Guild Wars 2

Dual.8953:

Suggested Proposal Format:
Specific Game Mode
PvX
Proposal Overview
This has probably been mentioned but I feel that pet’s F2 skills should interrupt whatever action their AI has them doing.
Goal of Proposal
To make Pet F2 skills reliable.
Proposal Functionality
Make casting the Pet’s F2 skill instantly cancel whatever action the pet is performing, and start their F2 skill channel.
Associated Risks
None that I can see.

Yeah, their already doing this.
It’s apparently in the next feature patch.

Maugetarr.6823:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Hey all,

Sorry I haven’t had time to comment in here. I went through the past 10 or so pages and tried to grab some of the issues that have come up and address them. The balance team has been keeping up with the thread, but they haven’t had as much time lately to comment on specific ideas.

Re: “Shot down” ideas

• The only thing we are not open to is a real permastow option that would essentially take away the pet completely (ie an option that said always stow).
  • We kicked around the idea of giving the ranger an “aspect of _______” which we moved to a new thread because it is elaborate and should be a single topic in itself. The idea is that it would give the pet more utility with swapping/stowing, but it wouldn’t retire the pet completely.
    • We want to fix issues with the pet AI and general usability before we consider doing something to this extent.
• We acknowledged that Pet AI does need help, but we did not say we would not be doing this. You will see some changes in the coming feature patch that should help with the pet’s usability.

Re: Lack of participation

• I apologize that I had been absent from this thread for a few days. I had to produce Ready Up last week and a number of other things came up that took priority (including getting a virus that meant I left early for the week). Also, I don’t work on the weekends.
• Just because we’re not responding doesn’t mean we’re not reading.
  • Sometimes we just don’t get the time to respond, but we’ll try to get better about this.

Re: Fear that we will only work on pets

• Don’t stress about this. We wanted to look at the class as a whole with you. We didn’t make this thread specifically to get feedback on the pets. It just happens to be one of (if not the biggest) the top issues with Ranger right now.

I didn’t read all the responses after this, so this might have been said by someone else, but why is a permanent stow option out of the question. I understand that the ranger is the pet class option in GW2, but they were also the pet class option in GW1, but didn’t require you to take a pet. It seems self limiting to impose that restriction (or rather force that aspect) on yourself in GW2.

Probably, in no small part, because it turns the Ranger into 2 different classes entirely. That means they have to balance them differently and would probably have to do a big overhaul of traits/weapons to make up for the damage/utility lost when we opt out of the pet.

While I’d opt out if it worked well, I can see this being a major hurdle that they don’t want to tackle.

Substance E.4852:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

McWolfy.5924:

I think they wont solve pet problem.
Who remember the I will avange you skill from gw1?
What if you gain a bonus like that if your pet is down or merge it with the rampage as one elite.

That wasn’t just for pets though, it was just famously used with pets for easy boosts

Revive IWAY?!

The collective reaction of everyone who played GW1 during that nightmare…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

Oh I’m not advocating it since it was just that much more effective than probably intended.

. . . but I would love to see it for two days get given to Rangers and see what happens. Probably nothing.

Hiya Runeblade, sorry for the delayed response (sleep and stuff).

I get the feeling you are to concerned with the actual details, instead of viewing the proposal for it’s conceptual quality. No blame attached to this, I think it’s good to look at the details, then again, when I look at these proposals I look at them for the concept and pretty much assume that Anet will obviously balance the concept to work for the game… but now getting to the details of your response.

1. Pet skills, I agree with you that these shouldn’t just (solely) concentrate on support, the conclusion of analysis was that maybe there were to few support skills, hence the suggestion was to maybe add more. (this is also where I think you are looking to much at the specific details, instead of the concept).

2. Defensive 2+1 makes the pets have zero weakness. Even if they somehow die, defensive 4 will let the pet continue attacking. So no, it is not an overstatement

Yes I do not think that defensive 1 & 2 should be combined in any way. (1 being a base reduction in AE damage, two being the dodge mechanic). These two are basically two ways to deal with the same issue, alternatives so to speak. (but as I was trying to do some sort of summary of the suggestions I could recall reading, I posted both).

Why I like the dodge mechanic over the base reduction is that the dodge mechanic can more easily be tuned (base reduction may need such fine tuning that it is easily ‘to strong’ or ‘not strong enough’). The mechanic of a dodge bar can be tuned for it’s size, amount of dodges available from the bar, the recharge speed of the bar, it benefitting from vigor or not, it can even be combined with a “if the pet looses more than 10% of it’s total life in one hit, it takes a hit of 5% of it’s current health and uses a dodge from the mechanic” , and more then likely other tweaks can be added to it. Another reason I like it is because if there are multiple hard hitters, from more foes or from the same source, the pet can not withstand them all (as opposed to a base reduction), and obviously the pet will ‘run away’ from the hit, which both makes sense, as well as take the pet out of the fight for a while similar to how the player can’t fight while dodging and in the case of melee would have to get back to the foe. Lastly, adding the dodge mechanic to the actual creature AI could make for an interesting mechanic for creatures we fight, so it add something there too. And of course, a base damage reduction is much stronger in a sPvP situation than it would be in WvW, while a dodge mechanic is equally strong in both cases, perhaps even weaker in WvW…

In a sense I feel all of these points would have likely been brought up would this suggestion have a thread of it’s own. Here it is lost in the fray of the total discussion (actually one of the reasons I hope the CDI will get a forumsection of it’s own and the option to split off issues in a separate CDI thread. But that’s a different topic all together, obviously).

‘Defensive 4’, I feel you still see this as a ‘any heal will insta resurrect the pet’. But this suggestion has some of the same optional balance mechanics as the dodge bar. Obviously the size of the ‘downed bar’ for the pet is debatable, how many HP would the pet need to be resurrected. Next would be, once the pet is healed, the bar also becomes to ‘tick down’ again, just like the players bar (it just wouldn’t go into defeated mode) and here the speed of ticks and the amount of HP lost per tick can be tweaked.

If the pet were to rez on an amount of HP from the ranger heal, then it would be similar to reducing the downtime of the pet (if both are dead) to 30seconds. Though with a penalty of the pet having 35-45% HP, and obviously having to ‘blow’ a heal specifically for the resurrect. Then there is the chance that circumstantial healing (mainly in zerg movement situations) heal the pet up enough to be resurrected without the rangers ‘aid’. So I would hardly say this would make the pet invincible, it offers another option to the ranger to compensate for it dying so easily in various situations, and does so in what seems to me to be fairly balanced in and of itself (given of course the downed bar isn’t ridiculously small).

3. Again, you go into a lot of details, while you respond to a summary I made from my mind, and those ideas aren’t even mine, just a suggestion of (a) concept(s) that I managed to recall after 30+ pages of discussion.

