Guild Wars 2

Aomine.5012:

People talk out their “experience” throughout the year. This is a proof for itself.
If you question about the experience, do your own research, and maybe go beyond doing math and do the actual testing yourself. It is your responsibility to do further research if you doubt about other people’s experience. We’re not responsible to give you detail and math about our experience. We’re also not responsible about “posting a screenshot” to proof that “we did this damage before”. Like I said, people who share the same experience will believe, and if you don’t share the same experience and also disbelief about other people’s experience, you either do your own research or leave it out. It’s not like you’re my teacher who marks me or my boss who pays me salary.
I’m not doing a research project that I’d have to provide you with exact detail. Period.

Have a nice day sir, I don’t get all days for you.

You have based your argument on anecdotal evidence, which is not by any means accurate. Sebrent has provided hard evidence (irrefutable) on this and many other occasions, I see no flaws in his logic or statements. Fact is, your experience is skewed by your memory and opinion and is incorrect.

The burden on proof is 100% on the person who is making the claim. Period.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Aomine.5012:

People talk out their “experience” throughout the year. This is a proof for itself.
If you question about the experience, do your own research, and maybe go beyond doing math and do the actual testing yourself. It is your responsibility to do further research if you doubt about other people’s experience. We’re not responsible to give you detail and math about our experience. We’re also not responsible about “posting a screenshot” to proof that “we did this damage before”. Like I said, people who share the same experience will believe, and if you don’t share the same experience and also disbelief about other people’s experience, you either do your own research or leave it out. It’s not like you’re my teacher who marks me or my boss who pays me salary.
I’m not doing a research project that I’d have to provide you with exact detail. Period.

Have a nice day sir, I don’t get all days for you.

You have based your argument on anecdotal evidence, which is not by any means accurate. Sebrent has provided hard evidence (irrefutable) on this and many other occasions, I see no flaws in his logic or statements. Fact is, your experience is skewed by your memory and opinion and is incorrect.

The burden on proof is 100% on the person who is making the claim. Period.

Actually he lacks “hard proof” too.
Anet can say whatever number change as they like (usually not the exact detail either. 50% /10% may all be just rough estimate, they can even lie about it, like the "short bow animation fix, which in reality is a decrease in shortbow’s attack speed) , but if he doesn’t has proof of video or screenshot of pet doing X amount of damage before the patch, compare to how much damage pet is doing right now with another video or screenshot, with the exact same stats and gears and everything, against the same target with same armor and everything, then his source is not credible as well.

If you’re going to now say “ArenaNet could have been lying about the damage changes in their patch notes” … then provide some proof.

You are making more and more claims kiddo without a penny’s worth of anything to support anything you’ve said.

Sebrent.3625:

If you’re going to now say “ArenaNet could have been lying about the damage changes in their patch notes” … then provide some proof.

You are making more and more claims kiddo without a penny’s worth of anything to support anything you’ve said.

And you’re derailing the attention to yet another topic because you can’t proof your claim either. I’m merely stating a possibility.

What am I derailing? You just made another claim and provided nothing. I replied directly to your last post.

What proof have I not provided? You said they nerfed pet damage by 70%. I found the patch notes that say they didn’t.

@Aomine
Saying that math is irrelevant, because your experience is superior is short-sighted.

Will you sue the factory if you are responsible for not reading the manual and using the product incorrectly?
Saying that the creator is responsible for your incompetence in using the product is wrong. The experience goes only that far. Math goes far beyond because Math is able to skip human factor, that is the downfall of vast majority of experience.
With all due respect – the offensive attitude only proves that you have no relevant argument to present, thus possesses zero importance.

We certainly are aware that pets are hard to control and keep alive. Just as we are aware that it makes a huge difference for skilled players who are capable of controlling them.
It gives us DPS advantage against Meta Classes, CC and utility advantage over being CC’ed ourselves – because our pet can either soak it up or continue doing his job regardless of where we are or in what state we are.

But it is a benefit that requires a high skill-cap. If you do not possess the skill requirement for this benefit – you do not deserve to profit from it the same amount. Easy as that.

I believe that after clarifying this – there’s nothing to clarify about pets anymore. Unless some of you guyz who prefer “experience” feel like I’m incorrect. Then you can prove me wrong by any means necessary.

Sebrent.3625:

What am I derailing? You just made another claim and provided nothing. I replied directly to your last post.

What proof have I not provided? You said they nerfed pet damage by 70%. I found the patch notes that say they didn’t.

