Guild Wars 2

Flytrap.8075:

AEFA.9035:

The CDI is now, meaning the chance for a change is now and half of the thread are people arguing. I wish I have that much time in my life to demoralize people online.

Ahem.

AEFA.9035:

Everyone This is a good example of players who shouldn’t have the right to post in CDI threads like these and should roll another class. Waste of time and Dev’s resources reading unproductive posts like these. Do yourself a favour and save a minute of your life from reading this.

I couldn’t resist.

Careful now, or he’ll offer a objective rebuttal of “L2P bro”

I have a suggestion for Ranger Pet AI that could greatly enhance their performance in WvW and some boss fights.

Where Rangers currently have a toggle choice of Passive (pet does noting, lingers in immediate vicinity of Ranger) and Aggressive (pet changes targets to follow the target of the ranger’s attack unless commanded otherwise with f1) I would like to put a third mode into the rotation: Ward.

Ward: Pet remains at your side until you attack or you or the pet are attacked (the same trigger conditions as aggressive). It then attacks the red nameplate closest to you within a maximum range of your current weapon(s) [or a fixed value of 1,000 if this is not possible with current technology]. After each action/attack, it again checks for the closest enemy/red nampeplate to you and focuses its attack on that target. This behavior is overridden by a direct command to focus target via f1 until the focus target is dead or beyond pet leash range from the ranger.

Essentially the pet focuses on harassing and repelling enemies closest to you, working outwards, allowing you to attack enemies at range without your pet immediately launching itself deep into enemy territory. This logic would allow better pet behavior in complex multi-target boss fights and be an enormous boon to managing your pet in zerg vs. zerg encounters making the pet is more likely to join the line and switch intuitively to dedicated bodyguard action when opponents break through.

To keep up with the current blue & red color coding for passive/aggressive I would give ward a yellow or black/yellow (hazard warning colors) icon.

urdriel.8496:

Allie Murdock.8152:

phys.7689:

Aidenwolf.5964:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

First, thank you for your summary. What I think got missed in the pile was the idea that pet damage should be rebalanced so that they no longer draw 30% of our damage from us in the first place. All other classes core mechanics add to base damage where as rangers loose almost a third of our player damage in order to have an AI run around with us. If our pets hit every time and are never dead, we just get to 100% base damage of every other class capping us at 100% a warrior hits 115% with his/her core mechanic.

This does not take into account the loss of gear stats on the pet which is significant.

this is completely false, all classes are balanced with their class mechanics in mind.
A mesmer isnt doing high level dmg competitive with other dps classes without phantasms or conditions without its clones. Necro base power on skills is lower even on its dps skills because they consider condition/minions in their max dps. Elementalists skills are tied to swapping elements, and they specifically place finishers and AOE in different places to promote swapping. Theif inititative totally changes how and what skills get dmg, and its generally balanced around initiative costs. Every classes mechanic is figured into their DPS.

Also, what this guy said ^

All other classes can choose, a mesmer can choose a phantasm build or not, a Necro can choose a minion build or not, we cant choose, we have an AI controlled pet that is a dps lost and we must bear with it each second we play GW2.

Ofc, we are frustrated, more than 1 year with a pet that is a debuff instead of a buff, the best fix that ranger class could have would be a “good pet” , but instead of that, Anet nerfed pet leash range,pet attack range and we have a severe damage handicap when we attack or defend a keep.

those examples are not pertaining to class mechanics those are utilities and we can do that too, we can take sigils, spirits, or traps. none of which are as useful as those classes have their utilities because of the heavy reliance they have for us in traits.

I’m not saying this isn’t possible, but I want you to understand exactly what that suggestion means. It would mean completely rebalancing the Ranger.
The Ranger is designed to have a pet. If the pet was taken away or didn’t do damage, then it wouldn’t be a Ranger anymore. Does that make sense?
The only reason Rangers lose damage is because the AI is not currently what it ought to be.

I just wanted to interject, it sounds like we’re not addressing a bit of issue here I was kind of hoping was coming across.

…the unreliability of the pet is not the alpha and omega of what’s wrong with the Damage Division. It’s also that splitting base damage with the pet makes direct damage building problematic, but other ways of building are unaffected because all other stats are independent.

• Having lower base damage means your investment into direct damage just doesn’t see the same return other classes get, because a lot of direct damage character building relies on stacking percentage based damage multipliers such as Criticals.
• The pet segregates a portion of your direct damage away from your efforts to raise it, because pets simply don’t ‘count’ for a lot of your choices (armor/sigil/consumeable) and is often the 6th party member when beneficiary AOE has a 5 person limit.

So, not only is what you have in your hands less affected by your efforts to go higher, but the portion that isn’t your hands is also immune to it. Weighted stat scaling surely helps, but by and large that doesn’t tackle these issues.

And, even if this was all in order;
I get why an Engineer’s Turret has damage in TF2 and what that does for the Engi and his Team. Area Control. I get why a Hunter’s Pet has damage in WoW and what that does for the Hunter and his Party. Threat/Aggro Management. I still have no idea what a pet having damage is doing for me or my allies in GW2.

I’m not saying you have to tell me, but I am saying this isn’t immediately apparent and the class could really benefit from taking steps to make this clear in the game itself.

May the quaggan bite you, Allie!
All other class has serious F skills, even Mesmers if they play well.
Okay, Pet AI will be fixed. That’s good, we waiting. BUT!:

1. What about to base ~100% DMG at ranger, and the plus that pet should give upscales when user traits up the Beast Master, so the syngery balance will turn like ~70% DMG at Ranger, ~40% at Beast? I mean, when pet line gets traited, and pets going to be more powerful because of it, the user loses its own damage %. This is how the traits should effect the player. Marksmanship/Skirmishing boosts US, Beast Master boosts Pets instead of us.

And then: When the team discussing about possible fixes, do not let them forget how greatly we lack conditions/buffs on weapons that designed for Hunting people down.
+ Burst damage is really low as you know by now.

I would like to ask it Straight!
How mutch chance it has to remove CDs from weapon skills??
Why are an agile class like Ranger gets locked down at such an outdated design??

~ I’m still sleepy, sorry

Kain Francois.4328:

Just wanted to chime in and voice something of a great step in the right direction:
Viper’s Nest updated to the Poison Field.

What possibility does this open up?

When Drakes perform their Blast finisher, they also apply weakness to foes… But since they’re using a blast finisher, it will also trigger the weakness from Viper Nest.

