet mechanics improved/reworked just shouldn’t play rangers, I guess.

Allie Murdock.8152:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

Some additional musing from me in response to your musing

What if this aura could be linked to the Passive setting? When on Passive the pet could then become immune to damage and radiates its aura.

That way the Ranger will still have their pet with them, but it would not die from random AoE nor will it put the Ranger in combat if it gets hit. But it is still a part of the Ranger and gives a meaningful reason as to why the aura is there.

Effectively you would also no longer need the Stow mechanic then as the Passive Aura will function as the new ‘Stow’ and the Ranger will always run around with a faithful companion.

I always thought it kinda daft to ‘stow’ a pet. Does the Ranger put it in a sack or something?

Atherakhia.4086:

Right there should be some benefit for losing it, and I’m fine with losing it… I’m just not the biggest fan of simply giving us a passive damage increase and things of that nature. Since I almost exclusively play a (long)bow ranger, a great deal of my time is circle strafing with auto attack on while I wait to see which of us dies of boredom first. Something needs to be done to make the class exciting to play and removing one of the few interactive things we have in favor of a passive damage buff is a little underwhelming.

What about having incentives to swap aspects, just like swapping pets? Also it’s not necessary to have the same +x% damage on aspect, could be tied directly to the pet actives. Red moa could grant a short fury buff and a small, permanent crit damage buff. Brown bear could be a stun breaker and a small condition duration reduction. And it’s not limited to passives, what about polar bear gives a second aoe chill roar to the ranger?

As much as i hate the current state of the pet and its uselessness i think is an integral part of the class and is what make it unique, if you want a petless character roll a warrior (they are better at everything anyway), i think anet should find the way to make pets work. That been said, like someone said in a previous post, if the price of been competitive and fixing the class is removing the pet, stowing them or whatever i am up for it.

Shadowsong.4820:

Permastowing a pet really shouldn’t be the “solution” to clunky pet mechanics. The people who would prefer this over having the pet mechanics improved/reworked just shouldn’t play rangers, I guess.

The problem is that pets are useless in or flat out break some PvE events, regardless of how much control you have over them. There has to be a way for rangers to maintain their DPS without relying on their pet if they are ever going to be on par with other classes in PvE.

Shadowsong.4820:

Allie Murdock.8152:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

Permastowing a pet really shouldn’t be the “solution” to clunky pet mechanics. The people who would prefer this over having the pet mechanics improved/reworked just shouldn’t play rangers, I guess.

I never meant to bypass the much needed AI overhaul. But even a working pet AI would not solve the issues I see. So I want the pet to be somehow stowable in addition to an updated pet AI.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

An opt out for the pet totally breaks the spirit of the class. There are other classes (see: warrior) if you want to do big damage with no pet reliance.

Pet needs to be out, and there needs to be good reason to use more than a select few. They all have unique abilities, but they are so unresponsive that the utilities are useless. If you redistribute power and make the pet a sole utility provider then you get the best of both worlds. If it dies, the most you lose is the F2 ability.

The ranger is not only about his pet. Hell the ranger is unique in his design and the pet is just a small part of that. I have 2 lvl80 warriors and if I would feel like the warrior beeing the true archer, I would roll warrior all the way. Yet I don’t feel like that. The ranger is my archer and the pet is annoying and reducing my damage.

How would you feel about the suggestion I made? Making the aspect a bridge between two pets? You could get the aspect of the first pet when stowing it and put out the second pet after that if you wish to at all.
You thereby have the possbility to keep your pet out of extremely dangerous situation, while still getting the Aspect bonus in between. The pets would be more reliable while using them and while the pets are not outside, you get a different bonus. And everything can be used infight, giving it many combination possibilities. Thus making it possible for anyone to choose which they want to use more.

For more read one of my earlier posts xD

Battosai discussed with me the idea of turning the spirits into auras that are applied to your pet, and then the range of the effects are based on the location of your pet.

Anything that makes the pet’s position on the field more meaningful is a +1 in my book.

NemesiS.6749:

if you want a petless character roll a warrior (they are better at everything anyway)

I will repeat myself happily:
No.

Going to pitch in here and say I really like the idea of having an “aspect” individual to particular pet families when they are stowed (or even when they’re not!). A perma-stowing option would be fantastic and completely remove our dungeon issues, amongst others, though I won’t be too optimistic with that from a development point of view.

