Guild Wars 2

Game Mode: PvE

Zef’s Signet improvements:

Goals of this change
Bringing signet of the hunt back from the dead as damage support utility.
Giving signets more unique boosts from signet of beastmaster.
Making signet of stone active meaningful without relying on signet traits.

Proposed Functionality

signet of the hunt - active: for 12 seconds ranger’s non critical attacks do 50% more damage (great for taking down structures and damaging crit immune bosses). passive: 10% chance for your critical attacks to become an opening strike.

signet of stone - active effect applies to ranger, and not the pet by default. With pet ward
implemented (check my signature for it), ranger can share it’s effects with pet from get go, making it a really useful signet to have even without any trait support.

Signet traits:

Signet of beastmaster - changed functionality. Increases signet effects when pet is out.

• signet of the hunt – passive and active affect pet as well.
• signet or reneval – passive effect removes 2 conditions every 10 seconds. Active removes 3 conditions from pet after pulling them off players.
• signet of stone – 3s extra duration. (This assumes pet ward mechanic is implemeneted for sharing it’s effects with pet).
• signet of the wild – same as now – signet active affects ranger as well.

Specific Game Mode
All
Proposal Overview
Making the pet scale partially with ranger
Goal of Proposal
making a bigger connection between ranger and pet while maintaining the idividuality of the pet (between itself and the ranger and between pet classes underling)
Proposal Functionality
Right now 100% percent of the stats ( I will leave traits out of this) are determined by the type of pet (cat, canine,…). My suggestion is to make around 25%~75% of the pet’s stat to be determined by the type while letting the rest be scaled by the stats of the player. Condition duration and boon duration are excempt of this and should scale 100% with the player.
Associated Risks
-determing the amount which should be scaled by the type of pet and he amount which should be scaled by the player.
-condition based players and power pets and vice versa are not completely compatible.
comparison with other similar systems (this threat is discussion based so why not)
1.no scaling:
+ the pet will always perform otimal
+ every pet is viable
-‘abuse’ is possible (tanks with power pets, condi with power pets,…)
- less connection between player and pet
- less costumisation of the pet
2. 100% scaling with player.
+ the pet will always fit your playstyle.
- The pet and player are the ‘same’ (why let bad ai do it if you can do it yourself better???)
3. scaling with affinities (some pets scale better with power, some scale better to precisio, some scale better with condition damage,…)
- pets are pidgeonholed into certain stat combination since there would be a mayor stat loss if you chose a pet with different affinitie then your stats.

Suggested Proposal Format:

Specific Game Mode
All modes

Proposal Overview
Zephyr’s Speed now applies 10 seconds of quickness to allies upon pet swap.

Goal of Proposal
Increasing Ranger party utility.

Proposal Functionality
Zephyr’s Speed applies 10 seconds of quickness to allies upon pet swap, 75 second ICD.

Associated Risks
Rangers having access to 16 seconds quickness is darn strong, however a long CD would even it out.

Specific Game Mode:

PvE

Proposal Overview:

Remove the Death Penalty from Pet Death.

Goal of Proposal:

I can understand the reasoning behind placing a minute death penalty for the pet, but I just simply cannot comply with it’s mechanics considering how lackluster the pet AI reacts to our F1-F3 commands. Not only are pets easily exploited via movement impairing conditions, but they lack any sense of urgency to rally back to it’s master’s cause with the F3 command – sometimes, they walk at a snails pace toward the Ranger when called back, which is completely counter-productive when concerning the longevity of the pet. The following change will address the largest concern regarding the Ranger profession: the overly heavy opportunity cost of having a pet.

Proposal Functionality:

Removing the Death Penalty from the pet would solve most, if not all, of the issues regarding pet sustain. Rangers can already suffer the cost of having their entire profession mechanic locked out, unique to all other professions in this game currently. This, alone, is a great, great cost. By allowing a stagnant 20 second cooldown on pet swaps, you will easily see pets applying themselves effectively in PvE and WvW play, the two gamemodes they suffer the most given the large-scale, hard hitting play.

Associated Risks:

Of course, the obvious concern would be that pets would be too strong when specialized into 30 points in the Beastmaster traitline. Having Natural healing, a large pet attribute bonus, and Loud Whistle’s cooldown reduction would provide the pet with too much sustain.

However, is this really a concern?

If a player specced entirely into their pet, isn’t that an opportunity cost enough? Consider, those 30 points could’ve been invested into Marksmanship or Skirmishing. Our damage is severely lacking as is, considering our weapon damage coefficients are lower than any other profession in the game. Taking those points in BM gimps the Ranger’s DPS applicability, so having a tanky, “perma-pet” isn’t quite “OP” as I would imagine.

The bottom line? The pet is a central figure for the Ranger. Remove the 1 minute death penalty and tone down Loud Whistle’s cooldown reduction, and you’ll immediately discover players enjoying the Ranger profession and, finally, granting them access to their well deserved profession mechanic.

Specific Game Mode: PvE

Proposal Overview: Traits

Goal of Proposal
The ranger trait set is lackluster and devoid of meaningful options. A lot of traits compete in high end spots that cause conflicts with creating builds that have a flavorful variety.

Proposal Functionality

Marksmanship Line: Our main Power Line. This should scream bow (it’s marksmanship afterall)

Malicious Training – Doesn’t thematically fit into a marksmanship line.

Keen Edge – Have 2 Activations 75% and 25% for damage consistency

Signet Mastery – Combine with Beastmaster’s Might and Make it a master.

Signet of the Beastmaster – Remove. Simply put our signets should be able to affect us always. If that means reducing their power marginally, then so be it. It makes little design sense that using the combined power of ranger and pet that only the pet benefits from the activation of signets.

Piercing Arrows – Move to Adept. SB Specs shouldn’t have to spec 20 into marksman for this trait.

Skirmishing

Skirmishing has the worst traits out of any line. Somehow traps, which deal mostly condition damage is paired up with the crit damage and precision tree. Either move around traps to another area or make a high power damage trap to incentivize trap use for people who would want crit (mainly power users).

Also, the attack of opportunity GM is just terrible. It needs some consistency to warrant being a GM.

Wilderness Survival

Wilderness survival is fine.

Nature Magic

Nature’s Magic has a lot of good value at good spots traits. Nature’s Voice however should also apply Fury or Protection to make it a useful trait for groups.

Beast Mastery

There is so many things wrong with Beast Mastery that it’s hard to begin. Specializing in a pet is entirely ridiculous. Zephyr’s Speed needs to have a longer duration.

There should be a trait that takes a portion of your stats and applies it to your pet. (10-30%). This simply just makes sense: You spec far into beast mastery, creating such a bond that your pet becomes an extension of you, it receives some of your power so to speak.

Associated Risks
Revamping Traits may result in confusion, and may shift balance in PvP and WvW. This is a necessary risk as the state of Ranger Traits and abilities is the worst in the game.

I know you’re sifting through a ton of opinions on this, so I’ll keep mine brief and mention a problem that I don’t think is brought up very often: The difficulty for rangers to get big results consistently.

