Guild Wars 2

Hey Allie!

I’d like first to point out a concern of mine on a topic that has been discussed alot in this CDI. The perma-stow of pets. This might crete some problems among players:

Some people want pets, (like me) and to learn to use them properly. If you give petless rangers buffs, players who play with pets will be seen as “bad rangers” and shunned, because they are not using the latest “fix” for the class and therefore other players assume they are using “broken mechanics and builds”. Basically, whoever uses pets will be assumed as bad player, because… pets.

This could be prevented by some of the following:

- Add pet controls. The AI does not need to be thoughroughly fixed if we can have UI commands to tell the pet basic things like where to go, an extra bahavior called Assist (where the pet only attacks the ranger’s target) and Agressive makes the pet attack a diferent target. Return to Me replaces Passive mode in a way that if we press Return to Me, pet doesn’t attack unless commanded to do so again or when a new fight starts. It has to be done if you don’t want to go through the AI. And of course pet responsiveness has to be flawless.

OR

- Make pet’s stats EQUAL to the ranger specs (maybe with a trait in the Beastmaster treeline that replaces Master’s Bond). This will involve pets in the build’s diversity. So a ranger can have a (e.g.) a zerker bear, but this bear won’t have a huge amount of HP as it normaly would. But due to the pet’s skills, it would promote diversity. Imagine: a ranger would have a bunker build. Lot’s of HP and Regen. With that trait, the pet could be on par with the rangers suvivability and if a Canine pet, provide CC pressure while the ranger could have more dmg-oriented weapons and utilities. Without it, the pet would be a dmg dealer while the ranger pins down the target with cripples and imobilizes, etc.

OR (As an alternative to the 2nd suggestion)

- Pet stats are decided/boosted via traits, also in the BM line, replacing Rending attack, Intimidation Training, Stability Training. And make certain traits into minor traits such as Mighty Swap, Vigorous Training.

Just a little brainstorming of mine. Not a perfect, polished solution. But it’s something.

Cheers! And glad that this CDI is seeing so much activity and attention on your part! I knwo it musn’t be easy to go over a class like this. Hope this bears fruit!

Xaylin.1860:

Tempus.9540:

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

Coming from playing an Interrupt Mesmer in PvP I got to say that I would love to have such a trait on my Mesmer. Granted, the main bonus only works with Shortbow and Greatsword but the increase in CC duration is amazing. Rangers could need an offhand weapon with a Daze to increase the usability if this trait. But they don’t lack interrupts in general (LB#4, SB#5, GS#5, A#4).

The only issue I have is the bonus granted on interrupt. The Attack of Opportunity basically only benefits a Greatsword since Rangers lack bursty attacks beside Maul. Maybe changing/improving the bonus on interrupt would make this trait a lot more appealing. Of course, this is from a PvP perspective. Interrupt traits are junk in PvE.

This is also the problem with the Remorseless trait in Marksmanship. the class is so defficient in burst damage that the oppurtunities to even make any real use out of either Moment of Clarity or Remorseless are so few and far between the traits are hardly worth their investment.

While these traits may look good at face value, they simply aren’t worth taking because of their low proc chance and the simple fact that every attack this class has does the same damage as our #1 skills so who cares if it crits or deals 150% damage?

Cufufalating.8479:

I’d like to re-iterate the need for rangers to have reduced dependancy on GM traits.

With the exception of survival skills, there is no ultility choice which really works well without the corrisponding GM trait.

There are 1-2 individual exception like Signet of the Hunt doesnt need a trait, or Protect Me doesnt, but in general signets, traps, shouts and spirits are simply not usuable without a GM.

The memsmer build I use atm have not a single Major or Minor GM trait and its great. Thats how it should be.. GM traits should provide huge bonuses (like PU does on a mesmer) but not nessesarily be required in order to use utlities.

This is also something else that must be discussed before this thread closes. As it stands right now, the vast majority of Ranger utility skills are reliant on the Ranger first getting 30 points in a tree before they’re even worth slotting. It’s a problem with signets, traps, and spirits.

A lot of the suggestions I’ve made were done specifically to make our utility skills more attractive to the class as a whole so we may actually want to use a spike trap, storm spirit, or signet of stone before we’re a high enough level to actually put 30 points in a tree.

Xaylin.1860:

Stowing a pet and gaining some benefits is reasonable for certain areas of the game. Perma-stowing and receiving a 100% damage compensation for it defies the purpose of a pet class. If you don’t like pets, don’t play a pet class. It is a design decision by ANet that the Ranger is the pet class. You might like it or not but that is their vision.

While the pet is a huge part of the ranger mechanic, the ranger is not only defined by its pet. if you would remove the pet, the class would still work. Furthermore, the pet is the only classmechanic with drawbacks attached to it. You gain advantages but you also have disadvantages. Me and a lot more don’t want to use the pet. We should not be forced to use it in order to be competitive. We don’t suggest to remove the pet entirely. We just want to have it optional. Furthermore, this is was Allie said:

Allie Murdock.8152:

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

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

Just musing!

Atherakhia.4086:

This is also the problem with the Remorseless trait in Marksmanship. the class is so defficient in burst damage that the oppurtunities to even make any real use out of either Moment of Clarity or Remorseless are so few and far between the traits are hardly worth their investment.

While these traits may look good at face value, they simply aren’t worth taking because of their low proc chance and the simple fact that every attack this class has does the same damage as our #1 skills so who cares if it crits or deals 150% damage?

I agree on Attack of Opportunity and Remorseless. They should be reworked or at least spread the damage bonus across more than one attack. However, Moment of Clarity remains pretty awesome in a SB/GS build simply because of the increased CC duration. Therefore, I believe the traits’ usefulness is mainly limited by the weapon choice. If a Daze was added to Horn or Torch people might use it more frequently.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

While the pet is a huge part of the ranger mechanic, the ranger is not only defined by its pet. if you would remove the pet, the class would still work.

The pet isn’t the only thing a Ranger brings to the table. But how can you assume that the Ranger is not defined by the pet when it is their class mechanic and ANet literally stated that the Ranger is supposed to be the primary pet class.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Furthermore, the pet is the only classmechanic with drawbacks attached to it. You gain advantages but you also have disadvantages.

That is a bit shortsighted. I don’t want to go into detail but, for example, Elementalists suffer from the weapon swap like mechanic in many ways. Mesmers also suffer from AI issues although they are not as severe as on the Rangers. Deathshroud also comes with many issues because it is the justification for Necromancers not recieving other forms of damage mitigation.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Me and a lot more don’t want to use the pet. We should not be forced to use it in order to be competitive. We don’t suggest to remove the pet entirely. We just want to have it optional.

As you said yourself: Some people want pets. Some people don’t. Both have to be considered. This also means that people who don’t want pets can’t be favoured.

I didn’t reject the idea of stowing a pet. I’m against a 100% damage compensation. The class would have to balanced around the pets being stowed because it will be the most competitive way to play. This will ultimatively lead to a huge disadvantage for every Ranger who actually uses the pet. How can this be a desirable change for a class which was actually designed to be a pet class?

Carighan.6758:

Well, come to think of it I think that generic “Rangery” abilities on F1-F4 would be interesting, but they’d need a consistent theme. Trapping would be an interesting one, “Scouting” another.

Trapping
F1-F4 are four traps, each distinct in use. Damage, Slowing, Revealing/Debuffing, Buff Shearing.

Scouting
F1: Stealth, lasts briefly, dunno about the cooldown.
F2: Camouflage. Lasts until entering combat or taking any action, breaks on move, cannot be used in combat.
F3: Scavenging. Re-loots a set of corpses, can also re-activate them for partymembers. Effectively gives +X% Magic Find over an infinite number of corpses.
F4: Eye in the sky. Sends out a bird pet straight forward for ~10000 units. Your minimap shows dots for all enemies the bird flies over. It caaaan be targetted and shot down, it flies ~800 units above the ground but has ~1 health.