I formulated another idea for changing the role of the pet (to save re-posting I’ll link my original thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Pets-should-their-role-be-changed/first#post3676765) that would:

1. Reduce the need for improved AI (no longer require them to run after targets so much)

2. Prove much more useful to the individual and team in ALL scenarios (dungeons, WvW, PvP, PvE general)

3. Improve the perception of the Ranger as a profession and become more welcomed in dungeons/PvE

4. Improve pet survivability, reducing our handicap upon their death during AoE-intense zerg battles or other such scenarios.

5. Keep the pet mechanic central to the role of the Ranger profession, in line with Anet’s vision.

Now, as a commenter pointed out this suggestion is likely to involve some significant re-works to particular aspects of trait lines and additions to the profession. Implementing something like this would be no easy task, but I hope in the very least it might serve as an idea driver!

A big problem when I’m trying to think what changes would balance the class across PvE, PvP and WvW is that we are in a tricky place regarding class homogenisation. If we start sacrificing dodge animations for more damage and be more bulky in melee we start to drift into Warrior territory. If we gain more mobility, more ways to jump about and get into and out of combat, we start to spread over into Thief themes. I just raise this point because a lot of people are saying “Play an X instead then!” in regard to people raising points that push Ranger in the opposite way to the forum users class ideal.

KehxD.6847:

For more read one of my earlier posts xD

Link would be helpfull, since this posts contains over 10 pages.

Game Mode
WvW
Thou technically this suggestion can apply to PvX

Proposal overview
Proposal 1 of 3
Additional pet commands, such as standing at a specific location.
Plus Addition status information on the pet’s current conditions and boons.

Goal of Proposal
Since the AI of the pet is questionable, giving the Ranger more direct control over the pets actions can help elevate and work around the flaws within that AI.
Such as telling your pet to stand at a certain location, rather then in the fire, thus help prevent them from taking unwanted damage.

More information, such as the boons and condition on your pet would allow the Ranger to make more informed actions. Such as spiking the enemy once your pet has enough might.

Proposal Functionality
Rework the pet UI above the skills to include boons and conditions, perhaps from a drop down tab, or from a separate panel that can be opened and dragged out to wherever the player wants it to be, ala Guild Wars.

Additional command can also be added to this panel, such as standing at a location, evading/dodging, patrolling between two points, etc. Perhaps an addition mode such as something between attack and passive mode.
Having commands to direct your pet is stock standard in any MMO with a pet system, including Guild Wars.

They are needed to stop your pet for taking stupid actions that the AI simply cannot account for. The fact that pets have had so much of a problem up until now if evidence of this fact.

Associated Risk
Could be considered making the Ranger more complicated to play, esp for new players. I disagree, basic controls for your pet is standard in MMO’s.

Karl McLain.5604:

mtpelion.4562:

Wilderness experts should be masters of poisons. Therefore, Rangers should have the most potent poisons available.

Great point here and I agree. I would be awesome to see a way to increase poison potency for the Ranger and it’s something we’ve been talking about internally as well. We’ll keep looking into it and see if there’s something that can happen here.

Mechanically I love this idea. Thematically I would have pegged thieves as the poisoners. Of the 15 poison skills rangers have access to, only 4 of them aren’t on our pets.

To make it really stick it would need a lot of traits and class balancing to support it.

Angela Ranna.5638:

Karl McLain.5604:

mtpelion.4562:

Wilderness experts should be masters of poisons. Therefore, Rangers should have the most potent poisons available.

Great point here and I agree. I would be awesome to see a way to increase poison potency for the Ranger and it’s something we’ve been talking about internally as well. We’ll keep looking into it and see if there’s something that can happen here.

Mechanically I love this idea. Thematically I would have pegged thieves as the poisoners. Of the 15 poison skills rangers have access to, only 4 of them aren’t on our pets.

To make it really stick it would need a lot of traits and class balancing to support it.

Yeah it is true. Although I like the idea of more poison, I feel like poison is more Thief and Necro territory, whereas bleeding seems to be for the ranger… which is pretty sad if you think about it. I don’t think ranger should become the “main poison master”, but adding poison here and there and maybe changing a bit bleeding to poison would really be appreciated.

KehxD.6847:

Angela Ranna.5638:

Karl McLain.5604:

mtpelion.4562:

Wilderness experts should be masters of poisons. Therefore, Rangers should have the most potent poisons available.

Great point here and I agree. I would be awesome to see a way to increase poison potency for the Ranger and it’s something we’ve been talking about internally as well. We’ll keep looking into it and see if there’s something that can happen here.