By using two Drakes to blast the Poison combo field, you can stack 25-30 seconds of AoE Weakness on foes, within only the space of a few seconds. On a very low cool-down as well, of only 20 seconds.

It’s worth noting Asura could already do this using Radiation Field, and stack much higher duration of AoE weakness. However, what makes Viper Nest unique is its low cool-down.

It took awhile for me to realize how amazing a change this is, and ever since then, I have been incredibly excited for this buff.

Yeah pretty strong IMO specially in PVP where Drakes could be pretty decent with a skilled Ranger. Been playing around with Drakes lately for past 2 days in tourny, Tail Swipe on field could be a pretty good combo since its blast. But Im not that big of a fan of traps, just cause of play style preference. It is nice though nonetheless if you’re sick of running spirits.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

Allie Has there been any feedback from the team on making Pets more unique? Dyable, Armor, packs, something more about the visual customization?

Allie Murdock.8152:

Aidenwolf.5964:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

First, thank you for your summary. What I think got missed in the pile was the idea that pet damage should be rebalanced so that they no longer draw 30% of our damage from us in the first place. All other classes core mechanics add to base damage where as rangers loose almost a third of our player damage in order to have an AI run around with us. If our pets hit every time and are never dead, we just get to 100% base damage of every other class capping us at 100% a warrior hits 115% with his/her core mechanic.

This does not take into account the loss of gear stats on the pet which is significant.

The Ranger is designed to have a pet. If the pet was taken away or didn’t do damage, then it wouldn’t be a Ranger anymore. Does that make sense?

No. Stop right there. It’s still a ranger, but without a kittened animal following it. For example: Tracker, hunter, scout, druid,beastmaster. The problem with the gw2 ranger (and every other RP game) that it’s too forced to make you take one of these paths. (Now you plan on taking the spirits away and adding it to the kitten pet).
Why limit one of the most diverse classes in RP history to being a beastmaster.

What’s been the general feeling/opinion on merging the Quick Draw and Piercing Arrows traits and combining them as one in the Marksmanship Master slot?

DarksunG.9537:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

Allie Has there been any feedback from the team on making Pets more unique? Dyable, Armor, packs, something more about the visual customization?

I am curious my self, we can make ourselves look as unique as possible but our pets are generic, boring, unimaginative, and to get a pet to suit a look often relies on taking a pet you don’t really desire to take…. if only our cave spider was that lovely blue skin instead….

Hey guys, guys guys guys

If there was a pet option that satisfy both pro-pets and anti-pets, Would you go for it?

runeblade.7514:

Hey guys, guys guys guys

If there was a pet option that satisfy both pro-pets and anti-pets, Would you go for it?

It depends on what it was. I don’t agree to do anything blindly. Last time I did that I wound up under a table waiting for the world to stop moving and the voices to stop.

. . . I don’t want to talk about it.

Allie Murdock.8152:

The Ranger is designed to have a pet. If the pet was taken away or didn’t do damage, then it wouldn’t be a Ranger anymore.

Well sharing our dmg whit pet should be optional anyway and not standard. It should not be that hard make ranger dmg scale with pet only when we invest on beast master tree and if we choose not to put any points on that tree then pet do only minimal dmg but works still as extra utility to ranger. Even if pet only do minimal dmg it still have thous buffs, conditions, knockdowns, etc on its auto-attacks and f2 skill.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Hey guys, guys guys guys

If there was a pet option that satisfy both pro-pets and anti-pets, Would you go for it?

It depends on what it was. I don’t agree to do anything blindly. Last time I did that I wound up under a table waiting for the world to stop moving and the voices to stop.

. . . I don’t want to talk about it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/48#post3733440

Downside is that pet swap is removed, I don’t know about you, but I hate pet swapping. It doesn’t make sense on a ranger. I would gladly give up pet swapping for this.

Upside is that both pro-pets and anti-pets are both satisfied equally and Anet doesn’t have to balance ranger for both groups. Instead, it’ll balance for stowing and unstowing pets.

runeblade.7514:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Hey guys, guys guys guys

If there was a pet option that satisfy both pro-pets and anti-pets, Would you go for it?

It depends on what it was. I don’t agree to do anything blindly. Last time I did that I wound up under a table waiting for the world to stop moving and the voices to stop.

. . . I don’t want to talk about it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/48#post3733440

Downside is that pet swap is removed, I don’t know about you, but I hate pet swapping. It doesn’t make sense on a ranger. I would gladly give up pet swapping for this.

Upside is that both pro-pets and anti-pets are both satisfied equally and Anet doesn’t have to balance ranger for both groups. Instead, it’ll balance for stowing and unstowing pets.

I don’t think I like it, and am re-reading it to try to figure out why. So some patience?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Hey guys, guys guys guys

If there was a pet option that satisfy both pro-pets and anti-pets, Would you go for it?

It depends on what it was. I don’t agree to do anything blindly. Last time I did that I wound up under a table waiting for the world to stop moving and the voices to stop.

. . . I don’t want to talk about it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/48#post3733440

Downside is that pet swap is removed, I don’t know about you, but I hate pet swapping. It doesn’t make sense on a ranger. I would gladly give up pet swapping for this.

Upside is that both pro-pets and anti-pets are both satisfied equally and Anet doesn’t have to balance ranger for both groups. Instead, it’ll balance for stowing and unstowing pets.

I don’t think I like it, and am re-reading it to try to figure out why. So some patience?

There are two huge reason why to dislike it:

• You like pet swapping.
• You want Rangers to be a fully pet class and don’t want Rangers to ever see a choice to dismiss a pet.

It is purely subjective and I can’t argue the above choices.

runeblade.7514:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Hey guys, guys guys guys

If there was a pet option that satisfy both pro-pets and anti-pets, Would you go for it?

It depends on what it was. I don’t agree to do anything blindly. Last time I did that I wound up under a table waiting for the world to stop moving and the voices to stop.

. . . I don’t want to talk about it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/48#post3733440

Downside is that pet swap is removed, I don’t know about you, but I hate pet swapping. It doesn’t make sense on a ranger. I would gladly give up pet swapping for this.

Upside is that both pro-pets and anti-pets are both satisfied equally and Anet doesn’t have to balance ranger for both groups. Instead, it’ll balance for stowing and unstowing pets.