The latter would ofc have the problem of PvE viability.

Well I think this just ties into the aspect idea that others keep talking about. I’ll admit I only skimmed over it a little, but I don’t think anyone’s really discussed what they want the various pet aspects to do, right?

Aspect of the Jaguar gives you stealth.
Aspect of the Owl gives you camo.
etc etc.

Specific Game Mode
WvW (PvX)

Proposal Overview
A simple fix for pet AI.

Goal of Proposal
To make the pet function in a useable way

Proposal Functionality

Simple:

- Pet should naturally stay by the side of the Ranger, and not run off
– While next to Ranger pet provides a buff depending on type of pet such as added toughness, power, etc
– If Ranger chooses to activate pet using an F1-4 skill the pet will charge at the Ranger’s target
– There should be 2 types of pets: Melee and Range
– Melee pets should have incredible closing speed and apply bleed and cripple to the target when they attack
– Ranged pets should have powerful condition-applying attacks such as poison, confusion, torment that last for a short duration
– Melee pets should have 300 range melee attack with NO cleave
– Ranged pets should have 600 range with NO AoE
– Ranger will lose the buff while pet is in attack mode
– Pet will melee target until Ranger calls it back, at which time Ranger would gain the buff back
– Pets should get a toughness buff in general

Advantages of this:
– Pets are easy to control
– Pets are less likely to die by mindlessly running into zergs
– Pets are useful (gap closing, cripple)
– Ranger gets buff for having a pet, loses buff when pet is in attack mode, but since attack mode will be quite useful it’s still a positive

Associated Risks
None if you get the buff, damage, and range numbers correct

That’s it. Hope you like my idea. I think it solves a lot of issues and simplifies the pet situation.

Avariz.8241:

Avariz.8241:

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.

---

Update: When I referred to pet skills I was of cause referring to the 3 or 4 pet attack skills automatically controlled by the pet AI.

The proposal was for the pet AI to have a player semi-switch on/off option. So that when off, the player can directly activate the pet AI controlled attack skills. Further on from that the pet attack skills should have an auto attack function, which allow the player to setup when pet AI is switched off, exactly the same as for the player’s skills.

Having gone in game to reappraise the ranger’s pet AI skills and functions, I found the f4 avoid combat function is pretty much what I want for semi-turn-off AI. This is where the pet AI stop using its attack skills when aggro and also staying close to the ranger. However, in a pet avoid combat function player could find it useful to have more pet skills to activate beside the only f2. In addition another useful feature is the option for player to set auto attack on the pet AI skills just like the player’s skills set. This is in pet avoid combat function and possibly for when pet AI guard function is fully on. Also another useful feature for pet avoid combat feature is pet mimic of the player in certain player actions. In the mimic feature when player dodge or double dodge pet could mimic the player and do the same dodge or double dodge for example.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Xaylin.1860:

Stowing a pet and gaining some benefits is reasonable for certain areas of the game. Perma-stowing and receiving a 100% damage compensation for it defies the purpose of a pet class. If you don’t like pets, don’t play a pet class. It is a design decision by ANet that the Ranger is the pet class. You might like it or not but that is their vision.

While the pet is a huge part of the ranger mechanic, the ranger is not only defined by its pet. if you would remove the pet, the class would still work. Furthermore, the pet is the only classmechanic with drawbacks attached to it. You gain advantages but you also have disadvantages. Me and a lot more don’t want to use the pet. We should not be forced to use it in order to be competitive. We don’t suggest to remove the pet entirely. We just want to have it optional. Furthermore, this is was Allie said:

Allie Murdock.8152:

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

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

Just musing!

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

While the pet is a huge part of the ranger mechanic, the ranger is not only defined by its pet. if you would remove the pet, the class would still work. Furthermore, the pet is the only classmechanic with drawbacks attached to it. You gain advantages but you also have disadvantages. Me and a lot more don’t want to use the pet.

Death shroud is also a class mechanic with drawbacks:
death shroud has several of them:
-no healing (both from itsef and allies)
-no condition removal
-no stunbreakers
-life force diminishes on its own
-no life force on death
-no utility skills

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

do you really want to play a ranger? or would you prefer a different class with bows, and burst dps?

pets is really the defining charachteristic of ranger. I really think the devs for ranger should be improving pet response, pet combo/interplay and pet control, rather than negating the pet.

I cant help feeling some of the people play ranger because it has a bow, and they always play the ranged class, rather than because they actually want to play a class whose main mechanic is using various pets to good effect.

Tim.6450:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

While the pet is a huge part of the ranger mechanic, the ranger is not only defined by its pet. if you would remove the pet, the class would still work. Furthermore, the pet is the only classmechanic with drawbacks attached to it. You gain advantages but you also have disadvantages. Me and a lot more don’t want to use the pet.

Death shroud is also a class mechanic with drawbacks:
death shroud has several of them:
-no healing (both from itsef and allies)
-no condition removal
-no stunbreakers
-life force diminishes on its own
-no life force on death
-no utility skills

If you use DS you know what drawbacks you gonna take. Furthermore you have the full control when you want to use DS (and accept its weaknesses) and when not.
The pet on the other side can’t be controlled beyond the point of “attack/retreat” and has to stay at your enemy the whole time in order to be effective.
Seriously, DS and the pet are like day and night regarding to their controllability.

From a conceptual standpoint, I see a Ranger with a pet as a team working together. Unlike clones or minions, they should be like 2 buddies, able to communicate and help each other throughout a battle. Which means I think there needs to be more synergy between the player and the pet, allowing one to buff the other, deflect attacks, absorb their strengths, etc.

In game-play terms, a stow-pet option would be cool if it worked like a signet: it’s a temporary benefit/surge that changes the aspect of battle with a risk/reward choice. So, you “stow” your pet, or more specifically “gain the aspect of your companion” which might give a stat bonus but also a tangible change to combat, perhaps working like an Engi kit and changing the 1-5 skills, or perhaps giving the ranger new F1 & F2 skills. It would need to be more than just +15% damage output or something boring. It would need to be something strategic. Perhaps a Moa pet would split into 2 “spirits” and run at the target and give confusion upon “stowing” while the ranger player gains and a new F1 skill that deals extra damage for each condition on a foe. Or stowing a panther teleports the ranger to just behind the target and gives an F1 skill that makes the next 3 attacks guaranteed crits.

phys.7689:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

do you really want to play a ranger? or would you prefer a different class with bows, and burst dps?

pets is really the defining charachteristic of ranger. I really think the devs for ranger should be improving pet response, pet combo/interplay and pet control, rather than negating the pet.

I cant help feeling some of the people play ranger because it has a bow, and they always play the ranged class, rather than because they actually want to play a class whose main mechanic is using various pets to good effect.

The defining characteristic of a ranger is not a pet. Maybe for you it is but in the big picture a ranger is a mashup.

rang·er (r?n?j?r)
n.
1. A wanderer; a rover.
2. A member of an armed troop employed in patrolling a specific region.
3. Ranger A member of a group of U.S. soldiers specially trained for making raids either on foot, in ground vehicles, or by airlift.
4.
a. A warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a forest or park.
b. Chiefly British The keeper of a royal forest or park.

Shadowbane.7109:

phys.7689:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

do you really want to play a ranger? or would you prefer a different class with bows, and burst dps?

pets is really the defining charachteristic of ranger. I really think the devs for ranger should be improving pet response, pet combo/interplay and pet control, rather than negating the pet.

I cant help feeling some of the people play ranger because it has a bow, and they always play the ranged class, rather than because they actually want to play a class whose main mechanic is using various pets to good effect.