The best example I can think of is how difficult it is to play ranger effectively in large-scale WvW. Most of the ranger’s attacks that hit multiple targets are very hard to use compared to other classes – With a ranger I have to constantly be lining up perfect shots with a longbow to hit multiple targets or get in close enough to chuck a trap at my enemies in order to hit multiple targets, where with something like an ele or engi I can just chuck an explosive into the enemy zerg and get the same thing without the risk / effort.

I think this is why so many new rangers default to the ‘bearbow’ strategy – it’s so much easier to get consistent results compared to other ranger builds, even if the results are mediocre.

Allie, when it comes to suggestions advocating a separate “pet dodge” mechanic, please keep in mind that often it’s difficult enough to know exactly when you need to dodge in order to avoid some damage; with a pet dodge you’d be required to not only keep track of your own position, but also your pet’s exact position. On top of that, you are also trying to see your pet amongst all of the particle effects and spell graphics surrounding bosses, seeing red circles on the floor which may be behind the boss since that’s where your pet is, camera angles etc and the list goes on and on. In addition you’d also have to hit your own dodge key as well as an additional F key or any other key bind you have.

Basically, a separate pet dodge mechanic would be of little to no use for the overwhelming majority of the Ranger player base, and most especially useless during particle-effect heavy Dungeon boss encounters and large scale open-world events.

Given this, I believe the best approach to pet survival from AOE is the often suggested pets have an innate 50% mitigation to all AOE attacks.

Specific Game Mode
PvE

Proposal Overview
Improve ranger quality of life by fixing pet issues in fractals and dungeons

Goal of Proposal
Pets currently trigger environmental traps in dungeons, which are both hazard to both the player itself and his team mates. Pet survivability is also problematic for certain fights in PvE, due to AoE 1 shot moves being spammed faster than you can swap them. Ranger utility/DPS is hindered if the player is forced to take tankier pets or utility that still result in them dying. Another issue is that pet’s cant climb certain terrain as well, and are left to die in those situations or force a swap cd.

Example: Arah Turret room before lupi. If the party stealths before dropping down into the room, the fall damage will knock the ranger into combat and spawn his pet (if it was previously stowed). The pet will draw turret aggro which will likely hit the ranger and or his team, slowing them down.

Proposal Functionality
1a. Allow stow to work in combat. Getting knocked into combat should also prevent your pet from spawning until you unstow it.
OR
1b. Prevent pets from tripping environmental traps.

2. Include a revive effect to heal as one. Heal is One is never used, and this would give it a unique effect and reason to take the skill. An extra pet resurrect will make trading away the water field and condition removal more of an option, especially in fight with bad pet survivability.

3. Add a skill similar to guard to our pet bar, except without the stealth and protection. This is to allow more control of the pet and its positioning.

4. Make swap or recall drop/move the pet on top of the ranger. This would solve the few terrain issues in PvE, where your pet can’t cross or get to where your standing.

Associated Risks
1. Won’t have any PvP implications, as not having a pet out is a significant disadvantage

2. Would likely be problematic in PvP.

3/4. May need minor adjustments in PvP

Specific Game Mode:

PvE

Proposal Overview:

Tutorial/Outreach/Education to community about all the varied abilities and buffs Ranger pets possess, which can be requested of a well-informed Ranger for any combat situation.

Goal of Proposal:

-New Rangers will learn how to use their pets beyond just tanking and doing damage.
-Rangers need to know that their pets are, for all intents and purposes, 40 different powerful buffs with legs and wings and tails, but many new (and some veteran!) Rangers don’t know how to use most animals aside from bears, and most non-Rangers don’t know what to ask for from the Ranger in their group.
-Rangers never have to hear again in map chat, “Rangers put your pets away” or “Put your pets on passive” because everyone will know what all the Ranger pets can do to help in each distinct situation.
-Rangers will be welcome and requested in groups and open-world teams.

Proposal Functionality:

-All Rangers will know their pets don’t just help them do damage or protect them as a tank. Different Ranger pets give might, protection, heal, blind, confuse, fear, immobilize, single-target damage, AoE damage, and on and on. Rangers will get better at their profession.
-Non-ranger group members will know what Ranger pets can do and request it in a group or open-world map chat.

Associated Risks:

-Potential waste of dev resources and time if the tutorial/outreach is too academic.
-Tutorials may be skipped by players in a hurry to roll a new toon.
-40 different pets, in combination with all the other ways a Ranger can set up her build, may overwhelm new players when you introduce them to the vast variety of things a Ranger pet can do to help you, your group, or your open-world team.
-Non-ranger players may not trust a ranger with requesting of them specific pet usages because it sounds like too many moving parts or too complex of a build for that Ranger to know how to use.

While I appreciate the time and effort that is going to be spend on the CDI by the developers, I personally would like to see you guys take the time to present any notes you’ve already taken from the community, especially from topics like this (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Ranger-Balance-PvP-WvW-PvE-PvX/).

Otherwise there is a huge possibility that this just becomes an exercise in copying and pasting for the community, and because the threads such of those already exist and have existed for long periods of time, it would be nice to get some sort of progress report to see where we already stand so people don’t have to take the time restating things that don’t really need to be restated.

Food for thought, I hope you take this into consideration.

I’d like to build on Erro’s comment.

When I look at the ranger, there are hints of a role that is was meant to fulfill, but thats all. To me, it seems that the ranger was supposed to be in charge of crowd control by providing snares, freezes and immobs with areas of effect. Now this is a good idea, because its a role which has not yet been fully developed in wvw. However, the skills that provide these area of effects, either pigeon hole the ranger into having no escape skills (trapper) or provide escape skills with only a single aoe immobilise (survival/signet).

This is insightful.
I also sort of get a sense of a movement-based crowd control mastery from Ranger, that just sort of never got off the ground. I would also like to see this solidified as an actual specialization. It’s genuinely a niche in group play nobody has yet, and jives well with attrition-style skirmishing gameplay.

But then there’s stuff that seems to indicate the opposite, like: the Pet’s resource being Health causes them to break down in precisely the place they should excel (crowds). Or pet aggro is meaningless against human opponents so it no longer offers hard control as a native feature in those gamemodes.

Man, I just need, like, a Role Direction.
Warrior’s Burst mechanics obviously leans to Damage. Guardian’s Virtues obviously lean towards Support. Ranger’s pets….what? Is it supposed to be Control? Damage? Surely not Support. We could totally push the concept farther if we had some idea of what it, and Ranger, were supposed to be accomplishing exactly.

game mode
pve

proposal overview
pets and spirits (p/s) should be more resilient and efficiently provide their benefits.

proposal proposal
pets and spirits functionalities

proposal functionality
1. pets and spirits should have 85%+ AoE damage reduction as their default setting, because they are too weak against AoE and hard to control. but they still take full single damage when being taken target.

2.pets should be move 25% faster as default setting, and they should stay more close to ranger when following. rangers can also ground target where pets to go. When “stowed”, pet will not automatically appear when rangers entering combat ( this is for certain situation preventing pets hanging around pulling mobs.)