I don’t think I like it, and am re-reading it to try to figure out why. So some patience?

There are two huge reason why to dislike it:

• You like pet swapping.
• You want Rangers to be a fully pet class and don’t want Rangers to ever see a choice to dismiss a pet.

It is purely subjective and I can’t argue the above choices.

I quoted your post earlier because I loved the idea and added in further details on my opinions.

Strictly speaking, this idea would work fine even if pet swapping was still there. Leaving pet swapping in would appeal to both groups of rangers equally.

runeblade.7514:

There are two huge reason why to dislike it:

• You like pet swapping.
• You want Rangers to be a fully pet class and don’t want Rangers to ever see a choice to dismiss a pet.

It is purely subjective and I can’t argue the above choices.

There’s a third, and it came up on the reread. It feels clunky and assumes quite a bit of truth in the statements. It assumes when the pet is out there will definitely be an increase in DPS and utility . . . which is debatable if the pet cannot track targets well.

(A note: Frankly, Signet of the Hunt almost assures me the pet is going to keep up with most targets I cripple or aren’t going faster than normal. There’s a trait I sometimes pick up – Marksmanship V, “Predator’s Instinct” which also helps much to keep a target where the pet can hit them . . . if they’re melee pets. Ranged pets still run the problem of aiming often at where a target is, and thus missing it when they’re in motion.)

The second assumption is the pet will function as a sort of inverted signet – a passive effect when stowed, an active effect when out with the default being active rather than passive. I don’t like this exactly because the pet doesn’t measure up to being worth the Active use for many people currently. And I’ll admit, they don’t function nearly as well as a simpler existence in GW1 did. Part of that is how much downtime the pet has when it gets killed off.

The mechanic proposition here doesn’t offer much benefit to people who like pets and want them to be better or more useful . . . yet it offers a lot to those who wouldn’t want the pet at all. So it’s not a fair split the way it is written.

That’s why I don’t like it. I’m not saying it’s terrible, just that I don’t like it.

Criminal.5627:

urdriel.8496:

Allie Murdock.8152:

phys.7689:

Aidenwolf.5964:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Also, you guys can’t see this due to the limitations of formatting on our forums, but a lot of these points were made by many of you guys. As such, they are much more emphasized in the email threads and discussions we have internally.

First, thank you for your summary. What I think got missed in the pile was the idea that pet damage should be rebalanced so that they no longer draw 30% of our damage from us in the first place. All other classes core mechanics add to base damage where as rangers loose almost a third of our player damage in order to have an AI run around with us. If our pets hit every time and are never dead, we just get to 100% base damage of every other class capping us at 100% a warrior hits 115% with his/her core mechanic.

This does not take into account the loss of gear stats on the pet which is significant.

this is completely false, all classes are balanced with their class mechanics in mind.
A mesmer isnt doing high level dmg competitive with other dps classes without phantasms or conditions without its clones. Necro base power on skills is lower even on its dps skills because they consider condition/minions in their max dps. Elementalists skills are tied to swapping elements, and they specifically place finishers and AOE in different places to promote swapping. Theif inititative totally changes how and what skills get dmg, and its generally balanced around initiative costs. Every classes mechanic is figured into their DPS.

Also, what this guy said ^

All other classes can choose, a mesmer can choose a phantasm build or not, a Necro can choose a minion build or not, we cant choose, we have an AI controlled pet that is a dps lost and we must bear with it each second we play GW2.

Ofc, we are frustrated, more than 1 year with a pet that is a debuff instead of a buff, the best fix that ranger class could have would be a “good pet” , but instead of that, Anet nerfed pet leash range,pet attack range and we have a severe damage handicap when we attack or defend a keep.

those examples are not pertaining to class mechanics those are utilities and we can do that too, we can take sigils, spirits, or traps. none of which are as useful as those classes have their utilities because of the heavy reliance they have for us in traits.

I said minion and phantasm because are AI controlled bro…..

psizone.8437:

runeblade.7514:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

Hey guys, guys guys guys

If there was a pet option that satisfy both pro-pets and anti-pets, Would you go for it?

It depends on what it was. I don’t agree to do anything blindly. Last time I did that I wound up under a table waiting for the world to stop moving and the voices to stop.

. . . I don’t want to talk about it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/48#post3733440

Downside is that pet swap is removed, I don’t know about you, but I hate pet swapping. It doesn’t make sense on a ranger. I would gladly give up pet swapping for this.

Upside is that both pro-pets and anti-pets are both satisfied equally and Anet doesn’t have to balance ranger for both groups. Instead, it’ll balance for stowing and unstowing pets.

I don’t think I like it, and am re-reading it to try to figure out why. So some patience?

There are two huge reason why to dislike it:

• You like pet swapping.
• You want Rangers to be a fully pet class and don’t want Rangers to ever see a choice to dismiss a pet.

It is purely subjective and I can’t argue the above choices.

I quoted your post earlier because I loved the idea and added in further details on my opinions.

Strictly speaking, this idea would work fine even if pet swapping was still there. Leaving pet swapping in would appeal to both groups of rangers equally.

Not really, the keys are always F1 to F4, there has to be a button removed for stow and unstow pets.

On the otherhand, Anet would have to balance for both unstowed pets and it will leaving the anti-pets bitter.

runeblade.7514:

Not really, the keys are always F1 to F4, there has to be a button removed for stow and unstow pets.

On the otherhand, Anet would have to balance for both unstowed pets and it will leaving the anti-pets bitter.

It wouldn’t necessarily have to be assigned to the function keys, a simple rework of the stow button would suffice. The rangers class mechanics has always looked a little clunky, I personally wouldn’t mind having to click on a “stow for aspect” button.

Having only the aspect of the currently active pet makes the most sense, with the opportunity of switching aspects for different buffs similarly to how people use pet switching now.

The least amount of changes to the default pet mechanic (whilst still allowing the changes for those who don’t want pets) would leave less people bitter.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

There are two huge reason why to dislike it:

• You like pet swapping.
• You want Rangers to be a fully pet class and don’t want Rangers to ever see a choice to dismiss a pet.

It is purely subjective and I can’t argue the above choices.

There’s a third, and it came up on the reread. It feels clunky and assumes quite a bit of truth in the statements. It assumes when the pet is out there will definitely be an increase in DPS and utility . . . which is debatable if the pet cannot track targets well.