You have to provide the “real testing” of damage before the patch as compare to damage after the patch to proof the claim of what % pf pet damage reduction, against the same target with same armor, with the same stats and builds. Anet’s “claims” is not a real proof because the statistic may have error, and they may not be telling the exact truth about how much damage pet’s damage had been cut. There’re also records that Anet lied before about the things changed before, like the shortbow “animation fix”, but in reality, a nerf in sb attack speed"
https://youtu.be/j_W75Zw5fqU

I normally wouldn’t do that, but since you’re crazy about exact detail, you have to provide exact detail with the most precise proof either. The type of video I linked it’s the “hard and irrefutable proof” that I’m talking about. According to you, words don’t mean much at all, real life evidence is everything right?

@Aomine.5012:

• I didn’t claim pet damage was reduced by 70%. You made that claim.
• The patch notes say the changes were not 70%. I found that evidence/proof.
• It’s on you if you want to prove that the patch notes are wrong.
• You made the original claim. Prove the original claim … you still haven’t done this.

As far as the shortbow nerf, most Rangers are well aware of it. Please see my posts. Not once did I dispute the shortbow “graphics fix” that ended up being a slight attack speed nerf.

Do you see what the people that claimed the shortbow graphics fix was a nerf did? They went and got proof. They made they claim. They got the proof to support it. Very simple. Go do that or don’t try to compare yourself to people who actually do the legwork to support their claims.

I’m not crazy about exact detail. I expect people to have evidence to support any “facts” they state. Big difference.

Please show me where I said “words don’t mean much”. If that’s what you got from me saying you need to provide proof, then it’s quite obvious what the problem is … though I’m pretty sure it’s been quite obvious what the problem has been for several posts now. The closest would be me saying that yours don’t hold much weight given that you say things without anything to support what you say.

Compare that to the words I used to show that your math was wrong. Those words held greater weight as they stated facts based on the well-known principles of Mathematics.

If you want to continue trying to salve your wounded pride over your 70% pet damage claim being proven wrong … go right ahead … but provide some actual proof. Something else being wrong doesn’t prove that those patch notes are wrong. The patch notes do state that you’re wrong and we have no evidence that they are a “lie”.

Heck, do you think people didn’t test those numbers when they came out? People tested the shortbow and that was a much harder thing to eyeball than a large % change to pet damage.

Aomine.5012:

Sebrent.3625:

Let me requote this because you obviously didn’t understand a thing…

If you want me to look up the facts for every claim you people make, then, by your logic, I could claim to you that ArenaNet said that pets will turn into flying mounts and you’d be obligated to find it to prove me wrong. Can’t find it? Look harder. See the conundrum?

If you can’t provide proof for claims, then the claims don’t hold much weight. It’s very simple. Provide some quality proof, or be content with what you say not being taken as fact.

As others have said before in several threads … the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Your numbers are incorrect as well. If an attack does 4,000 damage against 3500 armor … it was already reduced by a % by the armor. If you know anything about math, there is this awesome thing called the Associative Property in math. So if I have

• [ (DMG * reduction) * change]

It is the same as

• [ (DMG * change) * reduction ]

Let’s use arbitrary but concrete numbers to drive this point home.

• (5000 * 75%) * 50% = 3750 * 50% = 1875 damage
• (5000 * 50%) * 75% = 2,500 * 75% = 1875 damage

But you’re going to say I should have used division somewhere, eh?

First, X * 50% is the same as X / 2.
Second, you could do the exact same thing with the associative property

So, in your example, that 4,000 damage done to a target with 3,500 armor … a 50% reduction will only be a 50% reduction … it will do 2,000 damage.

Here are my problems with your posts:

• You make claims and don’t back them up … you lay the burden of proof on the people that question your claims … I’ve explained very clearly in very simple terms why the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim
• You don’t seem to have an understanding of basic math
• You pull stuff out of thin air (or worse)

How exactly do “people know there was a big change” … really? Because then you should’ve been able to pick out that information and been correct about it from the start. Apparently not.

As far as getting nerfs all the time … please check out those patch notes. They are freely available.

I know it’s so very easy to run your mouth without actually getting the facts straight … but it’s useless and reflects very poorly on you.

As far as your totally out of place, unwarranted, snarky, little “finally some research” comment … please do actually look around the forums. If there are people actually doing the research for their claims … you’ll find I’m one of them. Here’s one from probably before you started playing the game.