Tnx again for tearing the ideas to pieces in a respectful manner, forcing me to better them and provide more argumentation to them. (just please don’t do so for ideas that aren’t mine and thus I feel I can hardly comment on in ‘defence’)

Substance E.4852:

Maugetarr.6823:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Hey all,

Sorry I haven’t had time to comment in here. I went through the past 10 or so pages and tried to grab some of the issues that have come up and address them. The balance team has been keeping up with the thread, but they haven’t had as much time lately to comment on specific ideas.

Re: “Shot down” ideas

• The only thing we are not open to is a real permastow option that would essentially take away the pet completely (ie an option that said always stow).
  • We kicked around the idea of giving the ranger an “aspect of _______” which we moved to a new thread because it is elaborate and should be a single topic in itself. The idea is that it would give the pet more utility with swapping/stowing, but it wouldn’t retire the pet completely.
    • We want to fix issues with the pet AI and general usability before we consider doing something to this extent.
• We acknowledged that Pet AI does need help, but we did not say we would not be doing this. You will see some changes in the coming feature patch that should help with the pet’s usability.

Re: Lack of participation

• I apologize that I had been absent from this thread for a few days. I had to produce Ready Up last week and a number of other things came up that took priority (including getting a virus that meant I left early for the week). Also, I don’t work on the weekends.
• Just because we’re not responding doesn’t mean we’re not reading.
  • Sometimes we just don’t get the time to respond, but we’ll try to get better about this.

Re: Fear that we will only work on pets

• Don’t stress about this. We wanted to look at the class as a whole with you. We didn’t make this thread specifically to get feedback on the pets. It just happens to be one of (if not the biggest) the top issues with Ranger right now.

I didn’t read all the responses after this, so this might have been said by someone else, but why is a permanent stow option out of the question. I understand that the ranger is the pet class option in GW2, but they were also the pet class option in GW1, but didn’t require you to take a pet. It seems self limiting to impose that restriction (or rather force that aspect) on yourself in GW2.

Probably, in no small part, because it turns the Ranger into 2 different classes entirely. That means they have to balance them differently and would probably have to do a big overhaul of traits/weapons to make up for the damage/utility lost when we opt out of the pet.

While I’d opt out if it worked well, I can see this being a major hurdle that they don’t want to tackle.

This might be naivete, but I don’t see how it would be too much more difficult than balancing a MM necro or the like. It’s just a permanent add rather than a summoned one.

Razor.9872:

Allie Murdock.8152:

The Ranger isn’t expected to do burst damage. By sustained, we mean that the Ranger should excel at surviving (resilient) through burst while still doing enough damage over time to take the opponent down.

If the Ranger is not expected to do burst damage, then the usefulness of traits/skills such as:

-Opening strike
-Alpha Training
-Precise Strike
-Beastmaster’s Might (signets have long recharges and the might provided by them is little)
-Moment of Clarity
-Peak Strength (the timeframe this trait remains active is really only utilized properly through bursting)
-Signet of the Hunt (Active)
-Signet of the Wild (Active)
-Hilt Bash (effect on pet)

Are in serious question.

All of these prominent utilities scream bursting — not so much sustain. Perhaps if Rangers had access to more stealth, the Marksmanship traitline would grow more viable. I cannot say what that would do to the balance of the ranger, however.

Also, being a master of sustain isn’t always a good thing. Bursting is far more useful as enemies often die before they can attack back. In the sake of build diversity, there should be enemies or reasons Rangers (or any profession for that matter) would want to consider going sustain inplace of burst.

they didnt say they wanted ranger to have no interesting skills/abilities to boost dmg, just that overall they are not designed to do 1 big hit. rangers were generally designed, when bursting to do a lot of small hits, rangers burst is more like wave than a spike.
you get good access to quickness (or used to)
good access to vulnerability (which increases you and your pets dmg for a time frame)
(main purpose of opening strike)
skills which boost you or your pets dmg for X amount of time

it would be boring and simple if they didnt have the ability to alter their dps, its just not all focused in one big hit. Which is honestly a pretty big advantage against active dodging and block X hits type skills. If the pet didnt stall out so often, i think youd find ranger to be one of the most hated proffessions, due to not having big slow moves, and attacking so many more times in a timeframe, as well being able to move while the pets DPS

the pet, if implemented well totally makes ranger a worthwhile and different class.

Yoh.8469:

Dual.8953:

Suggested Proposal Format:
Specific Game Mode
PvX
Proposal Overview
This has probably been mentioned but I feel that pet’s F2 skills should interrupt whatever action their AI has them doing.
Goal of Proposal
To make Pet F2 skills reliable.
Proposal Functionality
Make casting the Pet’s F2 skill instantly cancel whatever action the pet is performing, and start their F2 skill channel.
Associated Risks
None that I can see.

Yeah, their already doing this.
It’s apparently in the next feature patch.

Probably at the expense of putting the interrupted skill on full cool down or placing a lock on the F2 after a switch to prevent loss of the skill when use just after a switch.

Maugetarr.6823:

Substance E.4852:

Maugetarr.6823:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Hey all,

Sorry I haven’t had time to comment in here. I went through the past 10 or so pages and tried to grab some of the issues that have come up and address them. The balance team has been keeping up with the thread, but they haven’t had as much time lately to comment on specific ideas.

Re: “Shot down” ideas

• The only thing we are not open to is a real permastow option that would essentially take away the pet completely (ie an option that said always stow).
  • We kicked around the idea of giving the ranger an “aspect of _______” which we moved to a new thread because it is elaborate and should be a single topic in itself. The idea is that it would give the pet more utility with swapping/stowing, but it wouldn’t retire the pet completely.
    • We want to fix issues with the pet AI and general usability before we consider doing something to this extent.
• We acknowledged that Pet AI does need help, but we did not say we would not be doing this. You will see some changes in the coming feature patch that should help with the pet’s usability.

Re: Lack of participation

• I apologize that I had been absent from this thread for a few days. I had to produce Ready Up last week and a number of other things came up that took priority (including getting a virus that meant I left early for the week). Also, I don’t work on the weekends.
• Just because we’re not responding doesn’t mean we’re not reading.
  • Sometimes we just don’t get the time to respond, but we’ll try to get better about this.

Re: Fear that we will only work on pets

• Don’t stress about this. We wanted to look at the class as a whole with you. We didn’t make this thread specifically to get feedback on the pets. It just happens to be one of (if not the biggest) the top issues with Ranger right now.

I didn’t read all the responses after this, so this might have been said by someone else, but why is a permanent stow option out of the question. I understand that the ranger is the pet class option in GW2, but they were also the pet class option in GW1, but didn’t require you to take a pet. It seems self limiting to impose that restriction (or rather force that aspect) on yourself in GW2.

Probably, in no small part, because it turns the Ranger into 2 different classes entirely. That means they have to balance them differently and would probably have to do a big overhaul of traits/weapons to make up for the damage/utility lost when we opt out of the pet.

While I’d opt out if it worked well, I can see this being a major hurdle that they don’t want to tackle.