(A note: Frankly, Signet of the Hunt almost assures me the pet is going to keep up with most targets I cripple or aren’t going faster than normal. There’s a trait I sometimes pick up – Marksmanship V, “Predator’s Instinct” which also helps much to keep a target where the pet can hit them . . . if they’re melee pets. Ranged pets still run the problem of aiming often at where a target is, and thus missing it when they’re in motion.)

The second assumption is the pet will function as a sort of inverted signet – a passive effect when stowed, an active effect when out with the default being active rather than passive. I don’t like this exactly because the pet doesn’t measure up to being worth the Active use for many people currently. And I’ll admit, they don’t function nearly as well as a simpler existence in GW1 did. Part of that is how much downtime the pet has when it gets killed off.

The mechanic proposition here doesn’t offer much benefit to people who like pets and want them to be better or more useful . . . yet it offers a lot to those who wouldn’t want the pet at all. So it’s not a fair split the way it is written.

That’s why I don’t like it. I’m not saying it’s terrible, just that I don’t like it.

That isn’t a third option.

Despite hearing horror stories of pets, I never really had a problem with pets not hitting targets in PvE or in PvP. But that is for another discussion.

So lets assume that pets do hit targets 100% of the time. What would be wrong with this suggestion?

psizone.8437:

runeblade.7514:

Not really, the keys are always F1 to F4, there has to be a button removed for stow and unstow pets.

On the otherhand, Anet would have to balance for both unstowed pets and it will leaving the anti-pets bitter.

It wouldn’t necessarily have to be assigned to the function keys, a simple rework of the stow button would suffice. The rangers class mechanics has always looked a little clunky, I personally wouldn’t mind having to click on a “stow for aspect” button.

Having only the aspect of the currently active pet makes the most sense, with the opportunity of switching aspects for different buffs similarly to how people use pet switching now.

The least amount of changes to the default pet mechanic (whilst still allowing the changes for those who don’t want pets) would leave less people bitter.

The problem with putting Pet swapping in and adding Aspect, is that it turns Ranger into two different classes.

One that has no pet, another that has a pet. This time, they share the same traits, the same skills and Anet will have to balance the two for two different classes using the same format. If Anet balance around aspect rangers, pet rangers will be strong, or vice versa.

If both are easily interchangable, anet will have to balance for one class, the Ranger. Summoning and stowing pets will be the huge part of Ranger gameplay instead of swapping pets. There cannot be both or expect further impossible to fix imbalances in Rangers.

runeblade.7514:

The problem with putting Pet swapping in and adding Aspect, is that it turns Ranger into two different classes.

One that has no pet, another that has a pet. This time, they share the same traits, the same skills and Anet will have to balance the two for two different classes using the same format. If Anet balance around aspect rangers, pet rangers will be strong, or vice versa.

If both are easily interchangable, anet will have to balance for one class, the Ranger. Summoning and stowing pets will be the huge part of Ranger gameplay instead of swapping pets. There cannot be both or expect further impossible to fix imbalances in Rangers.

I don’t see how this would be any different to how they balance necromancers. Necromancers can choose to have minions (pets) or not to have them. Anet can easily balance both forms of gameplay, if minions are OP, they nerf them, if death shroud needs a buff, they can do this, too.

Loubbo.9852:

Specific Game Mode
PvP (PvX recommended)

Proposal Overview
Reduce all aspects of Rampage as One to allow for more calculated usage.

Goal of Proposal
Currently with the long cooldown and its slow ramp up time for offense and strippable boons for defense (Stability) it’s simply a all in card that causes very little strategy. With reduce duration and cooldown you have more control allowing you to use it more based on the situation be it to avoid cc, complete a stomp (something rangers have a lot of difficulty with), or burst.

Proposal Functionality
Reduce the the CD to 60 seconds and all buffs to 10 secs.
Not necessary but a good QoL aspect would be a reduction to cast time. It’s nothing massively debilitating or harmful at first so the red glowing aura is enough of a telegraph. Not to mention it’s our only source of stability and very much a necessity these days.

Associated Risks
Allows for the rather unbalanced usage of Lyssa’s Runes similiar to Thieves and Warriors due to low cooldown. Might stacks may not get as high because of reduced RaO duration.

I’m sorry but I really don’t like this idea, the stability and quickness is so crucial froma dungeon point of view when slipping trash in places like arah, that change would be okay if we got something else to replace it with.

runeblade.7514:

That isn’t a third option.

Despite hearing horror stories of pets, I never really had a problem with pets not hitting targets in PvE or in PvP. But that is for another discussion.

So lets assume that pets do hit targets 100% of the time. What would be wrong with this suggestion?

I’ve never had problems with pets and targeting in PvE, either. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, or that it’s not an issue. There’s enough reports to take it seriously as a complaint.

And what’s wrong with the suggestion? Pets hitting 100% of the time, infallibly. There’s something extremely wrong there.

psizone.8437:

runeblade.7514:

The problem with putting Pet swapping in and adding Aspect, is that it turns Ranger into two different classes.

One that has no pet, another that has a pet. This time, they share the same traits, the same skills and Anet will have to balance the two for two different classes using the same format. If Anet balance around aspect rangers, pet rangers will be strong, or vice versa.

If both are easily interchangable, anet will have to balance for one class, the Ranger. Summoning and stowing pets will be the huge part of Ranger gameplay instead of swapping pets. There cannot be both or expect further impossible to fix imbalances in Rangers.

I don’t see how this would be any different to how they balance necromancers. Necromancers can choose to have minions (pets) or not to have them. Anet can easily balance both forms of gameplay, if minions are OP, they nerf them, if death shroud needs a buff, they can do this, too.

Minions are a utility, pets are a mechanic.

Deathshroud is always there, whether or not minions are there.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

That isn’t a third option.

Despite hearing horror stories of pets, I never really had a problem with pets not hitting targets in PvE or in PvP. But that is for another discussion.

So lets assume that pets do hit targets 100% of the time. What would be wrong with this suggestion?

I’ve never had problems with pets and targeting in PvE, either. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, or that it’s not an issue. There’s enough reports to take it seriously as a complaint.

And what’s wrong with the suggestion? Pets hitting 100% of the time, infallibly. There’s something extremely wrong there.

So in other words, your third option is just a second option.