3. any boon pets provide should automatically apply to rangers if they within 1500 units range then apply to other 4 players within 900 units. rangers is prior target to receive pets’ boons.

4. spirits’ active ability can be ground targeted and last longer.(including water spirit and spirit of nature)

5. spirit of nature affecting area should be 1000 units

6. reduce summoning spirits time to 1/2 second, spirits’ active casting time reduce to 1/2 second.

7. pet f2 skill animation should be reduced inorder to coordinate with their casting time. Certain pets (like jungle stalker) should reduce their f2 casting time.

8.water spirit’s healing potent should be increased and interval should be reduced. to equivalent to rangers’ other healing power.

9. pig class’s f2 skill item should direction send to rangers hand.

10. pets can attack when moving ( they always walk to certain position of mobs before attack, which make them very hard to hit a moving target)

Specific Game Mode
All

Proposal Overview
Rework ‘Guard’

Proposal Functionality

Guard is a poorly designed skill, and doesn’t work so well. The ranger can define a ‘safe spot’ but if they move, the location is cancelled. The pet will attack despite being on ‘passive’.

How I think it should work: The ranger casts a targetted AoE on the ground, marking the ‘safe spot’, the pet will gain 3 sec prot/3 sec aegis every 3 secs that they remain in the ‘safe spot’. They won’t attack unless commanded with F1 or F2. When the pet is attacking and the ranger hits F3, the pet will evade/shadowstep/leap/swoop etc to the ‘safe spot’, this can happpen once every 10 secs, else the pet will just run to the ‘safe spot’. The ‘safe spot’ is not removed until ‘guard’ is recast.

Long term: I think that ‘Sic ’em’ and ‘Protect Me’ should be reworked to give greater control over the pet. Right now, there are three pet skills under AI control, if these were divied up into an ‘aggressive’ and a ‘defensive’ skill plus ‘auto-attack’, and when the ranger used ‘Sic ’em’ the pet uses the agressive skill (e.g canine leap), and ‘Protect Me’ the pet uses the defensive skill (e.g. Moa heal). If neither skill is slotted the AI will use the skills as normal, but if either or both of the two shouts are slotted then the skills are not used randomly by the AI and the ranger gets greater control over what the pet is doing. It would be adding optional complexity to the class, without being required for all rangers to have that extra control.

Cooldown on Search and Rescue greatly lowered. What is the pet doing but rezzing at half the speed which every player can do by running up to a downed ally and pressing revive. It can’t be used as a self-rez. It’s not worth giving up a slot for in it’s current form.

Specific Game Mode
WvW – But this will work in all game modes.

Proposal Overview
Main hand axe skill 1 through 3 redone.

Goal of Proposal
Make it more viable in PvP/WvW

Proposal Functionality
Right now auto attack only benefits if there’s two or more targets. I think that the Axe should work like this:

• Skill #1: Triple Threat – Auto chain has 3 different axe throws. 1st throw does X amount of damage, 2nd throw does 30% more damage than the 1st throw and third throw causes the axe to shatter on target causing AOE torment damage. Maybe a trait can modify or add a boon on third throw as well.
• Skill #2: Chill Blade – Throws an axe at a target causing X amount of damage that can bounce up to 2 more times causing 1.5 seconds of chill per bounce.
• Skill #3: Severed Blades – Spin ferociously while throwing axes in a 360 degrees causing X amount of damage and crippling enemies for 3 seconds per hit.

Associated Risks
None that I can think of.

Specific Game Mode
All

Proposal Overview
Rename the class.

Goal of Proposal
ppl coming from GW1 – where the Ranger was a highly versatile, tough-to-kill (and usually petless) master of interrupts and conditions, desirable in most game modes (except speed clears) – won’t have a sad.

other ppl won’t be hung up about the Ranger having to be “ranged”

Proposal Functionality
(suggested alternative names for the Ranger class, from this forum and elsewhere)

Warden (this seems the most popular)
Wayfarer (a little nod to GW1)
Hunter
Beastmaster
Scout
Skirmisher

Associated Risks
“warden” already means something else in GW2
“wayfarers” might get nicknamed “waypointers”
“hunter” has connotations with some other game, though how close the class is to that, I wouldn’t know.

Allie Murdock.8152:

barabajaga.7652:

I know that im out of topic here and not using the format proposal and i apologize for it ,but before posting any ideas about the ranger and having into consideration that this will be read by some dev ,i will like to ask something :

Would you ever (or have you) considered the removal of the pet ,knowing how borked the ai is ,and as anet says ,it can not be reworked because its tied to mob ai?

Or would you consider split the class in to two, ranger/beastmaster ,and rework the pet ai from the ground.

Again sorry for the offtopic and thx for any possible answer.

Removing the pet was something that was discussed in initial design of the class, but it is such an integral part of the Ranger’s design and philosophy.

There might be some ways that we can redesign the pet and it’s AI, but those are big projects. For the time being, we are happy to take any suggestions regarding the pet.

I can imagine it would be a huge job. The problem is the pets don’t work because of the games NPC design. It’s why a solo player can pretty much run through any zone and not die as long as he keeps running. Mobs can’t hit them when they keep running.

Since the pet is the same as a mob, they don’t work that well in WvW. Small man action they have a hard time hitting their target and in large fights if you don’t keep your pet beside you on passive they will die. Having to keep your pet on passive doesn’t seem like that is very useful for the Ranger.

If you can’t fix that then Ranger pets need to have an option of being stowed for a particular engagement and give the Ranger a damage boost.

or

All buffs/EQ on Ranger need to be applied to pet

or

Pet turns into a buff pet for Ranger and/or group. More than it is now

Specific Game Mode
PvP (…although also WvW roaming; anywhere where players are pitted against one another)

Proposal Overview
You frame the Ranger as a “resilient” profession, yet they lack in reliable/clutch condition removal. The proposal is for more reliable (perhaps even actively-controlled) source of condition removal.

Goal of Proposal
Presently, Rangers are forced 30 points into their Wilderness Survival (toughness and condition damage) line to take Empathic Bond for condition removal they can’t even reliably control. This limits the Ranger’s ability to skillfully respond to condition pressure, with respect to both damage-based and utility conditions.

The Goal of the proposal is to allow Rangers an option for more skilful counterplay to conditions.

Healing Spring is a poor answer to this proposal, especially if you want to frame the ranger as a mobile “skirmisher”, seeing as unless you stand in the Healing Spring’s radius, you reap no benefits from its passive condition removal. Furthermore, the Brown Bear’s condition-removal shout is unreliable (as most F2’s are), and very rarely cleanses the conditions you need gone in a pinch (we’re talking cleansing an immobilize so you can dodge the incoming earth shaker, or clearing a poison so you can get your heal off — that kind of stuff, which is necessary to survive when playing a glassier build).

Proposal Functionality
Works the same as every other class with reliable condition removal.