The defining characteristic of a ranger is not a pet. Maybe for you it is but in the big picture a ranger is a mashup.

rang·er (r?n?j?r)
n.
1. A wanderer; a rover.
2. A member of an armed troop employed in patrolling a specific region.
3. Ranger A member of a group of U.S. soldiers specially trained for making raids either on foot, in ground vehicles, or by airlift.
4.
a. A warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a forest or park.
b. Chiefly British The keeper of a royal forest or park.

i dont mean what a ranger is in history, im saying in this game, its defined as a pet class. just like in this game mesmer is always going to be tied to illusions, and thief will always be tied to dual skills, stealth and steal.

The class mechanic is mainly what sets classes apart in this game. Everybody has support/tanks/ranged weapons etc, what really sets classes apart is how they go about doing it, and their class mechanics are a strong definer of that for most classes.

Im saying a lot of people like rangers/long range fighters in other games. but this ranger is actually defined more by its pets than by the fact it has ranged attacks or wilderness flavor.

so when people say they want ranger without the pet, they are kind of saying they want another class. Which im all for, but making ranger into not a pet class is essentially making a new class,

That last part. That is the problem. Instead of making only a beastmaster they tried to make a pseoudobeastmaster with a bit of the rest.

Shadowbane.7109:

phys.7689:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

do you really want to play a ranger? or would you prefer a different class with bows, and burst dps?

pets is really the defining charachteristic of ranger. I really think the devs for ranger should be improving pet response, pet combo/interplay and pet control, rather than negating the pet.

I cant help feeling some of the people play ranger because it has a bow, and they always play the ranged class, rather than because they actually want to play a class whose main mechanic is using various pets to good effect.

The defining characteristic of a ranger is not a pet. Maybe for you it is but in the big picture a ranger is a mashup.

rang·er (r?n?j?r)
n.
1. A wanderer; a rover.
2. A member of an armed troop employed in patrolling a specific region.
3. Ranger A member of a group of U.S. soldiers specially trained for making raids either on foot, in ground vehicles, or by airlift.
4.
a. A warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a forest or park.
b. Chiefly British The keeper of a royal forest or park.

People really need to stop with this… they use the same logic to try and argue against bows being viable.

Simple fact is that bows are supposed to be a vital part of this class.
Simple fact is that pets are supposed to be a vital part of this class.
The only role ANet has ever said this class is supposed to fill is that of a pet class.

Now I’m all for a passive option for the pet. I’d much prefer an active option. If given a choice for both, the active should give higher benefit to the class. This is the direction the CDI is going it appears so try and work within the framework ANet is currently using.

Shadowbane.7109:

RoyalPredator.9163:

Anyway, hows that if someone jumps down or up even a “flying” pet can’t keep track?
I would make them ignoring the terrain axys

As far as I am aware they use NPC pathing thus they cant jump nor fly.

Yes I know it well, but still up with the suggestion of making them ignore levels of Z axys.
It would be very hard to make them life-like… that needs complete rework of their kind.
Problem is with the big fallings from cliffs. IRL they fly up high and they would go forward down and turn back, then Hit, and repeat. In game, they may just continue the tracking, and they would have a freefall animation.

When a new AI has been made for the game, they might correct these.
Also; AI can be synced to seem mutch smarter.

Specific Game Mode
sPvP

Proposal Overview
My ideal aproach of pets will be a Ranger shooting arrows from a distance while the pet is in the middle of the fight supporting the Ranger and the allies with buffs, boon etc.

Goal of Proposal
Pets diversity..Reduce the frustation when you expect some of your damage to be made by your pet and it misses a lot

Proposal Functionality
The ranged damage is lower in this game cause of the risk being meele close to the boss aoes..You take out some of pets damage and you are adding it in a aoe around it.

Examples: Cats give aoe fury on every crit..No need for selfish skills, reduce the damage and add more support in every pet.Birds can give aoe swiftness, bears aoe cond removal on hit, wolf fear enemies on hit etc etc.

Associated Risks
Exept the buffing and nerfing adjustements we need to rebalance-rework some F2 skills.If a wolf has a 5% chance to fear on hit for example the F2 must be changed.Maybe you can put there the knockdown.

phys.7689:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

do you really want to play a ranger? or would you prefer a different class with bows, and burst dps?

pets is really the defining charachteristic of ranger. I really think the devs for ranger should be improving pet response, pet combo/interplay and pet control, rather than negating the pet.

I cant help feeling some of the people play ranger because it has a bow, and they always play the ranged class, rather than because they actually want to play a class whose main mechanic is using various pets to good effect.

Your suggestion is good too, but they’ve also said the problems are deep in the code and will be difficult to work out. The idea is just to have options for different play while not taking anything away, this is in the spirit of the game. An impervious buffing pet (my original idea a year ago was it was an animal spirit so ghostly) is just an option some people may want to use, but it wouldnt be forced on anyone.

edit: the pet swap mechanic would still be used, since different pets would give different buffs (ie defensive/offensive) and even the f1 could provide an active effect for a short duration. The existing system could still remain in place, the animals could even be found in a new zone and added harmoniously to the existing.

Allie Murdock.8152:

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

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

Just musing!

I know this is getting old, but….

The more I think about the whole “aspect” idea the more I like it. The risk/issue, however, is that you’d want both the pet and the “aspect” to be viable choices. Is there a way for the buffs to be situational depending on the “mode” per se?

My thinking is that when the pet is an actual pet, you get more of an offensive buff. In contrast, when you channel the “aspect” you get more of a defensive buff.

Bear for example: when the bear is out the damage is still split (85/15 or whatever) and the F2 skill has an offense flavor maybe along with short, reoccurring party buff or something. When the “aspect” is channeled, the ranger gets a big ole spirit bear hug (with a corresponding visual change) and the defensive buff is a party condition cleanse every so often or something. Maybe even toughness/vit boost of some sort. Since the pet is no longer a damaging entity, the ranger gets a damage compensation.

This might appeal to both the pet/no pet ranger sects while hopefully promoting smart usage between the two modes instead of the “permastow” threat that may occur. Ranger weapons/traits would need some lovin’ with this method though.

Let’s be real, this would probably be difficult to pull off. Between the balancing/animation/general pet improvements (I’m still in favor for an aoe damage reduction/longer hit range), and other stuffz, it’s probably not a reality. Can’t blame a guy for hoping though, right?

phys.7689:

i dont mean what a ranger is in history, im saying in this game, its defined as a pet class. just like in this game mesmer is always going to be tied to illusions, and thief will always be tied to dual skills, stealth and steal.

The class mechanic is mainly what sets classes apart in this game. Everybody has support/tanks/ranged weapons etc, what really sets classes apart is how they go about doing it, and their class mechanics are a strong definer of that for most classes.

Im saying a lot of people like rangers/long range fighters in other games. but this ranger is actually defined more by its pets than by the fact it has ranged attacks or wilderness flavor.

so when people say they want ranger without the pet, they are kind of saying they want another class. Which im all for, but making ranger into not a pet class is essentially making a new class,

In contrast to other classes, the pet is not extending the gameplay (as much).
If you want to kill a mob, you go in and attack the mob, yor pet will probably do the same.
Without a pet, you would still go in and attack the mob. No difference there.
The only gameplay aspects that are tied to the pet are the shouts and the F2 skills, and both suck.
Another great “gameplay” aspect is keeping your pet alive, which isn’t any more satisfying.
As long as you don’t want to play beastmaster, you will be better off without a pet.
And that what I want to achieve. You can have your pet. But I don’t want it and I don’t want to be punished for not using it.

Atherakhia.4086:

Shadowbane.7109:

phys.7689:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

do you really want to play a ranger? or would you prefer a different class with bows, and burst dps?

pets is really the defining charachteristic of ranger. I really think the devs for ranger should be improving pet response, pet combo/interplay and pet control, rather than negating the pet.

I cant help feeling some of the people play ranger because it has a bow, and they always play the ranged class, rather than because they actually want to play a class whose main mechanic is using various pets to good effect.