• https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/ranger/Beastmastery-Math/first

Here’s just a simple one that was more recent:

• https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/mesmer/Mesmer-Math-Heals/first

Do you know why you’ll see some of us “clash” on topics and still respect each other? Because, ultimately, we resort to actual facts and logic. We use these things to support the claims that we make.

This is all basic and simple stuff both my sons were taught before grade school …

People talk out their “experience” throughout the year. This is a proof for itself.
If you question about the experience, do your own research, and maybe go beyond doing math and do the actual testing yourself. It is your responsibility to do further research if you doubt about other people’s experience. We’re not responsible to give you detail and math about our experience. We’re also not responsible about “posting a screenshot” to proof that “we did this damage before”. Like I said, people who share the same experience will believe, and if you don’t share the same experience and also disbelief about other people’s experience, you either do your own research or leave it out. It’s not like you’re my teacher who marks me or my boss who pays me salary.
I’m not doing a research project that I’d have to provide you with exact detail. Period.

Have a nice day sir, I don’t get all days for you.

Actually you are responsible to give details and math about what you claim, atleast if you want anyone to believe what you say, he’s proven you wrong and it’s childish of you not to aknowledge that, you just keep trying to move the conversation into a slightly diffrent focus in an attempt to hide that you were wrong, if you want to keep an honest interaction here be honest.

Manekk.6981:

Aomine.5012:

Sebrent.3625:

Let me requote this because you obviously didn’t understand a thing…

People talk out their “experience” throughout the year. This is a proof for itself.
If you question about the experience, do your own research, and maybe go beyond doing math and do the actual testing yourself. It is your responsibility to do further research if you doubt about other people’s experience. We’re not responsible to give you detail and math about our experience. We’re also not responsible about “posting a screenshot” to proof that “we did this damage before”. Like I said, people who share the same experience will believe, and if you don’t share the same experience and also disbelief about other people’s experience, you either do your own research or leave it out. It’s not like you’re my teacher who marks me or my boss who pays me salary.
I’m not doing a research project that I’d have to provide you with exact detail. Period.

Have a nice day sir, I don’t get all days for you.

Actually you are responsible to give details and math about what you claim, atleast if you want anyone to believe what you say, he’s proven you wrong and it’s childish of you not to aknowledge that, you just keep trying to move the conversation into a slightly diffrent focus in an attempt to hide that you were wrong, if you want to keep an honest interaction here be honest.

Point is he’s not interest in benefiting or fixing ranger. He cares about pinpointing the little detail of other people’s point of how much damage nerfed, which is irrelevant to the case. What relevant is the nerf is big enough to drive beast master out of “competitive scene” completely for years. 50%,or 70%, whatever it is, it’s a big nerf to pet’s dps, which are suppose to be our dps. Also I can repeat my claim. Anet’s update note doesn’t automatically = truth. Anet can make mistake, Anet can lie, just like everyone else. (and I already proved that Anet lied before with a video, the real hard evidence) Unless he can prove that Anet’s claim of x% nerf is accurate, he cannot disprove my point with Anet’s claim either. Ofc when I mention 70%, it’s obviously not absolute data, but the point is the pet damage had been cut drastically, and returning the dps of pet is one way to fix the pet.

Whenever someone point out their experience, all he does is ask people to provide “hard data proof”. He just keeps on avoiding the real problem by forcing people to give “hard data”, like precise statistical calculation, links, screenshots or video, which people may not have access to, or not bothered to waste so much time to address each of his doubts. So what I’m doing here is just the same as what he does to us. If he wants to disprove anyone’s experience, he gotta provide “hard and absolute data” too.

Oh, I bet he’s going to ask for “proof” of how beast-master is driven out of competitive scene zzzz.. Just type in “GW2 World Tournament” on youtube, select year 2014 to 2015, and see if there’s any beast-master in any team zzz. That’s what I called: do your own research before you question about someone’s points. Don’t just doubt it before you spend any effort of finding the information yourself first. If the information you found is inconsistent, then you can start doubting and proving people wrong.

@Aomine
… Nothing personal …
But your reactions and replies seem childish at best. This is not meant to be offensive. This is a statement that might tell you that your behavior doesn’t lead anywhere. Your arguments hold no weight whatsoever, you claim false accusations, you misunderstand topics themselves, you do not really “get” what’s going on…
…
And yet you act too highly towards people like Serbent who actually accepted the drab to search for the information that people asked for in a way that can’t be rejected. And even then you continue to discard these statements because they do not meet your personal wishes of buffing the ranger (I assume).