Cleansing Ire is a great example; yes the Warrior has to spec heavily for it (20 points), but at the very least they gain a reliable source of removal. The removal even scales with player skill such that more experienced players are better at landing their F1 to get the condition removal to proc.

The Thief’s Shadowstep skill is another great example of reliable condition removal. Against certain classes, the stun break aspect of the skill carries far less weight than simply double tapping it for the condition clear. This allows the thief to skilfully decide which functionality they will favour when using the skill. It need not be said that this promotes skilful play.

The Ranger has very limited skill-based counterplay options to conditions.

Associated Risks
Power-based Rangers that don’t usually spec 30 into Wilderness Survival may become a little more viable, and some degree of forum QQ may be expected. If another source of condition removal is added and Empathic Bond is maintained as-is (but it really shouldn’t seeing as it doesn’t promote skilful play in the slightest….) then certain builds may accrue excessive condition removal capability.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Nuzt.7894:

I can see your concern here but, the option to have the pet as such an integral part of the class is one of the largest faults of the class. Could it not be optional to have the pet as an option, basically if you spec wilderness survival your pet becomes a larger part of the class, if you choose to spec in something different to be more valuable to your group then either you don’t have the pet or it has minimal impact on the class.

That is completely valid feedback that I will relay to the designers. Thanks for taking the time to share it!

I can’t just stand around when something like this is passed to the devs, so here’s my counter-feedback.

The ranger is a class specifically designed around teamwork with pet who is to be ranger’s equal partner and not an expandible minion. Said teamwork is something unique to the ranger profession and spot on.

So if a pet fails at the role of ranger’s euqal partner due to sloppy defense/offence/Ai, then it is the dev’s job to up it’s game to intended standard, and not sweep it under the rug, reducing it’s impact on the ranger to a point where you have to trait for it to become an accual pet and not a visual aid.

I’ve already thrown you guys a few bones how to get the job done in this very thread.

Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Sic ’Em should apply longer Reveal on enemies. Reveal should not be removed due to skill bug.

Goal of Proposal
Counter Stealth play. Unique role for ranger.

Proposal Functionality
Currently Sic ’Em applies 4s of reveal which is not enough to be significant advantage for the ranger. It should be increased to make the skill more useful.

Associated Risks
The risk associated with this change is that Ranger may become the only reliable counter to Stealth play. As a consequence of this change, less people will gravitate to stealth play and make the game much better.

Specific Game Mode
?PvE

Proposal Overview
?Change Sword #1 chain to lower the skill floor and be usable with auto-attack.

Goal of Proposal?
The Ranger Sword #1 chain contains two skills with leap animations (Kick and Pounce) which cause the player to temporarily lose control of their character. When coupled with auto-attack, this causes the loss of character control for roughly half of the chain duration. This gives it a very high skill floor relative to all other profession weapon #1 skills, none of which involve the loss of character control to the best of my knowledge. I propose we bring the Sword #1 chain back down to the same skill floor as other weapon #1 skills.

Proposal Functionality
?Until underlying game architecture is changed allowing movement/dodging etc. during leap animations, I propose that the leap animations be removed from the Sword #1 chain entirely and that the Kick and Pounce skills in the chain have the same 130 range as the Slash skill.

Associated Risks
?This will lower the skill ceiling of the Sword #1 chain as well, which will disappoint players who enjoy that. It will also make the Sword #1 chain unusable as a gap closer and not be “sticky” to the target, as it currently is.

I dislike this format, but it’s probably easier for you to read…

Plenty of others are already talking about pets. One more to the pile.

Specific Game Mode
[PVX] —I don’t think you want me making 3 posts when this effects all the modes.

Proposal Overview
FIX PETS. —Short and sweet.

Goal of Proposal
Pets are an issue. They have been since day 1. Their skills fire off too slowly. Pathing is an issue. Reliability is an issue. They should be a boon to the classes, but often time are not.

Proposal Functionality
Not really sure how to fix them, but make them more responsive. Especially their skills. I push the skill button, sometimes it does nothing. Sometimes it fires off but my enemy, IA or not has long since moved.

Associated Risks
Zero Risks…they need to be looked at.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Nuzt.7894:

I can see your concern here but, the option to have the pet as such an integral part of the class is one of the largest faults of the class. Could it not be optional to have the pet as an option, basically if you spec wilderness survival your pet becomes a larger part of the class, if you choose to spec in something different to be more valuable to your group then either you don’t have the pet or it has minimal impact on the class.

That is completely valid feedback that I will relay to the designers. Thanks for taking the time to share it!

This CANNOT be news to the designers. Scaling back Ranger reliance on Pets has been put forward in the Ranger forums so many times that it likely averages out to once every other day since the game launched.

I realize that compared to a CDI, our efforts in that forum have been largely wasting our digital breath, but this hurts. I really feel like in regards to Rangers the Balance Team has built up considerable credibility gap. We have been told time and again that things will get better, that experiments are being conducted, that change is on the way. And yet core failings have plagued this class since day one, unchanged and seemingly impervious to any tangible improvement.

I hope that if the Devs come out of this thread with anything, it’s a sense of urgency. More than 90% of the responding players listed Rangers as troubled. More than 50% listed them as the single most troubled profession in the game. The elephant in the room in now squarely in the spotlight.

Validate the faith and the patience we’ve put in you. Please.

Specific Game Mode
WvW
Proposal Overview
Lightning Reflexes cures cripple, chill, immobilize.

Goal of Proposal
Give ranger as much condition removal as all other professions. Allow rangers to create gap from enemies.

Proposal Functionality
Lightning reflexes acts as a “last resort” maneuver to save the ranger’s life.

Associated Risks
Rangers might e able kite enemies too well. This puts ranger high up beside Warrior and Thief for superior kiting ability.

Game Mode PvE/ WvW
PART II

Proposal Overview
Rebalancing/Changing/Renaming* Weapon Skills *(for more Nostalgia)

Goal of the Proposal
Make this Class more up on par in regard of balance with the other classes.
Making the class more interesting and cooler visually, especially the Bow Shots could look alot more awesome visually, if you compare them with similar classes of many other games, Off as like Online Games.
Giving the Game a Class, that is Condition based with Greatswords, currently Power Builds are simply too much, the Ranger should be more a hybrid for both, a true jack of all trades that this class was already in GW1, what was one of its greatest strengths

Proposal Functionality

Associated Risks
That the suggested stuff here could be naturally too OP

Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Player ability to semi-turn-off pet combat AI. This is to enable player to have direct clicking/button pressing of pet skills in the same way as player’s own skills. Also the ability to turn back on pet combat AI.

Goal of Proposal
Pet combat AI is adequate for PE but not against large number of intelligent hostile players in WvWvW. The on/off pet AI option allows the player direct control of an extended set of pet skills just like player’s skills.

Proposal Functionality
More pet skills and all these skills should be displayed when pet AI is turn off to allow the player to click/press them. Like player’s skills pet skill icons should show cool down effects etc.