This might be naivete, but I don’t see how it would be too much more difficult than balancing a MM necro or the like. It’s just a permanent add rather than a summoned one.

I think the Necro was built from the ground up with the option, but not the need for minions. You could take them, but they also have other utilities that offset the choice to no use them. We don’t currently have anything to offset not using the pet. We could have it on perma passive and never touch F1, but our dps will suffer greatly and we will lose some utility. Any pet traits will have 0 use aswell.

To make us like the necro, we would need a major overhaul of all our non-pet utilities and traits to make a non-pet ranger just as good. This runs into the problem of pet users also getting massive buffs from the changes meant to make non-pet rangers viable. Any attempt to keep the two from making each other too powerful would be a headache to say the least.

Essentially it becomes an all or nothing deal. A modular ranger class just wouldn’t work. It did in GW1 but that was an entirely different system than we have now and Anet has chosen to be on the pro-pet side.

I don’t personally agree with their choice (minion classes are pointless in games with no collision and where melee is best) but they seem to be sticking with their original vision so it becomes an issue of accept it or invest in a new game.

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

There is little hope that the devs will fix this class, they haven’t in the 18 months since launch (and they released the game with broken pets even though in beta we told them they were broken). It seems all they intend to do balance skill power for foreseeable future and I think that’s a serious mistake.

Regardless of what you’re working on LS, expansion (ooh), or polishing the game by removing bugs, the core of this or any other MMO is the combat. This class’s core mechanic has never worked. If elementalist attunement swapping had a 3 sec delay or if thieves were unable to gain initiative these forums would be an inferno of rage, but rangers have had to learn to live with our broken core mechanic. It’s time to make rangers Work As Intended.

Aidenwolf.5964:

There is little hope that the devs will fix this class, they haven’t in the 18 months since launch (and they released the game with broken pets even though in beta we told them they were broken). It seems all they intend to do balance skill power for foreseeable future and I think that’s a serious mistake.

Regardless of what you’re working on LS, expansion (ooh), or polishing the game by removing bugs, the core of this or any other MMO is the combat. This class’s core mechanic has never worked. If elementalist attunement swapping had a 3 sec delay or if thieves were unable to gain initiative these forums would be an inferno of rage, but rangers have had to learn to live with our broken core mechanic. It’s time to make rangers Work As Intended.

But that’s the thing, we are working as intended.

People don’t get it. We weren’t even supposed to be a class. We’re whats left after they scrapped 2-3 other class ideas and they just mushed it together and called it “Ranger” to lure in the GW1 oldbies and other “ranger/archer” classes knowing full well that the game was never made to support ranged combat; the very thing that most of us came here to play because that’s what the archetype is usually geared toward.

The only reason we beat the Engineer in pointless superfluousness is the fact that they needed a tech class with so much steampunk technology in the game. It would seem weird to have guns, golems, airships ect and not have some kind of gadget class.

Someone please give me some intel!
When all the other classes has their F abilities as a PLUS over their own power.-
Why do we have to SHARE our power on ours??!

I would like to say;
100% Ranger DMG, X% Pet dmg ABOVE it. Control it well for effectiveness!

Warriors have +15% dmg and crit trait if not using the adrenalin skill. We losing dmg because the pet…

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

nagymbear.5280:

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

There is zero reason for a player to worry about our pets now. If you’re proposing giving pets MORE power without an overhaul (based on Anet’s track record) they would siphon that power from the player to the pet which means we’d get weaker, as pets can’t hit anything now, especially if they’re dead. The class F2 ability, a core mechanic is just now being addressed so forgive me and others here if we don’t want to rely on an NPC to do damage for us.

Aidenwolf.5964:

nagymbear.5280:

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

There is zero reason for a player to worry about our pets now. If you’re proposing giving pets MORE power without an overhaul (based on Anet’s track record) they would siphon that power from the player to the pet which means we’d get weaker, as pets can’t hit anything now, especially if they’re dead. The class F2 ability, a core mechanic is just now being addressed so forgive me and others here if we don’t want to rely on an NPC to do damage for us.

Whether you want it or now, some of your damage will come from the pet. A spider with 30 points into BM can crit squishy targets for 2700 from range, while you deal damage too. If you would expand the melee attack range of pets by 100 it is possible that they would hit much more often. That is not an overhaul.

I don’t want to give pets more power, because they don’t hit reliably enough. What I’m saying, with a few small changes pets can become scary.

nagymbear.5280:

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

Respectfully disagree

They definitely need redesigned traits and utilities.
Everything about pet F2 is lack luster. ooo cool they can give me fury ever 30 secs or might
or immob someone for a few seconds every 40 seconds
You honestly believe that is worth 30% of my DPS?

They need an overhaul because
-They provide very little in a group setting which is what MMOs are all about (pets don’t do me any good in WvW/Dungs/Fracs and is pretty much dead weight in 95% of all game modes and will continue to be without overhaul)
-They hurt me more than they help ( 30% DPS taken from me, thieves just use it as an easy cloak and dagger target lol)
-Our class mechanic does not have 100% uptime – meaning when our pet is dead, we not only lose 30% dps, but we lose any kind of traits we could have associated with the pet, we lose abilities to perform any pet skill , etc etc. Every other class mechnanic in this game doesn’t “die”.
-We actively seek out killing our pet mechanic (you aren’t going to survive much without empathic bond, and thus, neither is your pet lol, shared anquish is another trait that further hurts pet.)

I don’t want to list more and more i’m tired, its almost 3 am.

But you get my point

The list is massive. And with a list this massive, it requires overhaul. You are simply suggesting that anet keep up with what they have been doing for the past 1.5 years. Bandaid fixes. I don’t want to see any more bandaids. No one does.

If you honest to god believe just making pets more responsive+ changing a few traits will make it poof, magically better, keep living in your dream world.

nagymbear.5280:

Aidenwolf.5964:

nagymbear.5280:

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

There is zero reason for a player to worry about our pets now. If you’re proposing giving pets MORE power without an overhaul (based on Anet’s track record) they would siphon that power from the player to the pet which means we’d get weaker, as pets can’t hit anything now, especially if they’re dead. The class F2 ability, a core mechanic is just now being addressed so forgive me and others here if we don’t want to rely on an NPC to do damage for us.

Whether you want it or now, some of your damage will come from the pet. A spider with 30 points into BM can crit squishy targets for 2700 from range, while you deal damage too. If you would expand the melee attack range of pets by 100 it is possible that they would hit much more often. That is not an overhaul.

I don’t want to give pets more power, because they don’t hit reliably enough. What I’m saying, with a few small changes pets can become scary.

You honestly believe Its worth putting 30 into BM just so i can see my worthless pet do a bit more damage??

Great, only 40 trait points to realistically work with if i want to be on par with other classes damage?

O wait, they get 70.

We are still behind and will remain behind.

