Guild Wars 2

It’s been suggested that Rangers could gain various buffs called for stowing their pets.

Thoughts?

Yes please …

Personally I’d prefer they reworked pets to work better, but that could just be me.

Regardless though I dont think they’d actually do it. They are just letting people blow off steam in the CDI, but ultimately they dont want to change the rangers core mechanics, just fix it up a bit.

Pet perma-stow and an aspect of the beast buff would effectively give the Ranger 2 profession mechanics.

I don’t think this solution would address Rangers being a selfish profession either. There is a Legolas quality to this solution.

That being said, an aspect of the beast buff does not have to be linked to pet perma-stow. It could be linked to (I hunt with 2 four-legged companions in the real world so this is uncomfortable to even say) ‘animal cruelty’.

Perhaps sending your pet into a downed state gives a limited duration aspect of the beast buff to the party or party equivalent.

honestly, we are better off re-rolling another class.

It’s just not possible to implement a viable form of pet without re-working its entire code, which anet will not do..just too requires too much effort and we all know they are more worried about the next gemstore item or LS ….

i wish it was possible to make pets work, but it simple isn’t given the fact anet will not put that big of an effort into reworking pets other than a few buffs.
It still won’t change the fact 100% of the other professions ignore the pet in WvW/sPvP
it still won’t change the fact it is a useless at support other than being a tank/aggro machine while you are soloing (pets provide very little utility to groups for dung/fracs outside frost spirit , which ofc isnt even a pet
It still won’t change the fact pets are absolutely useless in zergs

The pet’s downed state is something that’s been nagging me about this concept.

Your pet getting KO’d would have to trigger aspect mode, similar to what Psientist says, (but probably lasting clear until the pet revives). If not, anyone who doesn’t manage to quickly stow their pet when it’s low on health will be severely shooting themselves in the foot.

An obvious issue here is that it turns the whole pet-death mechanic on its head. This means it would take yet more work to balance. Not that it can’t, (or shouldn’t), be done, but it is a concern.

How does this fall in the rhetoric of pet class?

It doesn’t. Don’t waste time and resources to pursue “aspects”.

We should keep our pets and figure out a way to make them viable in the long run.

But if the pet AI is linked to the general creep AI, then the scope of this redesign is a huge one.

Put that kind of scope to the balance of probability happening. Also if it ever happens, what kind of timeframe you think is a reasonable expectation?

It’s such a great compromise to make this profession at least a viable one in the meantime until they finally set aside some huge productivity into the reworking of this mechanic.

I see zero chance that Anet will fix pets. 1.5 years post launch and pets still act like a 3 year olds at a toy store (the constant dying let’s call nap time).

Fixing pet AI isn’t realistically going to happen so what to do then? How do we fix a class who needs help without breaking the bank in terms of man hours?

STOW THE KITTEN! Or the BEAR! Give the ranger ALL of the damage that is currently split between ranger and pet. When we want our pet, we call it, when we don’t we STOW it and consolidate our damage into the one place not Dependant on AI… US.

I don’t like the idea of stowing the pets to gain an advantage. We’re a pet class and if I wanted to be a ranged character minus the pet, I would have rolled up a warrior or thief. Yes my kitty might be a little ‘slow in the head’ but he’s the reason I started playing the class. Make them a walking buffing bot…get rid of the swapping mechanic for something else…give them dodging…let us have more control over their actions…but don’t make me get rid of my Mr. Whiskers please.

rabidsmiles.5926:

I don’t like the idea of stowing the pets to gain an advantage.

The advantage is that we can get our damage back from our pets who’ve stolen it and can’t hit a moving target with it, or who can’t dodge a red circle and are dead and not hitting anything.

rabidsmiles.5926:

We’re a pet class and if I wanted to be a ranged character minus the pet, I would have rolled up a warrior or thief.

We were also “masters of ranged combat, unparalleled archers” until Anet decided we weren’t and made us “skirmishers”.