Associated Risks
When pet combat AI is semi-turn-off, the player will have more work to do, more to think about, and more things to be aware of and know.

DiamondMeteor.8345:

Goal of Proposal:

I can understand the reasoning behind placing a minute death penalty for the pet, but I just simply cannot comply with it’s mechanics considering how lackluster the pet AI reacts to our F1-F3 commands. Not only are pets easily exploited via movement impairing conditions, but they lack any sense of urgency to rally back to it’s master’s cause with the F3 command – sometimes, they walk at a snails pace toward the Ranger when called back, which is completely counter-productive when concerning the longevity of the pet. The following change will address the largest concern regarding the Ranger profession: the overly heavy opportunity cost of having a pet.

I’m 100% behind you on the goal,. but this alone would be a problem because of what Runeblade noted, that if you could keep your pet fully “up” constantly then you could just Pokemon encounters with no real risk to the player. I made a suggestion up thread that would allow you to keep pets out indefinitely while losing their tanking ability when they “die,” but your suggestion could work too if you added some element to prevent them maintaining infinite agro.

ZeftheWicked.3076:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Nuzt.7894:

I can see your concern here but, the option to have the pet as such an integral part of the class is one of the largest faults of the class. Could it not be optional to have the pet as an option, basically if you spec wilderness survival your pet becomes a larger part of the class, if you choose to spec in something different to be more valuable to your group then either you don’t have the pet or it has minimal impact on the class.

That is completely valid feedback that I will relay to the designers. Thanks for taking the time to share it!

I can’t just stand around when something like this is passed to the devs, so here’s my counter-feedback.

The ranger is a class specifically designed around teamwork with pet who is to be ranger’s equal partner and not an expandible minion. Said teamwork is something unique to the ranger profession and spot on.

So if a pet fails at the role of ranger’s euqal partner due to sloppy defense/offence/Ai, then it is the dev’s job to up it’s game to intended standard, and not sweep it under the rug, reducing it’s impact on the ranger to a point where you have to trait for it to become an accual pet and not a visual aid.

I’ve already thrown you guys a few bones how to get the job done in this very thread.

And what about those people who like the Class but not the pet aspect of it ? Should your opinion trump theirs ? What I was suggesting was basically having the option to stow the pet permenantly if YOU choose to do so. The pet would be more powerful if you traited for the pet to be powerful, just as the Guardians Virtues are more powerfull if you choose to trait them that way, same can be said for every other class in the game.

Its a suggestion I through out there and I am more then entitled to suggest it. This is suppose to be a thread about our suggestions on how to fix or elevate the class, as stated it is not here for you to shut down other peoples suggestions because its not what you want.

You have the right to make a suggestion, why not try that instead of attacking other suggestions. There are plenty of suggestions here that I completely dissagree with but its not my place to tell those people or the Devs that they are wrong.

Specific Game Mode
PvE, but would likely affect all

Proposal Overview
Remove pets as AI, replace them as “pet combo” skills that get bonuses based on which weapon skills you use.

Goal of Proposal
Eliminate the AI headache that pets pose by changing them to be an additional “weapon” equipped by the player.

Proposal Functionality
Pets already have 4 skills total with their own cooldowns. The idea here is that pets would stand by the Ranger’s side and “wait” to do each of those skills until commanded by their master (F1-F4).

Because pets would be “command only” like skills are, they could move much faster and also be untargetable/invulnerable. Telling a pet to do a specific attack would result in it sprinting towards the Ranger’s current target at high speed and delivering its strike (which could then be blocked/evaded/etc like any weapon attack). Then the pet would return to its master’s side. If the Ranger queues up all 4 of its pet’s attacks, the pet rushes out, executes those attacks in the order instructed, and then returns. If the pet is interrupted, they simply return. The Ranger can “combo” pet skills with their weapon skills by using the corresponding pet skill after a weapon skill: for example, Greatsword Maul + Pet F1 = More vulnerability, or Barrage + Pet F4 = a Knockdown attack.

Associated Risks
1. Invulnerable, “non-AI” pets sounds weird, but it eliminates all kinds of strange behaviors of dead pets and AI problems such as standing still to attack and skill command lag (which I understand is being addressed as well).

2. Since pets would no longer be providing sustained damage or be assigned targets independent to the Ranger, damage coefficients on both Ranger skills and Pet skills may need to be reworked. This might be a good thing as well since many players feel that the Ranger should be less pet-dependent for damage.

3. Pets would still have to be able to be knocked back/blocked/or otherwise disabled when they are attacking.

Specific Game Mode
WvW roaming (probably PvP as well)

Proposal Overview
Remove “empathic bond” (or reduce it to 2 or one on a shorter cool down) put strategic condition removes in utility’s.
- Lightning reflexes removes cripple, chill and immobilise
- Heal as One removes 2 conditions,
- Signet of Renewal always removes conditions off you regardless of pet location
- I’m sure there are other good places

Goal of Proposal
Empathic Bond is one of our strongest traits, but it is also our most limiting traits for build diversity in competitive play, it is the reason that rangers are only strong as condition bunker (past and present builds). But the trait is not useful for removing immobilises and chills at crucial moments.

Signet of Renewal Active is not a reliable way of removing immobilises and chills especially when trying to escape form larger numbers, as you pet it often off attacking them when you need to pop it, it not so bad if you can swap you pet first but that is a bit slower and might be on cool down.

Proposal Functionality
Others classes have, reliable ways of removing control conditions they are very strong, I also believe that making a change along the lines of this would enable rangers to have a variety of competitive build other than condition bunker type builds

Associated Risks
Giving us more accessible/reliable active condition cleanse without removing some of our more passive methods may make the class a bit strong against condition builds

Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Pets receive less damage from AoE attacks.

Goal of Proposal
Afford pets a slightly better chance of surviving large scale fights.

Proposal Functionality
Many times, the pet’s AI cannot save the pet as it charges into enemy group. Pets will walk directly through areas of heavy AoE and die instantly. When the pet dies, the master suffers 60s of DPS loss and damage mitigation.

Associated Risks
Pets may be able to survive large group fights very well. They will survive longer to torment enemies.

Game Mode: PvE

Proposal Overview: Pets should dodge telegraphed abilities.

Goal of Proposal: No one wants Rangers in a dungeon run. Their pets die way to easily to AoE and Big Boss Attacks. However, if pets automatically dodged every telegraphed attack from a boss, that would benefit the pet, the Ranger, and the group as a whole. People would want Rangers to be with them, cause they would help newbies learn dungeon runs and boss encounters.

I feel like this would still fir in with the feel of Rangers – people who travel side by side with their animal companions, and who learn from them. I mean, Rangers should TOTALLY be seen as knowledgeable of PvE encounters – they are the “Wilderness Survival” class for Snow Leopard’s sake! Who better than Rangers to hunt down giant foes, amirite?

Risk: Rangers could be seen as a noob class, but quite honestly, they are already seen that way.