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

SkiTz.4590:

nagymbear.5280:

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

Respectfully disagree

They definitely need redesigned traits and utilities.
Everything about pet F2 is lack luster. ooo cool they can give me fury ever 30 secs or might
or immob someone for a few seconds every 40 seconds
You honestly believe that is worth 30% of my DPS?

They need an overhaul because
-They provide very little in a group setting which is what MMOs are all about (pets don’t do me any good in WvW/Dungs/Fracs and is pretty much dead weight in 95% of all game modes and will continue to be without overhaul)
-They hurt me more than they help ( 30% DPS taken from me, thieves just use it as an easy cloak and dagger target lol)
-Our class mechanic does not have 100% uptime – meaning when our pet is dead, we not only lose 30% dps, but we lose any kind of traits we could have associated with the pet, we lose abilities to perform any pet skill , etc etc. Every other class mechnanic in this game doesn’t “die”.
-We actively seek out killing our pet mechanic (you aren’t going to survive much without empathic bond, and thus, neither is your pet lol, shared anquish is another trait that further hurts pet.)

I don’t want to list more and more i’m tired, its almost 3 am.

But you get my point

The list is massive. And with a list this massive, it requires overhaul. You are simply suggesting that anet keep up with what they have been doing for the past 1.5 years. Bandaid fixes. I don’t want to see any more bandaids. No one does.

If you honest to god believe just making pets more responsive+ changing a few traits will make it poof, magically better, keep living in your dream world.

Well, idk about an overhaul, but I do agree that maybe switching directions and coming at this from another angle might be the way to go.

I’ve said this before, but all of the problems you listed stem from the fact that pets are always on. Which means they need to survive and do consistent damage, which they have a problem doing.
So if they were summons instead, that functioned a bit like a cross between Phantasms and Elementals, then it would go a long way to solving/working around these problems.
You can read what I already wrote about the subject here.

Yoh.8469:

SkiTz.4590:

nagymbear.5280:

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

Respectfully disagree

They definitely need redesigned traits and utilities.
Everything about pet F2 is lack luster. ooo cool they can give me fury ever 30 secs or might
or immob someone for a few seconds every 40 seconds
You honestly believe that is worth 30% of my DPS?

They need an overhaul because
-They provide very little in a group setting which is what MMOs are all about (pets don’t do me any good in WvW/Dungs/Fracs and is pretty much dead weight in 95% of all game modes and will continue to be without overhaul)
-They hurt me more than they help ( 30% DPS taken from me, thieves just use it as an easy cloak and dagger target lol)
-Our class mechanic does not have 100% uptime – meaning when our pet is dead, we not only lose 30% dps, but we lose any kind of traits we could have associated with the pet, we lose abilities to perform any pet skill , etc etc. Every other class mechnanic in this game doesn’t “die”.
-We actively seek out killing our pet mechanic (you aren’t going to survive much without empathic bond, and thus, neither is your pet lol, shared anquish is another trait that further hurts pet.)

I don’t want to list more and more i’m tired, its almost 3 am.

But you get my point

The list is massive. And with a list this massive, it requires overhaul. You are simply suggesting that anet keep up with what they have been doing for the past 1.5 years. Bandaid fixes. I don’t want to see any more bandaids. No one does.

If you honest to god believe just making pets more responsive+ changing a few traits will make it poof, magically better, keep living in your dream world.

Well, idk about an overhaul, but I do agree that maybe switching directions and coming at this from another angle might be the way to go.

I’ve said this before, but all of the problems you listed stem from the fact that pets are always on. Which means they need to survive and do consistent damage, which they have a problem doing.
So if they were summons instead, that functioned a bit like a cross between Phantasms and Elementals, then it would go a long way to solving/working around these problems.
You can read what I already wrote about the subject here.

I like the idea as well and mentioned it somewhere in this mountain of suggestions. We are a pet class according to Anet and that could be make to work if what we captured when we tame a pet isn’t the pet, but it’s spirit. Make our pets ghostly like a phantasm.

I had this idea while using my PVP finisher:

PVX

RANGER SPIRITS PETS!

Rangers control animal sprits that grant the ranger boons based on each pet. The F2 for each pet unleashes an effect like the PVP wolf finisher and run over the target causing whichever effect is associated with that pet. They can still attack our targets and do minimal damage (just enough to allow agro) and are immune to control effects and AOE as they’re spirits. The majority of pet damage is reverted to the actual player.

nagymbear.5280:

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

playing it right requires me to waste traits and skills into a mechanic I could care less about and so does the majority of the class

Right now pets are a FORCED issue.
Many of us don’t want it and think we should not be FORCED into using it.

Now im not saying take it away because some people still do enjoy pets,
But we need options here.

I don’t care what they try to do to pets, anything short of an overhaul is going to end up the same result – Rangers will remain behind in terms of how useful they are in a group setting and how well they fare in terms of DPS.
There are 40 pages worth of solid suggestions here (and these type of suggestions are major and require serious re-work) People have put in walls of ideas and potential fixes but there is a reason why anet is so quiet about the feedback on all the good suggestions (even though they said everything is still on the table, which means it most certainly is not)

They have no intention on performing changes of this magnitude to fix one broken class… they will try to prop it up with better crutches, give it a new cast and brace, like they have been doing since release (bandaid fixes ftw)… and I certainly pray i’m wrong and hope that anet delivers an amazing overhaul… but i’m not holding my breath on it…

if major, serious changes come , I will be the first to eat crow and apologize, but until than, I don’t believe anet will pony up to perform the changes rangers deserve and need

SkiTz.4590:

nagymbear.5280:

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

playing it right requires me to waste traits and skills into a mechanic I could care less about and so does the majority of the class

Right now pets are a FORCED issue.
Many of us don’t want it and think we should not be FORCED into using it.

Now im not saying take it away because some people still do enjoy pets,
But we need options here.

I don’t care what they try to do to pets, anything short of an overhaul is going to end up the same result – Rangers will remain behind in terms of how useful they are in a group setting and how well they fare in terms of DPS.
There are 40 pages worth of solid suggestions here (and these type of suggestions are major and require serious re-work) People have put in walls of ideas and potential fixes but there is a reason why anet is so quiet about the feedback on all the good suggestions (even though they said everything is still on the table, which means it most certainly is not)

They have no intention on performing changes of this magnitude to fix one broken class… they will try to prop it up with better crutches, give it a new cast and brace, like they have been doing since release (bandaid fixes ftw)… and I certainly pray i’m wrong and hope that anet delivers an amazing overhaul… but i’m not holding my breath on it…

if major, serious changes come , I will be the first to eat crow and apologize, but until than, I don’t believe anet will pony up to perform the changes rangers deserve and need

Um, of course your forced to use pets, it’s your core mechanic. Way to state the obvious.
Mesmers are forced to use their Illusions.
Elementalists are forced to use their Attunements.
Thieves are forced to use their Initiative.