Ok seeing I do have ideas on how this could work, maybe I should turn this conversation around before it turns into a ‘pet/no-pet’ argument…

1. First off let me start by saying that I personally do not want the pet to be removed. I think the pet should be worked upon and improved for as much as reasonably possible. There should be mechanics to deal with boss fights and AoE, and AI should keep benefitting from improvement in the general AI. I am also a big supporter of giving more control over the pet by changing the [F*] keys, so that the pet listens better and doesn’t F* around… Having said that…

2. I am also a big supporter of giving players a way to ‘perma stow’ their pet. Simply because there are people that do not like the pet aspect of the current ranger, but like everything else about it with a passion. The ‘Archer’ is one of the ‘original trinity’ characters in fantasy (next to the warrior and the wizard) and a lot of the things ‘tagged’ onto it, have nothing to do with the original Archer. It was that, an archer, a huntsman with traps, and some simple ‘moss bandages’ to get around. A bow (lots of different arrows), a knife and basic plant knowledge (sometimes not even that, if it was a tower guard like archer).

It is this ‘archer’ type (well mainly the woodsman type) that I think draws ‘a lot’ of players to the Ranger initially. And you may have noticed by now, the Archer doesn’t have a pet. The ‘beast master’ qualities basically come in part from the Druid (the nature wizard that listens and works with animals, basically the crazy small wizard dude (think his name is ‘blabla the green) from lord of the rings. If you are not into fantasy long enough to know the druid.). And some part of it comes from the ’hunter’ that hunts with dogs, or, in case of the ‘guard archer’ the guard dog.

So yes, the pet, or even a whole pack of animals, is certainly something that can go with the Ranger theme. But! It’s obligatory nature (somewhat combined with performance issues, but for a lot of archers and ranger enthusiasts may not even be the main reason they don’t want a pet) is what is bugging me.

So I think ‘auras’ in a sense, could be a nice way to deal with a stowed pet, give these players something in return (as the pet mechanic takes from the ranger just to exist). And with doing so ‘add’ to the ranger’s theme and the profession as a whole, instead of detract from it. The aura is a choice, and a solution for clear short comings, not a replacement.

Ok more on the actual workings in the next post, else this will get too long and nobody will read it, but I still thought it to be important to share my stance.

When I made my proposal in the CDI thread about my idea for stowing pets and gaining a pet specific buff I was really surprised when I sat and read through the rest of the pages, and seeing how many other people proposed close to the same exact thing.

From my perspective I think as a class we should have options. We may be the main pet class, but we’re also a good skirmishing class, and I think there should be an option to play the strengths of the latter while others can play the former as well.

Not to mention that if this is utilized we are still relying on specific pets or their respective families to draw their power and gain buffs. We just aren’t using the pet as a separate entity. I think that a Ranger drawing power from animal spirits is a pretty hardcore form of nature magic too. Almost like a druid of sorts, which is pretty awesome.

As for pets themselves I’m not personally against them. It’s just that at the moment they don’t feel like they’re a strong part of the class because of their immensely large list of vulnerabilities and shortcomings.

Instead of a personalized pet that’s an extension of our character, that we can become attached to and enjoy, we get an incompetent AI follower that we can only change the name of (which isn’t even permanent) that sucks up a large portion of our damage output while offering little in return.

Also to anybody complaining about the pet being removed I don’t see where this proposal says that the pets are gone. If you want the pet then just don’t stow it away. nobody is forcing you to not use your pet, it just gives people that don’t want it a viable option.

Mesmers also end up using very little of their shatter mechanics if they use the phantasm build. I don’t see what the problem is with a class with multiple options, mechanics or not.

Thieves trait to improve their steals if they so wish, not if they don’t. So is the case with their initiatives.

Overall, I think the flavour of the class is important, but more importantly, viability in game.