Specific Game Mode- PvX
Proposal Overview
Pet Skills

Goal of Proposal
What problem am i trying to solve? the entire fact that PETS are laughable class mechanic in its current state that no one fears?
Proposal Functionality

Give the master of the pet more than just an F2 skill. Simple as you can get.
I want more control over my pet.
I don’t want it performing a blast finisher skill when I don’t even have a field down.
I don’t want it to drop a poison field when I don’t have skills ready to combo with
You gave the pets 4 skills to work with, yet the master only has the ability to control 1???
What is the point of giving it 4 skills with only 1 user controlled skill , please tell me, I would love to hear it

Associated Risks

None – do you honestly believe right now pets even slightly scare opposing players in wvw/spvp? They are such a bad class mechanic and not a threat to any opposing player , period. Make them think twice before charging into a ranger… all they used to worry about is maybe a 2 sec immob from a pet.. give the master more options.

If you honest to god can’t place more resources to fix the most broken class mechanic in the game (you literally have to harm and hurt your own pet in order to remove conditions, remove cc, etc) Tell me, do you really believe thats a good idea?

Specific Game Mode
?PvE

Proposal Overview?
Make pet F2 skills originate from the player.

Goal of Proposal
?The vast majority of the ranger pet F2 skills suffer from interruption by the pets own AI and exceedingly long wind-up times, which causes them to feel very out of place in GW2’s active combat system and in the worst cases downright hard to use effectively. Since both of these problems seem rooted in the pet AI and client/server communication, I propose making these skills originate from the player instead.

Proposal Functionality
?Upon hitting F2 the effect described in the skill will occur immediately, just like a weapon skill, originating from the player. For example the Salamander Drake’s F2 will cause the player to breathe a cone of fire that burns foes, immediately and without wind-up, just like other existing player skills that breathe a cone of fire.

Associated Risks
?Pet F2 skills are weighted heavily towards short range attacks/effects. There may not be proper animations for players enacting all F2 skills (e.g. bites and claws). Porcine F2 skills may become redundant. This change would cause the ranger F2 mechanic to become a bit similar to the Thief Stealing mechanic, but with more determinism.

Game Mode:
PvE

Goal of proposal:
To allow for more flexibility in ranger playstyles by allowing those who don’t want to deal with pet AI to have the option to run without a pet, while at the same time ensuring that those who are comfortable with pet AI and playstyle to be rewarded for the increased difficulty. Also, to promote the inclusion of rangers on bosses with mechanics that make pets extremely undesirable.

Proposal Overview:
Add additional pet-slot options that are not pets, but preparations. Selecting one of these options would buff the ranger herself to compensate for most (but not all) of the lost pet damage. Each preparation would have a utility skill that would take the place of the pet’s F2. Optionally, it could also provide a periodic buff to attack, not unlike a guardian’s period burning; this would mimic the pet’s auto-attack special abilities (such as a raven’s vulnerability). The pet attribute stat would increase the buff to the ranger’s damage, but would not improve the ranger’s survivability.

The incentive to use pets would still be present, as a well-manned pet would have a greater damage potential than a preparation. Additionally, pets would retain a much larger variety of utility skills than preparations. This would keep pets desirable under many circumstances, particularly for players who enjoy the pet mechanic and/or who want to maximize both their damage and group utility.

It would not greatly alter the play mechanics outside of pet attack/passive/stow management. It would allow for rangers who are participating in an encounter where pets are extremely unwieldy (such as Marionette Warden II) to have an option to contribute without messing up the encounter mechanics. And, ultimately, it would reinforce the risk/reward trade-off that seems to be key in GW2 designs.

Associated Risks:
Care would need to be taken in order to ensure that using a preparation is not universally preferable to using a pet. This means careful balancing of the buff to the ranger, as well as improving the responsiveness of the pet’s F2 skill. This also means not putting the most sought-after F2 skills on preparations.

Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
All arrow attacks pierce at least one target by default.

Goal of Proposal
Rangers have access to minor AoE without trait investment. Provides increased effectiveness of arrows while keeping range damage in check.

Proposal Functionality
This change will allow more build diversity as bows become a reliable source of minor AoE as well as attacking the enemies hiding behind large groups.

Associated Risks
Ranger may become effective at killing their targets and create incentive for more strategic positioning.

WoW, this thread is moving fast … I merely read halve the first page, and I’m already 2 pages behind :P … anyways, I wanted to mention this to, well everybody:

Please be aware and cautious about changing a certain mechanic that may be in favour of how you like to play, but might well ‘screw over’ somebody else’s play style.

In this this regard I mainly want to point out that some people suggested making certain stills automatically ‘Point to Cast’, like f/e on traps, instead of making this an option. I personally really DISLIKE! this type of casting, I am a dual axe/2x trapper and my play style is in/out skirmish, having traps to be ‘point to cast’ would totally mess up the one thing I found fun to do with the midline/med-armour ranger class.

Tnx for your understanding, options are great, but don’t suggest to change things to what you think may be optimal, but instead try and see if having the ‘option’ for both through a trait gives all of us more options.

Specific Game Mode
sPvP

Proposal Overview
The following changes are suggested to boost the role of Rangers so that they provide enough support in team fights to be a viable contender without resorting to a Spirit build. This would be done by adding more condition removal (which falls in line with a ranger as a survivalist who is in tune with nature magic) as well as pet support.

- Lightning Reflexes should remove immobilize
– Boost active condition removal by lowering the cooldown of Signet of Renewal
– Add a talent that makes “Search and Rescue” cast an AoE fear when the pet begins to rez

Goal of Proposal
The goal is to give rangers enough support to be a viable contender in team fights in a way that stays in line with the flavor of the profession.

Additional focus on active condition removal also helps keep PvP builds involved and exciting to play.

Lightning Reflexes should also break immobilize since the class has so few counters to this condition, which has become more and more prevalent. This is in line with the flavor of rangers since if there’s anyone that should be able to make their way out of a trap, it’s a nature survivalist!

Providing a talent that has CC in conjunction with Search and Rescue also makes it a viable and potentially valuable skill the same way that Resolute Healer is for Guardians.

Proposal Functionality
This is pretty inherent in the description, but it’s worth noting that the Fear from “Search and Rescue” should only trigger if and when a pet starts reviving.

Associated Risks
Too much condition removal could throw off the balance of conditions in PvP. If this becomes the case, I think it’s better to transfer the passive condition removal from Signet of Renewal and the trait Empathetic Bond to be a more active ability.

dietzero.3514:

Allie Murdock.8152:

barabajaga.7652:

I know that im out of topic here and not using the format proposal and i apologize for it ,but before posting any ideas about the ranger and having into consideration that this will be read by some dev ,i will like to ask something :

Would you ever (or have you) considered the removal of the pet ,knowing how borked the ai is ,and as anet says ,it can not be reworked because its tied to mob ai?

Or would you consider split the class in to two, ranger/beastmaster ,and rework the pet ai from the ground.

Again sorry for the offtopic and thx for any possible answer.

Removing the pet was something that was discussed in initial design of the class, but it is such an integral part of the Ranger’s design and philosophy.