Please consider reducing pet aggro range, if it gets so many boosts.
Pets will just hunt down players, even if their master has no clue abut where his opponent is.
e.g.#1 I’m getting outnumbered at clocktower, so i stealth and leave through the window, “phew it was close, i hardly survived with 2k hp” then le pet finds me from nowhere and kills me with one hit. After its owner loaded the node he just has to look around for popping numbers to find me. …

e.g.#2 Not much to explain on this… just calculate the way the pet had to run from the roof to get to me.

pet qq here…pet qq there…qq people from other discussions everywhere.
any other themes then our pets? its about the ranger in general and not just the pet

snow.8097:

pet qq here…pet qq there…qq people from other discussions everywhere.
any other themes then our pets? its about the ranger in general and not just the pet

If you want other things to be discussed, bring them on the table. We had a discussion about the longbow just recently.
Fact is, that the pet needs the most help and that the devs are currently unwilling to do some major overhauls.

sMihaly.1492:

Please consider reducing pet aggro range, if it gets so many boosts.
Pets will just hunt down players, even if their master has no clue abut where his opponent is.
e.g.#1 I’m getting outnumbered at clocktower, so i stealth and leave through the window, “phew it was close, i hardly survived with 2k hp” then le pet finds me from nowhere and kills me with one hit. After its owner loaded the node he just has to look around for popping numbers to find me. …

e.g.#2 Not much to explain on this… just calculate the way the pet had to run from the roof to get to me.

Lol now pet have 1200 range,was nerfed months ago due to Spvp cryers……if the pet killed you there was because you was in the aggro range…….

pet qq here…pet qq there…qq people from other discussions everywhere.
any other themes then our pets? its about the ranger in general and not just the pet

The main problem of the Ranger is the pet.

Nike.2631:

I have a suggestion for Ranger Pet AI that could greatly enhance their performance in WvW and some boss fights.

Where Rangers currently have a toggle choice of Passive (pet does noting, lingers in immediate vicinity of Ranger) and Aggressive (pet changes targets to follow the target of the ranger’s attack unless commanded otherwise with f1) I would like to put a third mode into the rotation: Ward.

Ward: Pet remains at your side until you attack or you or the pet are attacked (the same trigger conditions as aggressive). It then attacks the red nameplate closest to you within a maximum range of your current weapon(s) [or a fixed value of 1,000 if this is not possible with current technology]. After each action/attack, it again checks for the closest enemy/red nampeplate to you and focuses its attack on that target. This behavior is overridden by a direct command to focus target via f1 until the focus target is dead or beyond pet leash range from the ranger.

Essentially the pet focuses on harassing and repelling enemies closest to you, working outwards, allowing you to attack enemies at range without your pet immediately launching itself deep into enemy territory. This logic would allow better pet behavior in complex multi-target boss fights and be an enormous boon to managing your pet in zerg vs. zerg encounters making the pet is more likely to join the line and switch intuitively to dedicated bodyguard action when opponents break through.

To keep up with the current blue & red color coding for passive/aggressive I would give ward a yellow or black/yellow (hazard warning colors) icon.

I would like all of your ideas so far if my suggestion towards the pet AI wouldn’t cover all suggestions made so far (and I think I’m not exaggerating).
Link
Your idea would look like this in my system:
1. <If Successfully hit><Search for nearest Target><Of your Master>
2. <If X activated><Attack closest target><Of your Master>
Something like this but my suggestion should be capable of doing so.

While we are on the subject of fixing pets, isn’t it about time that we have the ability to name our pets, and have that actually recorded somewhere? I gave up naming my pets long ago as a waste of time and effort. If pet is so central to the design philosophy of the ranger at least fix this somewhat insulting bug.

Sandpit.3467:

While we are on the subject of fixing pets, isn’t it about time that we have the ability to name our pets, and have that actually recorded somewhere? I gave up naming my pets long ago as a waste of time and effort. If pet is so central to the design philosophy of the ranger at least fix this somewhat insulting bug.

Unfortunately Anet has stated that the pet names are working as intended.
Shame as that could have been one of the smallest effort (no balance change at all) to result in at least placate rangers for a bit.

The only thing so far i’ve to say about the summary on page 42 is.

I strongheartedly have to disagree completely with the BS thats said about, that Rangers would be the Masters of Poisons.
Thats complete utterly nonsense.

Thieves are the Masters of Poisons, they are the Class, which uses deathly venoms as one of their class mechanics, not Rangers!!
They are the assassins that use venoms to make their attacks even more deathly.

Wilderness Survival doesn’’t Make Rangers Masters of poisons.
Wilderness SURVIVAL should make Rangers the Masters of Condition Removal.
Thats for what freaking survival really stands for.

Rangers should be that class with super effective condition immunities and not the Elementalist, if you go full into Wilderness Survival.

Each Trait Line of the Ranger should stand for some kind of Core Build.
I also want to remind here on my idea around Sub Classes, that the Devs please don’t forget that, that many changes, rebalances ect. could be taken into consideration through character progression.
That certain things that a Ranger can’t do now, could become in the future of our character progression possible features for the Class, if we specialize our characters into specific Sub Classes.

Example:

Marksmanship (+ Beast Mastery = Hunter)
Skirmishing (+ Beast Mastery = Scout)
Wilderness Survival (+ Beast Mastery = Strider)
Nature Magic (+ Beast Mastery = Druid)
Beast Mastery

And we would have 4 Sub Classes that way that could get improved into different directions, while keeping for each of them still the focus on the Pet Gameplay.
However, each of these 4 could use their Pets in compltetely different kinds of ways.

A Hunter would use its pet more as a Damage Dealer
A Scout would use it more as a kind of Support
A Druid would use it more as a Tool of Control
A Strider would be more of a Jack of all Trades providing from everything a bit.

Orpheal.8263:

Marksmanship (+ Beast Mastery = Hunter)
Skirmishing (+ Beast Mastery = Scout)
Wilderness Survival (+ Beast Mastery = Strider)
Nature Magic (+ Beast Mastery = Druid)
Beast Mastery

This looks neat. Combined with pets specialized for each playstyle, this change could turn out as good one.

Orpheal.8263:

The only thing so far i’ve to say about the summary on page 42 is.

I strongheartedly have to disagree completely with the BS thats said about, that Rangers would be the Masters of Poisons.
Thats complete utterly nonsense.

Thieves are the Masters of Poisons, they are the Class, which uses deathly venoms as one of their class mechanics, not Rangers!!
They are the assassins that use venoms to make their attacks even more deathly.

