Guild Wars 2

For some people:
- Pets are useless
- Weapon skills are not complementary enough
- Traits are a mess
- Utilities are not good enough.

To these people… What is your interest in ranger, appart from it’s in-game description?

For me:
- Pets need work in terms of big fights survivability
(maybe an 85-15 shift in damage would be good… but I don’t want a buff-bot of a pet)
- I love how weapon skills are situational, instead of “I press this, this, this and that button” The most “annoying” part of a weapon, imho, is “maul”, that is meant to be spammed when off CD… it’s ok, though, because it’s a burst for people who want one…
- traits need rework. I’d love to see more “you and your pet” in traits – would somewhat take off the impression the pet is a weight for the class. I’D also love to see some traits merged and some placed in trees that are logical

- Utilities. Some need some rework to be somewhat good untraited… But I think devs know which they are by now.

For me, the interest of ranger is that it has a unique/situational gameplay… If the devs can also make it useful in group settings, I’d be happy.
But, if they are to make content where pet is a liability, we need a way for it not to be – thus the perma-stowing demand.
Perma stow with no buff, would make us even more unwanted in big events – we take the room of someone who could be DPSing more, thus we are a liability to the event.
Perma stow with a little buff would at least make us not a liability.
I find it sad to read in chat, we lost cause too many rangers…

So yeah; my position is that the class indeed needs work, I want to keep the pet and the unique weapon situational gameplay. But, I also want the pet to not be a liability in any content.

Flytrap.8075:

Akisame.9508:

And no, the ranger class has never before used pets, the pet inclusion was something created by WoW if I remember correctly and adopted from there on other games.

Rangers could use pets in the original Guild Wars by slotting a specific skill onto your action bar, but they were by no means required to do so.

In fact, most Rangers decided not to use pets unless they were on certain team comps that were tailored towards minions.

ok, let’s read my sentence together. “the pet inclusion was something CREATED by WoW if I remember correctly”

There I cap’ed the ‘created’ part so you can understand. WoW was announced in 2001 and beta and full release was in 2004. GW1 was released in April of 2005, so yes, they most likely took the idea from WoW. Mind you, I never played either of these two games because I was still playing EQ1 and EQ2 at those times along with any interesting releases I may have seen.

Flytrap.8075:

Akisame.9508:

And no, the ranger class has never before used pets, the pet inclusion was something created by WoW if I remember correctly and adopted from there on other games.

Rangers could use pets in the original Guild Wars by slotting a specific skill onto your action bar, but they were by no means required to do so.

In fact, most Rangers decided not to use pets unless they were on certain team comps that were tailored towards minions.

also for EOE builds since the spirt’s damage was tied directly to beastmastery

Specific Game Mode
<PvE.>

Proposal Overview
<Reduce pet health pool by 25%. Change instinctual bond into a trait that grant high toughness or a permanent damage reduction.Reduce pet health pool by 25%. For instinctual bond it would be something like :
- Grant 400 pts of toughness at level 80.
or
- Reduce incoming damage to your pet by 30%>

Goal of Proposal
<Enhance pet survivability by making them tougher and helping ranger to actually heal them effectively. Large health pool are meant to suck condition damage not high power damage.>

Proposal Functionality
<I think it would be a change that is in line with the current design of GW2. It’s more a “quality of life” change that is meant to help ranger that want to invest effort into their pet.>

Associated Risks
<If the increased toughness hypothesis is chosen, it may grant a bit to much aggro to pet, leading to an increased death rate for dps pets. A flat damage reduction would probably be more welcome.>

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

Akisame.9508:

And no, the ranger class has never before used pets, the pet inclusion was something created by WoW if I remember correctly and adopted from there on other games.

Rangers could use pets in the original Guild Wars by slotting a specific skill onto your action bar, but they were by no means required to do so.

In fact, most Rangers decided not to use pets unless they were on certain team comps that were tailored towards minions.

ok, let’s read my sentence together. “the pet inclusion was something CREATED by WoW if I remember correctly”

There I cap’ed the ‘created’ part so you can understand. WoW was announced in 2001 and beta and full release was in 2004. GW1 was released in April of 2005, so yes, they most likely took the idea from WoW. Mind you, I never played either of these two games because I was still playing EQ1 and EQ2 at those times along with any interesting releases I may have seen.

I can read just fine, there’s no reason to be rude.

I thought you were talking about the Ranger specifically in regards to Guild Wars, especially considering that WoW’s version is known as a Hunter. I’m also pretty certain that the archer with a pet concept did not originate in WoW, but that’s beside the point.

I don’t really want to get into an argument about the profession’s origins in other games; I was simply mentioning how the Ranger existed in a previous installment.

Flytrap.8075:

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

Akisame.9508:

And no, the ranger class has never before used pets, the pet inclusion was something created by WoW if I remember correctly and adopted from there on other games.

Rangers could use pets in the original Guild Wars by slotting a specific skill onto your action bar, but they were by no means required to do so.

In fact, most Rangers decided not to use pets unless they were on certain team comps that were tailored towards minions.

ok, let’s read my sentence together. “the pet inclusion was something CREATED by WoW if I remember correctly”

There I cap’ed the ‘created’ part so you can understand. WoW was announced in 2001 and beta and full release was in 2004. GW1 was released in April of 2005, so yes, they most likely took the idea from WoW. Mind you, I never played either of these two games because I was still playing EQ1 and EQ2 at those times along with any interesting releases I may have seen.

I can read just fine, there’s no reason to be rude.

I thought you were talking about the Ranger specifically in regards to Guild Wars, especially considering that WoW’s version is known as a Hunter. I don’t really want to get into an argument about the profession’s origins in other games; I was simply mentioning how the Ranger existed in a previous installment.