Mechanically I love this idea. Thematically I would have pegged thieves as the poisoners. Of the 15 poison skills rangers have access to, only 4 of them aren’t on our pets.

To make it really stick it would need a lot of traits and class balancing to support it.

Yeah it is true. Although I like the idea of more poison, I feel like poison is more Thief and Necro territory, whereas bleeding seems to be for the ranger… which is pretty sad if you think about it. I don’t think ranger should become the “main poison master”, but adding poison here and there and maybe changing a bit bleeding to poison would really be appreciated.

Since the ranger could also be seen as hunter, he should be the master of cripple and torment.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

KehxD.6847:

For more read one of my earlier posts xD

Link would be helpfull, since this posts contains over 10 pages.

Sorry ^^ Here you go. First one is a bit more general, second is kind of a direct example of an “active” aspect version. Probably it should have a passive too though, now that I read the last few remarks of some players.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/11#post3688830
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/10#post3688642

Allie Murdock.8152:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

Or add the damage from the pet to the ranger when stowed and allow us to keep the F2 of that pet which casts on us or from us instead of the pet.

For instance, the juvenile brown bear when stowed would make our F2 shake it off as it would when the pet is used, but cast on our location. The spider’s poison attack would grant a poison combo field at our feet.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Ohoni.6057:

That’s not remotely true. There is not a single class that can completely ignore their class mechanic and still do their best. There are ways to shift them to more of a passive than an active role, just as you don’t have to trait into Beastmaster or slot pet-based utilities, but with any class if you don’t use your class mechanics at all then you’re leaving a ton of DPS on the table.

No other class get its damage cut to 2/3 just to make its mechanic work.
I would happily accept the drawback of noone tanking for me or no skills to use if I just get my missing damage back.

This is a common misconception that the Ranger itself is somehow “entitled” to the damage the pet deals no matter if it’s actually there or not. A large part of playing a Ranger is keeping your pet alive and there have been enough changes to pet survivability already to make this pretty easy everywhere except WvW zergs.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

KehxD.6847:

Angela Ranna.5638:

Karl McLain.5604:

mtpelion.4562:

Wilderness experts should be masters of poisons. Therefore, Rangers should have the most potent poisons available.

Great point here and I agree. I would be awesome to see a way to increase poison potency for the Ranger and it’s something we’ve been talking about internally as well. We’ll keep looking into it and see if there’s something that can happen here.

Mechanically I love this idea. Thematically I would have pegged thieves as the poisoners. Of the 15 poison skills rangers have access to, only 4 of them aren’t on our pets.

To make it really stick it would need a lot of traits and class balancing to support it.

Yeah it is true. Although I like the idea of more poison, I feel like poison is more Thief and Necro territory, whereas bleeding seems to be for the ranger… which is pretty sad if you think about it. I don’t think ranger should become the “main poison master”, but adding poison here and there and maybe changing a bit bleeding to poison would really be appreciated.

Since the ranger could also be seen as hunter, he should be the master of cripple and torment.

I really like the idea of giving the ranger more torment sort of. About crippling, I think maybe add a cripple to the #3 of GS? I feel like when leaping on my foe, I should cripple him. It would support the hunter idea.

Aidenwolf.5964:

Or add the damage from the pet to the ranger when stowed and allow us to keep the F2 of that pet which casts on us or from us instead of the pet.

For instance, the juvenile brown bear when stowed would make our F2 shake it off as it would when the pet is used, but cast on our location. The spider’s poison attack would grant a poison combo field at our feet.

I don’t like this idea simply to the fact, that the stats a pet has are only influenced by the level you are. There would be no difference if you would wear white armorpieces or ascended ones. If the damagemodel would just be reverted to the “normal 100%”, you would be on the level other classes are right now.

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class. So instead, why not just cut the cooldown time on pet death (perhaps tie it to beastmastery)? In every other situation besides a zerg you should be able to keep your pet alive a good majority of the time by paying attention and swapping it.

Also, if we are discussing adding stow buffs, why not just add the micromanaging to something else…like the innate pet ability we currently cannot control? Call it an F5 skill if you want, just let us use skills like wolf knockdown on demand.

If you’re happy to use the pet all the time, that option would still be available to you when the permastow option is made available.

Even if it’s not the solution to the pet AI, I believe that this is the best compromise to give to the Ranger class until the pet AI is redesigned (if ever).