Actual Mechanic Suggestion

Keeping with the ‘pet’ theme for the auras (seeing one could also do something with ‘spirit aura’ or simply ‘one aura’). The amount of pets that can be stowed could be made minimal. The idea is actually quite simple:

1. The stow pet option perma stows the pet. So it never comes out. But the interface stays up.

2. The following commands are now attributed to the F-keys.

• F1 – attack my target, the current pet is summoned out and attacks the target.
• F2 – a ‘pet family’ skill that is in line with the ‘pet family aura’ replaces the pet-skill
• F3 – return to me is a way to take the pet out through an F key, instead of mouse clicking ‘stow pet’. It comes out in the mode set in [X] and might not attack target if not set to do so (aka aggressive) and you are not attacking, or is set to passive.
• F4 – switch pets, but if in ‘aura mode’ it switches out the auras instead.
• X – can stay a select button for passive or aggressive.

3. When stowing a pet-family. The stats associated with the pet are added to the ranger stats. This warrents that the ranger will still pay attention to the pets (s)he slots, and seeing these are ‘pet-family’ stats. The stats could be designed in such a way that they make sense for the pet-family, but also for the ranger himself, in regards to the amount of ‘power’ the ranger needs to gain to compensate for not having a pet.

4. Pet families, examples:
- Birds: F2 – your next 3 attacks cause bleeding
- Canine: F2 – your next attack knockdown opponent
- Feline: F2 – gain a vigor boon for X sec.
- Moa: F2 – allies in range are healed for an X bit.
- Porcine: F2 – scavenge your surroundings
- Spider: F2 – throw a net on target, imob target for X sec.
- Bear: F2 – increase your vitality by X for Y sec.
- Devourer: F2 – your next 3 attacks inflict poison.
- Drake: F2 – ‘drake skin’ increase your toughness by X for Y sec.
- Fish: F2 – dash towards target, stun them for x sec when hit.
- Jellyfish: – stinger spray, spray stings all around you poisoning foes around you

Recharge of these skills share the same with the pet out, so summoning a pet doesn’t give another skill, changing an aura would, or getting out current pet, changing pet that pets skill would be up.

5. Conveying the ‘aura’. To not make this to hard, I would personally say:
- I would suggest giving all the pets a ‘green’ transparent skin, and set them to full passive mode and make them unhittable. Then have them walk along… perhaps a size in between pets and mini’s could make them more distinct yet less noticable.

- you could add a glow to the character. but this may well interfere with armour glows and tbh do we really need more particle effects…

- Lastly, is it really that important to show which aura a ranger is in? I mean, you won’t be able to see what 2nd pet they have anyways, so what does the 1st matter? And the skills are not that overwhelming that you would need warning, and those skills that may be exceptionally good in a meta are always to be expected anyways? So no visual cue would be fine with me too.

Nothing more to add really ?

gawker.8340:

How does this fall in the rhetoric of pet class?

It doesn’t. Don’t waste time and resources to pursue “aspects”.

We should keep our pets and figure out a way to make them viable in the long run.

I am also against this idea, I would rather see pets work. I also think this would take significant development time and might take 2 to 3 years to change a core mechanic like this.

I think there are ways to make pets viable in each setting that are worth exploring first.

Arghore,
BlaBla the green?!?! One moment while I suppress my nerdrage…….Radagast the Brown.
Just kidding……. mostly.

I am torn on the issue. Ranger pets are currently a 3 legged-blivet, depending how you look at them they never quite work. If the development team decides to pursue perma-stowing of pets, then they would indeed create a profession with 2 distinct profession mechanics. Is that fair to other professions? Would that be more work than fixing pet AI and evolving their function?

I think the aspect of the beast mechanic as you describe it would be the end of the end of the pet mechanic. As much as I find the dedicated pet class compelling, I have to admit that an Aspect of the Beast/Wild would better embody the trope ArenaNet is trying to capture.

If this was the case I would make a ranger. It would be an awesome class to play.
That is IF they would make a way for the class to be played WITHOUT the silly pet.

I like the idea, but I think it should be named better in order to maintain the Ranger theme.
something like – Players could chose one of two Aspects:
“Aspect of the Beastmaster” – which allows them to use a pet.
“Aspect of the Skirmisher/Marksman/Other” – which will boost them.