Wilderness Survival doesn’’t Make Rangers Masters of poisons.
Wilderness SURVIVAL should make Rangers the Masters of Condition Removal.
Thats for what freaking survival really stands for.

Rangers should be that class with super effective condition immunities and not the Elementalist, if you go full into Wilderness Survival.

Just breaking here for a point later on….

Orpheal.8263:

Each Trait Line of the Ranger should stand for some kind of Core Build.
I also want to remind here on my idea around Sub Classes, that the Devs please don’t forget that, that many changes, rebalances ect. could be taken into consideration through character progression.
That certain things that a Ranger can’t do now, could become in the future of our character progression possible features for the Class, if we specialize our characters into specific Sub Classes.

Example:

Marksmanship (+ Beast Mastery = Hunter)
Skirmishing (+ Beast Mastery = Scout)
Wilderness Survival (+ Beast Mastery = Strider)
Nature Magic (+ Beast Mastery = Druid)
Beast Mastery

And we would have 4 Sub Classes that way that could get improved into different directions, while keeping for each of them still the focus on the Pet Gameplay.
However, each of these 4 could use their Pets in compltetely different kinds of ways.

A Hunter would use its pet more as a Damage Dealer
A Scout would use it more as a kind of Support
A Druid would use it more as a Tool of Control
A Strider would be more of a Jack of all Trades providing from everything a bit.

I’m not trying to talk down your idea or anything, but, in what way at all does Nature Magic scream out any concept of “Control” to you? I mean, you went on and on about how Wilderness Survival should be only for the ‘Survival’ aspect, just a few paragraphs ago, so, why shouldn’t Nature Magic focus on what the trait line is meant for, which is boons and party support

Its like Allie’s Post that said that Nature Magic should focus on 2.Should focus on weapon swapping, stuns, dazes and mobility in combat….isn’t that exactly what Skirmishing does already?

snow.8097:

pet qq here…pet qq there…qq people from other discussions everywhere.
any other themes then our pets? its about the ranger in general and not just the pet

Please look at my post if you want see some productivity rather than arguments. I made posts about traits rework from marksmanship, longbow, greatsword, skirmishing traits rework, wilderness survival rework, beastmaster trait rework, and porcine rework. Just click my name. Maybe you can revised my overall work. Later on I might do Nature Magic trait rework as well and Axe main hand rework plus other unused pets like: devourer.

How about making the ranger-pet damage distribution ratio player controlled, but through a toggle or via selecting a preset ratio (Ie. 90-10/80-20/70-30) chosen through an npc dialogue or book similar to trait reset books? I love the idea of reducing the role of the pet to what I desire, but I don’t think it’s fair to say for those who do find their identity in the pet to have to spec beastmastery to give it the stats they desire. Shouldn’t it be pretty easy to design such a mechanic to exist separately from trait investments? It would certainly make the ranger and his pet more unique. That way there could be trait freedom while still maintaining greater control of the role the pet plays.

At the same time let me outline that I believe it best to ultimately pursue an option that satisfies both those who desire pet-intensive play and those who desire more freedom from the pet. I’m all for fixing the pets being the top priority (and even dropped some suggestions for improving them) however it cannot be denied that there are players out there who would rather find their identity as a character in the utilities, heals and weapon play styles rather than the 24/7 presence of the pet. Surely we can come up with ideas that satisfy both parties without rearing away from the ideals of choice? But it’s no mystery that this is a sensitive issue for many. We’re dealing with class identity, how we define our play style.

I personally prefer a world where the ranger is defined by his attunement to nature specifically, but how that is lived out should be defined by the player. This can and is lived out in many different ways/possibilities in most games; in the ways of covering large distances quickly due to his understanding of the land, channeling the “spirits of the wild” to gain unique abilities, powerful nature-based healing spells, strong poisons, fast reflexes- both in attack/reactions and escape capability, accurate and deadly hunting skills (Be it bow or rifle or whatever), and the ability to include the presence of a pet. It’d be nice if ultimately we could highlight the areas we would define our style by for ourselves rather than having so much hard-built into the design for us.

Personally for me the one thing I could never lose as a ranger is the availability of high levels of mobility. These means more than just a passive 25% movement but specifically what we get from weapon skills like Swoop, and Monarch Leap. I’d love to see more options like that for bows. Ever since going with a melee setup I just can’t stand anything else, and the key problem is always the lack of skills like that. Sure, you could change weapon sets but by the time you encounter enemies, it’s too late to switch through the clunky inventory/equipment screen.. so I don’t even consider that an option or equivalent at all.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Think of it this way: You’re building a house and a 2×4 breaks while you’re trying to screw it in to something. Do you scrap the house and completely rebuild it because that one piece broke, or do you grab a new 2×4 and use that instead? Which do you think would be more efficient?

What I’ve been seeing a lot of is that you guys don’t necessarily dislike pets. What you dislike is how they act and how they are controlled. It seems to me that these are feelings that have been built up over time, and have culminated into “pets have to go” because you guys haven’t seen the improvements that should be made to pets to make them desirable. I certainly don’t blame you for getting to this point, but I do want to know the core of the problem before we start talking about rebalancing an entire class.

Not to be rude, but that analogy is horrible. The pet is not like a 2×4 breaking. As you’ve said, the ranger is balanced around the pet. This would be akin to a load-bearing wall giving way. The ranger pet holds up the ranger class and equalizes the load.

So what do we do? Replace the load bearing beam (here the pet) with a more functional beam, or do you just tell people to work around it and don’t look at it because you know it’s a broken beam, but you’ll get to it someday.

This is where rangers are. The load bearing beam has rotted. The structure is drooping. The foundation is not absorbing the load to continue keeping the house upright.

And you’re saying, “We’ll get to it eventually, but we won’t remove the beam. It’s a good beam.”

No, it’s a bad beam.