Aomine.5012:

Point is he’s not interest in benefiting or fixing ranger. He cares about pinpointing the little detail of other people’s point of how much damage nerfed, which is irrelevant to the case.

1st of all:

• There’s nothing wrong with not being interested in fixing something that isn’t broken. Not everyone needs training wheels.

Secondly:

• Your point of view is the one being self-centered. He was simply pointing out false statements. People kept disbelieving so he provided bulletproof data.

And last but not least:

• You still are the one who hasn’t provided a single piece of information that is verified. For instance: the yet most powerful build available to rangers hasn’t been played in competitive, at all. I believe it was you to say that even A-net themselves do not have to be correct. Why … of all people in the world … would YOU be the one correct; when even the competitive players stick to their personal preference.

And one more misstep you made. You provided your source of information – youtube. I personally don’t mind. I am mostly phlegmatic but you can bet that others will think their own.
EDIT: There is a Beast Mastery PUG tournament video on youtube, actually. I believe you turned your own arguments against yourself, sir. Now it’s clear you didn’t even bother trying to search for clues.

Most pets can’t hit s**t in PvP. Rangers hit for less damage because their pet is supposed to provide this additional DPS. Therefor a part of the class DPS is lost due to some poor design. I don’t see anything wrong with what the OP is saying. No need for any Excel spreadsheet to state the obvious.

What’s NOT wrong about the ranger’s pet?

I would never believe I would be brought to a position to quote … Myself …
Reading through thread helps you answer your questions. Even those you do not need, I am aware, but there are even those you search for.

But to sum things up:
*AI is fine. By any means necessary.
*Their damage is fine.
*Their survivability is not fine
*Their tracking for attacks is not fine
*Their cast times need to be adjusted.

That’s all there is to our pets.

Sebrent.3625:

(2) How much? That’d be a nice thing to prove before making this claim.

A dev once said that the pet accounts for roughly 1/3 of the damage and that the damage the Ranger can do was cut accordingly. Now, we can assume that this value doesn’t hold up now, but we definitely lose damage so that our pet isn’t “overpowered”.

(this number got also used during the Ranger CDI (may it rest in piece) and was not commented on by the devs, neither confirmed nor denied)

Tragic Positive.9356:

I would never believe I would be brought to a position to quote … Myself …
Reading through thread helps you answer your questions. Even those you do not need, I am aware, but there are even those you search for.

But to sum things up:
*AI is fine. By any means necessary.
*Their damage is fine.
*Their survivability is not fine
*Their tracking for attacks is not fine
*Their cast times need to be adjusted.

That’s all there is to our pets.

Do you have any proof by calculation that “AI is fine” and “Damage is fine”?
Ahah joking

That’s your opinion. From a PvP perspective, I disagree. Their damage is fine on a steady target (aka PvE). In PvP, that’s a (huge/medium/small?) damage loss.

Tragic Positive.9356:

I would never believe I would be brought to a position to quote … Myself …
Reading through thread helps you answer your questions. Even those you do not need, I am aware, but there are even those you search for.

But to sum things up:
*AI is fine. By any means necessary.
*Their damage is fine.
*Their survivability is not fine
*Their tracking for attacks is not fine
*Their cast times need to be adjusted.

That’s all there is to our pets.

So lets recap, shall we?

• Pets can’t jumb
• Pets can’t move while attacking
• Pets attack slower
• Pets have a smaller attack range
• Pet needs a certain distance to an enemy to attack, eventhough it would be able to hit from further away
• Pet can’t predict movement
  • They position themselves poorly
  • They can’t track stealthed targets, moreso, they reset if a target is entering stealth
  • Pets can’t execute strategies, like LoSing
• Pets can’t evade
  • Even if they could evade, they wouldn’t be able to tell what to evade and what not
  • Pets don’t avoid AoEs
• Pets have general pathing issues
• Pets are laggy since they’re controlled by the server

That’s a pretty impressive list, don’t you think?

A pretty accurate list, I would say.

@ Wuselknusel;
What do you want? ANet to program the next generation of ACTUAL AI and put it in a computer game?

MMO AI will never jump terrain to reach players.
MMO AI will never predict movement and any ideas that they might is utterly absurd.
MMO AI will never position itself as well as a human.
MMO AI will never track stealthed targets, because humans cannot track stealthed targets except through some channeled skills. Resetting is really the best option, considering it is probably a thief coming into melee the Ranger.
MMO AI will never execute strategies, like LOSing.