Sorry I misunderstood your post then. I just get aggravated when people put words in my mouth and I may have taken it out on your post, my apologies on that.

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

Akisame.9508:

And no, the ranger class has never before used pets, the pet inclusion was something created by WoW if I remember correctly and adopted from there on other games.

Rangers could use pets in the original Guild Wars by slotting a specific skill onto your action bar, but they were by no means required to do so.

In fact, most Rangers decided not to use pets unless they were on certain team comps that were tailored towards minions.

ok, let’s read my sentence together. “the pet inclusion was something CREATED by WoW if I remember correctly”

There I cap’ed the ‘created’ part so you can understand. WoW was announced in 2001 and beta and full release was in 2004. GW1 was released in April of 2005, so yes, they most likely took the idea from WoW. Mind you, I never played either of these two games because I was still playing EQ1 and EQ2 at those times along with any interesting releases I may have seen.

actually gw1 had a beta around the same time and even before that (first beta was in 2003?), at which time gw1 looked very cartoony and nothing like what we know it now GW1 started development shortly after WoW we know this because atleast one of the founders of Anet was an employee at blizzard and did work on the early stages of WoW. but in terms of development wise gw1 was in dev by i believe 2002 (should look up the early stages of gw1 it looked pretty much identical to WoW with the cartoon figures and vivid colors)? also other games have used the pet incursion but it was something to be opted for. In those games pets pretty much instent reserected and could be controlled/buffed much easier…. pets could actually kill players.

Criminal.5627:

actually gw1 had a beta around the same time and even before that (first beta was in 2003?), at which time gw1 looked very cartoony and nothing like what we know it now GW1 started development shortly after WoW we know this because atleast one of the founders of Anet was an employee at blizzard and did work on the early stages of WoW. but in terms of development wise gw1 was in dev by i believe 2002 (should look up the early stages of gw1 it looked pretty much identical to WoW with the cartoon figures and vivid colors)? also other games have used the pet incursion but it was something to be opted for. In those games pets pretty much instent reserected and could be controlled/buffed much easier…. pets could actually kill players.

I’m not sure when beta was, Like I said, I never played GW1 but this is from their wiki and I know wiki’s are not 100% many times:

“Beta Weekend Events were events that took place once a month to let players experience the game before official release, in 2005.

People who wanted to play had to obtain a key from someone who pre-ordered the game or get an access key from a number of fansites.

The end of the events usually involved fireworks.

There were a total of six weekends in all:

November 6th 2004 until November 8th 2004
December 4th 2004 until December 6th 2004"

However, since this really is getting out of control now and deviating from the CDI thread we should change topics I think to something that will help the ranger class in this game. Yes I know I started by naming other games so I’m trying to end it

I still believe permastow is the best option to keep the ranger’s happy and the beastmaster’s happy, that’s my vote

Edit:
Just wanted to say sorry for derailing the thread everyone

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

SkiTz.4590:

Ranger is a single target DPS class, that is the unfortunate truth and would take a lot of change to make it viable in terms of doing AOE damage like eles or necros.

I’ll give you the fact that they can’t spread them to other targets (again, this class is pretty much designed only for 1v1s). Traps aren’t big enough to be considered AOE. But rangers can apply/stack them pretty quickly…maybe not stack as high as a necro but who can? My ranger builds can reapply condis pretty much at will (poison,bleeds and burns that is) yea would be nice to have access to torment or confusion

Still, the build variety would be much better if anet could actually add something to make viable power builds for our class, but there is no such thing right now outside of the joke of a swop + bash + maul combat, which any idiot can see coming. and effectively dodge/block out of it

How big do traps need to be to be considered Aoe? Traps have an effective radius of 240 when traited, which is the same size as Barrage. Is Barrage not considered Aoe to you or something? How big does it have to be to be considered Aoe?

And what about Bonfire? Whirling Defense? drakes? What the heck else do you need to be able to do Aoe? (oh, let me guess, blast finisher like Thief shortbow….)

(oh, and necromancer marks are the same size as traps until you trait them to be bigger as well)

I just got done with a session in WvW using a Rabid-Trap build. I would run out ahead of the zerg, and lay down all my traps, as well as bonfire, and (depending on what I had equiped in my other weapon set before the fight), switch to axe to use whirling defense, or switch to Warhorn and use call of the wild. Every enemy guard/player that was near me had 10-14 stacks of bleeding, and a substantial amount of burning and poison on them before the rest of the zerg ever got to them. Where would you not consider traps to be aoe exactly?

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

I agree with you there. I think this is why many people are asking for a stowable pet option and the reworking of the traits. This way the pet remains for those who like the concept and can be stowed for those two don’t like the concept. It’s hard to understand why some people are so against this idea when it’s not harming the pet concept idea at all. By saying no to the stowable pet option is like us saying that we should just remove pet’s completely (which I admit was my original train of thought but who am I say to pet lover’s that my way is the right way. With stowable pet’s we can have our cake and eat it too).

Chrispy.5641:

SkiTz.4590:

Ranger is a single target DPS class, that is the unfortunate truth and would take a lot of change to make it viable in terms of doing AOE damage like eles or necros.

I’ll give you the fact that they can’t spread them to other targets (again, this class is pretty much designed only for 1v1s). Traps aren’t big enough to be considered AOE. But rangers can apply/stack them pretty quickly…maybe not stack as high as a necro but who can? My ranger builds can reapply condis pretty much at will (poison,bleeds and burns that is) yea would be nice to have access to torment or confusion

Still, the build variety would be much better if anet could actually add something to make viable power builds for our class, but there is no such thing right now outside of the joke of a swop + bash + maul combat, which any idiot can see coming. and effectively dodge/block out of it

How big do traps need to be to be considered Aoe? Traps have an effective radius of 240 when traited, which is the same size as Barrage. Is Barrage not considered Aoe to you or something? How big does it have to be to be considered Aoe?