Stus.5327:

Also to anybody complaining about the pet being removed I don’t see where this proposal says that the pets are gone. If you want the pet then just don’t stow it away. nobody is forcing you to not use your pet, it just gives people that don’t want it a viable option.

This. I don’t know why people who get all kitten about “removing” pets keep reading “removing” instead of “option to not use” which is CLEARLY spelled out REPEATEDLY meaning they can still use the band-aided pet if they want to. There is no reason the reason of the sane population that still have a Ranger should be forced to use a band-aided class mechanic as well. That goes to the “If I have to suffer you should too.” mentality.

thefantasticg.3984:

Stus.5327:

Also to anybody complaining about the pet being removed I don’t see where this proposal says that the pets are gone. If you want the pet then just don’t stow it away. nobody is forcing you to not use your pet, it just gives people that don’t want it a viable option.

This. I don’t know why people who get all kitten about “removing” pets keep reading “removing” instead of “option to not use” which is CLEARLY spelled out REPEATEDLY meaning they can still use the band-aided pet if they want to. There is no reason the reason of the sane population that still have a Ranger should be forced to use a band-aided class mechanic as well. That goes to the “If I have to suffer you should too.” mentality.

With all due respect to Arghore or anyone else describing a permastow plus aspect buff, what they write is irrelevant. Arenanet will not support a profession with two distinct, mutually exclusive and equally complex profession mechanics.

Psientist.6437:

thefantasticg.3984:

Stus.5327:

Also to anybody complaining about the pet being removed I don’t see where this proposal says that the pets are gone. If you want the pet then just don’t stow it away. nobody is forcing you to not use your pet, it just gives people that don’t want it a viable option.

This. I don’t know why people who get all kitten about “removing” pets keep reading “removing” instead of “option to not use” which is CLEARLY spelled out REPEATEDLY meaning they can still use the band-aided pet if they want to. There is no reason the reason of the sane population that still have a Ranger should be forced to use a band-aided class mechanic as well. That goes to the “If I have to suffer you should too.” mentality.

With all due respect to Arghore or anyone else describing a permastow plus aspect buff, what they write is irrelevant. Arenanet will not support a profession with two distinct, mutually exclusive and equally complex profession mechanics.

They should support it since they aren’t going to support properly fixing the class mechanic… It’s not far off from initiative and steal for the thief. They’re pretty much equally complex profession mechanics. I think the initiative mechanic might be about a hair more complex than the steal, but that’s it.

thefantasticg.3984:

It’s not far off from initiative and steal for the thief. They’re pretty much equally complex profession mechanics. I think the initiative mechanic might be about a hair more complex than the steal, but that’s it.

This is very true. I’d also like to add that I can essentially ignore and not spec around either steal or initiative regen traits on my thief and not lose significant damage or viability. I run a 0/30/30/10/0 D/D build on my thief with 0 initiative gain traits, and only use steal as a gap closer that sometimes has an added bonus that I may use just because and can do perfectly fine with it.

Too bad rangers are still tethered to their horrible pet, and all of the damage they lose because of it.

The ranger was the first profession that I played in this game before getting fed up after all of the nerfs against shortbow to prevent a damage build, deleted it, made a thief and have yet to regret it. The pokemon collectors can keep their pets, I’ll just make sure to always target them first because I know how easy of a target most can be. Ranger tears in WvW are delicious!

I didn’t read everything here but would it be better for the pet stow away for a buff be a trait instead of it just being there?

The lack of response from the F2 skill is well-known and quite frustrating.

One suggestion I saw in the CDI is that the F2 skill would not be something that the pet itself does, but rather an aspect of that pet. So rather than waiting for your bear to finish his attack animation before he roars and cleanses, a semi-transparent aspect of the bear (visually like GS Maul) roars at the pet’s location instantly casting the F2 ability. This would solve both the existing problem of the lag of waiting for animations to finish and the potential problem of interrupting an action (like the pet’s Bite skill) to have the F2 skill be instant.