The defining characteristic of a ranger is not a pet. Maybe for you it is but in the big picture a ranger is a mashup.

rang·er (r?n?j?r)
n.
1. A wanderer; a rover.
2. A member of an armed troop employed in patrolling a specific region.
3. Ranger A member of a group of U.S. soldiers specially trained for making raids either on foot, in ground vehicles, or by airlift.
4.
a. A warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a forest or park.
b. Chiefly British The keeper of a royal forest or park.

People really need to stop with this… they use the same logic to try and argue against bows being viable.

Simple fact is that bows are supposed to be a vital part of this class.
Simple fact is that pets are supposed to be a vital part of this class.
The only role ANet has ever said this class is supposed to fill is that of a pet class.

Now I’m all for a passive option for the pet. I’d much prefer an active option. If given a choice for both, the active should give higher benefit to the class. This is the direction the CDI is going it appears so try and work within the framework ANet is currently using.

No that is not the universal case, the game itself and it’s mechanics are what is reducing the “viability” of all long-to-mid ranged combat. Your issue with the dictionary definition argument is just as bad as the endless "unparalleled archer, " quoting which you can see is not mentioned in the Design Philosophy.

I have no issue with bows or ranged combat existing, but the community going round and round with the same skritty argument is not helping the matter. You want bows “viable” make suggestion to help counter the overall design that lead to melee superiority.

Specific Game Mode
PVX – Affects more WvW and SPVP

Proposal Overview
Merge Spirits visually, i.e. if you have 3 of them active they’ll be just one, but with 3 auras combined corresponding to the spirits activated. Rework of passive/active effects.

Goal of Proposal
To promote active play with Spirits and give both viable support options and less visual clutter!

Proposal Functionality
Visual clutter
We have 6 spirits that are mostly passive/killable group buffs and clutter the screen. This way you would have just one in the screen but all (if you slot for it) for the functionality.
Traits promoting active play
“Your spirits now move with you and their active skill has an added effect:
Water Spirit: Now removes x conditions.
Storm Spirit: Now dazes for x seconds. (works with moment of clarity)
Sun Spirit: Now does x stacks of confusion for x seconds.
Frost Spirit: Now encases targets affected in an ice crystal for x seconds.
Stone Spirit: Now weakens for x seconds.
Elite Spirit: Reflects projectiles for x seconds.”
Passive Effects rework
Frost Spirit: Deal X% more damage to chilled targets.
Sun Spirit: Inflict x seconds of burning if the target is blinded.
Storm Spirit: Gain X seconds of swiftness if the target is interrupted.
Stone Spirit: Gain X seconds of protection if hit by glancing blows.
Water Spirit: Gain X health if hit by conditions.
Elite Spirit could have the healing passive greatly reduced and the active part could be completely changed depending on which spirits you have active.

Support
Main problem with using spirits to support is that they die in a second to aoes, in my solution they would merge their health too, being a lot more survivable and have some active defense with elite active.

Associated Risks
Some balancing would be required to bring everything else up to par with spirits builds.

I’ll make a signet rework proposal and overall trait in the coming days.

an idea let the ranger do 100% of the damage and let the pet do extra damage so like with pet you have 130% and not ranger 70% and pet 30%.
a second one is give ranger more aoe skills

Aspects

For those interested, this is about the “Aspects” many here are talking about. If you want to, please leave an opinion on this idea and how you would like to see them implemented, if it is to happen. ^^

Specific Game Mode
PvE (Everywhere actually since the mentioned “Aspects” would be a big change)

Proposal Overview
Introducing “stowing” of the pet as an infight mechanic
Upon stowing, the ranger gets the “Aspect of the <pet>” buff
Upon bringing out your second pet, the “Aspect” effect disappears.

Goal of Proposal
- Less forced pet focused ranger gaming
- Keeping pet as a key mechanic of the ranger
- Reducing the problem “my pet is unreliable damage source. It easily dies.”
- Allowing higher build diversity
- Making pet choosing a more significant issue for the ranger

Proposal Functionality

F4 Ability:
(now has two different abilities, depending on if you stow the pet or release it)

Ability 1: Stowing the pet (F4)
Your pet gets stored.
F1 now displays the “Aspect” passive buff, uniquely based on the chosen pet.
F2 now is a new active skill, uniquely based on the chosen pet.
F3 now is a skill that releases your pet of slot 1
F4 now is a skill that releases your pet of slot 2
(You have a new visual overhaul, that indicates the “Aspect”)
Cast time: 1s
Initial cooldown on F3, F4: 10s

Ability 2: Releasing your pet (F3/F4)
You release your other pet.
F1-F3 now change back to the pet UI.
F4 now is a skill that stows your pet (Ability 1)
(The visual effect disappears)
Cast time: 1 s
Initial Cooldown on F4: 16 s

What Aspects should be like:
In general while the pets are stowed.

F1 Passive: (In general)
Every X seconds, your next attack gets a bonus unique to the “Aspect of the <pet>”

For Example: (Salamander Drake)
Every 10 seconds, your next attack applies burning on your target for 2 seconds.

F2 Active
Is an Ability unique to the “Aspect of the <pet>”

For example: (Salamander Drake)
Releases an aoe Fire burst, dealing damage and burning foes.
Radius: 440
Burning: 3 s
Damage: X?
Number of Targets: 5
Cast Time: 2 s
Cooldown: 45 seconds (45_s results in kitten?)

Associated Risks
Alot of balance testing.

Thoughts behind it

Ok, why do it like this? Why allowing to put the same pet out again?
Well why not? It allows more niche play and situation adjustment. On top, it has its risks if implemented this way. If you used your active of the “Aspect”. In the example above it has 45 seconds cooldown. Thus if you stow your pet again after 16s, the Active F2 of the Aspect is still on cooldown.

Some may have noticed, but the idea about how the “Aspects” should work in my opinion is alot like Udyr from LoL. It allows great playstyle diversity and actually makes the ranger consider more unused pets, too.

This also keeps the pet of the ranger as a key mechanic, just a way more reliable one, because you use it, when you feel you can. In situations where it doesnt get oneshotted and in situations where you actually need it.

Though still keeping the pet as a key mechanic, it allows great plays without the pet itself. Players that do not favor pets that much, would see the pet as a reliable source of damage/buffs in between their “Aspects”, thus making is a considerable alternative and makes them start accepting their pet more, too.

I like the idea and I just wanted to throw it out there. If you see flaws in it or find some better suggestions, please answer this post ;)

I really like where the Aspects discussion is going.

The ability to swap between a pet and an aspect can really open up a LOT of interesting playstyles for the Ranger as a class and it addresses both the current technical issues with pets AND the philosophical issues some players have with the pet-tether while still keeping the pet as the class mechanic.

will de grijze jager.6594:

an idea let the ranger do 100% of the damage and let the pet do extra damage so like with pet you have 130% and not ranger 70% and pet 30%.
a second one is give ranger more aoe skills

This would be overpowered. However you could drastically lower the base damage the pet is dealing but also increase the power on beastmastery. So if you gonna play zerker ranger you will do alot of damage, while your pet doing nearly nothing.
If you invest points in beastmastery, your damage will be lowered but the damage of your pet increased.

Bran.7425:

Atherakhia.4086:

Shadowbane.7109:

phys.7689:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Kilger.5490:

There have been ideas presented that make the pet virtually not there.

ie a trait or option to switch pet to an impervious passive buff machine that just follows you around.

I think this is the closest to stowing we could hope for because they’ve said pets are here to stay. I would push this idea if stowing is what you want because its basically the same effect.

I don’t care what they do with the pet, as long as I get the damage back.

do you really want to play a ranger? or would you prefer a different class with bows, and burst dps?

pets is really the defining charachteristic of ranger. I really think the devs for ranger should be improving pet response, pet combo/interplay and pet control, rather than negating the pet.