Removing the pet is not an option and since reworking the AI will not be done in a few days, I think we can try to find other ways to get arround the AI problem.
One of them could be to render the pet completely passive, no more HP, no more damages, no action at all except standing by your side.
Then you can put 3 skills per pet under player’s direct control (F1/2 family based, F3 the same as current F2, F4 for swap). Your Lynx would for exemple run to your target to use Maul when you command it (could add a trait for a shadowstep).
No more 70%/30%, just 90~95 + whatever your pet can add

The +:
-Pet is still part of the ranger
-No more DPS loss because of pet dying or moving targets
-More control over pet skills
-Some pets skills could entirely be devoted to support with no damages, fixing ranger’s lack or group support abilities for exemple
-Pets don’t steal boons anymore

The -:
-Pets can’t serve as a meatshield anymore, especially in PvE for tanking mobs or in PvP as an additionnal target
-Downed state will become OP since the pet can’t be disabled anymore, Lick Wound will probably need a to be nerfed down or get a revamp
-Many skills and traits will need a revamp or tweeks here and there but we’re here to eventually discuss that
-Will probably need as much time to make this that it would take to fix pet AI

I think it would be good better for Dungeons and WvW.
PvE roamers and new players will probably suffer the most from this since the pet won’t hold aggro anymore but with the damage increase on ranger it probably won’t be that bad.
Not sure about PvP and that’s where I’d like to hear your thoughts, provided we keep Shared Anguish and Empathic Bond working as they are.

Before I start to develop on trait/skill tweeks, what do you think about this?

Sidenote: devs are probably away for the weekend

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

runeblade.7514:

There are two huge reason why to dislike it:

• You like pet swapping.
• You want Rangers to be a fully pet class and don’t want Rangers to ever see a choice to dismiss a pet.

It is purely subjective and I can’t argue the above choices.

There’s a third, and it came up on the reread. It feels clunky and assumes quite a bit of truth in the statements. It assumes when the pet is out there will definitely be an increase in DPS and utility . . . which is debatable if the pet cannot track targets well.

(A note: Frankly, Signet of the Hunt almost assures me the pet is going to keep up with most targets I cripple or aren’t going faster than normal. There’s a trait I sometimes pick up – Marksmanship V, “Predator’s Instinct” which also helps much to keep a target where the pet can hit them . . . if they’re melee pets. Ranged pets still run the problem of aiming often at where a target is, and thus missing it when they’re in motion.)

The second assumption is the pet will function as a sort of inverted signet – a passive effect when stowed, an active effect when out with the default being active rather than passive. I don’t like this exactly because the pet doesn’t measure up to being worth the Active use for many people currently. And I’ll admit, they don’t function nearly as well as a simpler existence in GW1 did. Part of that is how much downtime the pet has when it gets killed off.

The mechanic proposition here doesn’t offer much benefit to people who like pets and want them to be better or more useful . . .* yet it offers a lot to those who wouldn’t want the pet at all. So it’s not a fair split the way it is written.*

That’s why I don’t like it. I’m not saying it’s terrible, just that I don’t like it.

The last bit in bold
That’s certainly a valid point to raise. I think, though, that for many of us, it’s a band-aid solution for those parts of the game where you know that Mr Fluffy is going to take a dirt-nap and there’s nothing you can do about it. A stop-gap until Anet fix those encounters or fix the AI. There have been good suggestions that would assist the pet-users outside those scenarios, such as increasing pet attack range and increasing pet resistance to AoE.

To me, the combination of these should be a fair split for all rangers across all scenarios. Making the pet more successful would increase it’s use by people who presently are sick of them and improve it’s utility for the rest of us. Stowing it would prevent frustrations and resentment in the more problematic encounters and create a more thematic bond for those that like them. Really though, the main reason for the band-aid is so we can stop getting kicked from groups while we wait for a real fix.

Of course, ultimately, the best thing Anet could do is fix the AI and every boss/dungeon encounter to not punish rangers but to be honest, I still think that pet-stow/aspect would open up a much broader viability and playstyle to the Ranger, making the whole class more appealing and interesting.

Allie said that Rangers not using the pets, wouldn’t be rangers anymore and I disagree completely. They wouldn’t be GW2’s so-far-unexplained obsessively pet bound Ranger, the basically broken, unbalanced, mismatched mash-up of two abandoned classes that absolutely must exist and use pets all the time because reasons. I get that. No, they’d be Rangers like we had in Guild Wars, you know, ones that worked. Which I’m kind of fine with.

cainejw.7142:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Think of it this way: You’re building a house and a 2×4 breaks while you’re trying to screw it in to something. Do you scrap the house and completely rebuild it because that one piece broke, or do you grab a new 2×4 and use that instead? Which do you think would be more efficient?

What I’ve been seeing a lot of is that you guys don’t necessarily dislike pets. What you dislike is how they act and how they are controlled. It seems to me that these are feelings that have been built up over time, and have culminated into “pets have to go” because you guys haven’t seen the improvements that should be made to pets to make them desirable. I certainly don’t blame you for getting to this point, but I do want to know the core of the problem before we start talking about rebalancing an entire class.

Not to be rude, but that analogy is horrible. The pet is not like a 2×4 breaking. As you’ve said, the ranger is balanced around the pet. This would be akin to a load-bearing wall giving way. The ranger pet holds up the ranger class and equalizes the load.

So what do we do? Replace the load bearing beam (here the pet) with a more functional beam, or do you just tell people to work around it and don’t look at it because you know it’s a broken beam, but you’ll get to it someday.

This is where rangers are. The load bearing beam has rotted. The structure is drooping. The foundation is not absorbing the load to continue keeping the house upright.

And you’re saying, “We’ll get to it eventually, but we won’t remove the beam. It’s a good beam.”

No, it’s a bad beam.

Quoted for truth

…and because it’s just a really funny post. +1 Cainejw

arkealia.2713:

Removing the pet is not an option and since reworking the AI will not be done in a few days, I think we can try to find other ways to get arround the AI problem.
One of them could be to render the pet completely passive, no more HP, no more damages, no action at all except standing by your side.
Then you can put 3 skills per pet under player’s direct control (F1/2 family based, F3 the same as current F2, F4 for swap). Your Lynx would for exemple run to your target to use Maul when you command it (could add a trait for a shadowstep).
No more 70%/30%, just 90~95 + whatever your pet can add

The +:
-Pet is still part of the ranger
-No more DPS loss because of pet dying or moving targets
-More control over pet skills
-Some pets skills could entirely be devoted to support with no damages, fixing ranger’s lack or group support abilities for exemple
-Pets don’t steal boons anymore

The -:
-Pets can’t serve as a meatshield anymore, especially in PvE for tanking mobs or in PvP as an additionnal target
-Downed state will become OP since the pet can’t be disabled anymore, Lick Wound will probably need a to be nerfed down or get a revamp
-Many skills and traits will need a revamp or tweeks here and there but we’re here to eventually discuss that
-Will probably need as much time to make this that it would take to fix pet AI

I think it would be good better for Dungeons and WvW.
PvE roamers and new players will probably suffer the most from this since the pet won’t hold aggro anymore but with the damage increase on ranger it probably won’t be that bad.
Not sure about PvP and that’s where I’d like to hear your thoughts, provided we keep Shared Anguish and Empathic Bond working as they are.