And what about Bonfire? Whirling Defense? drakes? What the heck else do you need to be able to do Aoe? (oh, let me guess, blast finisher like Thief shortbow….)

(oh, and necromancer marks are the same size as traps until you trait them to be bigger as well)

Take it in context. We were talking about AE application of condis between classes. Are you implying Ranger is even a contender when placed next to Engineers and Necros? Cause I have news for you… it’s not. It’s about on par with Warriors but can’t stack bleed to eleventybillion in .5 seconds every 5 seconds like a Warrior can.

Settle down…

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

^That. And on that point:

Playing a D/D might-stacking ele is worlds different, IMHO, from 30 water, 30 arcana staff ele running Mercy runes (the latter was my preference; saving comments on THAT for an ele CDI thread :p ) It seems like ranger’s never allowed for that level of build diversity. We’re just kind of meh at different builds; jack-of-all-trades, master of none doesn’t even apply here. I didn’t run the ranger build I did because it was better or the best, but because I liked it better than the other options—I knew I’d be equally eh at any of them. (Yes, some of that is skill, but I’m guessing at least SOME of the players who’ve echoed the same sentiments are better at the game than I am :p )

misterdevious.6482:

xallever.1874:

More Flavourful Ranger
Since you guys have been talking about making Ranger more flavoured, suddenly I thought about the idea of having the Ranger’s skills change according to the pet a bit like how the Elementalist’s skill changes when in a different attunement.

Creating a ton of new skills won’t happen. Even one new skill per pet family per weaponset would probably be too much (but it would be very cool.) A simpler way would be to allow the pet to influence our next attack.

Just throwing it out there ^^

I just think, as you said, it’d be cool if we could have something like that. It’s not like I would kill for that to happen.

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

I agree with you there. I think this is why many people are asking for a stowable pet option and the reworking of the traits. This way the pet remains for those who like the concept and can be stowed for those two don’t like the concept. It’s hard to understand why some people are so against this idea when it’s not harming the pet concept idea at all. By saying no to the stowable pet option is like us saying that we should just remove pet’s completely (which I admit was my original train of thought but who am I say to pet lover’s that my way is the right way. With stowable pet’s we can have our cake and eat it too).

People are asking for a stowable pet because they’ve played the game for 1.5 years with the pet being a non-factor or liability at nearly everything we do.

We need to move past the pet topic. We’re keeping pets folks. Make the most of it.

Make your case for why you think the DPS split shouldn’t be 70:30.

Make your case for why F2 skills need to go off quicker.

Make your case for why we should be able to control the pet’s secondary skills.

Make your case for why the pet doesn’t work in WvW and how you would make it work (other than removing it!).

Please give up with expecting the pet to be removed. It simply won’t (nor will it be side lined by perma stow) and we’ve gone around this circle enough over the past 60 pages.

I’m on your side! I couldn’t care less one way or the other. But debating it has run its course. ANet has spoken. Move along!

Atherakhia.4086:

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

I agree with you there. I think this is why many people are asking for a stowable pet option and the reworking of the traits. This way the pet remains for those who like the concept and can be stowed for those two don’t like the concept. It’s hard to understand why some people are so against this idea when it’s not harming the pet concept idea at all. By saying no to the stowable pet option is like us saying that we should just remove pet’s completely (which I admit was my original train of thought but who am I say to pet lover’s that my way is the right way. With stowable pet’s we can have our cake and eat it too).

People are asking for a stowable pet because they’ve played the game for 1.5 years with the pet being a non-factor or liability at nearly everything we do.

We need to move past the pet topic. We’re keeping pets folks. Make the most of it.

Make your case for why you think the DPS split shouldn’t be 70:30.

Make your case for why F2 skills need to go off quicker.

Make your case for why we should be able to control the pet’s secondary skills.

Make your case for why the pet doesn’t work in WvW and how you would make it work (other than removing it!).

Please give up with expecting the pet to be removed. It simply won’t (nor will it be side lined by perma stow) and we’ve gone around this circle enough over the past 60 pages.

I’m on your side! I couldn’t care less one way or the other. But debating it has run its course. ANet has spoken. Move along!

Until Allie or one of the devs comes in here and explicitly outlines their future plans for the Ranger, nothing is going to change.

Chrispy.5641:

How big do traps need to be to be considered Aoe? Traps have an effective radius of 240 when traited, which is the same size as Barrage. Is Barrage not considered Aoe to you or something? How big does it have to be to be considered Aoe?

And what about Bonfire? Whirling Defense? drakes? What the heck else do you need to be able to do Aoe? (oh, let me guess, blast finisher like Thief shortbow….)

Traps sucks on power builds, Whirling Defense makes low damage, and barrage has a huge CD.

Fact is our mele weapons at the start deals less damage because they are seemed to work with the pet (70%-30% rule).
However most pets are single targets making us bad when not out of the zerg in WvW.
The main problem here is not the size, but the damage itself.

30% of our DPS is single target only when it ever hits.

Flytrap.8075:

Atherakhia.4086:

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

I agree with you there. I think this is why many people are asking for a stowable pet option and the reworking of the traits. This way the pet remains for those who like the concept and can be stowed for those two don’t like the concept. It’s hard to understand why some people are so against this idea when it’s not harming the pet concept idea at all. By saying no to the stowable pet option is like us saying that we should just remove pet’s completely (which I admit was my original train of thought but who am I say to pet lover’s that my way is the right way. With stowable pet’s we can have our cake and eat it too).

People are asking for a stowable pet because they’ve played the game for 1.5 years with the pet being a non-factor or liability at nearly everything we do.

We need to move past the pet topic. We’re keeping pets folks. Make the most of it.

Make your case for why you think the DPS split shouldn’t be 70:30.