I cant help feeling some of the people play ranger because it has a bow, and they always play the ranged class, rather than because they actually want to play a class whose main mechanic is using various pets to good effect.

The defining characteristic of a ranger is not a pet. Maybe for you it is but in the big picture a ranger is a mashup.

rang·er (r?n?j?r)
n.
1. A wanderer; a rover.
2. A member of an armed troop employed in patrolling a specific region.
3. Ranger A member of a group of U.S. soldiers specially trained for making raids either on foot, in ground vehicles, or by airlift.
4.
a. A warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a forest or park.
b. Chiefly British The keeper of a royal forest or park.

People really need to stop with this… they use the same logic to try and argue against bows being viable.

Simple fact is that bows are supposed to be a vital part of this class.
Simple fact is that pets are supposed to be a vital part of this class.
The only role ANet has ever said this class is supposed to fill is that of a pet class.

Now I’m all for a passive option for the pet. I’d much prefer an active option. If given a choice for both, the active should give higher benefit to the class. This is the direction the CDI is going it appears so try and work within the framework ANet is currently using.

No that is not the universal case, the game itself and it’s mechanics are what is reducing the “viability” of all long-to-mid ranged combat. Your issue with the dictionary definition argument is just as bad as the endless "unparalleled archer, " quoting which you can see is not mentioned in the Design Philosophy.

I have no issue with bows or ranged combat existing, but the community going round and round with the same skritty argument is not helping the matter. You want bows “viable” make suggestion to help counter the overall design that lead to melee superiority.

I have… and we are…

Bran.7425:

I have no issue with bows or ranged combat existing, but the community going round and round with the same skritty argument is not helping the matter. You want bows “viable” make suggestion to help counter the overall design that lead to melee superiority.

In my suggestion back on page 1 I suggested that the Longbow become a dedicated “Beastmaster” weapon. You do damage from afar while buffing and synergizing with your pet. That would improve the bow’s viability without making it OP. Not a perfect solution of course, but I thought it was a good idea, which is why I suggested it.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

will de grijze jager.6594:

an idea let the ranger do 100% of the damage and let the pet do extra damage so like with pet you have 130% and not ranger 70% and pet 30%.
a second one is give ranger more aoe skills

This would be overpowered. However you could drastically lower the base damage the pet is dealing but also increase the power on beastmastery. So if you gonna play zerker ranger you will do alot of damage, while your pet doing nearly nothing.
If you invest points in beastmastery, your damage will be lowered but the damage of your pet increased.

Right… if you simply make all pets do the same damage, and reduce that damage to about what a 6-8 stack of bleeds is expected to do with only moderate condition damage you’ve effectively turned the class mechanic into a unique DOT that provides utility and burst.

If they would have just approached the pet like this I think we wouldn’t have half the problems we do today.

mtpelion.4562:

Bran.7425:

I have no issue with bows or ranged combat existing, but the community going round and round with the same skritty argument is not helping the matter. You want bows “viable” make suggestion to help counter the overall design that lead to melee superiority.

In my suggestion back on page 1 I suggested that the Longbow become a dedicated “Beastmaster” weapon. You do damage from afar while buffing and synergizing with your pet. That would improve the bow’s viability without making it OP. Not a perfect solution of course, but I thought it was a good idea, which is why I suggested it.

I think Beastmastery and Bows are contradictory gameplays. The bow is tied to the archer, providing great ranged combat. The Pet on the other hand both offering and taking buffs in close range and depends on someone crippling the target.
Furthermore, if you’re playing with a longbow, your pet will waste a remarkable time closing the gab and staying on the target. The only reason to use a pet with a longbow is to keep the target on range, so you can deal max. damage.
The only bow that could be a beastmastery weapon would be the shortbow, since you can still be near your pet.
However, you can make the longbow also viable as beastmaster, but the main playstyle of the longbow should be the art of archery.

Game Mode Specific
PVX

Proposal Overview

• Control the pet.

Goal of Proposal

• Improve the control, management and use of the pet.

Proposal Functionality

• (A) click and point system for the movement of the pet.
• (B) Block of using pet.
• © Extract of F1 and F3 “attack my target” and “Return to Me”
• (D) incorporate F1, F2, F3 and F4 pet skills.
• (E) ability to train the pet from level 1, so, passive, active or aggressive.

Associated Risks

• (A) will add difficulty to the use of the character.
• (B) forgetting to use it, would prejudice the player.
• © the location of the use disconcerted key player at first.
• (D) will add difficulty to the use of the character.
• © Any player with a ranger profession, will have to start from scratch with their pets.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

mtpelion.4562:

Bran.7425:

I have no issue with bows or ranged combat existing, but the community going round and round with the same skritty argument is not helping the matter. You want bows “viable” make suggestion to help counter the overall design that lead to melee superiority.

In my suggestion back on page 1 I suggested that the Longbow become a dedicated “Beastmaster” weapon. You do damage from afar while buffing and synergizing with your pet. That would improve the bow’s viability without making it OP. Not a perfect solution of course, but I thought it was a good idea, which is why I suggested it.

I think Beastmastery and Bows are contradictory gameplays. The bow is tied to the archer, providing great ranged combat. The Pet on the other hand both offering and taking buffs in close range and depends on someone crippling the target.
Furthermore, if you’re playing with a longbow, your pet will waste a remarkable time closing the gab and staying on the target. The only reason to use a pet with a longbow is to keep the target on range, so you can deal max. damage.
The only bow that could be a beastmastery weapon would be the shortbow, since you can still be near your pet.

The main gist of my suggestion back there was to give our weapon sets some better (or some) definition. We should have a weapon set that really complements the beastmaster, but it doesn’t have to be the Longbow. I just picked that one because it is so remarkably under…focused?…

mtpelion.4562:

The main gist of my suggestion back there was to give our weapon sets some better (or some) definition. We should have a weapon set that really complements the beastmaster, but it doesn’t have to be the Longbow. I just picked that one because it is so remarkably under…focused?…

You are right about the longbow feeling crude. But I do think it should be tied to the archer instead of the beastmaster. However I can understand your point about having a weapon specialiezed to support your pet.

Allie Murdock.8152:

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

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

Just musing!

If we build upon this further and specialize pets some more then today, we could change pet damage functions a bit and do things like this;

Bears – High power, Very high Crit damage/Ferocity, very low precision, high toughness, very high vitality. Natural Regeneration, regenerates 90 health/second.

Ursine Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the Spirit of the Bear. You get 10% bonus to Healing Power, Vitality and Toughness.

Canines – Medium Power, medium Crit damage/ferocity, medium precision, medium toughness, medium vitality. Knockdown attacks has 20% chance to also immobilize the enemy.

Canine Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the Spirit of the Wolf. Your shouts apply Fear to enemies and healing to allies. 16 second ICD (lowest Dog howl CD)

Felines – medium power, high critical damage/ferocity, very high precision, low toughness, low vitality. Increased response/very low aftercast on attacks.

Feline Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the Spirit of the Leopard. You gain 10% bonus to critical chance, critical damage/ferocity and 50% chance to apply vulnerability (6 seconds) on crit (2 second ICD).

Drakes – high power, medium critical damage/ferocity, low precision, very high toughness, high vitality. “Eats” a boon on every 5th attack.

Reptilian Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the spirit of the Reptile. You gain 25% chance to steal health on attack (10 second ICD) and 10% bonus to Toughness and vitality.

Eagle (Moa’s are birds, but they are defensive, so birds are split in two) – medium power, very high critical damage/ferocity, high precision, very low toughness, very low vitality. Main damage from AA comes from low duration high intensity bleed.

Eagle Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the spirit of the Eagle. All ranged attacks gain 100% critical chance every #X attack. Movement speed while using bows and harpoons are increased by 25% (does not stack with other movement speed bonuses)

Moa – low power, medium critical damage/ferocity, high precision, very high toughness, high vitality. Turns 2 conditions on allies into 2 random boons once every 30 seconds.