Before I start to develop on trait/skill tweeks, what do you think about this?

Sidenote: devs are probably away for the week

Exactly what I was thinking and some other people made a posts like this but not entirely. My mind set was, they go in and do whatever skill they have and just go back out of the battle, and it works perfectly all pets have 4 skills, that could be all put in our F# keys similar to an Engi. When I was thinking this, think of the old Marvel vs Capcom 2. Tag team style basically, you call up your partner to do a signature skill to damage opponent then they get out. Same principle. Hope the Dev’s see this and consider.

Possibly a little tangential, but:

Specific Game Mode: PvE

Proposal Overview: Design and test Living Story content with rangers in consideration

Goal of Proposal: In the latest Living Story patch, rangers’ class mechanic can cause trouble with some of the content and hinder achievements (for example, pets being targeted by the lasers and causing damage to nearby players, or having damage done to or by pets failing achievements for the ranger.) This is not the first time this has happened (mines in Canach’s lair, toxic spore plants, etc.) and it can make it difficult to complete content on a ranger character where we have no control over the pet’s pathing or monster targeting, and imperfect control over the pet’s actions.

Proposal Functionality: Basically, I would just like the content designers to bear rangers, and other pet classes or class mechanics (such as engineer turrets), in mind when they are developing new content and achievements. I can understand that it will be challenging to balance or optimise every encounter for every profession since class mechanics can be so different. However, I think it would benefit both rangers and the playerbase at large if rangers and our pets were not actually a detriment to accomplishing goals, in some cases. I don’t expect to be everyone’s first choice to have along on every encounter, but I’d like to at least feel I am not actively hindering progress by participating.

Associated Risks: Potentially increased development or testing time for new encounters. In theory, encounters could become simplified or homogenised to the point of dullness but I feel like game designers are clever enough to find new ways to challenge players without making certain classes unwanted.

Also on a final note today, I want to emphasize an issue others have raised.. that pets are not able to receive food/tool buffs. While this is not a core issue, it is an annoying one for those of us invested in WvW/PvE. If this could be changed in the near future, it would be much appreciated.

Detharos.3157:

Also on a final note today, I want to emphasize an issue others have raised.. that pets are not able to receive food/tool buffs. While this is not a core issue, it is an annoying one for those of us invested in WvW/PvE. If this could be changed in the near future, it would be much appreciated.

no buff from food/tool + No “buff” from player gear/stats = We have less damage than all other classes.

Allie Murdock.8152:

What I’ve been seeing a lot of is that you guys don’t necessarily dislike pets. What you dislike is how they act and how they are controlled. It seems to me that these are feelings that have been built up over time, and have culminated into “pets have to go” because you guys haven’t seen the improvements that should be made to pets to make them desirable. I certainly don’t blame you for getting to this point, but I do want to know the core of the problem before we start talking about rebalancing an entire class.

First off, thank you for replying. It’s gotta be tough wading into this thread and getting out alive. Bad 2×4 analogy aside, I’ll bite on this part of your statement.

The Core:
• Pet die too quickly in PvE content, high level fractals and WvW. Especially new/living world content.
• Pets offer limited utility unless heavily traited, or micromanaged.
• Pet damage plays too heavily in the ranger weapon coefficient and dead pets deal no damage giving too harsh a punishment to the ranger
• Pets are great on stationary targets, that don’t AoE or cleave, bad on anything else. Which, let’s face it, is 90% of content now.
• The best utility skills that use the pet – often kill the pet.

Listen, I’m a pet supporter, I chose ranger because I like pet classes. But the problem is more than just a 2×4. These are core, mechanical and gameplay flaws in the very design of the pet and the game it inhabits. You are consistently and constantly adding new content that are just anti-pet. No matter how you redesign the pet, the flaws are in the design of the game.

To use the house analogy: We’re worried about a damaged 2×4 in a house, when the entire neighborhood is changing. Our damaged bungalow is being built in a neighborhood of mansions and no matter what replacements we make, the house won’t fit in that neighborhood.

So let’s be honest. We’re not asking for a 2×4 fix. We want a new house. The changes the pet need are BIG changes that will take weeks, months and maybe even years to get where they need to be to be effective and fun to use. Will we wait for these changes? Yes, we’ve waited 1.5 years already. What do we need while you address the Core issues? Communication and small QoL changes along the way (even if they aren’t pet related). Without open and direct communication from you all, we’ll fill in the blanks with worst case scenarios. Without some changes along the way to the massive revamp, Rangers will get even more frustrated and leave.

I don’t think it’s out of line for the devs to prioritize a patch to be entirely ranger focused. I don’t think it’s out of line to have a patch, “The year of the Ranger.” where the entire patch team is laser focused on fixing the pets once and for all. Period. I know I’m biased, but I think the players will see the commitment you show on fixing a class that has struggled for a long time.

In the mean time, there are a lot of great ideas, made by smarter people than me on how to address the core issues.

Also Pet Aspects. Because it’s too good of an idea to dismiss outright.

sMihaly.1492:

Please consider reducing pet aggro range, if it gets so many boosts.
Pets will just hunt down players, even if their master has no clue abut where his opponent is.
e.g.#1 I’m getting outnumbered at clocktower, so i stealth and leave through the window, “phew it was close, i hardly survived with 2k hp” then le pet finds me from nowhere and kills me with one hit. After its owner loaded the node he just has to look around for popping numbers to find me. …

e.g.#2 Not much to explain on this… just calculate the way the pet had to run from the roof to get to me.

Crap like this annoys me

What you just describe, is how every single pet class in the history of online gaming has worked…Do you know the solution all those other games came up with? Killing the Pet….Far to long the SPvP players of this game have requested dumbing down of Pet Classes because they don’t wanna adopt the strategy of dealing with Pets. Something that every other PvPer in every other game has managed to deal with, against pets that have been far stronger then the pets in this game.

If your solution to dealing with a pet class is “Please reduce the range of which a pet class can have his pet attack you” then you’re not actually very good at pvp.