That’s not going to change, no matter what changes they make.
The more interesting question is, how should you be made to use your core mechanic?
Currently, pets aren’t terribly interesting. They just hang around, not doing all that much, and there isn’t that much you can actively do with them.

They’re very generic. Again, another issue stemming from being always on.

nagymbear.5280:

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

Try them in wvw

Pyrotechnic Hell.3209:

wolfyrik.2017:

Name: Oversoul

….I read Shaman King waaaaaay too much…

I suggested this a year ago, it went nowhere. Hopefully it will have a better response now. I really like the idea of aspects. My only problem with it now is the use of an elite skill slot. Spirit of Nature is kitten ed handy in groups.
Saying that it could be applied to the temp pet stow slot since pets no longer agro. The present temp-stow is basically useless anyway.

Rampage as One could then be used in with it. Perhaps, providing different bonuses in some way.

The Reasons for the “Elite Skill” Status is because it would be a “Form” you would merge with you pet.

Also the Devs said they will not implement a Perma-Stow option, being an elite would allow for a slightly longer active merge time than a utility skill and with that a longer skill cool-down period forcing the pet to be active for at least the down time of the skill avoiding perma-stow but allowing the skill to still be useful.

Oh I get the idea of temp, I was suggesting to replace the the temp stow option we already have, with the timed version you suggested, rather than costing an elite slot, which I think is a bit harsh, when we’re talking about bypassing broken mechanics. Why should the Ranger lose an elite slot just so that they can compete with other classes?

wolfyrik.2017:

Pyrotechnic Hell.3209:

wolfyrik.2017:

Name: Oversoul

….I read Shaman King waaaaaay too much…

I suggested this a year ago, it went nowhere. Hopefully it will have a better response now. I really like the idea of aspects. My only problem with it now is the use of an elite skill slot. Spirit of Nature is kitten ed handy in groups.
Saying that it could be applied to the temp pet stow slot since pets no longer agro. The present temp-stow is basically useless anyway.

Rampage as One could then be used in with it. Perhaps, providing different bonuses in some way.

The Reasons for the “Elite Skill” Status is because it would be a “Form” you would merge with you pet.

Also the Devs said they will not implement a Perma-Stow option, being an elite would allow for a slightly longer active merge time than a utility skill and with that a longer skill cool-down period forcing the pet to be active for at least the down time of the skill avoiding perma-stow but allowing the skill to still be useful.

Oh I get the idea of temp, I was suggesting to replace the the temp stow option we already have, with the timed version you suggested, rather than costing an elite slot, which I think is a bit harsh, when we’re talking about bypassing broken mechanics. Why should the Ranger lose an elite slot just so that they can compete with other classes?

The sad part of the response we’ve had from Anet on this CDI is that the suggestion of changing temporary stow to perma stow would work, and is already coded into the game. The simple fact is that without a serious boost in power to the class we are far behind other classes. Play the way you want as long as you choose warrior or guardian.

McWolfy.5924:

nagymbear.5280:

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

Try them in wvw

I used to wvw a lot on my ranger, recently not so much. I did a lot of roaming, flipping camps, slapping yaks. In a zerg fight pets die to easily, I agree witht that. But 95% of the game modes is just bullkitten.

Suggested Proposal Format:
Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Traits that buff a specific attribute of the pet.

Goal of Proposal
Pets already have strenghts and weaknesses but they stay that way and we can’t influence it in any way other than switching pets. This would give pets more depth since we could make pets into really heavy hitters or become good allrounder. Heavy damage pets could get some more defense and so on..

Proposal Functionality
Create traits that either buff a pets attribute (condi damage/attack/…) by a certain amount or connect this attribute to the rangers. I don’t know how often the existing pettraits (bleeding on crit for cats and all that) are used, but I don’t like any of them because they only help certain pets that don’t mix well and taking more than one is a waste so I would change them with the attribute ones. Doing that only minor or master would give the option to take 2 or 3 of these.

Associated Risks
Going for all damage or taking 3 statbuff traits could make the pet completly op.

Edit: Please delete all the posts that say “Remove the pet from the pet class”. One post would be enough.

LunarNacht.8913:

Suggested Proposal Format:
Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Traits that buff a specific attribute of the pet.

Goal of Proposal
Pets already have strenghts and weaknesses but they stay that way and we can’t influence it in any way other than switching pets. This would give pets more depth since we could make pets into really heavy hitters or become good allrounder. Heavy damage pets could get some more defense and so on..

Proposal Functionality
Create traits that either buff a pets attribute (condi damage/attack/…) by a certain amount or connect this attribute to the rangers. I don’t know how often the existing pettraits (bleeding on crit for cats and all that) are used, but I don’t like any of them because they only help certain pets that don’t mix well and taking more than one is a waste so I would change them with the attribute ones. Doing that only minor or master would give the option to take 2 or 3 of these.

Associated Risks
Going for all damage or taking 3 statbuff traits could make the pet completly op.

Edit: Please delete all the posts that say “Remove the pet from the pet class”. One post would be enough.

Bad pet is bad.
Please remove all posts that ask to keep the ranger a pet class as we are unparalleled archers who use pets.

Rangers are described this way.

Rangers rely on a keen eye, a steady hand, and the power of nature itself. Unparalleled archers, rangers are capable of bringing down foes from a distance with their bows. With traps, nature spirits, and a stable of loyal pets at their command, rangers can adapt to any situation.

So we are archers who use pets, not beastmasters.

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Aioros.4862:

Now we are skirmishers, not archers. I think it’s a “Go melee or get out” thingy.

Yes, common sense, we will give you Shortbow and Longbow but you must go melee…….

Hey don’t tell me that, i rolled a ranger to use bows (as i prefer to play a ranged class), but that’s not the how the game works, and the with the “rangers are skirmishers” thingy in the 1st post, it sounds to me that’s how it’s intended.

Aioros.4862:

Hey don’t tell me that, i rolled a ranger to use bows (as i prefer to play a ranged class), but that’s not the how the game works, and the with the “rangers are skirmishers” thingy in the 1st post, it sounds to me that’s how it’s intended.

The sad fact is that if you chose Ranger in GW2 to be a ranged weapon user user, you picked the wrong class. Warrior, and Thief do it way better. Ranged Warrior can be ludicrous compared to Ranger.