Moa Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the spirit of the Moa. You gain 20% bonus to boon duration, 20% reduced cooldown on healing skills. Shouts apply Protection (6 seconds) to allies.

Devourer – very high power, low critical damage, very low precision, very high toughness toughness, high vitality. Splash damage on AA.

Devourer Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the spirit of the Devourer. Immobilize, Chill, Crippled and Poison duration is increased by 50%. Corrupt a boon every time you apply poison to the enemy (12 sec ICD). 10% bonus to Power.

Spiders – low power – medium critical damage, high precision, high toughness, very high vitality. Slow attack speed. Does 100% more damage to immobilized enemies.

Arachnid Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the spirit of the arachnid. You have 33% chance to apply poison on attack. Clear 3 conditions upon successfully applying poison to the enemy (20 second ICD).

Pigs – High Power, very low critical damage/ferocity, very low precision, very high toughness, medium vitality. Brutal Charge knocks back all foes in the path of the attack.

Porcine Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the spirit of the Boar. You gain 10% increased vitality, toughness and 10% chance upon critical hit to daze your target (2 seconds duration, 15 second ICD).

Fish – high power, very low critical damage/ferocity, very low precision, very high toughness, very high vitality. Has increased resilience to conditions and control effects.

Marine Aspect – Your spirit has become one with the spirit of the ocean. Movement speed under water is increased by 10%, Healing skills under water is 10% stronger, Sink/Float/Daze/Stun duration is reduced by 50% (self)

Explanation of “values”:
Very Low – 0-10% (Crit damage/Chance), 0-300 stat points
Low – 10-25% (Crit Damage/Chance), 300-750 stat points
Medium – 25-50% (Crit Damage/Chance), 750-1250 stat points
High – 50-75% (Crit Damage/Chance), 1250-1600 stat points
Very High – 75%-120% (Crit Damage/Chance), 1600-2000 stat points

mtpelion.4562:

I really like where the Aspects discussion is going.

The ability to swap between a pet and an aspect can really open up a LOT of interesting playstyles for the Ranger as a class and it addresses both the current technical issues with pets AND the philosophical issues some players have with the pet-tether while still keeping the pet as the class mechanic.

What if we did something like this…

Each pet family has a group oriented buff that everyone gets that does something like +XXX of a stat depending on which pet is active. The pets would then have the unique F2 abilities that each provides but they need to make a pass through to make sure they each FAMILY of pet at least has something useful.

For example… you the Ranger chooses a Panther which is part of the cat family. Cat family pets give everyone +XXX ferocity. The Panther in particular gets stealth for a burst attack, which is selfish for the Ranger. But alternatively, the player could have chosen the Lynx which gives the party Fury (an offensive buff), or the Leopard, which makes your party’s next attack chill (a defensive buff).

The aspect comes in by making the Ranger more selfish in nature. Instead, the Ranger takes on the ‘Aspect of the Cat’ which gives them the additional ferocity with an additional bonus since it’s now only for the Ranger and not his group. In addition to this, each pet family is given a unique ‘aspect power’. Since someone above liked the idea of stealth, you could just make that the cat aspect power (even though the Jaguar has it).

ALTERNATIVELY: You do the reverse and you could make the pet the more selfish option and make the aspect more group friendly which may help with the PvE issues some, but I’d much prefer using the pet to be more rewarding than using the aspect.

rpfohr.7048:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Many of you have suggested removing traps from the Skirmishing line. It seems the primary reason for this is because it is the crit line while traps are primarily focused on conditions.

Given the idea behind skirmishing (for Ranger, we expect them to be able to survive longer while whittling their opponent down), would it maybe make more sense to leave the traps there and perhaps swap the stats with a different line?

Allie, I personally dont want the change because I like to also go down and grab empathetic bond. I also think pairing the crit chance and crit damage in the same line is the only way power builds are even viable because i can pick those up on 1 line.

However, I could possibly see skirmishing (though I wouldn’t like it because it messes up power builds more)
Crit chance and condition damage
WS having
Toughness and crit damage

If you were willing…….no other class has done this. (not due power and condi duration in the same line)

Marksmanship
Power and Crit damage / ferocity

Skirmishing
Crit chance and condition duration

I think the later could be really good for rangers ability to skirmish and trap. Plus putting power and crit damage in the same line could be the boost power rangers have been looking for.

I JUST CAME UP WITH IT THANKS TO YOUR IDEA!!

Risks include a slight redesign to opening strikes and the vulnerability aspect of Marks line. Some players who used Marks line and non crit builds may feel like they are wasting stats now.

However I think the pros to buffing power ranger and making trap rangers feel like they are getting some good stat our of skirmishing will overall outweigh these cons by a heavy margin.

Here’s the con to that…every trap ranger will still be forced into the same 2 traitlines we are now. Every trap ranger is already in skirmishing for the trap traits and wilderness survival for the condition damage. This would change nothing. Every trap ranger is already x/30/30/x/x, we need to move condition damage’s location for an actual change and opening of traits. I’d willingly mix things up and not use Wilderness Survival if I knew I had the full power of my traps from a single traitline. But since Wilderness Survival is REQUIRED for the condition damage, and Skirmishing is REQUIRED for all the trap traits, we’re forced into 2 traitlines.

[WvWvW]/[PvE]
Longbow..
1. Scaling damage with range is nice thematically, but it prevents longbow from being passable in dungeons with the current melee meta.
2. This skill does good damage, but having it spread over SO MANY hits makes it feel like I’m using a shortbow, not a longbow. It doesn’t feel right with the basic attack.
3. The stealth is nice, but rangers, when using Longbow, have such little movement potential, that it can be difficult to utilize the short stealth – prehaps give swiftness to the ranger as well?
4. Great skill, feels in line with the basic attack and suits the role.
5. I like this skill, but again, the fast rate of fire does not feel in line with the basic attack or the concept of the longbow. Prehaps give an effect that makes your basic attacks AoE and apply cripple for a short duration? This would allow the ranger to more effectively kite with their basic attack, and make the longbow more thematic.

RyuDragnier.9476:

rpfohr.7048:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Many of you have suggested removing traps from the Skirmishing line. It seems the primary reason for this is because it is the crit line while traps are primarily focused on conditions.

Given the idea behind skirmishing (for Ranger, we expect them to be able to survive longer while whittling their opponent down), would it maybe make more sense to leave the traps there and perhaps swap the stats with a different line?

Allie, I personally dont want the change because I like to also go down and grab empathetic bond. I also think pairing the crit chance and crit damage in the same line is the only way power builds are even viable because i can pick those up on 1 line.

However, I could possibly see skirmishing (though I wouldn’t like it because it messes up power builds more)
Crit chance and condition damage
WS having
Toughness and crit damage

If you were willing…….no other class has done this. (not due power and condi duration in the same line)

Marksmanship
Power and Crit damage / ferocity

Skirmishing
Crit chance and condition duration

I think the later could be really good for rangers ability to skirmish and trap. Plus putting power and crit damage in the same line could be the boost power rangers have been looking for.

I JUST CAME UP WITH IT THANKS TO YOUR IDEA!!

Risks include a slight redesign to opening strikes and the vulnerability aspect of Marks line. Some players who used Marks line and non crit builds may feel like they are wasting stats now.

However I think the pros to buffing power ranger and making trap rangers feel like they are getting some good stat our of skirmishing will overall outweigh these cons by a heavy margin.

Here’s the con to that…every trap ranger will still be forced into the same 2 traitlines. Every trap ranger is already in skirmishing for the trap traits and wilderness survival for the condition damage. This would change nothing.