Make your case for why F2 skills need to go off quicker.

Make your case for why we should be able to control the pet’s secondary skills.

Make your case for why the pet doesn’t work in WvW and how you would make it work (other than removing it!).

Please give up with expecting the pet to be removed. It simply won’t (nor will it be side lined by perma stow) and we’ve gone around this circle enough over the past 60 pages.

I’m on your side! I couldn’t care less one way or the other. But debating it has run its course. ANet has spoken. Move along!

Until Allie or one of the devs comes in here and explicitly outlines their future plans for the Ranger, nothing is going to change.

Pretty much.

Allie asked us to stop discussing scenarios that removed the pet from the class like 45 pages ago. We’ve talked about nothing since. We need Allie to move this thread along already! 2 weeks on nothing but pets as if solving that problem will magically fix this class is asinine!

we actually do need some offensive blast ability, blast abilities affect all targets in range and i do not believe we have any.
and i made the suggestion awhile back in forums that there should be a trait in beast mastery that reduces damage pets take for X seconds after using a healing skill by 90%
shorter duration for pvp but longer in the pve/wvw environment. this could be a minor trait since it would be one that would be one of those “have to slot traits” for anything really large scale and lets face it Instinctual Bond is usless.

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

I agree with you there. I think this is why many people are asking for a stowable pet option and the reworking of the traits. This way the pet remains for those who like the concept and can be stowed for those two don’t like the concept. It’s hard to understand why some people are so against this idea when it’s not harming the pet concept idea at all. By saying no to the stowable pet option is like us saying that we should just remove pet’s completely (which I admit was my original train of thought but who am I say to pet lover’s that my way is the right way. With stowable pet’s we can have our cake and eat it too).

Because of the traits (how would you get in traits which aims at not using the pet/class mecanic?) and the need to balance one class around two concepts (with and without the pet), + the reworking of all the abilities to allow for the absence of the pet.
Anet already have few development resources for all classes. Repairing one part of the class is less time consuming than repairing the pet and rebalancing the class around a petless possibility. As simply getting rid of the pet is easier than designing a system where both option will be available.

Many say
“allow for perma-stow option and give me back my damage”. There’s just than more damage resting on the pet…
Some say
" allow for perma-stow, I don’t care about damage or else, I just don’t want the pet in my way in some occasion"
This would be easier to implement, but would totally screw balance.
And if they did go with that “easy” solution, it sure won’t be long before people come complaining on the forum that they can stow their pet, but want their damage when stowing the pet…

No easy way out, here…

Jocksy.3415:

" allow for perma-stow, I don’t care about damage or else, I just don’t want the pet in my way in some occasion"
This would be easier to implement, but would totally screw balance.
And if they did go with that “easy” solution, it sure won’t be long before people come complaining on the forum that they can stow their pet, but want their damage when stowing the pet…

No easy way out, here…

How does it screw balance?

I understand that there is this 70:30 thing going on, but I imagine ANet’s defense would be that once you’re able to stow your pet, it might be a way to sustain your pet better, in such a way that you could more reliably sustain yourself for max damage (pet not dying).

How would perma-stow screw balance aside from the ranger who’s choosing to do it? I don’t see how my engie friend is affected by my pet being stowed. It’s already been demonstrated again and again the pet’s contributing jack-all anyway.

oiseau.6481:

Chrispy.5641:

How big do traps need to be to be considered Aoe? Traps have an effective radius of 240 when traited, which is the same size as Barrage. Is Barrage not considered Aoe to you or something? How big does it have to be to be considered Aoe?

And what about Bonfire? Whirling Defense? drakes? What the heck else do you need to be able to do Aoe? (oh, let me guess, blast finisher like Thief shortbow….)

Traps sucks on power builds, Whirling Defense makes low damage, and barrage has a huge CD.

Fact is our mele weapons at the start deals less damage because they are seemed to work with the pet (70%-30% rule).
However most pets are single targets making us bad when not out of the zerg in WvW.
The main problem here is not the size, but the damage itself.

30% of our DPS is single target only when it ever hits.

Is it possible that traps suck on power builds because they are so good on condition builds? I hear people complaining all the time that our weapons need some sort of defined focus, why not our utilities?

Edit : If you want physical damage focuses utilities, then ask Anet for them, but don’t complain about traps not dealing enough non-conditon dps, when they are doing exactly what they were designed for.

Anet has defined classes based off of several core abilities, Ranger’s being the pet. Anet decided to define Tyria’s rangers (at least in this installment) as pet wielding classes. Many people have expressed feeling that this forces them to play a beast-master rather than a ranger (any of interpretation of the thematic idea) and suggest permastowing to allow them to play the other roles. There are often other cries that no other class is forced to play with their class mechanic and none are punished by its existence. I have several problems with this train of thought:
First, permastowing is a band-aid solution, it ignores the problems of the pet and hides them under the rug. Also it allows a class to ignore its class mechanic,the aspect the makes each class unique. Some suggestions to remove the pet and make it an option redefines the classes identity (forcing Anet to give it a new class mechanic) this would force beastmasters into a role similar to mm necros.