How are we suppose to use our pets in the new update if it’s unable to hit the targets because there is no way to give any of the buff to it?
Ranger might be nice to play, it does not fit in the game…

(we need a trait “you and your pet share boons from different sources”)
(and we need more “you and your pet” traits, and less “your pet gets OR you get…”)
Makes the pet not feel like a burden, if I do not have to choose to take traits for it instead of for me

nagymbear.5280:

SkiTz.4590:

I think everyone in this forum and this game understands Rangers need an overhaul (absolutely broken class mechanic, see past 100 pages and threads on it in ranger forums)

The only problem is, Anet does NOT believe this class needs an overhaul lol.
Even if they do believe it does, they simply WON’T do it and CAN’T do it (priorities like LS and gemstore are bigger lol)

I don’t think ranger needs an overhaul. An overhaul would mean redesigning the pets completely, redesigning the traits, utilities. The pets don’t need an overhaul to be scary so that people start dealing with them, instead of just circlestrafing. If you have reliable control pets, you can force peoples defensive skills being played on your terms. If they defend against the pet you control them, if they defend themselves from you you control them with the pet. Same for damage. We don’t need an overhaul for that. We need more control over the pet. We also need some traits removed and some new traits introduced, but I don’t consider that an overhaul.

The Pet is an AI, an AI will never be as effective as a player. Not in GW2. If the AI isn’t as effective as a player in dealing damage, we lose damage. The AI part shouldn’t be mandatory, it should be additional. Let the ranger deal 100% damage and the pet additional damage.

The problem with that is it’ll will make rangers better than other classes.
Rangers shouldn’t be better, we should be even.

Specific Game Mode
WvW, PvE

Proposal Overview
Dramatically increase the pet leash range (currently 2000). Basically, allow pets to range.

Goal of Proposal
Make the pet a long-distance hunting tool rather than a simple melee buff. Not sure about PvE applications, but in WvW this used to be tremendously useful to chase down running foes, opening a ranged fight before being in bow range, or attack distant siege engines. It also allows the use of ‘Guard’ to keep an eye on a more distant location than right now, contributing to a ranger’s scouting role.
Since it allowed PvP rangers to occupy a node while the pet sat on another, the range was cut down to 2000, but across all game formats.

Proposal Functionality
Increase PvE/WvW pet leash range to what it was before it was reduced to 2000 over PvP concerns. 3000? 4000? Not sure what it used to be, but Sic’Em at least had 3000 range.

Associated Risks
Since Guard doesn’t send pets out of a keep anymore, the previous safe, safe-within-walls hunting won’t be an issue anymore.
It would become (again) a soft counter to stealth-resetting fights, forcing the thief (or mesmer, though less common) to run further away to disengage. Opinions may vary on whether that’s a good thing or not, but i’d expect it to cause debate.

Aioros.4862:

The problem with that is it’ll will make rangers better than other classes.
Rangers shouldn’t be better, we should be even.

We wouldn’t. Ofcourse, the pet-damage has to be toned down in order to get our full damage back, but as McWolfy has already pointed out, the warrior gets around +15% damage through his classmechanic. So the pet could still deal 10%, which would lead to ultimately 110% damage. Also, if you invest points into beastmastery, your damage will go down since you can’t invest points into your own damage but the damage of your pet will increase. IMO beastmaster ranger should deal slightly more absolute damage than a zerker ranger (115%?) since you should get rewarded for actively using the pet.
Furthermore, to make the pet annoying enough, so that enemies have to care about them, pets could apply vulnerability on hit.

Aioros.4862:

The problem with that is it’ll will make rangers better than other classes.
Rangers shouldn’t be better, we should be even.

All depends how you do it.

For example, if the pet’s overall damage is reduced to only do about the same damage as a burn, the Ranger really hasn’t gained that large an advantage over other classes as the pet is effectively just a Ranger unique DOT. You maintain this balance because the Ranger doesn’t really have access to torment and confusion like other classes do. It’s also single target.

Depends on what offical explain.
Ranger is a kind of professions that depend pets and spirit.
Its make sence that Ranger’s DPS and CC will be less than orther profession if carry pets.
A Ranger who control his pets well do must better than the Ranger who just press 1111111 without thinking.
And then,being NERF continually.
Ranger’s traps and pets isnt the original idea what you what he to be.
Start from the Damadge Ranger
The trait that increasing damadge
Compared to other professions,Ranger have more restriction of the trait on increasing damadge.
(1) Damage is increased when endurance is full

The first problem is we must have to avoid the attack by dodging.
But we cant increase our damage after dodging.
Damage is increased when endurance is full.
(2)Deal more damage while flanking.
Notes
The area around an enemy is divided into 4 cones (1 front, 2 sides, 1 behind). 10% extra damage is added if the ranger is not in the enemy’s front cone.
For area of effect damage, the bonus will be applied to each enemy that doesn’t have the ranger in their front cone.
Example: If a Ricochet normally does 300 damage
enemies facing the ranger receive 300
enemies not facing the ranger receive 330
—
Both trait above i advice to make some adjustments to relax the condition about increasing damage.
Condition Damadge Ranger((Focus!The higher condition damadge will cover the lower condition damadge))
If Ranger want to deal the condition damadge more efficiently,he need to wear Rabid,Carrion,Dire armorand carry shortbow and traps.
This limit the armor and the weapon
btw,other proffesion can give the condition damadge more efficient,but Ranger can just give bleeding…
Let along the Trait of the pet"Rending Attacks"
“Drake,Feline,Devourer,and Shark pets bleed on critical hit with their basic attacks.”
Its useless,the other condition profession player deal much more damadge than the trait gives to pet

There for
Both Damadge Ranger and Condition Damadge Range.Trait,skill and pet all couldnt meet Ranger’s shortage.

Suggestion

(1)
To let the pet just give the foe those “NO DAMAGE Condition” such as Vulnerability and Weakness and so on.
Ranger can deal more damage on Bleeding,Burning and Poison.
It is to say that let the pet to be a support do the CC.
Ranger himself do the MAIN damage.
Rending Attacks,for example,can adjust to “While using pets,bleed your foe when you land a critical hit.
(2)
Pet Attribute Bonus suggest to adjust to -1% damadge per bonus.
To make the pet have a better survivability.
Ranger without pets just like the soldier without weapon,expecial in the WvW situation.
You can nerf the damadge of the pets,because we expect the damadge pets deal.
(3)
Adjust the trait that increase pets’ damadge,such as”Pet’s Prowess,Companion’s Might"
Most Ranger player may want the main job of Ranger himself is to deal the main damadge,and the main job of the pet is to CC.
(4)
Give Ranger some appropriate stealth ability,such as “Hunter’s Shot”.
Wish other weapon’s skill could have the same skill.
You can take out some dodge skill at the time of course.
Because dodge couldn’t stop attacking,but stealth can.
(5)
Change some skill of the weapon

Longbow
“Rapid Fire” Change to attack 1 time but may need 1 or 1.5 sec to do it.

Greatsword
“Maul” can give Blast just as Guardian’s skills “Mighty Blow”

Sword
“skill 1” cancel that,you have to target a foe.

Substance E.4852:

I think the Necro was built from the ground up with the option, but not the need for minions. You could take them, but they also have other utilities that offset the choice to no use them. We don’t currently have anything to offset not using the pet. We could have it on perma passive and never touch F1, but our dps will suffer greatly and we will lose some utility. Any pet traits will have 0 use aswell.