However if we do it like this instead;
Marksmanship: Power + Precision
Skirmishing; Condition Damage, Critical Damage
Wilderness Survival; Toughness, Vitality
Nature Magic; Healing Power, Boon Duration
Beastmastery; Profession Specific Bonus, Condition Duration.

This allows us to the the most possible damage, and be as tanky as possible at any given time. Yes this might ruin trappers as they will lose out on duration, however seeing as most trappers run Carrion + Rabid you get the much needed boost to power, precision, critical damage and condition damage to be a more “hybrid” DPS setup, while speccing into BM Bunker will allow you to go heavy condi with direct damage from pets. Spirits may or may not become a problem area though. Shouts will be way way stronger as you get the much needed healing power bonus for the shout regen.
Wilderness survival will be just that, the BEST survival line in game. Giving us proper “Survival” stats.

Atherakhia.4086:

mtpelion.4562:

I really like where the Aspects discussion is going.

The ability to swap between a pet and an aspect can really open up a LOT of interesting playstyles for the Ranger as a class and it addresses both the current technical issues with pets AND the philosophical issues some players have with the pet-tether while still keeping the pet as the class mechanic.

What if we did something like this…

Each pet family has a group oriented buff that everyone gets that does something like +XXX of a stat depending on which pet is active. The pets would then have the unique F2 abilities that each provides but they need to make a pass through to make sure they each FAMILY of pet at least has something useful.

For example… you the Ranger chooses a Panther which is part of the cat family. Cat family pets give everyone +XXX ferocity. The Panther in particular gets stealth for a burst attack, which is selfish for the Ranger. But alternatively, the player could have chosen the Lynx which gives the party Fury (an offensive buff), or the Leopard, which makes your party’s next attack chill (a defensive buff).

The aspect comes in by making the Ranger more selfish in nature. Instead, the Ranger takes on the ‘Aspect of the Cat’ which gives them the additional ferocity with an additional bonus since it’s now only for the Ranger and not his group. In addition to this, each pet family is given a unique ‘aspect power’. Since someone above liked the idea of stealth, you could just make that the cat aspect power (even though the Jaguar has it).

ALTERNATIVELY: You do the reverse and you could make the pet the more selfish option and make the aspect more group friendly which may help with the PvE issues some, but I’d much prefer using the pet to be more rewarding than using the aspect.

Why not make it depend on the pet? Selfish pets could have party bonus Aspects and group friendly pets could have selfish Aspects. Sometimes maybe a mixture of pets and aspects being only selfish or group friendly? Would higher build diversity alot. Depending on how you implement them. Though instead of the +XXX buff I suggested something else. If interested (and you didnt read already xD) read here:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/14#post3690732

RyuDragnier.9476:

rpfohr.7048:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Many of you have suggested removing traps from the Skirmishing line. It seems the primary reason for this is because it is the crit line while traps are primarily focused on conditions.

Given the idea behind skirmishing (for Ranger, we expect them to be able to survive longer while whittling their opponent down), would it maybe make more sense to leave the traps there and perhaps swap the stats with a different line?

Allie, I personally dont want the change because I like to also go down and grab empathetic bond. I also think pairing the crit chance and crit damage in the same line is the only way power builds are even viable because i can pick those up on 1 line.

However, I could possibly see skirmishing (though I wouldn’t like it because it messes up power builds more)
Crit chance and condition damage
WS having
Toughness and crit damage

If you were willing…….no other class has done this. (not due power and condi duration in the same line)

Marksmanship
Power and Crit damage / ferocity

Skirmishing
Crit chance and condition duration

I think the later could be really good for rangers ability to skirmish and trap. Plus putting power and crit damage in the same line could be the boost power rangers have been looking for.

I JUST CAME UP WITH IT THANKS TO YOUR IDEA!!

Risks include a slight redesign to opening strikes and the vulnerability aspect of Marks line. Some players who used Marks line and non crit builds may feel like they are wasting stats now.

However I think the pros to buffing power ranger and making trap rangers feel like they are getting some good stat our of skirmishing will overall outweigh these cons by a heavy margin.

Here’s the con to that…every trap ranger will still be forced into the same 2 traitlines we are now. Every trap ranger is already in skirmishing for the trap traits and wilderness survival for the condition damage. This would change nothing. Every trap ranger is already x/30/30/x/x, we need to move condition damage’s location for an actual change and opening of traits. I’d willingly mix things up and not use Wilderness Survival if I knew I had the full power of my traps from a single traitline. But since Wilderness Survival is REQUIRED for the condition damage, and Skirmishing is REQUIRED for all the trap traits, we’re forced into 2 traitlines.

While you’re right that people go WS, I think most consider the condition damage from it as a perk. Everyone has to go in WS for Empathic Bond because the condition options for this class are so awful.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with making players choose offense or defense in their trait choices (Marks makes you choose between Signet of Stone or 100% crit chance every 6 seconds) and traps could function in WS, the simple fact that this class can’t function without Empathic Bond means no one will ever take the GM trap trait ever.

Now that said a valid argument could be made that the GM trap trait is pretty mediocre and should be a Master trait and perhaps traps (for all classes) should be ranged base and given extended range with another trait. /shrug.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I think Beastmastery and Bows are contradictory gameplays. The bow is tied to the archer, providing great ranged combat. The Pet on the other hand both offering and taking buffs in close range and depends on someone crippling the target.

It is not contradictory. It just doesn’t work properly at the moment. The buffs provided to the pet could work within weapon range which would solve the main issue. The Ranger not benefiting from certain buffs the pet applies makes sense though. Other classes do also only benefit from AI centered buffs/skills when they are close. Some traits could be excluded from this but I would not expect to be affected by a shout or scream of my pet when I’m 1200 or 1500 units away.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Furthermore, if you’re playing with a longbow, your pet will waste a remarkable time closing the gab and staying on the target. The only reason to use a pet with a longbow is to keep the target on range, so you can deal max. damage.

This could be solved by introducing specific pets which are better at closing a gap even without traiting for additional speed. If you would like to play a Ranger at range you would have to pick the respective pet. However, enabling every pet to easily close a gap would be extremly imbalanced for every other class/build which relies on ranged combat because they will always have the pet right in their face and no way to counter it.

The second part of your paragraph actually mentions why pets do benefit a longbow. So I’m having a hard time seeing any disadvantage there.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I think Beastmastery and Bows are contradictory gameplays. The bow is tied to the archer, providing great ranged combat. The Pet on the other hand both offering and taking buffs in close range and depends on someone crippling the target.
Furthermore, if you’re playing with a longbow, your pet will waste a remarkable time closing the gab and staying on the target. The only reason to use a pet with a longbow is to keep the target on range, so you can deal max. damage.
The only bow that could be a beastmastery weapon would be the shortbow, since you can still be near your pet.
However, you can make the longbow also viable as beastmaster, but the main playstyle of the longbow should be the art of archery.

One you argument not going so well:
Long ranged shot (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Long_Range_Shot) best damage at+1000
Spider pet (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Juvenile_Jungle_Spider) Attacks at 900 units.
Frost Spirit (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Frost_Spirit) radius 1000 units
Healing Spring (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Healing_Spring) 240 unit radius
Fortifying Bond(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Fortifying_Bond) no max distance listed.

So by staying ~100 units away from a pet (any spider or devourer) you are still adding to the pet, and the pet to your ‘archer’ focused combat preference.

So Not really a beast master weapon.

We’ve all seen your post you don’t like pets and you don’t like the bow skills of the other classes that can equip them. So you options you dislike are complete off the table and do not exist then? No, you just choose not to use them.

KehxD.6847:

Atherakhia.4086:

mtpelion.4562:

I really like where the Aspects discussion is going.

The ability to swap between a pet and an aspect can really open up a LOT of interesting playstyles for the Ranger as a class and it addresses both the current technical issues with pets AND the philosophical issues some players have with the pet-tether while still keeping the pet as the class mechanic.