For the notion of being punished by our class mechanic, every class is more or less. Thieves are squishy because their mechanic promotes a more mobile game play (with a free guaranteed gap closer) and both the engi and ele lose a weapon set if they ignore their class mechanic. The engi’s weapons lack support because they get it through some kits and toolbelt skills. The only exception is the warrior, if talented the warrior can be rewarded for ignoring his class mechanic (this is a different problem for a different day). The problem with the pet is the amount we are punished. A 70:30 split will not be solved (while following Anet’s design) with permastowing. The key is for the base pet to deal less damage (still it will need to be tankier than it is now, an unspec’ed pet should still have uses). This means that the beast master line should increase the effectiveness of the pet exponentially. The 70:30 or even 60:40 split should be the goal of 100% damage beastmaster split where as a mm, skirmisher should look more like 90:10 (maybe 95:5). This also would mean that going into beast master line should greatly increase (through major traits so its either or not both) support, control, and damage. This means that a non beast master would be free to choose a cat for top dps or a support moa and see his numbers waver only a couple percent (3-5%). Where as the beastmaster specced should see much bigger dps from a cat and much better support from a moa. This would be accomplished through the base stats, inheritance of stats from ranger, and the best master line’s special stat. Since Allie has stated that she did bring this up to the dev’s (the stat inheritance), I believe if done effectively it would allow for the multiple archetypes of the rangers to exist.

Chrispy.5641:

oiseau.6481:

Chrispy.5641:

How big do traps need to be to be considered Aoe? Traps have an effective radius of 240 when traited, which is the same size as Barrage. Is Barrage not considered Aoe to you or something? How big does it have to be to be considered Aoe?

And what about Bonfire? Whirling Defense? drakes? What the heck else do you need to be able to do Aoe? (oh, let me guess, blast finisher like Thief shortbow….)

Traps sucks on power builds, Whirling Defense makes low damage, and barrage has a huge CD.

Fact is our mele weapons at the start deals less damage because they are seemed to work with the pet (70%-30% rule).
However most pets are single targets making us bad when not out of the zerg in WvW.
The main problem here is not the size, but the damage itself.

30% of our DPS is single target only when it ever hits.

Is it possible that traps suck on power builds because they are so good on condition builds? I hear people complaining all the time that our weapons need some sort of defined focus, why not our utilities?

Edit : If you want physical damage focuses utilities, then ask Anet for them, but don’t complain about traps not dealing enough non-conditon dps, when they are doing exactly what they were designed for.

Interestingly, the trapper ranger’s bread and butter in Guild Wars was dust trap. It pulsed high damage, blinded with each pulse, and was on a short enough cooldown that you could stack several in one spot. I kind of wish they would bring it back.

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

Can’t tell you how much I agree your opinion.I believe for rangers, pet supposed to be one of rangers’features, but not only one.Ranger as a profession should also be a:

SCOUT: revealing enemey on map (pvx, mainly wvw), detect invisible enemy for short time(pvp), long term camouflage out of battle(pvx) and spotting additional pve enemy information like weakness, HP or even skill cd(pve),group support

SKIRMISHER:mid-range combat, traps, mobile in combat,crowd-control ability and fast recovery.

ARCHER:(please this is very vital,I’d rather give up pets for keeping my bows)great archer, decent ranged damage, group support from away, acceptalbe aoe damage and range, burst skills, mobile, interact with pets

Chrispy.5641:

oiseau.6481:

Chrispy.5641:

How big do traps need to be to be considered Aoe? Traps have an effective radius of 240 when traited, which is the same size as Barrage. Is Barrage not considered Aoe to you or something? How big does it have to be to be considered Aoe?

And what about Bonfire? Whirling Defense? drakes? What the heck else do you need to be able to do Aoe? (oh, let me guess, blast finisher like Thief shortbow….)

Traps sucks on power builds, Whirling Defense makes low damage, and barrage has a huge CD.

Fact is our mele weapons at the start deals less damage because they are seemed to work with the pet (70%-30% rule).
However most pets are single targets making us bad when not out of the zerg in WvW.
The main problem here is not the size, but the damage itself.

30% of our DPS is single target only when it ever hits.

Is it possible that traps suck on power builds because they are so good on condition builds? I hear people complaining all the time that our weapons need some sort of defined focus, why not our utilities?

Edit : If you want physical damage focuses utilities, then ask Anet for them, but don’t complain about traps not dealing enough non-conditon dps, when they are doing exactly what they were designed for.

Which is the root of the problem… they’re in a crit and crit damage tree but ultimately benefit very little from either crit or crit damage. Thus why we had several pages discussing moving the traits or swapping the trait line stats.

Simply giving traps good damage is a 3rd option as well. Especially since this class is so burst deficient. If traps had some value to power builds beyond the utility they provide perhaps we’d see non-trappers actually running traps for a change.

If balance is a concern by making traps deal power + condi damage and overpowering condi bunkers, you could simply keep the base damage low and give them a high coefficient to scale well with power.

Here is a thought. Since Ranger class is stuck with the pets and we are lacking damage because of them, why not have both hear me out here!

Divide pets into 2 groups. support/defensive and damage/aggressive.

Based upon what kind of build 1 wishes to play ranger damage will be based upon. Example if ranger chooses with supportive pet that pet will NOT do any damage to enemy’s but provide boons and survivability to the team and player, but going that rout player gains increased damage himself. That would solve the problem with solo players that don’t wish pets as their damage source and want to deal damage while having some survivability.

Players that choose to do aggressive pets would be divided on damage (like it is now) with the pet with much improved pathing /AI for the pets for that burst damage that rangers are lacking to par with warriors exc…

Muzical.1396:

How would perma-stow screw balance aside from the ranger who’s choosing to do it? I don’t see how my engie friend is affected by my pet being stowed. It’s already been demonstrated again and again the pet’s contributing jack-all anyway.

It wouldn’t and when we stow a pet it should remain stowed until we tell it to come out. This isn’t the problem. People want to stow their pet and be rewarded for doing so. That’s where the issues are.

To fix traps oddness in Skirmishing line:

Marksmanship: Power and Crit Damages
-Crit damages here because of Opening Strike and its guaranted crit
Skirmishing: Precision and Condition Damages
-Traps have a condition duration trait here so condition damages seems the best choice
Wilderness Survival: Toughness and Condition Duration
-Putting here what’s left

No change for the rest

Atherakhia.4086:

Akisame.9508:

Flytrap.8075:

misterdevious.6482:

Everquest had rangers, shamans, druids, and beast lords… this game only has one magical-nature-themed-pet-archer-class. We’re all in the same boat, the boat is leaking, and we need to stop arguing about what name is painted on the hull.