To make us like the necro, we would need a major overhaul of all our non-pet utilities and traits to make a non-pet ranger just as good. This runs into the problem of pet users also getting massive buffs from the changes meant to make non-pet rangers viable. Any attempt to keep the two from making each other too powerful would be a headache to say the least.

Essentially it becomes an all or nothing deal. A modular ranger class just wouldn’t work. It did in GW1 but that was an entirely different system than we have now and Anet has chosen to be on the pro-pet side.

I don’t personally agree with their choice (minion classes are pointless in games with no collision and where melee is best) but they seem to be sticking with their original vision so it becomes an issue of accept it or invest in a new game.

I believe this is where my confusion comes from. I thought the scope of this CDI included rearranging/redesigning traits, numbers, and weapon skills to flesh out the class a little better. My thoughts were pretty much along the lines of redesigning with an optional rather than mandatory pet. You are correct though in that the traits and skills would have to be changed to a ranger first philosophy. An example of a decent trait that would probably be able to stay is shared anguish. Equipping a pet and this trait would provide a clear advantage without having to invest too heavily. Signets + signet of the beastmaster would have to essentially be reversed so that they affected the ranger first and traiting into them positively affected the pets: something along the lines of pets gaining all the same benefits of activating a signet (I.e. the active ability and other traits like beastmaster’s might).

Anyway, my views on it are “ranger first then pet” instead of the current philosophy of “ranger + pet.” It seems exceedingly more difficult to have to balance around an AI that they gave relatively little control over versus adding a little extra oomph to a class with a tiny secondary aspect. It’s not like mesmer AI which are designed to basically do one attack and then be easily killed, you have to make the semi-permanent AI be smart enough to survive and deal a significant (currently) portion of the ranger damage without doing all the work. Fine tuning the intelligence and balance of that AI seems way more difficult to me.

jiaping.8514:

Its make sence that Ranger’s DPS and CC will be less than orther profession if carry pets.

Errrr, no. The pet is our classmechanic. No other profession gets crippled in order to justify their classmechanic.

I’d love to see some sort of summary post from ANet in the near future.

yea, lets do a small comparison as to what our handicap would look applied to another class:

warrior: class mechanic adrenaline: For every bar of adrenaline you will have 10% LESS damage. So at three bars of adrenaline you will have 30% less DPS then when you have no bars of adrenaline. This way you are forced to USE your class mechanic instead of just letting it stay full for max damage.

Mesmer: Class mechanic Clones: Mesmer’s start of with 100% damage, for each clone they release they lose 20% of their damage while the clone picks up 10% of that damage. When all three clones are up the player will be doing 60% less damage but it’s covered by the 30% damage their clones are doing until they shatter them or whatever.

Thief: Two class mechanics, stealth and initiative: While stealthed, thief will deal 30% less damage on their next attack and will not be able to heal while stealthed. While breaking out of stealth initiative will regain 30% slower for 30 seconds. Thief can only enter stealth once every 30 seconds.

Seriously, this is what the other classes would look like if they had the same handicap that we have had to put up with for the last year and a half.

But you know what, I take a step back and have been reviewing previous posts from dev’s and i’m looking now at the timing of this thread and the statements the dev’s are saying on this thread and have come to a conclusion. This thread is more of a marketing scheme then an honest attempt at trying to fix the class. They have ESO coming out in a month and they know there will be an exodus. They think that if they do this and show an ‘attempt’ of trying to fix the class that they could slow down that exodus from GW2. I love this game and don’t really want to leave but if they do not either fix pets or give ranger’s 100% of their damage back, I’m gone on 4/4. And no, you can’t have my gold because I will not allow my hard work ingame going off to someone that will continue to support the people working in Anet who, up to now so far, for the last year and half, have done nothing but dangle a carrot over our heads promising us everything if we wait till ‘the next patch’. They know pets are broken and with serious trouble yet the nerf the pet damage? yea, that really seams like they care about us. Longbow is lackluster against the shortbow so they nerf the shortbow to make the longbow look better. Yup, feeling the love there aren’t we!

Yoh.8469:

SkiTz.4590:

nagymbear.5280:

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

playing it right requires me to waste traits and skills into a mechanic I could care less about and so does the majority of the class

Right now pets are a FORCED issue.
Many of us don’t want it and think we should not be FORCED into using it.

Now im not saying take it away because some people still do enjoy pets,
But we need options here.

I don’t care what they try to do to pets, anything short of an overhaul is going to end up the same result – Rangers will remain behind in terms of how useful they are in a group setting and how well they fare in terms of DPS.
There are 40 pages worth of solid suggestions here (and these type of suggestions are major and require serious re-work) People have put in walls of ideas and potential fixes but there is a reason why anet is so quiet about the feedback on all the good suggestions (even though they said everything is still on the table, which means it most certainly is not)

They have no intention on performing changes of this magnitude to fix one broken class… they will try to prop it up with better crutches, give it a new cast and brace, like they have been doing since release (bandaid fixes ftw)… and I certainly pray i’m wrong and hope that anet delivers an amazing overhaul… but i’m not holding my breath on it…

if major, serious changes come , I will be the first to eat crow and apologize, but until than, I don’t believe anet will pony up to perform the changes rangers deserve and need

Um, of course your forced to use pets, it’s your core mechanic. Way to state the obvious.
Mesmers are forced to use their Illusions.
Elementalists are forced to use their Attunements.
Thieves are forced to use their Initiative.

That’s not going to change, no matter what changes they make.
The more interesting question is, how should you be made to use your core mechanic?
Currently, pets aren’t terribly interesting. They just hang around, not doing all that much, and there isn’t that much you can actively do with them.

They’re very generic. Again, another issue stemming from being always on.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say (I also could have made it clearer.)
but look, pets seem ONLY useful if you specifically trait for it.

Right now, are ele’s attunements only useful if they spec to it? no, Ele’s have a myriad of possible different builds. They don’t need to spec into attunement (arcana). Same with mesmers. Their clones are dangerous already, but they can make them more dangerous if they wanted to by speccing in to it, but it ain’t required to make their mechanic viable lol

Our class mechanic, we are FORCED to SPEC to make them even somewhat viable. That is a fact. Other classes mechanic they don’t need to put that much effort into powering up their core mechanic.
The embarassing thing is ranger’s core mechanic is lackluster even if we focus 100% on pet traits and skill!

That’s what i’m getting at here.
Obvious we are forced to “use” pets, no doubt about it.
But we are also forced to use traits and skills that take away from my personal characters potential. That needs to change

nagymbear.5280:

McWolfy.5924:

nagymbear.5280:

If you say that pets are dead weight in 95% of the game modes, and hurt you more than they help, you are just not playing the class right. Pets aren’t the best mechanic around, but they are far from being useless.

Try them in wvw

I used to wvw a lot on my ranger, recently not so much. I did a lot of roaming, flipping camps, slapping yaks. In a zerg fight pets die to easily, I agree witht that. But 95% of the game modes is just bullkitten.