This aspect of the pet would go far to alleviating a major issue with pets right now.

thefantasticg.3984:

Psientist.6437:

thefantasticg.3984:

Stus.5327:

Also to anybody complaining about the pet being removed I don’t see where this proposal says that the pets are gone. If you want the pet then just don’t stow it away. nobody is forcing you to not use your pet, it just gives people that don’t want it a viable option.

This. I don’t know why people who get all kitten about “removing” pets keep reading “removing” instead of “option to not use” which is CLEARLY spelled out REPEATEDLY meaning they can still use the band-aided pet if they want to. There is no reason the reason of the sane population that still have a Ranger should be forced to use a band-aided class mechanic as well. That goes to the “If I have to suffer you should too.” mentality.

With all due respect to Arghore or anyone else describing a permastow plus aspect buff, what they write is irrelevant. Arenanet will not support a profession with two distinct, mutually exclusive and equally complex profession mechanics.

They should support it since they aren’t going to support properly fixing the class mechanic… It’s not far off from initiative and steal for the thief. They’re pretty much equally complex profession mechanics. I think the initiative mechanic might be about a hair more complex than the steal, but that’s it.

To be clear, I am not arguing that pets function properly or are as functional in PvX as other profession mechanics. If the developers can not get pets to a point were they are as dependable and functional as other profession mechanics, then they should pursue evolving the Ranger’s profession mechanic.

Your comparison is flawed. The complexity of balancing Initiative + Steal = the complexity of balancing Pets or any other whole profession mechanic. The complexity of balancing two ant hills is not equivalent to the complexity of balancing two mountains. We have to be realistic and honest here; this is not an instance where we can have our cake (Pets) and eat it too (perma-stow Pets for a permanent aspect buff).

Psientist.6437:

To be clear, I am not arguing that pets function properly or are as functional in PvX as other profession mechanics. If the developers can not get pets to a point were they are as dependable and functional as other profession mechanics, then they should pursue evolving the Ranger’s profession mechanic.

Great. They’ve already said they aren’t going to take on those big projects so it’s time to start pursuit of that evolution!

Psientist.6437:

Your comparison is flawed. The complexity of balancing Initiative + Steal = the complexity of balancing Pets or any other whole profession mechanic. The complexity of balancing two ant hills is not equivalent to the complexity of balancing two mountains. We have to be realistic and honest here; this is not an instance where we can have our cake (Pets) and eat it too (perma-stow Pets for a permanent aspect buff).

To be fair I shot it off at the hip as to say I didn’t put a mountain’s worth of brainpower into thinking the comparison out. The point is valid that regardless of the amount of work involved you can have more than one class mechanic. No matter what course of action they are to take (except for the more band-aids course) it is going to be a “big project” requiring lots of resources so if it’s going to be done let’s make a many as possible happy with it

I would be fine with an ‘aspect’ system – it could be quite cool, in fact – but I feel like the resources that would need to go into it would be as well or better off going into the serious and intensive work needed to fix our existing stuff (pet AI, F2 skills, scaling, our vision not fitting the meta.) If they don’t have the time and money to do major coding stuff to fix what they already have for us, are they really going to have the time and money to make up a whole new system, new graphics and animations, new skills, etc. for what is, at the end of the day, a minority of players?

It’s important to us, obviously, because we’re rangers, but I guess I am skeptical that the Powers that Be will be willing to devote a ‘disproportionate’ amount of work on us when the benefit is (sort of) only to rangers rather than the game as a whole.

Laurelinde.4395:

I would be fine with an ‘aspect’ system – it could be quite cool, in fact – but I feel like the resources that would need to go into it would be as well or better off going into the serious and intensive work needed to fix our existing stuff (pet AI, F2 skills, scaling, our vision not fitting the meta.) If they don’t have the time and money to do major coding stuff to fix what they already have for us, are they really going to have the time and money to make up a whole new system, new graphics and animations, new skills, etc. for what is, at the end of the day, a majority of players?

It’s important to us, obviously, because we’re rangers, but I guess I am skeptical that the Powers that Be will be willing to devote a ‘disproportionate’ amount of work on us when the benefit is (sort of) only to rangers rather than the game as a whole.