Overall, I’m betting that the majority of the ranger community will be extremely happy with just this change and the non-rooting sword attack.

In fact, it seems that the non-rooting sword attack has become the elephant in the room. Could any of the devs comment on this point? I think it’s a very straightforward point. The other classes could dodge through their auto-attacks, why not this one? I definitely can’t see how the Ranger would be OP just because of this small fix.

I suppose after these two are out of the way, the next major point of discussion would be the traits.

Game Mode
PvE primarily

The 25 point Marksmanship Trait, Precise Strike, becomes less valuable as you gain fury or put more points in Skirmishing. It’s generally pretty weak overall for a non-optional 25 point trait. My proposal is to replace it with the Grandmaster Remorseless trait, and then have something a bit more exciting as the replacement Grandmaster trait.

Associated Risk
Is this a big risk to PvP play? Would this provide another cover condition for bleed stacks?

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Allow players to be able to freely swap between player control and AI control of their pet. The pet should feel like more of an extension than a clunky extra NPC that you have very little control over despite it being such an integral part of the class.

Goal of Proposal
To reward skilled players by allowing them to effectively micromanage their character and their pet to optimize class potential.

Proposal Functionality
As I think some people have mentioned already, I think it would be a good idea to implement a system similar to engineer kits that could replace the ranger’s current weapon skills with their pet’s skills. Players would maintain control over their character’s movement and mobility instead of the pet, but would go through with their designated autoattack while combat skills are shifted.

Another idea that comes to mind would be a command list that could be implemented through the pet menu that would designate skills for the pet to use in a given situation (provided that it isn’t already on cooldown). For example, you could set up the list so that your pet will automatically use an interrupt skill on a channeling enemy. Or you could have it use a blast finisher when it is inside a combo field. Since the pet only really has 4 skills, the list wouldn’t really have to be too big to be able to work for a number of different scenarios.

Associated Risks
This could potentially greatly raise the skill cap of the class, which might be detrimental to the goal of the game to provide appeal to casual players as well as hardcore. However, with an improvement to the pet AI it could be a completely optional aspect to the class that players would be able to function without needing to delve into.

Shadowsong.4820:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Ohoni.6057:

That’s not remotely true. There is not a single class that can completely ignore their class mechanic and still do their best. There are ways to shift them to more of a passive than an active role, just as you don’t have to trait into Beastmaster or slot pet-based utilities, but with any class if you don’t use your class mechanics at all then you’re leaving a ton of DPS on the table.

No other class get its damage cut to 2/3 just to make its mechanic work.
I would happily accept the drawback of noone tanking for me or no skills to use if I just get my missing damage back.

This is a common misconception that the Ranger itself is somehow “entitled” to the damage the pet deals no matter if it’s actually there or not. A large part of playing a Ranger is keeping your pet alive and there have been enough changes to pet survivability already to make this pretty easy everywhere except WvW zergs.

It’s not only the survivability aspect. If you’re using bows, your pet has to close the distance first, it has to stay in range of the target, it isn’t influenced by buffs (nourishment or stacking sigils), most of our conditionremoves just shift the condition to our pet, which would allow is to deal damage but hinders our pet to deal damage.
To put it simple: With a pet you have the same chance of success as without but you have a doubled chance of failure.

Proposal Goal
Give the Ranger more control and predictability over its pets behaviour, more quality of life.
Proposal Functionality
Have pet behaviours be switchable between Passive/On Alert(or whatever this might be called)/Agressive.
Passive would pretty much behave like now, except that the pet wouldn’t get the Ranger into combat if only it, and not the Ranger itself would get attacked.
On Alert would cause the pet to defend itself when attacked (but not the Ranger) and also always attack the same target the Ranger attacks. Switching targets would cause the pet to switch aswell without the aditional use of F1.
Agressive pets would defend themselves and the Ranger and attack the Rangers target when out of combat beforehand, however they would always concentrate on finishing a target first before attacking the next one (to have an option to avoid having the pet running around being useless if targets die too quickly or the Ranger tags lots of different targets in a short time).
Associated Risks
Would make choosing pet behaviour a little more complicated (although more rewarding).

xallever.1874:

Overall, I’m betting that the majority of the ranger community will be extremely happy with just this change and the non-rooting sword attack.

In fact, it seems that the non-rooting sword attack has become the elephant in the room. Could any of the devs comment on this point? I think it’s a very straightforward point. The other classes could dodge through their auto-attacks, why not this one? I definitely can’t see how the Ranger would be OP just because of this small fix.