This is a good point.

Ranger is a lot more than just “the pet class”, yet that is where ANet has chosen to place the profession’s emphasis for whatever reason. In my opinion, our pet should be one aspect of the Ranger, not its defining characteristic.

That’s not to say that the pet mechanic should be removed, but it’s a bit disheartening that many of our utilities and traits revolve around our pet when there’s so much untapped potential elsewhere.

I agree with you there. I think this is why many people are asking for a stowable pet option and the reworking of the traits. This way the pet remains for those who like the concept and can be stowed for those two don’t like the concept. It’s hard to understand why some people are so against this idea when it’s not harming the pet concept idea at all. By saying no to the stowable pet option is like us saying that we should just remove pet’s completely (which I admit was my original train of thought but who am I say to pet lover’s that my way is the right way. With stowable pet’s we can have our cake and eat it too).

People are asking for a stowable pet because they’ve played the game for 1.5 years with the pet being a non-factor or liability at nearly everything we do.

We need to move past the pet topic. We’re keeping pets folks. Make the most of it.

Make your case for why you think the DPS split shouldn’t be 70:30.

Make your case for why F2 skills need to go off quicker.

Make your case for why we should be able to control the pet’s secondary skills.

Make your case for why the pet doesn’t work in WvW and how you would make it work (other than removing it!).

Please give up with expecting the pet to be removed. It simply won’t (nor will it be side lined by perma stow) and we’ve gone around this circle enough over the past 60 pages.

I’m on your side! I couldn’t care less one way or the other. But debating it has run its course. ANet has spoken. Move along!

But i do believe perma stow is a MUCH, like other ppl have say, the some achievements cant be done cos of it, and the pet run into traps/mines and so on.

Also parma stow pets wont really change anything, it will just allow oss to like, get a surprise attack cos ppl wont know what pet we use, and also it will fix maybe the power build options if we get some boost when we do it. Still ppl who love pets will also get the benefits, like i say with surprise attacks and so on, win win for everyone.

Thanks<3

Edit: Also the “stow” button in game are there, but its in no use except u are out of combat, so it wont really be much of a deal to let it work in combat to, really easy change and it will help ALOT, and wont change the core pet/ranger at all

There are 2 different themes to permastow in this thread.

The seldom talked about one I outlined above where the actual stow button worked as intended and the pet remained stowed until actually called by the Ranger.

The alternate, which has been talked to death and shot down by ANet, is to be rewarded in any fashion by stowing the pet.

Situation 1 is a must for the reasons you outline. There are just some things pets weren’t thought of when they were designed.

Situation 2 is a nonstarter and needs to stop being discussed after 55+ pages now.

Atherakhia.4086:

There are 2 different themes to permastow in this thread.

The seldom talked about one I outlined above where the actual stow button worked as intended and the pet remained stowed until actually called by the Ranger.

The alternate, which has been talked to death and shot down by ANet, is to be rewarded in any fashion by stowing the pet.

Situation 1 is a must for the reasons you outline. There are just some things pets weren’t thought of when they were designed.

Situation 2 is a nonstarter and needs to stop being discussed after 55+ pages now.

Why u say its a nonstarter to get some boost for stowing them? do u have any other idea how to fix the rang ranger?

As sayd on homepage: “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”

But then again, if u read this Ranger where suppose to be u know, Archers also.

But then other idea witch does not involved stowing them, is to divide pets into 2 groups. support/defensive and damage/aggressive,

Support/defensive do no or really low dmg but then give the Ranger the boost, while the others are like its now, but of course it need to fix the AL and of course some issue pets have already.

Thanks<3

Atherakhia.4086:

There are 2 different themes to permastow in this thread.

The seldom talked about one I outlined above where the actual stow button worked as intended and the pet remained stowed until actually called by the Ranger.

The alternate, which has been talked to death and shot down by ANet, is to be rewarded in any fashion by stowing the pet.

Situation 1 is a must for the reasons you outline. There are just some things pets weren’t thought of when they were designed.

Situation 2 is a nonstarter and needs to stop being discussed after 55+ pages now.

I would be 100% OK with no bonus for stowing if it just meant I called the pet and nothing or no one else.

For a class that seems to be stuck with a pet (not sure why in 500 years they’ve become permanent but w/e), they don’t really threaten the enemy.

In pvp situations, whether it is pvp or wvw, does ANYONE every focus the pet? I mean basic aoe cleaves either do the trick or they really could care less, once the player dies the pet dies. Also many pet actives are either similar in effect, not all that powerful, easy to avoid, or just plain useless. This comes into an issue with pet swap, which really messes everything up. You can’t buff the pets too much, because then pet swap would be op, and you would never be able to kill the pet if they have a BM spec. I think they need to remove pet swap and present some plausible replacement for the system, so they can fairly buff the pets to be fearful.

Some pets have nice effects, but they are essentially a crutch that you carry along until their F2 is ready and in most cases, is a LONG time. Also the inability to control all 3 pet skills is another crutch. Return should not be an F ability at all, they should merge attack and return into 1 button because the pet is doing 1 or the other, not both. If they were to simply buff pets to be strong without removing pet swap, BM would be unstoppable.

Remove pet swap (still keep 1 separate for water and land), let us control ALL 3 pet abilities(option to set them on passive use if the player wishes to keep them off their mind), buff the pets to survive better (less aoe dmg for starters), and rework some of the pet abilities that are either repeated(pigs-forage for example), and the ones that are not worth the cooldown or cast time (mighty roar, rending maul, etc). So many pets yet so little to really choose from.