Fixed that for you. No, you don’t have to thank me.

Laurelinde.4395:

… If they don’t have the time and money to do major coding stuff to fix what they already have for us, are they really going to have the time and money to make up a whole new system, new graphics and animations, new skills, etc. for what is, at the end of the day, a minority of players?

If you read my suggestion above here there is hardly any ‘new’ system. There doesn’t even have to be new grafix or animations, and if the aspect is represented by the same pet ‘but’ in a aura fashion, it is merely making one ‘aura’ layer, and copy/pasting it on all existing pet models. I didn’t include any effects on the pet skills that need some sort of animation, most of the existing icons can be used to represent the effects, and all the effects can be parsed into existing profession mechanics (if some of the effects are not possible, than others can be made up instead). I were to guess a decent team (5 to 6) can churn it out in a week or two. Then it would need a week of rigorous testing and stat evaluation. To then finalize it in the next week.

This is a whole different size project than prying the AI away from the creature AI, to then change it where it needs to be changed, and have all that AI running along side the creature AI taking up system resources. Which is almost all coding, and may still result in dodgy effects in various situations.

Also, once the aura would be done, I were to hope that efforts to improve the creature AI are not halted. I mean, the creature AI could do with improvements anyways, it would benefit not just the ranger pet, but it would benefit the game overall. The justification of an aura system is that it offers a solution in areas specifically for the ranger pet, it offers a solution to all ranger that would rather see it gone. And it can be done in a way that still involves the pets, where hunting for having all pets still matter, and in a way that fits with the ranger theme (be it somewhat wider than ‘the archer’, and more in a druidic shamanic way).

Fair enough, I was thinking along the lines of what Allie had mentioned about us visually taking on aspects of our pets. If it was not anything that involved then I would imagine they are more likely to go ahead with it. I think it’s still fairly unlikely given the vision is fixed on us being a pet class almost above all else.

Awesome-but-controversial ideas like this are the exact reason why I want to tie profession mechanics in with the subclass concept, as the main non-aesthetic component thereof.

Let players flip their Beast Mastery trait line over to Aspect Mastery, changing the whole mechanic with it. Click. Bam. Build changed. That’s all we need.

(Not to say that it should be easy to unlock, but that’s another CDI.)

I disagree that pets should be stowed.

Otherwise, anet will have to balance for both unstowed and stowed pets.

Cufufalating.8479:

Personally I’d prefer they reworked pets to work better, but that could just be me.

Regardless though I dont think they’d actually do it. They are just letting people blow off steam in the CDI, but ultimately they dont want to change the rangers core mechanics, just fix it up a bit.

They should make builds with and without pets both viable. Fix pets, and also make it so you aren’t required to use them.

I want an archer, not a pet master. Why do so many games make you think that Rangers need a pet? I want a leather-armor-arrow-slinger… and I don’t want to micro manage a zoo.

Psientist.6437:

With all due respect to Arghore or anyone else describing a permastow plus aspect buff, what they write is irrelevant. Arenanet will not support a profession with two distinct, mutually exclusive and equally complex profession mechanics.

If i remember correctly they already said they can’t fix pets because it’d affect npc AI.
If they don’t give us the choice to play without the broken mechanic we end up where we are now, having a first CDI because we REALLY need help.

petespri.6548:

I want an archer, not a pet master. Why do so many games make you think that Rangers need a pet? I want a leather-armor-arrow-slinger… and I don’t want to micro manage a zoo.

Bad news for you and I, then. We are now skirmishers, not archers, so better put your bows aside and ready your melee weapons.

I like the idea of Aspects, to be honest i would like any idea..Pets as they are now are a burden..
But in the other hand i dislike the idea of waiting for something too long..GW2 got a lot of problems that took away my interest in this game.
I dont want to create more i want to fix the alrdy existing in a small timeframe so i can log in again with excitement..

runeblade.7514:

I disagree that pets should be stowed.