There might be some ways that we can redesign the pet and it’s AI, but those are big projects. For the time being, we are happy to take any suggestions regarding the pet.

Its AI, not it’s. It’s means it is.

Isn’t english stupid?

runeblade.7514:

Alcyone.8695:

Forgive me if this is rude, but what exactly is the point of insisting that a proposal be tied to a particular game mode in a profession balance thread? Any substantial change to the profession will affect everything, and we’ve already been told repeatedly that ArenaNet does not want to split skills between the three game modes. Most posts here already read PvX because their players correctly understand this; I saw at least one saying “PvP if I have to choose” which is in the same spirit. There may be minor balance tweaks proposed that would involve small splits between sPvP and PvE/WvW mechanics, but those would affect all game types as well.

There’s no good reason to use game mode in this thread. It just takes up space. Leave it out.

Some people want to balance their suggestion over PvE. Some people want to balance over PvP.

For example, someone might say return Hunter shot as before, which is that it gives 5 stacks of vulnerability. Why? Because it is a buff to PvE. Stealth is not that great in PvE, but strong in PvP.

That would either affect all game modes directly, if the skill was changed in both game modes, or indirectly, by causing a split in the skill’s function where there was not one before. Either way the change will not be exclusive to a single game mode.

Specific Game Mode
PvX

Proposal Overview
Condi cleanse

Proposal Functionality
Stop adding traits that destroy our class mechanics and change the ones that currently kill it.
I mean seriously, answer this for me with a straight face.
What good is a pet (class mechanic) when our only viable condi-removal is by killing our pet(killing your own class mechanic) by transfering conditions.
You decided not only to stop there, but hey , lets give rangers a trait (shared anquish) to apply even more CC to their class mechanic

Please give me one logical reason as to why you honestly believe killing our own pets is a good use of traits and skill?

for empathetic bond, add in an this sentence incoming conditions to the pet are set to 1 second. Or less…

Associated Risks
Again, none (except if you don’t make any moves on fixing this class mechanic, I’m pretty much rolling another class, and a ton of other ranger mains will be very disaapointed in you’re absolute dis interest in fixing a glaringly major issue.

Specific Game Mode
PvE

Proposal Overview
Give ranger direct access to torment.

Goal of Proposal
The Jack-of-all-trade must have access to torment in some way without buying the sigil.

Proposal Functionality
give condition build one more way to deal damage.

Associated Risks
Ranger may be pushed to high tier condition class as a result of this change. The other classes may have to be slightly more wary of condition ranger.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

PvE

Pet update

This aspect is crucial for a class, which relies on it’s pet to deal max. damage.

If ArenaNet manages to switch the AI engine to the client,
I would like to see this happen:

If you’ve played FF12, you may remember the gambitsystem.
Thats exactly how I want to control my pet.
For those who don’t know what I mean:
The gambits where an easy and fast way to “programm” the AI of your characters.
They are arranged according to their hierarchy.

As example: The first instruction (gambit) will be executed as long as the requirement is given (e.g. “retreat when below 20% HP”). If the requirement is not given, the second instruction will be executed as long as its requirement is given (e.g. “attack nearest foe”). So you can not only control how your pet will behave in certain situations but also remap your F1-F3 keys.

I do agree with this, but I prefer the tactics system of dragon age. Quite similar but with a bit more depth (imo at least).

Alcyone.8695:

runeblade.7514:

Alcyone.8695:

Forgive me if this is rude, but what exactly is the point of insisting that a proposal be tied to a particular game mode in a profession balance thread? Any substantial change to the profession will affect everything, and we’ve already been told repeatedly that ArenaNet does not want to split skills between the three game modes. Most posts here already read PvX because their players correctly understand this; I saw at least one saying “PvP if I have to choose” which is in the same spirit. There may be minor balance tweaks proposed that would involve small splits between sPvP and PvE/WvW mechanics, but those would affect all game types as well.

There’s no good reason to use game mode in this thread. It just takes up space. Leave it out.

Some people want to balance their suggestion over PvE. Some people want to balance over PvP.

For example, someone might say return Hunter shot as before, which is that it gives 5 stacks of vulnerability. Why? Because it is a buff to PvE. Stealth is not that great in PvE, but strong in PvP.

That would either affect all game modes directly, if the skill was changed in both game modes, or indirectly, by causing a split in the skill’s function where there was not one before. Either way the change will not be exclusive to a single game mode.

Except those players probably haven’t or will never play the other mode to care.

This thread isn’t meant to order the devs around, it is meant to give the devs ideas on how to balance them and understand what rangers want.

So putting up a PvE/PvP/WvW sign shows which place will benefit the most.

Specific Game Mode: Pvx

Proposal Overview: Trait and utility improvements

Goal of Proposal: Ranger at the moment has a difficult time defining his role due to some questionable trait placement choices and its direct effect on utility skills. The proposed changes helps us in evolving the role and function of the ranger.

Proposal Functionality:
Signets – Active effects of signets have to affect the ranger by default. It is a bit absurd to think that ranger has to spend 30 points just to get the active effects. At least, If the pets functioned as intended the present system could be given a pass. But the crippling nature of pets gives little incentive to use the signets and investing 30 points is not worth the reward. (Personal experience: As a role playing game the ranger character is the extension of the person playing and the pet is the extension of the ranger. The person playing is satisfied when the skill he activates has a direct effect on the ranger and the way he plays. Unfortunately if the direct effects of the skill are given on a pet, its level of satisfaction on the player is minimized. This is the reason a majority of players are unsatisfied with ranger because when the activity is shared between the ranger and the pet, the player feels that the ranger has no oomph with him. This is further magnified because of faulty pet mechanics which is a completely different topic. This is not only related to signets alone but also to other utility skills. The player who is in direct control of the ranger has to have control of the fight and the pet has to support the ranger and not the other way around where the pet controls the fight and the ranger supports him all the time.)

Traps trait placement: The placement of Trap traits VIII and XI in skirmishing tree is questionable. This acts as a hindrance to build customization and diversity. This can be solved by moving it to the wilderness tree and and placing appropriate trait from wilderness tree to skirmishing or designing new traits or merging traits etc.

Beast mastery : The adept trait instinctual bond fails to explain its role and functionality. I have personally seen where my pet has failed to attack any enemy when I was downed even though the pet was alive. Moreover the ranger loses all control of the pet when he is downed and he cannot use the pet skill. Therefore giving quickness to pet at this stage serves no purpose. The rare instance where the pet with quickness takes down the enemy faster is purely situation oriented and contradicts the design philosophy. Instead remove the trait and replace it with something that cleanses the ranger of one condition on pet swap. This also has a direct synergy with the loud whistle trait.

Associated Risks: Time consuming process. The community has to have a lot of patience and confidence on the developers to reiterate the class and the developers need the will to go through with the changes.

Thanks for reading

Nuzt.7894:

And what about those people who like the Class but not the pet aspect of it ? Should your opinion trump theirs ? What I was suggesting was basically having the option to stow the pet permenantly if YOU choose to do so. The pet would be more powerful if you traited for the pet to be powerful, just as the Guardians Virtues are more powerfull if you choose to trait them that way, same can be said for every other class in the game.