Ankaran.1029:

Atherakhia.4086:

There are 2 different themes to permastow in this thread.

The seldom talked about one I outlined above where the actual stow button worked as intended and the pet remained stowed until actually called by the Ranger.

The alternate, which has been talked to death and shot down by ANet, is to be rewarded in any fashion by stowing the pet.

Situation 1 is a must for the reasons you outline. There are just some things pets weren’t thought of when they were designed.

Situation 2 is a nonstarter and needs to stop being discussed after 55+ pages now.

Why u say its a nonstarter to get some boost for stowing them? do u have any other idea how to fix the rang ranger?

As sayd on homepage: “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”

But then again, if u read this Ranger where suppose to be u know, Archers also.

But then other idea witch does not involved stowing them, is to divide pets into 2 groups. support/defensive and damage/aggressive,

Support/defensive do no or really low dmg but then give the Ranger the boost, while the others are like its now, but of course it need to fix the AL and of course some issue pets have already.

Thanks<3

Because Allie effectively said to stop discussing ideas that were an alternative to an active pet.

There are ways to make the Ranger not suck that includes still having a pet without making the entirety of the class revolve around it. We just need to start discussing it!

@Atherakhia:

Yes, situation 1 must be implemented. If you set your pet on avoid combat AND press the stow button the pet must be kept stowed even if the ranger takes damage. It takes virtually no resources to program this in-game. However it is a big deal.

Situation 2 was already shot down by devs so I don’t even want to talk about this thing.

xallever.1874:

Jocksy.3415:

" allow for perma-stow, I don’t care about damage or else, I just don’t want the pet in my way in some occasion"
This would be easier to implement, but would totally screw balance.
And if they did go with that “easy” solution, it sure won’t be long before people come complaining on the forum that they can stow their pet, but want their damage when stowing the pet…

No easy way out, here…

How does it screw balance?

I understand that there is this 70:30 thing going on, but I imagine ANet’s defense would be that once you’re able to stow your pet, it might be a way to sustain your pet better, in such a way that you could more reliably sustain yourself for max damage (pet not dying).

Balance:
Hard to explain, i’ll try to illustrate :
- How would stowed pet take off condis (if this trait is selected)?
- How would boon exchange (RaO and others) work?
- If they rework skills/utilities with more pet/ranger synergy in mind, how would it play out?

Atherakhia.4086:

Ankaran.1029:

Atherakhia.4086:

There are 2 different themes to permastow in this thread.

The seldom talked about one I outlined above where the actual stow button worked as intended and the pet remained stowed until actually called by the Ranger.

The alternate, which has been talked to death and shot down by ANet, is to be rewarded in any fashion by stowing the pet.

Situation 1 is a must for the reasons you outline. There are just some things pets weren’t thought of when they were designed.

Situation 2 is a nonstarter and needs to stop being discussed after 55+ pages now.

Why u say its a nonstarter to get some boost for stowing them? do u have any other idea how to fix the rang ranger?

As sayd on homepage: “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”

But then again, if u read this Ranger where suppose to be u know, Archers also.

But then other idea witch does not involved stowing them, is to divide pets into 2 groups. support/defensive and damage/aggressive,

Support/defensive do no or really low dmg but then give the Ranger the boost, while the others are like its now, but of course it need to fix the AL and of course some issue pets have already.

Thanks<3

Because Allie effectively said to stop discussing ideas that were an alternative to an active pet.

There are ways to make the Ranger not suck that includes still having a pet without making the entirety of the class revolve around it. We just need to start discussing it!

Ahh sorry i must of missed that when Allie sayd the permastow where not viable, i thought actually removing pet was not viable. I must have misunderstand it!

Thanks<3

So ANet asks us for feedback but has already decided ahead of time what will be listened to and what will be ignored. Makes me wonder if this thread has any purpose besides venting for us and PR for ANet.

Muzical.1396:

So ANet asks us for feedback but has already decided ahead of time what will be listened to and what will be ignored. Makes me wonder if this thread has any purpose besides venting for us and PR for ANet.

I can only assume that you are referring to permastow. If this is the case, Anet decided that allowing permastow would be a huge alteration to their concept and class design (essentially a big enough tweak for it to be considered a new class**). If you don’t like this, I understand, it is tough to accept that what you seem as a good and easy solution to be thrown out completely but Allie has worked with us. She first insisted that traps belong in skirmishing (citing both work to move them and thematics) but after the community pointed out that traps would fir better into wilderness survival (functionally and thematically) she changed her mind and decided to pass this on to the devs. I am sorry if you feel that because they have ruled out on sugestion it might be a pr stunt and not actually about balance. However it is clear by looking at the whole picture that at least Allie (and I assume the whole Anet team) cares about the ideas coming from the ranger community.

One a side note: Collaboration is a two way street and yes while Anet (due to the massive number of posts) is struggling to read, discuss and give us direction it doesn’t help that one thing they did give us direction on (permastowing) we refuse to collaborate with them. Instead of saying “No permastowing? Ok well here is another solution by doing x y and z to pets that would help us out” the community is saying “No permastowing? why? it is the only solution? give us permastowing or I am going to leave/never play my ranger again/write a depression sonata/etc.” That is not colaboration that is bullying and since we are not ultimately the ones who vision and work is directly making the game, we as a community need to play ball and understand that there are changes coming that we don’t know about so there are probably both philosophical and balance reason they say no permastowing.

Specific Game Mode
WvW

Proposal Overview
Allow us to replace any of the pet’s 3 automatic skills with specific utility/support alternatives. (Optional Route: change the pet’s skills automatically to utility/support versions when set to passive).