Otherwise, anet will have to balance for both unstowed and stowed pets.

They’ll have to be rebalanced regardless.

To be honest while pet stow is actualy an interesting idea Id rather have the pet stat scaling and making it deal considerable damage before implementing aspects as Beastmaster will be reguarded as a ‘’casual who wants to play a poorly designed mechanics rather then run the new usefull stuff’’ if the pet isnt given at least as much worth as the aspect mechanics wich is totaly wrong (if i want to play a pet build based on running a specialy traited pet i should be able to and it should be as much viable as stowing it for some buffs!). Regardless pet aspect should also be part of the beast mastery trait lists as major trait wich could be alternative to the pet themed major traits

For starters, add an option to perma-stow the pet, with or without buffs. There are lots of situations where you DON’T want the pet out, period. Even perma-stowing didn’t give any kind of buff, I would still be happy to perma-stow mine.

Then the devs can add a special mechanic in the game so they can count how many Rangers perma-stow their pets, with or without a buff, and while doing various activities, dungeons, WvW, general pve, sPVP etc The results might be surprising.

maddoctor.2738:

Then the devs can add a special mechanic in the game so they can count how many Rangers perma-stow their pets, with or without a buff, and while doing various activities, dungeons, WvW, general pve, sPVP etc The results might be surprising.

If this mechanic was in place, I would never bring the bloody thing out XD I love the skirmisher idea for rangers, dislike the pet. I like this option also because it lets people who want the pet keep it as. Unfortunately many people would still use the pet, even if they hated it because what little it does is still an advantage

what of those people who actualy use the pet on purpose because they are build centralized around it? I dont mind perma stow for those Animal cruelty lovers as long as having the pet out is utherly more rewarding then stowing it when traited right.

kyubi.3620:

what of those people who actualy use the pet on purpose because they are build centralized around it? I dont mind perma stow for those Animal cruelty lovers as long as having the pet out is utherly more rewarding then stowing it when traited right.

If you’ve traited to play eastmaster, you should be able to do so. In return, if you’ve traited to play as an archer, you should also be able to do so without a pet eating up 30% of your damage.

They absolutely don’t want you to stow your pet so I can’t see them rewarding you with a buff for doing the one thing they don’t want. They might consider a heavy debuff for doing it though.

Sandpit.3467:

They absolutely don’t want you to stow your pet so I can’t see them rewarding you with a buff for doing the one thing they don’t want. They might consider a heavy debuff for doing it though.

Ok, then simply remove the pet. That would be the worse solutuion. Beastmasters would be gone, classmechanic would be gone. So why do you want to remove the pet over making it optional?

Sandpit.3467:

They absolutely don’t want you to stow your pet so I can’t see them rewarding you with a buff for doing the one thing they don’t want. They might consider a heavy debuff for doing it though.

If they can’t fix pets (they said so) and they won’t allow us to play without pets, what 3rd option is there, have a CDI for rangers a year from now?

My two cents, if they ever make it, just some rough ideas here:
-All weapons skills that gives buffs to your pet give their buff to you instead (Hilt Bash for 50% more damages, Might with Pounce, Bleed with Crippling Shot, Weakness with Winter’s Bite), expect for axe, all those would increase DPS a bit, this might also push GS into a better DPS weapon than Sword depending on groups (those who stack might easily).
-X% chances to dodges attacks, dodge one attack every Xs, dodge every X attacks or add one second of distorsion when you use dodgeroll (more active, extended evasion on dodgeroll)
-Every Xs your next melee attack makes you leap to your target (gape closer), your next ranged attack makes you leap back.
-Inflict torment whenever you inflict poison (if you don’t use pets, Rangers have less access to poison).
-Ranged attacks has a chance to shatter on impact (1st target only) and deal damages to nearby foes (ranged AoE on target, would help in wvw).
-Grant Stability when using either a dodgeroll (short duration) or a healing skill (average duration), rangers only stability source is Rampage as One and this skill needs a pet to be fully effective.
-New effects on shouts (conditons removal, CC, boons, conditions all AoE of course).
-Chance to remove one boon from target or remove one boon every X attacks.
-Remove X condition (or Y stack of X condition) from target, instantly inflict damages based on your condition damage stat value and remaining duration of removed conditions.
-Trigger a buff every Xs that cancel the next incoming condition
-….