I suppose after these two are out of the way, the next major point of discussion would be the traits.

If we’re going to talk about the sword, I would like to bump a post I’ve made earlier in this thread.

I want to make a special post about the ranger sword despite having it mentioned in a previous post already to elaborate my thoughts, since it’s the strongest weapon of the ranger yet it’s the clunkiest one.

PvE

Overview

• Remove the leaps on sword #1
• Both leaps on sword #2 should ge forward
• Animationtime should match evadetime on sword #3

Current Problems

• Leaps on Autoattack can’t be interrupted
• Leaps prevent normal movement
• sword #2 too slow
• sword #2 backleap unpredictable if target is moving
• sowrd #3 unpredictable if target is moving

Proposal

• Sword #1

Remove the leaps. Even if you can evade while performing a leap, it would still prevent your normal movement.

• Sword #2

I would rework this to a double leap, same as the current 2. and 3. autoattack, which cripples your enemy if you hit him and turns into a tripple leap if you hit an enemy once. This skill would get a long uptime of 10 seconds, so you don’t have to leap immediately after your first leap to use all your charges, and a mediocre long cooldown of 20 seconds, starting after the first leap.

• Sword #3

Either the evade time has to be increased to match the animation time or the animation time has to be cut to match the evade time.
Alternatively, the animation could be changed, so you wont dodge around your target but through your target, just like a normal dodgeroll.

Risks
I can’t see any. The gameplay wouldn’t be changed much, the weapon would feel a lot smoother to use.

Tempus.9540:

Game Mode
PvE primarily

The 25 point Marksmanship Trait, Precise Strike, becomes less valuable as you gain fury or put more points in Skirmishing. It’s generally pretty weak overall for a non-optional 25 point trait. My proposal is to replace it with the Grandmaster Remorseless trait, and then have something a bit more exciting as the replacement Grandmaster trait.

Associated Risk
Is this a big risk to PvP play? Would this provide another cover condition for bleed stacks?

I completely agree with this. Remorseless really shouldn’t be a major trait but it also shouldn’t just be removed. Additionally to not nerf power builds with less precision I suggest moving Precise Strike to Master minor and merge the current Master minor trait (Alpha Training) with Opening Strike.
Currently you need to spend 30 points into Marksmanship only to fully utilize your minor traits for which you technically already spent points for.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Shadowsong.4820:

Permastowing a pet really shouldn’t be the “solution” to clunky pet mechanics. The people who would prefer this over having the pet mechanics improved/reworked just shouldn’t play rangers, I guess.

That idea would actually be in lieu of a permastow. It would give Rangers a little more utility while not losing site of the concept of a Ranger.

Either way though, I don’t want this whole CDI to be able stowing the pets. There have been a lot of great ideas outside of this one that will help pets to be a more viable option. Perhaps just fixing some of the issues with the AI could be enough for people to feel better about the lack of permastow.

Short of a big project like giving its own code instead of it being based on general mob AI is the only way the AI issues can be truly fixed. You and Jon Peters have said it isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future. Perma-stow = Aura Buff is a sensible option.

Proposal Overview
Pets don’t have to always be NPCs. When brainstorming ways to allow the pet mechanic to handle situation where clumsy NPCs die horribly and hold the Ranger back, consider the ways you can design things that look like pets and sound like pets, but aren’t necessarily standard NPCs.

Proposal Functionality
Karka hatchlings have a kamikaze attack that turns them into a debuff on the target by latching on. While latched, the player literally has a karka nom-nom-nomming their skull.

Warhorn skill #4 has a particle effect of hawks swarming the foe. These hawks aren’t your NPC Hawk Pet, but they look just as cool.

Grawl hunters have a skill that deploys a rabbit as bait, then a wurm eats the rabbit and hits everything nearby. This skill looks big and complex, but really it’s just a normal attack with a lot of style.

To improve pets, you can introduce categories of pets that aren’t actual NPCs and don’t obey normal NPC restrictions. Latcher pets could have an F2 skill that commands them to run up and grapple the opponent, disappearing as an NPC and reappearing instantly as a latched-on-target debuff (if you call it “Go For The Eyes”, you will win a thousand internets from hamster loving rangers everywhere). Some pets could provide a buff instead of attacking (the critical eye of a bird increases allied precision in a wide zone, the strength of a bonsaiheart grants everyone a measure of toughness, etc), with their F2 skill being the only attack.