Its a suggestion I through out there and I am more then entitled to suggest it. This is suppose to be a thread about our suggestions on how to fix or elevate the class, as stated it is not here for you to shut down other peoples suggestions because its not what you want.

You have the right to make a suggestion, why not try that instead of attacking other suggestions. There are plenty of suggestions here that I completely dissagree with but its not my place to tell those people or the Devs that they are wrong.

I just did make suggestion – improve pet rather then sweep it under the rag. In life there are people with opposite opinions for whom your own is a disaster made real, And they can vote too. I just did.

Game Mode: All
Proposal Overview:
Rangers lack Easily accessible condition removal, which seems weird, since a master of the wilderness should know how to cure illnesses. Also, ranger heals are underwhelming in general.
Goal of Proposal
Improve ranger heals to match their purpose.
Proposal Functionality

• Heal as One: Reduce cooldown to 15 seconds. Reduce cast time to 3/4 second. Heal as One is a bland heal with a long cast time. Reducing cast time and cooldown brings it onto par with its effects.
• Troll Unguent: Reduce cooldown to 20 seconds. Add a condition removal. As an antibiotic, it seems natural for this to remove conditions. Gives rangers a solid option to counter the powerful condition metagame of PvP. In my opinion, the cooldowns of all ranger heals are too long.
• Healing Spring: Increase radius to 360 (at least). Increase cast-time to 1 second. For a support AoE, its radius is way too small to help anyone but yourself without forcing everyone to stack. I never understood why the support AoE has the fastest cast-time, but nerfing it might a bad call considering ranger’s state. Its current setup really doesn’t match its seemingly intended purpose.
  Associated Risks
• Troll Unguent buff may make regen rangers too tanky
• Introduces another counter to conditions
• Rangers may trade out Healing Spring for Troll Unguent on their builds reducing its presence.

Specific game mode

PvP

Proposal Overview

Rangers need to invest 30 points in Marksmanship in order to use 3 skills properly (talking about “Signet of the wild”, “Signet of stone” and “Signet of the hunt” while granting no bonuses for the active use of “Signet of renewal”). This is actually a build-diversity killer, without counting the fact that one signet skill takes NO BENEFITS AT ALL by investing 30 points for a trait that should buff it as well.
My proposal is to add an effect to Marksmanship trait XI and modify Marksmanship trait IX.

Goal of Proposal

1. Compensate the great invest in only one trait line just to capitalize 4 utility skills that work both actively and passively for every other class.
2. Allow people to buff might properly even without traiting “Beastmaster’s Might” trait (IX) and without having to pop 3 utility skills at the same time in order to get a decent amount of stacks.
3. Allow players to invest only 20 points in “Marksmanship” trait line to gain access to a basic boon (might) that Ranger totally lacks by now.
4. Make more efficent and viable DPS Ranger’s builds.

Proposal Functionality

• Add the effect “maintain the passive effects of signets when you activate them” to “Signet of the Beastmaster” trait (XI).
• Buff the stacks of might provided by “Beastmaster’s Might” trait (IX) at least to 8-9 per signet activation (with an internal CD of 20-25 sec.).

Associated Risks

Point me to risks because I don’t see any in buffing Ranger’s Signet Traits.

Game Mode: PvE

Zef’s Shouts rewamp

Idea behind shout changes
Let’s be honest. Majority of shouts are about controlling your pet behaviour and as such should be profession mechanic free of utility slot skill trappings. Since they’re not, at least proper reliability and additional effects are a must.

Proposed Functionality
“Protect me!” - to existing effects two more are added. Pet is healed for 50% max hp on cast, and it takes only 33% of incoming damage for the duration of the skill.

• Reason behind this change: This skill is not “let’s kill my pet for not being a bear” button.
  With these additions it becomes your pet heal and emergency panic button as well.

“Search and rescue” - 15 sec cooldown. Shout works on deafeted. If you have a downed/defeated ally selected, pet will go to revive that person. Will not activate without fallen ally in range. Revival speed 30% faster then normal.

*Reason: I can have pet do attacking and revive defeated players myself without any fuss. Why should opposite scenario be a mountain climb? Using this shout costs utility slot and a cooldown, thus faster revival speed on it. Since pet sent to revive an ally can be killed and is a major damage loss to the ranger i see no reason to cripple this shout with long cooldown. Infact only reason it has one is to prevent shout triggered effects abuse when sorrounded by corpses.

“Guard” - instant cast not 1s. Pet ignores any enemies on it’s way to designated spot, and only after reaching it engages enemies in protected zone.

*Reason: Else why not just select an enemy and order attack without wasting utility slots?

“Sick’em” - this one works just fine.

Specific Game Mode
PVE

Proposal Overview
Sword rework

Goal of Proposal
Make the main hand sword easier to use in PVE without losing any existing functionality.

Proposal Functionality
Make the second and third attack in the main hand sword auto attack chain range dependent. If the ranger is close enough to hit his target without the leaps (300 range?), replace those attacks with attacks that do not contain leap animations.

Make the #2 skill range dependent as well so that it can be used to leap to a target, placing it on full cooldown. When close to the target it would function the same as it currently does.

Associated Risks
I might play the game more.

Specific Game Mode
PVE … applies to every mode, I also play everything.

Proposal Overview
Remove Pet Swapping… Ostensibly removing all mechanics associated with Pet swapping. This is a long term goal.

Goals of Proposal
- To simplify Pet mechanics (and balancing)
- To strengthen Player/Pet relationship
- To reduce Player dependency on Pet
- To free up Ranger Traits/Skills/F1,2,3,4 for new possibilities.

Proposal Functionality
These changes should allow for a new Ranger/Pet combat dynamic. Where the strategy to combat changes when the Pet is active/inactive. There is precedent to this with the Molten Bosses in Fractals where defeating one empowers the other.

• Having one Pet at a time makes the choice of Pet seem more integral to the Ranger than simply disposable weapon swapping (as it is now).
• Remove traits and skills which revolve around sacrificing your Pet enough until Pet Swap recharge.
• Add traits and skills which empower the Ranger when the Pet is not available, AND, empower the Pet while available
• F2 changes functionality when the Pet is inactive (either another active ability, or passive)
• F4 is freed up for future development possibilities. (could function as another F2, or a skill to manage active/inactive Pets)
• Having one set of Pet skills available during combat reduces the amount of balancing for the Ranger in half.
• Having one pet makes the name reset easier to manage.

Associated Risks
I know the single Pet system was considered in the early development of GW2, but I think the issue with the old system was that it punished the Ranger for not having their Pet as opposed to empowering them in other areas to change the combat dynamic instead of surviving long enough for the Pet to become available again.

I don’t think the Pet should have a defeated state per say, simply an inactive one. I would very much like suggestions on how to handle this inactive state. Does the pet disappear? Follow your around? etc.