Related Traits:
-Merge pet swap CD reduction and aspect swap reduction
-Current aspect effect linger for 5s after a swap
-Aspects that trigger a buff after Xs or X attacks trigger right after a swap

kyubi.3620:

To be honest while pet stow is actualy an interesting idea Id rather have the pet stat scaling and making it deal considerable damage before implementing aspects as Beastmaster will be reguarded as a ‘’casual who wants to play a poorly designed mechanics rather then run the new usefull stuff’’ if the pet isnt given at least as much worth as the aspect mechanics wich is totaly wrong (if i want to play a pet build based on running a specialy traited pet i should be able to and it should be as much viable as stowing it for some buffs!). Regardless pet aspect should also be part of the beast mastery trait lists as major trait wich could be alternative to the pet themed major traits

If you read my opening statement you can see that I am all for this notion. The pet stow should be a solution to deal with issues as they are now. After an aura would be implemented the focus should shift back to the creature AI, it should improve, and consequently the pet-AI should improve alongside it.

Ultimately people that would rather not have a pet (from the 99% of comments I seen about it) want A CHOICE! Aka. they recognize that there is a large group of ranger players that DO want a pet, and from what I seen they have absolutely no problem with the pet being a valid option on the ranger! This is also my stance, and were there aura’s I would likely use both, obviously depending on the situation… Hence I do not see aura’s as a replacement for the pet, I see it as an addition to the ranger’s kit.

Consequently I fully agree with you, and the ArenaNet dev.team that creature AI should remain ‘high’ upon the priority list. It just happens to be so that I think that until there is an aura system, it should be lower on the list than creating the workaround. That way we get a fix for where the problems are biggest, so we can enjoy our gameplay, while Anet works on creature AI improving both the pet, as well as creatures there after.

In my honest opinion it is the only way ‘I think is right’ to deal with the current situation. (please note the nuance, I am open for different opinions as long as they are well arguemented.)

Make an Alive Pet Aura and a DEAD pet aura

Alive Jaguar aura = +5% dmg and stealth every 90seconds

Dead Jaguar aura = +3% dmg and stealth every 60seconds

Alive Bear aura = +10% toughness and vitality Condi cleanse
Dead Bear aura = +5% toughness and vitality NO condi cleanse

Alive Wolf aura= 33% chance to cause fear on crits, Knockdown range increased by 100
Dead Wolf Aura = 10% chance to cause fear, Knockdowns range increased by 300

Alive Drake Aura = Increased Vitailty, Chance to cause blast finisher
Dead Drake Vitailty = Increased Vitailty, NO blast finisher

Alive Moa aura = Allies gain Boons, ranger gets Regeneration
Dead Moa aura = Allies gain Regeneration , Ranger gets Boons

This will stop the pets being STOWED and still useable whilst also giving the ranger utitlys and more Support without loosing too much DPS when the pet is dead

Nike.2631:

It’s been suggested that Rangers could gain various buffs called for stowing their pets.

Thoughts?

I support the choice.

Baffled at the opposition to a choice.

Been stated that they cannot/will not “fix” pets themselves; we are either happy with them as is or not.

Originally I was very attracted to the avian pets; as soon as I saw we could get a raven in the Norn lands I was off to find one. Esthetically I love idea of a ranger with avian pets.

Practically, the pet is just a hindrance. I would at this point prefer to have the damage/dps transferred to the ranger if the pet is put on passive at least. And if it still manages to get itself killed by staying in AOE or being aggroed upon or whatever , the damage is not lost. Or just choose to stow it.

If there are players who want to run with a pet, fine, I get it, they can run with a pet (as I liked the idea originally).

It is not going to be “fixed”, and I want another option…aside from playing all my other characters.