Goal of Proposal
Increase value of pets in group situations, instant death situations, and situations involving WvW walls.. Increase value of certain pet families. Give more default utility to pets for rangers who do not spec into pet damage or pet survivability. Add pet customization/personalization. Allow the pet to be a source of strength for the ranger (kinda like The Crow.)

Proposal Functionality
Create one alternative skill for each of the 3 automatic pet family skills. Allow us to customize the pet skill bar by toggling between the regular skill and the new support skill.

For example:

• We could choose whether we want the bear to auto-attack or whether we want it to periodically absorb a condition from the ranger.
• We could choose whether we want the bear to bite or whether we want it to roar to grant might to allies when enemies get in a certain range.
• We could choose whether we want the bear to Defy Pain or whether we want it to roar to grant stability to allies when its health hits 75%.

These optional skills could be designed to be weaker in strength than the regular skills if necessary.

Associated Risks
Time to create new pet skills. Balance issues galore. Our profession mechanic gets even more complicated. Strange interaction with some pet traits and skills. Having to reconfigure these skills each time you change your pet loadout (we already have to rename them.) The concerns some people have about community reaction to perma-stow might also apply to passive-buffing pets.

Entangle need a buff, it is good against bad players, and bad against normal players, vines have too few hp, perhaps Anet would consider to change this utility into a immobilize trap?

Allie Murdock.8152:

Permastow is not impossible. I never meant to give that impression, so I apologize if I did. However, as far as priorities go for the Ranger, it is not high on the list. Why? Because it would require an entire re-balance of Ranger, but if we re-balanced, then the players that do play with the pet would be OP. See the dilemma there?

I wish you could elaborate on this a little bit more. For instance, which context? Dungeon? Open-world? WvW? PvP?

People who play without pets and end up in the 70% damage cap in the open-world content are deservedly punished since using their pets is an option that they decided to forgo. This is like an Elementalist complaining that they’re struggling because they can’t effectively play their class without having to change attunement.

Aggrostemma.1703:

Tobias and Wolfyrk: thank you for your intelligent comment and not calling me a noob!

It’s a common mistake about thieves; they stealth so much and have so much which triggers of stealth . . . but then they also have stuff triggering on Steal. It’s why I’ve not been able to really embrace my young lil thief.

Tobias: About your comment: every other profession has absolute control over their class mechanic or signature ability by choosing to NOT press a button. Apart of loosing some utility/damage for a few second they are not punished for too long. Nobody is forcing a necro to stay in the shroud as long as their life force depletes. Nobody forces the thief to use any ability just to use the initiative or use the steal on cooldown. Even if you are a Fresh Air ele nobody holds a gun against your head to switch attunement. You have control over your class abilities.

Missing Engineers and toolkits, which is almost more of the class than pets are to Rangers. And Guardians and their Virtues, which mind you they don’t need to press a goshdarn thing to make useful.

And this is what I (we/they) want. To have a bit more control over my class mechanic.

Darn straight. I don’t want it gone, I want it working. If it’s going to be always on and not going anywhere I want to be able to take care of it.

You said that I should let my pet die and summon the second one when the time comes… Why not just keep the pet alive?

This . . . is not always an option currently. I know I’ve managed it but that’s usually a fluke. I would like the pet to stay up but we are talking about zergs. I don’t think we could legitimately get a pet which could survive and not be OP with it outside of zergs.

Why must I loose my class ability for only being there?

Well, let’s be honest, the question is “why be there at all” since I find you can do more damage in WvW with a small group while zergs are busy colliding. Take 2-5 people and you can drop most targets while a zerg is busy trying to beat down somewhere/someone else.

I somewhat make my WvW career out of it “Zerg at hills huh? Give me someone else with supply. I got rams. Let’s go knock over a tower or two. If we’re lucky we can snatch Bay.”

I do hope that you understand my point of view. It’s like if an elementalist manages to survive a zerg… put their attunement swap on a minute cooldown. Or a warrior couldn’t use adrenaline for 60 seconds… I think you can understand my point better.

I don’t need help understanding the point, I get the point. I was saying how to mitigate the problem currently for our pet usage. I’d rather we didn’t have that level of issues but it’s better than running back to the zerg (which is often the case if I play my warrior or guardian – they’re upleveled).

Flytrap.8075:

Akisame.9508:

And no, the ranger class has never before used pets, the pet inclusion was something created by WoW if I remember correctly and adopted from there on other games.

Rangers could use pets in the original Guild Wars by slotting a specific skill onto your action bar, but they were by no means required to do so.

In fact, most Rangers decided not to use pets unless they were on certain team comps that were tailored towards minions.

EverQuest had at least one instance of a high-level weapon early on which gave Rangers a “pet” which was little more than a temporary summon which attacked. “Scimitar of the Mistwalker”.

Rangers also were “warrior lite” in that game due to archery being broken relatively early (arrows needed to track to hit and often would miss just by virtue of network latency issues) and even when fixed . . . counting each arrow you fired so you had to keep some on hand.

Interestingly, D&D at that time also was sort of embracing rangers as the same.

Specific Game Mode
Primarily PvP and WvW, but decent for PvE as well
Proposal Overview
Reverse the leaps on Ranger Sword Skill #2
Goal of Proposal
Currently the Ranger sword skill #2 leaps backwards and then forwards, the goal of the proposal would be to make the sword first leap forwards and then backwards
Proposal Functionality
Currently the sword 2 leap feels kind of wonky and useless in most situations. It’s alright because of the hard evade on it and the distance generation of the initial leap, but reversing the leaps would improve fluidity of gameplay. For example, with my proposal you could do combos like this:
Sword 2 to leap into the fight, Sword 3 to poison, Torch 5 for burning field, Sword 3 to leap out of burning field, swap to longbow or shortbow now at range.
Associated Risks
Not much, I’d say that the evade on Sword 2 could be removed if this was implemented, but keep the cripple and leap finisher.