I mean, seriously, you cannot expect any of those things I listed above to be added to pets, ever. If they could do that, it would be so OP it would be just ridiculous.

That takes care of most of that list, the other things can be improved upon, such as giving the pet better pathing, evade on ranger evade, aoe damage reduction (while not targeted), movement while attacking, shorter animations etc.

There is a fine line between pets being bad and very OP. As it is now, they can be quite good when played well, some pets lend themselves to PvP because of the additional CC, like spiders and canines as their CC or ranged attacks allow them to hit a lot more often. That is why they are popular and the other pets are not, like pigs, they should just be deleted.

I think the key thing with Ranger pet damage vs moving targets is liberal application of movement inhibiting abilities. IIRC Rangers have a fait number of slows and cripples that help set up pet attacks similar to what warriors have to do for burst attacks, mesmer shatters, and thief back stabs. As for survivability, I agree there I’m general. It’d be nice for pets to get the mistlock picking favorites ability.

Exactly, an AI will never be that good. That’s why I said that an AI should not be our forced mechanic, moreso, it shouldn’t be meant to deal damage. It can be a tank, an offensive support or defensive support. It could be an extension of the Ranger’s instincts. As example:

• Shouts, if reworked, could affect allies/enemies around the Ranger and the pet.
• The pet could guard an area and highlight enemies passing through
• Pets could taunt enemies
• Pets could actively block projectiles
• Pets could grant any number of buffs to you and your allies

There are so much possibilities how the Ranger could keep his pet without losing the damage, without the pet to be required to hit the enemy.
Something we have to accept, something ANet has to realise that the AI will always suffer in one way or the other and that an AI as forced mechanic, which is supposed to be as efficient as the player, is always a bad idea.

I’ll react to the recap:

• Pet’s jumping is impossible. I dare you to code it. It would be around 7 miles long and would literally flood the processoring to an unplayable extend.
• Damage on move – Part of tracking issues – already mentioned
• Slow attacks = Irrelevant. DPS matters, which is fine – already mentioned
• Smaller attack range = irrelevant. Part of Tracking issues – mentioned
• Pets need certain distance – You double-mentioned the same problem.
• Predict movement – more than 90% players can’t. You have no idea how evolutionary algorithm that learns by itself works, do you? Processor flood. – impossible.
  NOTE: You are able to do it yourself, as well as craft strategies. Wrong point.
• Evades and AoEs – part of survivability – already mentioned.
• I didn’t realize a single Pet lag ever since I started playing this game. No idea what are you talking about. They are programs that actually create the delay because of the memory they occupy and processoring time they require to execute. Technically speaking – they are the ones unaffected by server delay.
• Pathing issues are as perfect as they can be. “Find shortest path from X=Ranger to Y=target (avoid impassable terrain)”. More perfect than some players can do. Terrain ground levels are the problem that is irrelevant to pet. Allowing the pet to port a certain amount upwards does not solve the problem. Allowing him to enter the terrain and port up afterwards makes absurd problems of going through pillars. Allowing him to follow terrain impassable for players would be a disaster.
  You can as well ask Anet to give you money for playing the game. The request is almost the same. Irrational, unrealistic, self-centered and would cost Anet a huge portion of money.

The list is basically a specification of what I already mentioned. The ones that I did not I realistically skipped. They can’t be made. Not with the money budget they have.

The point I’m trying to convey is that an AI will never be as good as the player. I’m questioning ANet’s decision to entrust the pet with tasks (mainly dealing damage) the Ranger is already good at and fine with. The pet should enhance the gameplay (setting the Ranger up for dealing damage as example), not limit it (cutting damage from the Ranger to give it to the pet).

pets, minions, clones… whatever, need work if they are going to be such a vital aspect to profession make up and design. until then, i’ll keep learning to play my thief and loving my new best pet… stealth, which is infinitely more useful in any situation.

Some of you have little clue about what needs to be proven and what doesn’t. Those are Tragic Positive’s opinions on those points. You can’t tell him whether he does/doesn’t think something is good/bad/something_else. If you saw me jumping on an opinion like I did that 70% … then please do give me a smack. Otherwise, learn the difference.

Pet AI not being perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t okay as a mechanic. There are flaws to each system.

ChillyChinaman touched on something that we discussed quite thoroughly well over a year ago in these very forums … Ranger has access to several cripples, chills, immobilizes, etc.. A CC’d target is very easy for a pet to hit and allows the pet to do exceptionally good damage … hence why you’ll see me point out in the other discussions on these forums that any improvements need to be balanced so that a pet isn’t some unavoidable, hard-hitting DoT. Let’s be honest, it’d likely be OP if it couldn’t be shaken off.