Some pets might not be NPCs at all. You could simply have one category of pets that gives you small animal skills. For instance, equipping the Hawk category could offer you three different skills (F1 commands a hawk to swoop and attack, F2 summons a pair to repeatedly harass the target up to 1800 units away, F3 calls a bird to daze the target) all theme around the long ranged role, but none of them actually involve an NPC and all its weaknesses. Beastmaster-esque skills would allow the Ranger to remain the Pet Class without worrying about whether your pet mechanics could fit 100% of the game’s content.

Associated Risks
You might have to make miniature giant space hamsters as a Hall of Monuments pet. You may be sued for this. It will be worth it.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

*Instead of simply stowing your pet*, you could turn your pet into a ghost (or phase shift it, if you don’t like the ghost thingie),

I’m okay with this. And * they * have a lore framework for this that isn’t "Ghostie":
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Celestial ...which is shared by the Norn in a manner of speaking, as well as Glint’s Aspects within the great alchemy where both the forgotten and asura studies were concerned . Such presence could just as easily be shown manifesting in the pet’s physical bodies. In technical application, it simply requires reskinning the animal model with a different Alpha translucency layer that was carried over from the GW1 engine.

Hey ANET. Ranger is my favorite procession next to Engineer, so I am super-excited reading over this CDI.

I’ve posted my suggestion in another thread, but I will try posting here:

If Ranger is the pet class, why don’t we have more unique pets?

As it stands right now, every pet is the same as the other… They have a different f2, different skills, sometimes different attack speed, but overall, they all feel like the same meatbags who follow targets.

So why not add pets with more unique abilities? Such as NON-offensive pets, which sacrifice damage for buffs and utility?

For example, for as long as allies are within 500 radius of this pet, they gain pulses of protection. In exchange, this pet would be very fragile.

Another example of a non-offensive pet, is that while it is out, the Ranger receives a 30% damage buff (to compensate for lack of offensive pet) and blind is pulsed around the pet.

One example of a more “unique” offensive pet would be the already existing Coyote… But what if instead of spawning 2 pets, it spawned a pack of 6 we could control with our f123 buttons? Sorta like the Necromancer, but with a focus on control.

The Ranger has loads of potential as a “pet class”, but what they need are more interesting ways to make use of our pets.

It’s pretty difficult to follow the formatting guideline when it’s not a vague change such as “Remove Pets” or “Make Utilities better” so I’m hoping you’ll still read this as long as I keep it clear, and link all relevant info:

Marksmanship Trait Problems

Malicious Training
More suited to Wilderness Survival

Keen Edge
Once again, it’s a skill thats adding more bleeds – More suited to Wilderness Survival

Spotter
A good throughput trait, but +6% crit party-wide really fits better within Skirmishing traitline.

Piercing Arrows I’m really surprised that this isn’t default for Ranger bow skills. It’s hard to not compare against the Warrior in this regard.

Precise Strike To put everything into this one post, this non-optional trait synergises very poorly and becomes less valuable the more you invest in certain Trait lines/Armour. Remove this and stick Remorseless in it’s place.

The new slots in this traitline cry out for Sword augmenting Traits (which I’ll link too shortly) and the Grandmaster slot would probably be best served by something that gives the Ranger a bonus when hitting foes who have Vulnerability – a possible idea is an extra might stack on hitting a vulnerable foe.

Skirmishing Trait problems

Trapper’s Defence This one sounds like another Wilderness Survival Trait. Certainly no synergy with Skirmisher.

Agility Training To be honest, I feel this one’s too weak to even move. Really it should be combined with another Beastmastery Trait.

Trapper’s Expertise You are sick of hearing it, I’m sick of typing it – Another Trap augmenting trait should go to Wilderness Survival. I’ll add now that a few of these Trap boosts could do with being combined/becoming baseline.

Trap Potency As above. Sorry.

Moment of Clarity I sort of see what you we’re going for, but the lack of interupts we have, combined with poor bonus/Defiant mechanics make it unappealing as a minor, nevermind Grandmaster. As a suggestion for GM Traits in this tree, quite a few classes pack a plus 15% crit chance trait of some kind. (Guardian Right Hand Mastery, Warrior Heightened Focus) Would it be too powerful to give one of these conditional plus 15% chances to Rangers as well? Possible suggestions are: When Vulnerability stacks on target are at 10+ , While your pet swap is on Cooldown or While you are moving. All 3 options would synergise with some part of the Ranger class.

Part 1 End