Yeah. Flipping camps and smack dollis are super fun… I want to fight real battles! I wars ranged units was the most valuable units.

Furthermore, no other class gets hindered by their classmechanic. You can’t take the adrenaline away from warriors. Yet you can kite or kill our pet. Eles don’t have to use their mechanic, they can use fire all the way and still deal impressive damage.
Last but not least, no other class* get it’s damage cut to justify their classmechanic.
(* Mesmers are in the same boat but since their AI can be simple, they don’t get crippled)

Pet? It’s been said?
I’m getting a bit tired about the focus on the pet, and it merely stating the flaws, that have been stated over and over already. While identifying problems is a needed step into coming up with solutions, I think we keep hanging on the problem identification (combined with various levels of frustration), instead of focussing on fixes to combat the problems. Obviously within the constraints that are given to us…

Higher Priority isn’t Cancelling
In this sense I would also want to point out that Anet stated that fixing the pet is higher on the priority list than making a perma stow option, now obviously you can disagree with that, but I read that somewhat different than it being entirely off the table. Thing is though, that introducing a perma stow that is an integral part of the ranger, while in essence seemingly easy, does offer a lot of issues when you get to the details of skills and traits. In this sense putting in a good solution that would also work intuitively for new players, might be just as much work as giving the pets their own AI…

Unfair, Ranger did see change
I also don’t think it’s fair to blame Anet for not doing enough for the pet and ranger. We are likely the only profession that has seen 4 skills fully reworked, in order to give the rangers a bit more control and pet interactions (mainly the shouts). Now yes, I would agree, and apparently so does Anet (by own statements) that that may not have been enough. Still though, I were to reckon that each profession has a ‘budget’, and unfortunately the troubles with the pet likely make them exceed the budget for the Ranger already. So a full redesign of the ranger or the profession mechanic seems to be out of the question, for the foreseeable future at least.

sPvP and Powercreep
Another thing that puts the ranger in between a rock and a hard place is ‘Balance & Powercreep’. The ranger does fairly well in solo PvE (be it at a ‘sustainable damage speed’) and the ranger seems to do somewhat ok in sPvP (though in the current Metas, it seems to not have ‘burst’ capability, and it seems to not have enough condition removal to combat the condition meta, and what is there takes a considerable investment in traits which makes build diversity stall).

At the same time, mainly due to Rangers doing somewhat ok in sPvP and the concern for powercreep, makes that straight damage buffs that increase their power to improve the ranger in the area’s where it lacks, are somewhat out of the question (there may be some in some places, hopefully to make a ‘powerbuild’ more viable). This means that solutions to combat ‘Dungeons/WvW/LS-content’ problems, need to matter for ‘this’ content only (if possible) OR have minimal impact on sPvP strength. It would be great (in my opinion) if we could focus on that as well.

budget space
As far as the pet goes, any solution oriented suggestions to improve the AI of creatures in general would be a great addition to the pet as well. Assuming budget issues to complicate the Ranger improvement as well, we should go smart about this and try to use the ranger’s unique position to be able to ‘snoop’ budget from related features. Mainly creatures…

Suggested Proposal Format:

Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Making the profession reflect the development teams vision

Goal of Proposal
Change several weapon skills to apply torment rather then bleeding. Bleeding is a strong skill, however torment forces the enemy to move less, thus dragging out the fight, this is highly advantageous for a profession that is supposed to rely on sustained damage. It will also have an indirect effect on pet hit rate. Less movement/less abuse of movement (see; ADADADADADADA arrow evasion through rapid sideways motion) greatly favors the current pet mechanic, therefore requiring the developers to do less, to “achieve more”

Proposal Functionality
Change the following skills to apply torment rather then their current conditions. However, durations should be managed, as such that rangers can never stack more then 5 stacks with “autoattack”.
Sword 1:3 (last strike in chain)
Shortbow 1 (instead of bleeding, remove flanking requirement, introduce 50% chance on hit.)
Warhorn 4 – 1 stack for each attack. Reduce number of attacks, also drastically increase direct damage.
Spear 3 – applies very strong torment at end of attack.
Sharpening Stone (Survival utility + Keen Edge trait) – you and your pet apply 1 stack of torment on your next 3 attacks. The current trait/utility CD should justify a very long duration but medium damage attack)

Associated Risks
Rangers will become very strong against mobile professions such as thieves, warriors and engineers. On the flip side, they will be less about spamming insurmountable bleed stacks on everything that moves. In PvP the skill damage/duration may need to be reduced as the mode requires you to move constantly, therefore a broad specter of torment application that also have strong damage would be easily overpowered.

Akisame.9508:

yea, lets do a small comparison as to what our handicap would look applied to another class:

warrior: class mechanic adrenaline: For every bar of adrenaline you will have 10% LESS damage. So at three bars of adrenaline you will have 30% less DPS then when you have no bars of adrenaline. This way you are forced to USE your class mechanic instead of just letting it stay full for max damage.

Mesmer: Class mechanic Clones: Mesmer’s start of with 100% damage, for each clone they release they lose 20% of their damage while the clone picks up 10% of that damage. When all three clones are up the player will be doing 60% less damage but it’s covered by the 30% damage their clones are doing until they shatter them or whatever.

Thief: Two class mechanics, stealth and initiative: While stealthed, thief will deal 30% less damage on their next attack and will not be able to heal while stealthed. While breaking out of stealth initiative will regain 30% slower for 30 seconds. Thief can only enter stealth once every 30 seconds.

Seriously, this is what the other classes would look like if they had the same handicap that we have had to put up with for the last year and a half.

But you know what, I take a step back and have been reviewing previous posts from dev’s and i’m looking now at the timing of this thread and the statements the dev’s are saying on this thread and have come to a conclusion. This thread is more of a marketing scheme then an honest attempt at trying to fix the class. They have ESO coming out in a month and they know there will be an exodus. They think that if they do this and show an ‘attempt’ of trying to fix the class that they could slow down that exodus from GW2. I love this game and don’t really want to leave but if they do not either fix pets or give ranger’s 100% of their damage back, I’m gone on 4/4. And no, you can’t have my gold because I will not allow my hard work ingame going off to someone that will continue to support the people working in Anet who, up to now so far, for the last year and half, have done nothing but dangle a carrot over our heads promising us everything if we wait till ‘the next patch’. They know pets are broken and with serious trouble yet the nerf the pet damage? yea, that really seams like they care about us. Longbow is lackluster against the shortbow so they nerf the shortbow to make the longbow look better. Yup, feeling the love there aren’t we!

^^ This
Warriors gain extra dmg and crit if not use adrenalin. Eles also gain something if they not changing attunement. Necros can use the class mechanic as a panic button as thieves. Guardian f1 do the same as our pets mighty roar just instantly and deal extra burn. Enginers F skills are just a little more extra, makes utilitys more stronger. Etc…