Now, as far as a pet avoiding hits just because a person moved … that is a pain in the butt and I would argue that that is the main issue … one that has a whole thread (and several over the years) dedicated to it.

I think if that one issue was fixed, the only other gripes would be the pet survivability in large zergs and some PvE content … issues Mesmer suffer from as well with both Illusions and Shatters (which need live illusions).

I like Wuselknusel’s ideas. Shouts affecting allies would help make rangers less of a selfish class which would help us in getting into the various metas.

Pets taunting enemies … well that is a trait if you want it … coming with the new specialization system.

Pets can actively block projectiles, but it takes intelligent maneuvering by the Ranger. I’m not a fan of things that just automatically do the work for you, so I personally think this is fine.

Pets can grant buffs to you and your allies. I think their biggest problem right now is that the ratio of cast time + cooldown compared to the duration of the boon is actually pretty kitten poor compared to those supplied by other classes … even when you trait for it.

Pro-tip on Rangers … the only damage we have that has a lower coefficient is direct damage. A Ranger’s conditions do the same damage as everyone else’s. So put 2 and 2 together here and realize that you can do the same damage as the other condition builds (actually more with your Poison) AND have the pet’s damage to supplement.

Of course, they can’t program that kind of AI lol. The point is:
Ranger’s damage = x% player + y% pet with basic AI. The level of control we have over the pets is laughable. In PvP (PvE is irrelevant to me), its uptime on the targets is REAL BAD. In the worst case scenario, that’s y% damage we loose.

I’d just like to point out that pets could not hit moving targets in GW1 either, making this an 11 year old issue.

Anet, you be embarrassed.

In PvP, use a Spider, it will hit majority of targets constantly and have good skills, or a Canine with CC, or a bird, or make sure the pet has swiftness. They hit just fine then.

Yep, spiders are ok in PvP. What I would love to see: more pets with ranged attacks.

For me, the ideal pet for a bow ranger should be:
- Ranged attacks (with the same range you have on your current weapon)
- Sticks to you and can cast/fire on the move (just like you do as a ranger)
- Evading when you evade is also required

Less AI involved in the positioning, profit.

A few things I wanted to say:

IIRC back in GW1 there was no attacking on the move for anyone.

I vaguely remember hearing something about HoT adding a fair bit of verticality to its maps. Something like a port/shadow step for pets would be necessary to keep them up if it ends up like the un identified fractal. It’s been a while since I’ve run fractals but I don’t think pets were able to hit the harpies then.

There are pros and cons to splitting damage between the pet and ranger. I think anet should reduce the prevalence of 180-360 degree cleaving attacks so that 2 pronged attacks are more effective.

And finally there have been plenty of threads about Ranger shouts. They need to be changed. Currently they’re amputated pet commands masquerading as shouts. I daresay that Reaper shouts are better excluding Sic’em and Protect Me.

Rhyse.8179:

I’d just like to point out that pets could not hit moving targets in GW1 either, making this an 11 year old issue.

Anet, you be embarrassed.

They could most definitely hit moving targets. They have 20% faster base run speed than players.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Rhyse.8179:

I’d just like to point out that pets could not hit moving targets in GW1 either, making this an 11 year old issue.

Anet, you be embarrassed.

They could most definitely hit moving targets. They have 20% faster base run speed than players.

Then let me clarify. They could not attack while moving, which is the same behavior our current pets have. You had to be careful which pet family you used, cause some had long attack animations and were useless. Lizards and Storks were the best, iirc.

GW2 pets are the same. They stop, attack (or F2 cast), and hopefully the target is still in range when the animation gets to the part where damage is done. Different pets have animations which have different results, just like GW1 did. Try it on the target golem that runs in circles, or the Zaishen islands if you still have GW1. Compare results.

GW2 inherited the behavior from the GW1 engine that it was based on. The issue is 11 years old, not just 3.

The difference being, is that you can actually hit moving targets in GW1 because they gave the pets a base speed increase and good skills. The same would apply here, but an even larger increase would be needed due to dodging. I think a 25% faster base speed would be acceptable, they are afterall, animals and much faster than people. Annoys me when a Guardian outruns my Jaguar. Along with the ability to attack and move they would be fine.

Yeah, the running golem in HoTM will make you cry.