What if we did something like this…

Each pet family has a group oriented buff that everyone gets that does something like +XXX of a stat depending on which pet is active. The pets would then have the unique F2 abilities that each provides but they need to make a pass through to make sure they each FAMILY of pet at least has something useful.

For example… you the Ranger chooses a Panther which is part of the cat family. Cat family pets give everyone +XXX ferocity. The Panther in particular gets stealth for a burst attack, which is selfish for the Ranger. But alternatively, the player could have chosen the Lynx which gives the party Fury (an offensive buff), or the Leopard, which makes your party’s next attack chill (a defensive buff).

The aspect comes in by making the Ranger more selfish in nature. Instead, the Ranger takes on the ‘Aspect of the Cat’ which gives them the additional ferocity with an additional bonus since it’s now only for the Ranger and not his group. In addition to this, each pet family is given a unique ‘aspect power’. Since someone above liked the idea of stealth, you could just make that the cat aspect power (even though the Jaguar has it).

ALTERNATIVELY: You do the reverse and you could make the pet the more selfish option and make the aspect more group friendly which may help with the PvE issues some, but I’d much prefer using the pet to be more rewarding than using the aspect.

Why not make it depend on the pet? Selfish pets could have party bonus Aspects and group friendly pets could have selfish Aspects. Sometimes maybe a mixture of pets and aspects being only selfish or group friendly? Would higher build diversity alot. Depending on how you implement them. Though instead of the +XXX buff I suggested something else. If interested (and you didnt read already xD) read here:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Collaborative-Development-Ranger-Profession/page/14#post3690732

Anythign could work, I just like the idea of the aspect choices being VERY limited so a player was actually encouraged and rewarded for using the pet over the aspect. Personal preference only.

I’m cool with anything at this point… my list of ‘wants’ isn’t that demanding:

• a longbow that has rapid fire and a seperate burst skill.
• pets that work in ANY capacity in WvW.
• a condition option beyond our heal, our bear, and EB
• utility skills that don’t need 30pts before I consider them.

I’m not asking for the world here, though I’d gladly take it if offered

Or trap range should be default and you could choose a running and baiting style over a offensive trap spam throw style.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Nike.2631:

Lone Wolf: While your pet is stowed you gain a +25% bonus to Power and Condition Damage.

Change that to “Revert the damageloss caused by the pet” and I’m in.

Any earlier version of that proposal tried to do that with a straight damage buff, but that doesn’t actually work due to the differences in how Power-based and Condition damage are delivered. Plus pets are clearly intended to provide non-DPS contributions to Ranger gameplay, and “cashing them out for nothing but Deeps” loses some of that nuance.

The other thing that has to be acknowledge is that Aspects or Lone Wolf shouldn’t be better than… or even equal to… the advantages pets provide. They’re basically saying “I’ll pay a small loss in effectiveness to get rid of the annoyance of watching Fluffy die over, and over, and over…”

It should be a reluctant alternative, not the definitive solution to bad pet AI.

Xaylin.1860:

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

I think Beastmastery and Bows are contradictory gameplays. The bow is tied to the archer, providing great ranged combat. The Pet on the other hand both offering and taking buffs in close range and depends on someone crippling the target.

It is not contradictory. It just doesn’t work properly at the moment. The buffs provided to the pet could work within weapon range which would solve the main issue. The Ranger not benefiting from certain buffs the pet applies makes sense though. Other classes do also only benefit from AI centered buffs/skills when they are close. Some traits could be excluded from this but I would not expect to be affected by a shout or scream of my pet when I’m 1200 or 1500 units away.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Furthermore, if you’re playing with a longbow, your pet will waste a remarkable time closing the gab and staying on the target. The only reason to use a pet with a longbow is to keep the target on range, so you can deal max. damage.

This could be solved by introducing specific pets which are better at closing a gap even without traiting for additional speed. If you would like to play a Ranger at range you would have to pick the respective pet. However, enabling every pet to easily close a gap would be extremly imbalanced for every other class/build which relies on ranged combat because they will always have the pet right in their face and no way to counter it.

The second part of your paragraph actually mentions why pets do benefit a longbow. So I’m having a hard time seeing any disadvantage there.

Personally, I’d much rather Longbow remain the long range power option for this class. I like the idea you’re introducing, but wouldn’t the Axe be a better fit? It allows for more versatility because you have an off-hand option, it already has an identity crisis because of the shortbow being so similar, and it’s overall a pretty weak weapon in dire need of some improvement.

Longbow just needs a nudge in the power direction and it would be a viable weapon (removing barrage for kill shot would be my preferrence because barrage simply doesn’t work for this class right now).

Game mode
PvX
Proposal Goal
improved Pets to acceptable level
Proposal Functionality
- base pet speed is base character speed +25%
- slighty longer range to pet attacks and/or very short distance leap on all pet attacks

(enemy will have to actualy have to keep an eye on pets to avoid being hit from it. With smart movement enemy will be able to avoid most pet attacks, with swiftnes he will be able to outrun the pet. At this time everyone is just ignoring ranger pets because they cant get hit from them in most cases anyways)

- pets cannot be damaged if they are not targeted
(I dont mind my pet to be killed very fast IF someone want to focus on pet, but that should not happen from randome cleave/aoe, again, this would force enemy to pay attention to our pets and not just ignoring it)

- improvements to pet response to commands
- all 4 skills pet skills should be controlable with assigned key

Associated Risks
-none

With those few small/(easy?) changes Id consider pets fixed.
I would like to hear everyones oppinion about pets being damaged only when targeted(pvp/www) or took agroo(pve).

Shadowbane.7109:

A ranger is a druid ,scout, tracker, beastmaster, hunter and so on. Because of this rangers are the most debated class in fantasy RP.

I want to subscribe to this notion. Yesterday evening when pondering about the original fantasy ‘Holy Trinity’, consisting of the Warrior (melee), Huntsman (ranged) and Wizard (magic). I came to the conclusion that both the warrior and the wizard have broken up into various other professions over time. Mainly:
Warrior into:
- armoured tank, a damage absorbing heavy armour class
- berserker, a raging damage dealer.
- glass cannon, a med. armour berserker, later under the influence of Asian fantasy turned into the ‘ninja’/‘shadow assassin’.
- nimble swordsman, a proficient med armour fighter

Wizard into:
- Dark Wizard, aka necro.
- ‘light’ Wizard, healer/protector
- Elementalist, all elemental magic
- ‘druid’, nature entuned magic

Ranger into:
- Nothing, it’s the hunter, and traps have always been a part of him/her.
‘But’, as the other fantasy aspect split up into various other ‘proficiencies’ the ranger absorbed various aspects of the others:
- Beast mastery (from druid)
- Druid, all other nature entuned magic not being beastmastery
- Nimble swordsman (med. armour melee fighter).

So where the other original holy fantasy ‘professions’ have all split up into various ‘sub’ classes that by now can hold their own. The Ranger actually has to do way more than it used to do, and hasn’t split up. (arguably, because in other games you do tend to see druid’s or true beastmasters (aka. not pet classes, but beast masters with a whole pack, aka. some sort of a nature entuned ‘minion master’). But in GW2 it is clear that the ranger ‘needs’ to be all of these, where all the other aspect have become a class of their own (warrior = berserker, gardian = tank/holy warrior, thief = dark glass cannon, elementalist = just that, Mesmer = illusionist (magician part of the original wizard), engineer (modern wizard, through chemistry), necro = dark wizard, ranger = ‘tries to be all that is left and is being shoved onto him’.

Now I do not know if splitting up the class this late can fix this, BUT !! Even though the design team might want it to be the ‘nimble skirmish warrior’. They should acknowledge that it is NOT just that!! … The nimble skirmish warrior is only a small aspect of the warrior class, and concentrating on that may well be harming everything else the Ranger ‘should’ be.